Nobody can tell you how they would react in a situation completely distinct to what they've ever experienced, However, sometimes we've been through sufficiently similar situations, and thus our predictions are relevant. We know comparatively little about Clark, so any extrapolation that's made needs to be large.
They can't build up every aspect of Clark, sometimes we'll learn how he reacts to things entirely due to how he reacts to things. But given that this is supposed to be a major point, should they not have built it up better? I don't think they did, but people will buy into it because they have a preconception of who Superman should be that is imported from other continuities.
Far better than him not fighting people would be him getting into a fight and then feeling terrible about it. That's how some people I know stopped fighting. That's how I stopped fighting too, I fought fairly often when I was 12,13,14 and I grew to hate it. I've never been in a bar fight.
Was he not going to beat up that guy in the bar until the waitress told him it's not worth it, and then he settled for breaking his truck? I think that's how we're supposed to interpret that scene. That scene is lifted from Superman II, where he did beat up the guy.
I don't see any coherent way of tying together the Jesus allegory and the killing of Zod. I think the shallow Jesus allegory was there in the original drafts as a form of product placement, and in a later draft they added in the killing of Zod, they don't work well together at all, and this is a cause of dissonance in the script.
But I'm biased, I rate the Jesus allegory as the dumbest piece of the movie. I'm not against Jesus allegories: I think it worked for the matrix and the hunger games. It didn't work here because they took miscellaneous components of the Jesus story without taking any of the threads or the historical context that can tie these pieces together.
It's Snyder who said he has stronger ties to Krypton than to Earth, not me. I simply think that based on the movie, he really wanted to know more about Krypton, and he would be sad to see it all go.
I think he's happy at the end of the movie because he's not a virgin anymore (J/K), I think he's happy because he's finally found his place in the world with a new job at the daily planet, a hobby of being superhero, he has a new girlfriend, and his mom's home is rebuilt. His life is going well. And now that you've acknowledged him being happy, you've undermined your position that he should be traumatised and you expect him to be traumatised, unless the trauma is only for a few hours a day, or he's faking his happiness, in which case your argument that he's happy is irrelevant.
Which is it, is he happy or is he traumatised?
Here's a theory:
He's happy because those scenes were written and maybe even filmed prior to the new adding of Superman killing Zod. Goyer did not realise he would need to change the aftermath, maybe it's because he's a bad writer, maybe it's because he was too busy writing novels and video games to really dedicate himself to MoS and his mind wasn't into it. He may have had some vague idea about the "origins of the no kill rule" but it wasn't as concrete as what subsequent fan reaction would demand.
However, when the movie came out, there was an uproar from fans, and now when the next movie starts, it might start with Clark having a nightmare, or a traumatised Superman being an ineffective Superhero, which is in fact not consistent with the character portrayal of the last 5 minutes of MoS.
They can't build up every aspect of Clark, sometimes we'll learn how he reacts to things entirely due to how he reacts to things. But given that this is supposed to be a major point, should they not have built it up better? I don't think they did, but people will buy into it because they have a preconception of who Superman should be that is imported from other continuities.
Far better than him not fighting people would be him getting into a fight and then feeling terrible about it. That's how some people I know stopped fighting. That's how I stopped fighting too, I fought fairly often when I was 12,13,14 and I grew to hate it. I've never been in a bar fight.
Was he not going to beat up that guy in the bar until the waitress told him it's not worth it, and then he settled for breaking his truck? I think that's how we're supposed to interpret that scene. That scene is lifted from Superman II, where he did beat up the guy.
I don't see any coherent way of tying together the Jesus allegory and the killing of Zod. I think the shallow Jesus allegory was there in the original drafts as a form of product placement, and in a later draft they added in the killing of Zod, they don't work well together at all, and this is a cause of dissonance in the script.
But I'm biased, I rate the Jesus allegory as the dumbest piece of the movie. I'm not against Jesus allegories: I think it worked for the matrix and the hunger games. It didn't work here because they took miscellaneous components of the Jesus story without taking any of the threads or the historical context that can tie these pieces together.
It's Snyder who said he has stronger ties to Krypton than to Earth, not me. I simply think that based on the movie, he really wanted to know more about Krypton, and he would be sad to see it all go.
I think he's happy at the end of the movie because he's not a virgin anymore (J/K), I think he's happy because he's finally found his place in the world with a new job at the daily planet, a hobby of being superhero, he has a new girlfriend, and his mom's home is rebuilt. His life is going well. And now that you've acknowledged him being happy, you've undermined your position that he should be traumatised and you expect him to be traumatised, unless the trauma is only for a few hours a day, or he's faking his happiness, in which case your argument that he's happy is irrelevant.
Which is it, is he happy or is he traumatised?
Here's a theory:
He's happy because those scenes were written and maybe even filmed prior to the new adding of Superman killing Zod. Goyer did not realise he would need to change the aftermath, maybe it's because he's a bad writer, maybe it's because he was too busy writing novels and video games to really dedicate himself to MoS and his mind wasn't into it. He may have had some vague idea about the "origins of the no kill rule" but it wasn't as concrete as what subsequent fan reaction would demand.
However, when the movie came out, there was an uproar from fans, and now when the next movie starts, it might start with Clark having a nightmare, or a traumatised Superman being an ineffective Superhero, which is in fact not consistent with the character portrayal of the last 5 minutes of MoS.
Comment