Spoilers "Superman & Lois" Season 1 spoiler discussion!

[JD]

Of course, we *did* have Diggle on, so maybe it's just logistics or something else I haven't thought of yet.

One of the rules to come out of the pandemic is that they can't cross casts and crews the way they have. There was actually supposed to be more crossovers between the different shows throughout the season, but the new pandemic rule put a stop to all of that.

 

[The Realist]

What he was like doesn't matter. Other people's lack of morality is not an excuse to suspend our own. Clark had an unlimited power advantage over that man and he used it to humiliate and hurt him. That made him a bully just as much as the other guy, using his superior power to punch down at someone relatively helpless. The excuse doesn't matter. Superman would never be a bully. It was out of character.

We saw Clark talking about just that sort of thing in this week's episode -- how hard he's worked to control himself at every moment to avoid hurting people. He can't allow himself to make any of the moral compromises that we might consider excusable. The consequences would just be too dire.

Except the consequences weren't dire. As I said, the tone of the scene was comic, almost slapstick. Rocky practically had little cartoon birdies whirling around his head as he slumped in the pinball machine.

Fans take these characters and these movies seriously, which I understand and respect to a degree, but it sometimes makes them deaf to tone and intent. The scene isn't a meditation on Superman's character or a treatise on the morality of power. It's fundamentally a gag, and a chance to see a distasteful character receive a harmless comeuppance. (Tone and intent, BTW, is also vital to understanding what happens during the film's Fortress climax.)

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

It's not treated that way. She brings Perry White a big story, he dismissively corrects her spelling. Rim-shot!

She's a comical "Perils of Pauline" character, not any kind of journalist.

Won't get any argument from me on the portrayal of journalism in most Superman media, especially the movies. It's used as device and not really naturalistic, much less accurate. Hell, most of the time no one takes notes (looking at you Lois and Clark).

I'm pleasantly surprised at how much S&L gets the nitty gritty of journalism sausage right. There's at least a discussion of journalism ethics and what's needed for a story to run.

 

[Commander Troi]

One of the rules to come out of the pandemic is that they can't cross casts and crews the way they have. There was actually supposed to be more crossovers between the different shows throughout the season, but the new pandemic rule put a stop to all of that.

AH! See, that's one of the things I didn't think of!

 

[Christopher]

Except the consequences weren't dire. As I said, the tone of the scene was comic, almost slapstick. Rocky practically had little cartoon birdies whirling around his head as he slumped in the pinball machine.

That's exactly what's wrong with it. As a victim of extensive bullying in childhood, I don't think bullying should be treated as a funny, positive thing. The tone is not a defense when the tone is the whole problem.

 

[The Realist]

I don't think any "defense" is needed. I'm happy to enjoy the scene in the spirit intended. Obviously, your mileage varies.

 

[Jayson1]

But the scene is funny. Also it's no relation to real life bullying because that stuff is usually not comically over the top. Heck it's not even relatable to modern day bullying because most of that stuff now happens online. I don't even think the big kid making the little kid give him his lunch money style stuff even happens that much anymore.

 

[Mudd]

Never had a problem with the diner scene. The guy was clearly an inveterate, serial asshole who needed and deserved to be taught a lesson. And the comic tone made it clear the only real injury done was to “Mr. Wonderful’s” ego.

Yep.

BTW, virtually all comedy involves someone getting the short end of the stick, and a tremendous amount involves what would be seriously abusive behavior outside of the conventions of the form.

 

[Christopher]

"I don't like bullies." -- A superhero that the movie got right

 

[Mudd]

"I don't like bullies."

That's a commonplace, not a heroic statement.

 

[Jayson1]

It does really work well as character motivation for Captain America in the movies. Especially since he use to be scrawny and small. You sort of see why Steve Rogers was the way he was.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

. So even though Supes killed Zod and beat up a defenseless Bully it's still kind of out of character overall.

Superman killing Zod was not out of character, but realizing that some threats are beyond reasoning, control or imprisonment. Zod was most certainly a threat of that kind, whether he had powers (in his death scene) or not. One of the very few things Superman II handled perfectly was Superman acting like the adult in the room and bringing a permanent end to a threat on the global scale, instead of kind of "whoops! That bad guy got away again!" kinds of plotting one would see on endless 70s and 80s cartoons.

