They think that Superman intervened in a critical situation and his presence (as well as killing that Warlord) scared the local government enough that things escalated into a massacre.
Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
They think that Superman intervened in a critical situation and his presence (as well as killing that Warlord) scared the local government enough that things escalated into a massacre.
In other words, they're not objecting to Superman's own actions but to the reactions that he provokes because (surprise, surprise) the Third World can't get its shit together and is run by a bunch of savage warlords?
Sounds like a lot of pseudo-philosophical bullshit to me. But then, considering The Dark Knight & The Dark Knight Rises, I guess I'm not surprised.
Sounds like a lot of pseudo-philosophical bullshit to me. But then, considering The Dark Knight & The Dark Knight Rises, I guess I'm not surprised.
I would agree with a lot of what the article says. But where I take issue with it is this: "And in a racially, religiously, politically, and morally conflicted world like our own, even ‘doing the right thing’ can come at a price and negative impact to someone, somewhere."
The article and Snyder's movies both seem to suggest that, since "doing the right thing" can have unintended consequences, that must mean that "the right thing" doesn't really exist. I dispute that wholeheartedly and I think it's the absolute antithesis of what a Superman story has traditionally been. To me, the point of Superman is that here you have a man of almost unlimited power who could do ANYthing and he chooses to do the RIGHT thing. Now, in a complex world such as ours, identifying what the right thing is may be extremely difficult. I'm OK with some moral ambiguity. It's OK if Superman inadvertently makes a bad call from time to time. I'm not OK with Jonathan Kent suggesting that Superman let a school bus full of children die just so that he can maintain his secret identity!
Even in the Marvel universe, with its often less than perfect heroes, you still have them doing the best they can at the moment.
Lex's men were the ones that murdered everyone, not the Africans. Lex wanted to make people think Africans killed each other because of Superman.
I didn't take Jonathan's statement as an assertion but rather an exasperated admission that he doesn't have the right answer. He is weighing the immediate situation with what he sees as the bigger picture--and let's face it, revealing to the world that "we are not alone" is about as big as the picture gets. In the end, Jonathan is revealing his imperfections and, to me, that makes him a much more interesting character than the moral paragon he's usually made out to be. Neither he nor Martha is without flaws and the story asks us to consider what it would be like for Kal-El to be raised by parents stumbling their way along as best they can in a far more cynical and frightening world that the 50s version held up on a pedestal by so many. It's fine if someone doesn't like the approach taken but I am baffled by those who think an interpretation that differs from the standard model is illegitimate in and of itself (a general observation, not aimed at you).
I guess I prefer an imperfect attempt at trying something different over yet another version of the standard model.
I always took it that way, too.
To me, it adds an interesting layer to Superman's character to have him unconditionally love his foster parents, when they are imperfect and not paragons, as you put it.
The only people I've seen that didn't get that are fanboys looking for something to bitch about. I've yet to meet a non-comic reader that complained about that scene.
Remember how half this country shit it's pants in fear over refugee's that were looking to get away from an oppressive regime at the end of last year? Yeah, finding out that there's a guy like Superman in our midst would make that look like nothing. THAT is the reality that Jonathan Kent was wrestling with. People love to pretend that the world they live in isn't one where people would do that sort of thing. It is.
Hi. I'm Gaith. I don't read comics, and this is us meeting. That scene sucked major bantha balls.
"Not morally perfect, with dramatic interest" was Smallville's Jonathan Kent repeatedly being a dick to Lex just because he was Lionel's son. Having to wrestle with the question of whether a bus load of kids should have drowned to protect Clark's secret is Snyder's DC Murderverse sociopathy.
In any believable reality, the government would be demanding that Supes help execute their foreign policy the minute the dust settled on Metropolis, and there sure as hell would've been hearings on the Superman matter immediately.
Hm... a new superhero in town... demands he cooperate with the government... prompt hearings... this is all sounding weirdly familiar...
Don't you mean...In any believable reality, the government would be demanding that Supes help execute their foreign policy the minute the dust settled on Metropolis, and there sure as hell would've been hearings on the Superman matter immediately.
Hm... a new superhero in town... demands he cooperate with the government... prompt hearings... this is all sounding weirdly familiar...
And we already know where Superman stands on "registration" and the US gov't dictating what he can and can't do.
Action Comics #900
Hm... a new superhero in town... demands he cooperate with the government... prompt hearings... this is all sounding weirdly familiar...
Not to mention team franchise set-up!
Hi, DC--Welcome to 2010!
Traditionally, the central dramatic question of a Superman story isn't whether or not Superman will save the day. Of course he will. He's Superman! The question is whether or not Clark Kent can get away, save the day, & then get back in time to preserve his secret identity.
The notion of a paranoid, xenophobic world being a riskier, more hostile place for Superman to operate has some dramatic merit. But while that personal risk could heighten the dramatic tension of his secret identity, it should not affect his central mission of saving people. The whole point of a hero is that he does the right thing while placing himself at great personal risk. Since Superman is physically invulnerable, the Clark Kent persona is what he actually risks.
I can see that interpretation but the scene lingered on the possibility just a hair too long for my comfort.
For me, the primary appeal of Superman has been the incorruptible morality of the character & his worldview. The Snyder movies have removed THE #1 THING that I like about the character. That's why I'm not happy.
I have no issues with anyone disliking the take on the character in the Snyder films. Similarly, I have no issues with anyone disliking the Abrams take on TOS characters. What I find a bit irritating is the notion (not pointing to you here, just a general observation) that there is a "one true way" to present any fictional character--Superman, Captain Kirk, Hamlet, Richard Kimble, Snow White... Exploring alternatives is a good thing, even if a particular one doesn't sit well with everyone. What I find baffling is the idea that exploring an alternative is, in and of itself, illegitimate. I have enjoyed, in various media, the "classic" Superman. I would have watched the Snyder films even if they were continuations of the Donner model or some other "classic" iteration. What I admire about Snyder is his willingness to explore a version that differs from the rest. I'm not happy with every choice made (there are mechanical things about the films I find problematic--pacing, editing, some dialogue--I even agree, to an extent, with your observation about "lingered on the possibility" (something an extra take might have solved)) but the different path piqued my interest sufficiently to take in the story in the manner described in the essay I linked to earlier in the thread. But certainly it is easy to understand why this version is not meeting with universal appeal. Sometimes, though, universal appeal is overrated.
Don't worry, that's just Speedforce debris that stuck to his face while he was running back through time.
Normally he will be as smooth as an androids bottom.
That's the problem with pretending things are more complex and cynical in today's world. You can justify any bad decision in the movie as "this isn't the 50's" and pretend that makes it better.
In the real world, some things really are black and white. Saving a bus full of innocent children from dying has no moral complexity. You do it, and then work out the ramifications later. Same with saving your father. There are absolutely zero situations where trying to do this isn't the right thing to do.
The fact that some people can find any justification in pretending this is a morally grey area is almost scary.
In the real world, some things really are black and white. Saving a bus full of innocent children from dying has no moral complexity. You do it, and then work out the ramifications later. Same with saving your father. There are absolutely zero situations where trying to do this isn't the right thing to do.
The fact that some people can find any justification in pretending this is a morally grey area is almost scary.
Nobody complained when Kara's father said basically the same thing to her.