|
Some people criticize the ending of Man of Steel for not addressing the mass destruction and death of Zod's attack on Metropolis. I say that Snyder is being true to the comics. Catastrophes like this happen every other month in the comics and after the world is saved people just go back to their normal business like nothing happened. The Powerpuff Girls show parodies this heavily. I can think of only a handful of story arcs where the aftermath is explored realistically (Our Worlds at War, Sub Diego, Coast City, Marvel Civil War). I think the reason DC never incorporated 9/11 into the books is because that poo poo is nothing compared to alien invasions and so forth and it would have looked too incongruous. If we accept this in our books, we ought to forgive Goyer and Snyder for it.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:I think the reason DC never incorporated 9/11 into the books is because that poo poo is nothing compared to alien invasions and so forth and it would have looked too incongruous. If we accept this in our books, we ought to forgive Goyer and Snyder for it. They didn't have to. By immense coincidence, 9/11 coincided with the end of a huge Alien Attack crossover (Our World's At War) where a whole bunch of books dealt with the aftermath of the damage on several cities. Metropolis itself had its own Luthor Twin Towers affected. Books adress the destruction, sometimes they don't. Something they almost always do though is have Superman be careful about destruction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:http://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2013/08/29/films/snyder-ponders-supermans-ultimate-dilemma/#.Uh-NYhusgWf That's actually the most sensible response to the question - it's not like he waffled. He clearly thought about it but had a different agenda and vision for the film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
With all the talk of of how they plan to do Lex for the sequel, I go to thinking of Ledger's Joker a bit. For all the talk of Rich Lex, Political Lex, Relatable Lex, Flawed Lex, etc., what if they go back to Mad Supercriminal Lex? Lex Luthor as a terrorist/underground figure. I know that's not a far cry from his portrayal in every film up to this point, but portray him in that way in a less charming, less appealing light. Make him a mad scientist who continues to do what he does simply to prove he, as a lone man, is better anyone or anything else, to lash out at what he sees as even the slightest insult to his ego. Until Superman, he was the most hated and feared single human being on the planet, and now he's got to step up his game to get noticed, again. A mad, supercriminal Lex could be a way to bring a Superman/Batman team-up together a bit more fluidly. Superman has the power, but Batman has the understanding of sick, criminal minds. edit: Not that I think this will be the direction they go, nor do I really know I even think it'd be a good one to go over for a movie. Like I said, the Hackman and Spacey versions were practically this, anyway, just with a classier finish. JediTalentAgent fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
They wouldn't have plastered LexCorp all over the place if they planned on going in that direction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 11:33
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:They didn't have to. By immense coincidence, 9/11 coincided with the end of a huge Alien Attack crossover (Our World's At War) where a whole bunch of books dealt with the aftermath of the damage on several cities. Metropolis itself had its own Luthor Twin Towers affected. Plus with DC using fictional cities they didn't have to directly address it like Marvel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 13:48
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:They wouldn't have plastered LexCorp all over the place if they planned on going in that direction. Now that you mention it, I only just now remember seeing the Lexcorp stuff shown in the film on a few things. Personally, I think Lexcorp should have paid more for product placement like Sears and IHOP did if they wanted to be more noticed in the film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
I want a really charismatic Lex, a cult of personality, the Lex Luthor that was elected president of the United States. With his charm and cunning he will turn the masses against Superman, he will make the people see Superman the way he does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
wyoming posted:I want a really charismatic Lex, a cult of personality, the Lex Luthor that was elected president of the United States. With his charm and cunning he will turn the masses against Superman, he will make the people see Superman the way he does. And he'll convince Batman that something should be done about this alien! And thanks for that interview, Yannik, nice to see Snyder isn't fazed by the "but the little people got smashed" criticism. I think opinion will gradually change overtime on Man of Steel, which is definitely the best Superman movie so far and has tied Star Trek Into Darkness as best movie this year - a lot of people will enjoy it better once they've put their expectations aside and treat it as something new.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
