Why all the hate for Man of Steel?

[Reddish Mage]

His death does nothing to drive home any lessons he’s been giving Clark, nor does it teach him any life lessons. Now Jonathan dies saving a lesser life from, the dog, from the tornado (I’m totally going to get flak for saying that). However He doesn’t teach Clark that he should care for the lesser life forms around him and be willing to die for them (Humans being lesser life forms to Clark), which his death would drive home that point. So I highly doubt that is what the makers were going for when they thought up this scene. Instead they just need a way for Jonathan Kent to die and they came up with "ohh Kansas, that means tornadoes!".

Teaching by example is far more effective then teaching by words (though it might help more if Jonathan didn't die the only time we see him putting others first). I don't know given the rather self-indulgent pacing, the overall tone, the underwhelming effects, and the lack of effective characterization that I much can be said derived about bigger picture Superman Movies with MoS. Would Tim Burton's Superman have been ineffective (it certainly wouldn't be anyone else's notion of superman), can Superman be done in gritty realism, be a martyr, an alien, maybe, maybe not. What is clear is how everything came together didn't work. Not showing any warmth or emotion and failing in the basic presentation of the main character to give us a reason to like him and what he does makes everything else seem off too.

[Zrak]

So did every single person in this thread have, like, a really loud coughing fit when Jonathan Kent says "Get your mom to the overpass," or something?

[Jayngfet]

So did every single person in this thread have, like, a really loud coughing fit when Jonathan Kent says "Get your mom to the overpass," or something?

There's generally not a whole lot of bravery and heroism associated with saving someone who can already walk to their destination on their own at a leisurely pace and still have time to spare.

[Zrak]

100% successful rescue of schoolchildren . . . grimdarkness

You are either operating under a serious misconception about the meaning of "grimdark" or harbor some serious resentment towards schoolchildren.

So, the thought that commentary on the movie's tone might source from some part of the movie before the final battle never occurred to you, despite that I explicitly stated it multiple times, despite that that is in fact my entire argument? Because that's the only way you can claim circularity or catch-22 or whatever else you want to call your own myopic focus on the final battle alone.

It did, otherwise I wouldn't have referred to the final battle as "one of the examples." I think, in general, the interpretation of the movie as anything approaching "grimdark" relies on a prior assumption that it is going to be grimdark. Take, for instance, theNater's post, which seems to be earnestly advancing the theory that Clark rescuing a schoolbus full of children contributed to the "grimdark" tone because the reaction to his doing so was not entirely positive. Call me old fashioned, but I don't really think that in the grim darkness of the future, there are only lukewarm reactions to the totally successful rescues of children trapped in school-buses.

There's generally not a whole lot of bravery and heroism associated with saving someone who can already walk to their destination on their own at a leisurely pace and still have time to spare.

So long as the tornado didn't fling a truck her way instead of towards Hank, sure. Honestly, I thought the motivation was transparent enough that I really can't fathom someone missing the point of the line without actively trying to miss the point. It is just not that subtle or understated. Honestly, if this movie's exposition is not blatant enough for you, the problem is with you, not the movie.

[Anteros]

You're the only person I've ever seen defend the Pa Kent scene. I defend this movie all the time, but that scene was ridiculously stupid. Pa Kent committed suicide for no reason. Clark is literally invulnerable and fast enough to get the dog and be back before anyone even knows he's gone. It's easily the worst part of the movie.

The only good thing was that I didn't feel particularly bad for this version of Pa Kent, considering he's a psychopath who would rather let a bus full of children drown than have his son lose his privacy.

[Forum Explorer]

So did every single person in this thread have, like, a really loud coughing fit when Jonathan Kent says "Get your mom to the overpass," or something?

You're the only person I've ever seen defend the Pa Kent scene. I defend this movie all the time, but that scene was ridiculously stupid. Pa Kent committed suicide for no reason. Clark is literally invulnerable and fast enough to get the dog and be back before anyone even knows he's gone. It's easily the worst part of the movie.

The only good thing was that I didn't feel particularly bad for this version of Pa Kent, considering he's a psychopath who would rather let a bus full of children drown than have his son lose his privacy.

No I think he's just stupid because an overpass is literally one of the worst places to go when there is a tornado. You are literally safer just lying in a ditch. I think lying in an open field might even be safer then an overpass.

[Math_Mage]

You are either operating under a serious misconception about the meaning of "grimdark" or harbor some serious resentment towards schoolchildren.