 

[Ovation]

Never had a problem with the diner scene. The guy was clearly an inveterate, serial asshole who needed and deserved to be taught a lesson. And the comic tone made it clear the only real injury done was to “Mr. Wonderful’s” ego.

I liked the way Cavill’s Clark got a thematically similar scene (obviously intended as a nod to the original) while offering a different, equally satisfying result.

 

[The Realist]

"I don't like bullies." -- A superhero that the movie got right

Superman doesn't like bullies either, hence his decision to teach this one a lesson.

I don't buy your premise that Superman himself is a bully here. Is he being a bully when he arrests a bank robber? There's a huge power differential there, too. Or what if he punches a Nazi? Clark was clearly not the only victim of Rocky's abuse, and if he taught him a needed lesson, maybe the employees and customers of that diner won't be on the receiving end of Rocky's bullying in the future.

Mind you, as I keep saying, I do think tone matters. Personally, I'm not altogether comfortable with the way Superman terrorizes Manchester Black and company in the much-lauded "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, & the American Way?" That's played dead serious, and Superman is threatening real harm. But the Superman II scene is intended as a cathartic laugh, and it works for me on that level. I'm not disposed to overthink it.

I liked the way Cavill’s Clark got a thematically similar scene (obviously intended as a nod to the original) while offering a different, equally satisfying result.

Yeah, I didn't have an issue with that one, either. Superman, on a basic level, is a power fantasy (as well as other, nobler things). You'd have to be a better person than I not to enjoy seeing him meting out a little justice to the bullies and abusers of the world.

 

[Christopher]

I don't buy your premise that Superman himself is a bully here. Is he being a bully when he arrests a bank robber? There's a huge power differential there, too. Or what if he punches a Nazi? Clark was clearly not the only victim of Rocky's abuse, and if he taught him a needed lesson, maybe the employees and customers of that diner won't be on the receiving end of Rocky's bullying in the future.

I reject that equivalence categorically. Clark wasn't protecting anyone in that scene. He wasn't saving anyone's life or defending their rights. As it was staged, as it was played, he was getting back at the guy for a personal slight against himself. He was the 98-pound weakling in the old Charles Atlas ads who gets bulked up and beats up the bully in retribution. It was revenge, a behavior that American movies far too often glamorize and celebrate. And that cheapens Superman just as much as having him snap Zod's neck.

 

[dupersuper]

Superman killing Zod was not out of character,

 

[Mudd]

I reject that equivalence categorically.

So?

And that cheapens Superman just as much as having him snap Zod's neck.

So, you're drawing an equivalence between Clark humiliating a bully and killing a man in the same paragraph that you rejected what you considered an unreasonable equivalence?

That's entirely inconsistent and illogical. It can't be defended.

 

[Mudd]

Seriously, he's done it a number of times in different media - twice in the movies, in the comics, and Winn mentioned on the CW shows that he'd done it? So, how can it be out of character? It's an action on Clark's part that tracks back at least until the late 1980s.

 

[dupersuper]

Seriously, he's done it a number of times in different media - twice in the movies, in the comics, and Winn mentioned on the CW shows that he'd done it? So, how can it be out of character? It's an action on Clark's part that tracks back at least until the late 1980s.

I discount Superman 2 because of the deleted scene (and blindingly obvious tone), and the CW shows because Lois later corrects Winn, so that leaves one 33 year old comic story that has been retconned multiple times over and one movie that I felt had him out of character through half the story.

 

[Mudd]

I discount Superman 2 because of the deleted scene (and blindingly obvious tone), ad the CW shows because Lois later corrects Winn, so that leaves one 33 year old comic story that has been retconned multiple times over and one movie that I felt had him out of character through half the story.

No. You don't get to discard data that don't support your position. So, you don't have any better support for "it's out of character" than "I don't like that he does it."

Fine.

It remains a fact that Superman killing Zod is something he's done repeatedly for forty-plus years.