wyoming posted:I want a really charismatic Lex, a cult of personality, the Lex Luthor that was elected president of the United States. With his charm and cunning he will turn the masses against Superman, he will make the people see Superman the way he does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:http://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2013/08/29/films/snyder-ponders-supermans-ultimate-dilemma/#.Uh-NYhusgWf My understanding of that paragraph is that he's basically saying it's a 9/11 allusion without stating that overtly. "In other countries like Greece and Japan, myths were recounted through the generations, partly to answer unanswerable questions about death and violence...It’s a way of recounting the myth." i.e. it's an update of the Superman origin to parallel the modern American mindset which is still recovering from a big disaster that lead to all sorts of paranoia, government over monitoring, a war that people are still arguing regarding its actual integrity and all the other compromises of civil liberties America took for both its own people and the world at large. If anything that'd suggest that the sequel with Luthor would have him take advantage of this disaster for his own purposes- much like the measures America took regarding civil liberties and such post 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:For all the talk of Rich Lex, Political Lex, Relatable Lex, Flawed Lex, etc., what if they go back to Mad Supercriminal Lex? We have literally had this version of Lex for 35 years. Time for a bit of range, man. All I want from this film is a scene with smug Bruce Wayne and smug Lex Luthor sharing a drink in Gotham, a la "Lex Luthor: Man of Steel"
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:And he'll convince Batman that something should be done about this alien! I have no problem treating it as something new and it does not fare any better. But it's not "something new" it's an adaptation of a 75 year old character! Snyder isn't fazed by the criticism because he doesn't care. He just bent Superman around to make the movie he wanted to do, and he got to do it! Good for him! But people acting like "You don't get it! It's just a bold new vision of Superman you can't comprehend!", that's just silly. "But the little people got smashed!" as if that's nitpicking when you're talking about a character who is all about saving "the little people".
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
That's what happened, though - he saved literally the entire planet. Is Superman supposed to be loading his quicksave each time there's a casualty until he gets an ending screen listing 0 lives lost? An important part of the movie is that Superman prioritizes large-scale systemic threats over small-scale personal threats. For instance, he could've went to Metropolis straightaway to pull individual people, cars, etc out of the gravity zone, but that would've left the Indian Ocean machine working and allowed more damage overall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:I have no problem treating it as something new and it does not fare any better. But it's not "something new" it's an adaptation of a 75 year old character! Snyder isn't fazed by the criticism because he doesn't care. As if in the 75 years of comic history Metropolis hasn't gotten the poo poo kicked out of it by all manner of weird sci-fi crap till now? Darkseid, Doomsday, Luthor and plenty of others have leveled the poo poo out of that city over and over again in the comics and I'm sure that the death tolls get up there - its just that this is the first time a movie shows it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:That's what happened, though - he saved literally the entire planet. Is Superman supposed to be loading his quicksave each time there's a casualty until he gets an ending screen listing 0 lives lost? e: As for saving the little people, why, he didn't engage in the big moral compromise on some kind of space-based backdrop, he did it specifically when prompted by the direct threat against... little people. But I guess that's bad too, because now he sucks and is awful, because he wasn't magically more powerful than anything and couldn't throw his chest emblem at Zod or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:That's what happened, though - he saved literally the entire planet. Is Superman supposed to be loading his quicksave each time there's a casualty until he gets an ending screen listing 0 lives lost? YES! That's the whole point of Superman, he saves everyone or at the very least, he TRIES to! He doesn't not care, which is what the movie depicts. He saved the entire planet (a planet you see nothing of past the "You Are Not Alone" message sequence), but it doesnt even look like he gives a poo poo about Metropolis. Ferrinus posted:An important part of the movie is that Superman prioritizes large-scale systemic threats over small-scale personal threats. For instance, he could've went to Metropolis straightaway to pull individual people, cars, etc out of the gravity zone, but that would've left the Indian Ocean machine working and allowed more damage overall. That's not an important part of the movie at all. He goes to the Indian Ocean because it's where he can push the plot button so the army can bomb the Metropolis ship. The movie never has Superman think about that decision nor does it let that development have any effect on him whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:As if in the 75 years of comic history Metropolis hasn't gotten the poo poo kicked out of it by all manner of weird sci-fi crap till now? Darkseid, Doomsday, Luthor and plenty of others have leveled the poo poo out of that city over and over again in the comics and I'm sure that the death tolls get up there - its just that this is the first time a movie shows it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:One of the most unintentionally hilarious lines of the film is when one of those bystanders says "He saved us!" after the Kryponians get sucked away, because A) no, actually, that part was Lois, Emil, and Chris Meloni's doing, and B) how the heck would anyone on the ground think that Superman was trying to save them from anything? Because the one thing he most visibly and obviously was not doing was helping anyone out. Ideally these should be documented, with visible background characters drafting commentary on where the superheroes have failed to protect others, ideally using binoculars or similar to track their whizzing around. By the time the fight is over they should have full condemnatory theses to nail to the chest of the hero Martin (not Lex) Luther style, along with a working draft for their media campaign. Perhaps in a team situation, Iron Man, say, can get the mass email from MoveOn or Red State condemning these absurd and ridiculous "super heroics" and be asked to chip in $3 to help the fight against fascist costumed adventurers -- while he's still fighting MODOK or whatever! Nessus fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Aug 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I hope in all future superhero movies, superheroes who have just had big slobberknocker brawls land and are immediately greeted with condemnation and flashback sequences showing all the places where they could have done more and how they have, in fact, created this problem and are responsible for it, are awful and need to go away, etc. Maybe they can spit on Captain America in Avengers 2 while they're at it. Maybe in the future superhero movies, they could stop pretending Superman is the great superhero he's always been (which is what the ending of Man Of Steel is telling us) when they're coming off 45 minutes of him not giving a poo poo about destroying a city in a fight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
It's a fairly weak argument to be honest. Zod's entire thing was that he wanted to do as much damage as possible but the fight scene doesn't play off Superman's reaction to this. Zod has a motivation where he is specifically targeting innocent people and trying to kill them but we don't actually get anything out of that until the last two minutes with the heat vision. Having a villain whose primary motivation is "I want to do collateral damage" can't go hand-in-hand with "well, the collateral damage isn't the important part." The Superman fight was dynamic and memorable but it did a poo poo job of being a counterpoint to Zod's philosophy. Superman was stronger (he'd been on Earth longer and used his powers more) but Zod was more ruthless and the fight would have been infinitely more interesting and dynamic if Superman was struggling to keep people safe against a weaker but far more ruthless opponent instead of just what amounted to a slobberknocker where their relevant combat philosophies only came into play at the last moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:That's not an important part of the movie at all. He goes to the Indian Ocean because it's where he can push the plot button so the army can bomb the Metropolis ship. The movie never has Superman think about that decision nor does it let that development have any effect on him whatsoever. At least that plot button isn't a plot hole. Clark goes to the Indian Ocean because he has to; only someone like him can do what needs to be done in that situation. No one else could get there in time (or probably destroy it). Remember that in the film, it's explained that both the World Engine in the Indian Ocean and Zod's Ship in Metropolis are working in tandem. In order for the military's/Clark's plan to work, the World Engine has to be destroyed first before the military can drop off the Phantom Drive payload, otherwise if the Phantom Drives collide while the World Engine is still active, the resulting black hole from the collision would continue to expand and suck up the whole planet. When Lois mentions to Clark that if he gets close to the World Engine, he'll be weak and he might die. Clark says something to the effect of "Maybe, but I won't let that stop me from trying". He's going into a dire situation knowing full well that he might be killed in the process of saving the world. I'd say that has an effect on his character.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:YES! That's the whole point of Superman, he saves everyone or at the very least, he TRIES to! He doesn't not care, which is what the movie depicts. He saved the entire planet (a planet you see nothing of past the "You Are Not Alone" message sequence), but it doesnt even look like he gives a poo poo about Metropolis. So, this is just wrong. Here's what a Superman who doesn't give a poo poo about saving Metropolis looks like: he flies up to Zod's mothership, gives Zod a blood sample, and then kicks back at a neofeudal cyberdesk while the planet earth is reshaped by awesome and incomprehensible cosmic forces. Like, dude, come on. "Superman doesn't care about saving anyone, that's why he saved all those people." quote:That's not an important part of the movie at all. He goes to the Indian Ocean because it's where he can push the plot button so the army can bomb the Metropolis ship. The movie never has Superman think about that decision nor does it let that development have any effect on him whatsoever. The strategy of deploying or not deploying Superman's awesome powers is an enormously important part of the movie - that's why he let his father die, and why he spent so much of his life in nomadic anonymity. Not once in Man of Steel do we see Superman stop a mugging or get a cat out of a tree or something like that, because Superman takes the long view and uses super-powers to get rid of super-problems. Like I said, Superman could've saved more lives in the short term by going to Metropolis with the military... but in the long term, ignoring what was going on in India would've caused much more harm. That's why they had their little strategy meeting in which it was decided who would go where.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
teagone posted:At least that plot button isn't a plot hole. Clark goes to the Indian Ocean because he has to; only someone like him can do what needs to be done in that situation. No one else could get there in time (or probably destroy it). Remember that in the film, it's explained that both the World Engine in the Indian Ocean and Zod's Ship in Metropolis are working in tandem. In order for the military's/Clark's plan to work, the World Engine has to be destroyed first before the military can drop off the Phantom Drive payload, otherwise if the Phantom Drives collide while the World Engine is still active, the resulting black hole from the collision would continue to expand and suck up the whole planet. That bit does show that he's determined to stop Zod and his plan and that's great. But if you had a tiny scene of Superman wanting to go help out Metropolis first but be told for sure that he needs to take of the other spaceship first and he's conflicted about it, then it shows you more of the guy. Going to stop the Indian Ocean ship takes more urgency if you know Superman wants to get back to Metropolis. If Zack Snyder want to make downtown Metropolis a mass grave, he should! (and has!) but Superman should care about it, which is one of the movie's bigger problems. Henry Cavill as Superman cares more about the collateral damage he creates in an Hardees's tie-in commercial than he does in this movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIE2Li7auNE
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
The fight scenes are incredibly dense, but Superman doesn't really cause much collateral damage at all except when he lashes out at Zod in anger when he threatens his mom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:So, this is just wrong. Here's what a Superman who doesn't give a poo poo about saving Metropolis looks like: he flies up to Zod's mothership, gives Zod a blood sample, and then kicks back at a neofeudal cyberdesk while the planet earth is reshaped by awesome and incomprehensible cosmic forces. Okay then, replace "doesn't care" with "barely cares" then. It's a shorthand to describe his lack of reaction to Metropolis being transformed into a graveyard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I hope in all future superhero movies, superheroes who have just had big slobberknocker brawls land and are immediately greeted with condemnation and flashback sequences showing all the places where they could have done more and how they have, in fact, created this problem and are responsible for it, are awful and need to go away, etc. Maybe they can spit on Captain America in Avengers 2 while they're at it. In MoS, Superman doesn't noticeably help out anyone in Metropolis, so by no means should anyone in Metropolis have any idea whatsoever that Superman is trying to help them out...except that they somehow think that anyway, for some reason, when the Kryptonians are sent away...which wasn't even Superman's doing anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
The whole point of that final fight scene was that Superman had to kill Zod. He tried to take it into space and got dragged back down. Clark was trying to contain it and he couldn't. That was the whole point. Clark was holding back out of fear of hurting anyone (Humans, Zod, etc.) and it just lead to more people getting killed. It was specifically attacking The Avengers' idea clean, bloodless fight scenes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Henry Cavill directly responds to the whole collateral damage issue: http://youtu.be/btKEKrbMSHo?t=1m17s
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:Okay then, replace "doesn't care" with "barely cares" then. It's a shorthand to describe his lack of reaction to Metropolis being transformed into a graveyard. "Barely cares" doesn't translate to surrendering to the Kryptonians to be carried up to their spaceship, risking death multiple times, etc. This is really stupid - does this really boil down to the lack of a closeup of a tear rolling down Cavill's cheek? If we had a closeup, would you have demanded a minimum number of seconds or times it's repeated?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Dirk Digglet posted:We have literally had this version of Lex for 35 years. Time for a bit of range, man. I get that, but looking at something like the various ways Lex Luthor has been done in various mediums over the years. Since the 80s, Luthor as respected, classy rich businessman figure has been the standard for TV, comics and animated projects. I get that it really works, though. IT REALLY works very well as a set up as a villain. (Granted, though, the last year or so of Justice League Unlimited had his shedding that and just being a supercriminal, again.) Even in the films, despite being a terrorist-criminal figure, he's pretty charming and classy and doesn't come off as very threatening. I don't really think of the Hackman/Spacey versions as personally threatening or mad scientists figures. I'm thinking maybe to along the lines of All-Star Superman's take on Lex. Someone who's very intimidating in his presence and viciously brilliant without the need of false sincerity and a known monster. Go with something like that. In the wake of Superman, a force that the world doesn't know how to fight, they decide to let loose the most dangerous, brilliant and hated human on the planet to figure out how to kill him. An Einstein-grade Unabomber.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:I have no problem treating it as something new and it does not fare any better. But it's not "something new" it's an adaptation of a 75 year old character! Snyder isn't fazed by the criticism because he doesn't care. Well, it's a very different take film-wise for Superman, that's what I mean by calling it "new". The Donner and Singer Supermen certainly share some things in common, but their stories are very different. For example, all these movies have looked at the loneliness of being a Superman, but Man of Steel really cranks up the alien horror of it and emphasizes the terrifying aspect of the Superman's decisions and power. I'm sure that's all been done in the comics, but not so much in the films. Snyder cares a whole lot about Superman, but his movie is very much about the collateral damage that ensues when gods (and the US air force) do their thing. We should feel uncomfortable with it, if we are engaged with the story he is telling. The Man of Steel is awesome, in the older sense of that word, not as slang for "super-cool". quote:But people acting like "You don't get it! It's just a bold new vision of Superman you can't comprehend!", that's just silly. I don't think anyone is acting like that, and if they are then ignore them because that is silly. It's all very comprehensible, although certainly that doesn't mean likable. quote:"But the little people got smashed!" as if that's nitpicking when you're talking about a character who is all about saving "the little people". It's a bad criticism if it ignores that this is a big part of what the film is about. The Superman cannot or simply won't bother with saving an individual himself, because that would detract from the greater salvation. Ideally the individual will be inspired to save (by a willingness to sacrifice) themselves and those around them - Superman can only fight symbolic battles after all, we have to do the rest IRL. To paraphrase the arguments from earlier in the thread; the Man of Steel is saying we can't save ourselves (Metropolis) from destruction (Krypton) unless we save others first (India from the Machine). Yannick_B posted:That's the whole point of Superman, he saves everyone or at the very least, he TRIES to! He doesn't not care, which is what the movie depicts. . . . The movie never has Superman think about that decision He makes that decision over the course of the movie; in that he goes from saving buses and oil rigs of people to just warning them to duck when he punches Exploitation and Consumption and Eugenics (and so on). He has to trust the humans to shift for themselves, because he is literally on another level, and trying to operate on ours simply won't save anything worth saving in the long run. So he does care, but it's more the depersonalized love of the Father, as opposed to the Son. Yannick_B posted:Okay then, replace "doesn't care" with "barely cares" then. It's a shorthand to describe his lack of reaction to Metropolis being transformed into a graveyard. Well, I took his howl at the end to be for everything that had happened, not just the killing. But yeah, he doesn't care about New York City any more than he cares about Mumbai, and he shouldn't. That's what makes him Superman! (if kinda scary for those of us who live here, and not over there) - his flying and strength and laser-eyes and ultimate victory are just symbolic of the power of this ethical decision. For what it's worth, I do love Superman Returns (and the Donner films too) and that nostalgic Superman who stops robbers and saves people from debris/cars and throws the Island of Selfishness into space. But this is a slightly different Superman, one of a more global scope. Luminous Obscurity posted:The whole point of that final fight scene was that Superman had to kill Zod. He tried to take it into space and got dragged back down. Clark was trying to contain it and he couldn't. That was the whole point. Clark was holding back out of fear of hurting anyone (Humans, Zod, etc.) and it just lead to more people getting killed. It was specifically attacking The Avengers' idea clean, bloodless fight scenes. Yeah, as awful as it is to witness, I really appreciate how the film makes collateral damage apparent. Like the air force definitely killed scores of Smallville residents trying to hit the aliens, and this is simply a reality of how those kind of weapons work in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Superman in the comics does criminally little to actually help people considering he could be using his powers to eliminate genocides, feed starving masses, and help build working toilets for the 40% of the world that doesn't have them. People don't do these things because they physically can't. Superman doesn't have this excuse. He physically can but chooses not to because he wants to inspire others or something. In reality, he's sending the message that the world's greatest tragedies are not as valuable use of his time as saving Lois from falling for millionth time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:Superman in the comics does criminally little to actually help people considering he could be using his powers to eliminate genocides, feed starving masses, and help build working toilets for the 40% of the world that doesn't have them. People don't do these things because they physically can't. Superman doesn't have this excuse. He physically can but chooses not to because he wants to inspire others or something. In reality, he's sending the message that the world's greatest tragedies are not as valuable use of his time as saving Lois from falling for millionth time. Peace on Earth explains that he can't intervene that thoroughly because people would challenge him or deny him and to go one step further and just enforce it would be to compromise on everything he stands for. Superman can never become politically active because by nature his supreme power would enforce that rather than allow people to make that choice, so he's stuck saving people from natural disasters and alien invasions because that's the only scenario where he can do unambiguously good things. There's a certain impotence to the nature of Superman as a force for good that I find quite interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
Luminous Obscurity posted:The whole point of that final fight scene was that Superman had to kill Zod. He tried to take it into space and got dragged back down. Clark was trying to contain it and he couldn't. That was the whole point. Clark was holding back out of fear of hurting anyone (Humans, Zod, etc.) and it just lead to more people getting killed. It was specifically attacking The Avengers' idea clean, bloodless fight scenes. You just don't do that with Superman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
AFoolAndHisMoney posted:Peace on Earth explains that he can't intervene that thoroughly because people would challenge him or deny him and to go one step further and just enforce it would be to compromise on everything he stands for. Going at infinite speed building toilets for 3rd world countries and, say, curing malaria (two activities combined that would thereby save tens of millions, low end estimate, in a decade) is becoming politically active?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
api call girl posted:Going at infinite speed building toilets for 3rd world countries and, say, curing malaria (two activities combined that would thereby save tens of millions, low end estimate, in a decade) is becoming politically active? Quite frankly, even the act of being a good samaritan is a political statement, but that might be going too far. But yes, in Peace on Earth Superman tried to solve world hunger by delivering surplus food to developing countries and impoverished people. The ruling parties responsible for these countries demand he step out of their turf/try to claim that food for themselves. Going around and building plumbing for 3rd world countries could just as easily be misconstrued as cultural imperialism by certain people. Judakel posted:You just don't do that with Superman. Why not? Why can you do it with Superman analogues but not THE superhero? I really hated Mark Waid for saying something like "Yes there was no other choice but to kill Zod but that choice shouldn't have been set up", it really suggests that all people want from Superman are stories were he's never allowed to have his morality challenged or questioned or ever pushed to do things he's never wanted to do and actually had to deal with the consequences. And then people wonder why everyone thinks Superman is boring.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:Superman in the comics does criminally little to actually help people considering he could be using his powers to eliminate genocides, feed starving masses, and help build working toilets for the 40% of the world that doesn't have them. People don't do these things because they physically can't. Of course we can physically do all of those things, but our economic prosperity is based on exploiting the labour and resources of the 3rd world. We won't truly help them, because that would mean actual fair trade, which would mean actual economic competition, which would mean actually approaching brown people as equals - profit and racism prevent us from doing the right thing. Superman would have to cause unprecedented violence to the 1st world to overturn the current economic system, it's not like we wouldn't defend it. But the character (at least in films so far) doesn't want to force us to do the right thing. quote:He physically can but chooses not to because he wants to inspire others or something. Yup, exactly. quote:In reality, he's sending the message that the world's greatest tragedies are not as valuable use of his time as saving Lois from falling for millionth time. This is definitely the tact Luthor/Batman should take in the sequel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
Judakel posted:You just don't do that with Superman. Says who? Is there some Superman dogma that must always be adhered to in every iteration of the character that I'm unaware of?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:Superman in the comics does criminally little to actually help people considering he could be using his powers to eliminate genocides, feed starving masses, and help build working toilets for the 40% of the world that doesn't have them. People don't do these things because they physically can't. Superman doesn't have this excuse. He physically can but chooses not to because he wants to inspire others or something. In reality, he's sending the message that the world's greatest tragedies are not as valuable use of his time as saving Lois from falling for millionth time. "Why doesn't Superman just overthrow all dictators and cure world hunger??" is one of those darned obnoxious queries that cynics hellbent on deconstructing superhero comics -- which, unfortunately, will periodically include people actually writing these books -- like to throw around (other time-honored examples include "Why doesn't Batman kill his rogues??") in an attempt to insert so-called "realism" onto speculative fiction...and yet the more that people accuse these characters of being unrealistic in these topics, the more they betray their own lack of understanding as to how law, order, and ethics actually function in real world contexts. Look at what's going on in the world right now! Let's say Superman flies into Syria to topple Assad; great, 'cause now he's he made enemies out of Russia and Iran, two of Syria's biggest allies. Should he then take out Putin and Rouhani, leaving Russia and Iran destabilized? Meanwhile what's happening to Syria now that it's left in a failed lawless society while rebels and secularists continue to kill each other for years to come? Should Superman stay in that country and somehow incapacitate every single person who's fighting? Oh by the way have I mentioned that the rebels are comprised of a lot of jihadists and if we support them against their inhumane government, we actually run the risk of supporting terrorism internationally? And all this is assuming these countries and their allies don't have their own metahuman armies ready to retaliate against the world if western superheroes step out of line. These are all questions that real leaders running the real world have to consider (well, minus that last bit about metahumans) before just taking out whatever foreign powers they want to take out. So how should Superman cure the AIDS crisis in Africa? Should he fly around passing out condoms to everyone and lecturing about safe sex? Well congratulations, he has just now ticked off the fundamentalists of those regions who were preventing that in the first place. So let's say Superman says "No, I don't care, your beliefs are hurting innocents and I'm just gonna help them by forcibly shoving rubbers on their cocks no matter what you believe," well great, now he's established himself in the eyes of the world as someone who disrespects beliefs and has no qualms about strongarming his way through your objections, and obviously there's no way that will have any consequences whatsoever. Meanwhile, again, what happens when he leaves to slap people around in Syria or Egypt or whatever? Do the fundamentalists just magically stop preaching against what this strange foreigner just said? It's not even just considering that Superman doesn't want to be his own kind of dictator presiding over the course of human history; that's just the tip of the iceberg. If he wants to be any kind of hero respected by the governing bodies of the world, that means working alongside international law and treaties in the best interest of world civilization. That's what law and order is there for, to establish civilization so that there is a vested agreement between humans to not just do whatever they feel like doing for whatever reason. (Same with Batman and killing; it is absolutely not Batman's responsibility or obligation to kill criminals, that is a matter for a court of law to decide. If this character has any vested interest in establishing order instead of chaos, justice instead of injustice, that means not going out of his way to abuse the law of the land as decided by the very members of the very society he's trying to save. And the laws of civilization, as decided and voted into by the voice of the people, says that someone like Jim Gordon may be sanctioned to kill criminals in the line of duty, while someone like Batman isn't. If Bruce Wayne feels like he needs to kill criminals to establish justice, then he can go and apply for the same badge that Gordon has, or else petition the courts to change their laws. What he cannot do is whatever he wants to and still say that he's helping to establish order) Honestly though, what I find most irritating is when people act like examining these great big conundrums about superhero comics is this fresh new thing that silly old comic books have never done before, as if the whole "Superman should depose dictators" debate is some immaculate airtight argument that they just now thought of, as if these characters haven't been around since their grandparents were fighting wars and that these sorts of issues haven't been deconstructed by writers over and over throughout the course of continuity, as if no writer has ever thought to actually examine the implications of these characters they write about (Heck, how many alternate versions of Superman have we gotten where he winds up as some kind of despot, anyway?). It all just boils down to the same old cynics claiming "classic Superman is silly because he's a silly old cartoon boy scout!" without actually thinking about what any of this stuff means. BrianWilly fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Sep 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 11:08
|
|