No, the movie is operating under a serious misconception about how to treat Superman. Trying to make the audience take seriously a moral dilemma where one horn is "rescue a bus full of schoolchildren with literally no downside" and the other is "let your adopted father die" indicates a hamfisted attempt at Nolanesque moral ambiguity.

As this also answers your reply to me, I'll forgo replying to that specifically.

[Avilan the Grey]

for me it's easy:

DC sufferst from Dark And Gritty; they, both in the comics and their movies, have deliberately focused on "Let's Make Everything The Bat Franchise". Dark. Twisted. Psychotic. Depressing. They even have orders to make sure all comics are "in line".

Compare to Marvel, who has, as DC also used to have, different tones for different franchises.

I never liked the modern Bat movies. I found them incredibly inferior to the Iron Man franchise. But then I have never been so amored by the Bat in the first place. I found the new Superman movies to basically be re-skinned Batman movies where the hero has superman's powers. They are basically made by someone who does not understand the character.

So in short, everything DC does suck, and have sucked, for at least 5 years.

[Kitten Champion]

There's generally not a whole lot of bravery and heroism associated with saving someone who can already walk to their destination on their own at a leisurely pace and still have time to spare.

Putting aside my misgivings with Pa Kent's misanthropic and utilitarian philosophy, ignoring that the Venturi effect which Forum Explorer raised would be something someone living in tornado alley would know about, and even putting the monumental effort in to treat the logic-breaking death for the family dog's sake as somehow anything less than ridiculously contrived... that scene's also kind of sexist, now that you mention it.

Seriously, if they wanted a "you can't show your powers to anyone and must let me die" scene how about there's a disaster at a public event and Jonathan Kent gets crushed underneath something (say, farm equipment) and Clark could lift it off him but he'd be instantly discovered, and instead watches him die in futility. I don't have to question the logic of everything I'm seeing and just assume Jonathan's dumbass philosophy is somehow poignant according to the movie.

Edit: He could push another person - perhaps a little girl - out of the way of the thing falling on him, and there you have it.

[comicshorse]

OK MY beef with Jonathan Kent in MOS:

Jonathan Kent is what gives superman his humanity, he teaches Clark how to be a good man, you know morals and all. Everything about Superman’s character hinges on how he is brought up. This makes Jonathan Kent the most important person in superman’s life, and the most important supporting character.

In superman, Jonathan Kent dies of a heart attack, while tragic, it teaches Clark that despite his great power, he still can’t save everyone. Which makes his decision to alter time via the flying backwards thing more weighty, not only because Jor El tells him not to, but because he already learned he can’t save everyone; however he’s crushed by Lois… being crushed, so he does anyway, breaking the rules to prevent him facing the death of someone he cares about. We learn that superman’s greatest fear is the death of those he cares about. ( i know it shows that even though he actually can save everyone, but I think that's unintentional)

Jonathan Kent in MOS simply does not impart anything onto Clark, he doesn’t seem to teach him to have empathy and care for others, doesn’t seem to teach him morals. In fact, he does the opposite, teaching him that he should just stand by and let people he could easily save die. I can understand his fear that the G’vment or something is going to come and take Clark away to area 51 and dissect him. But that’s a false worry, he raised Clark, he knows what he’s capable of, guys with blue gloves can’t really hurt him (minus kryptonite).

His death does nothing to drive home any lessons he’s been giving Clark, nor does it teach him any life lessons. Now Jonathan dies saving a lesser life from, the dog, from the tornado (I’m totally going to get flak for saying that). However He doesn’t teach Clark that he should care for the lesser life forms around him and be willing to die for them (Humans being lesser life forms to Clark), which his death would drive home that point. So I highly doubt that is what the makers were going for when they thought up this scene. Instead they just need a way for Jonathan Kent to die and they came up with "ohh Kansas, that means tornadoes!".

Reading this is occurs to me that MOS has, maybe deliberately, taken the complete opposite view of the original Superman. In that the story is about Superman developing and completely abandoning the philosophy Pa Kent taught him.
I mean think about it, at the beginning he's trying to live his life as Pa taught him. Drifting from town to town, making absolutely no attempt to help people, doing nothing with his abilities and staying under the radar.
Its only later that he decides to become a hero and completely ignore everything Pa told him
Hmmm, I only saw the movie once. Did Jor-El tell him (either in person or as a hologram) to protect the people of the planet he was being sent to ? Is the story of Kent growing up and totally rejecting Pa Kent's values and accepting those of Jor-El instead ?

[Reddish Mage]

No, the movie is operating under a serious misconception about how to treat Superman. Trying to make the audience take seriously a moral dilemma where one horn is "rescue a bus full of schoolchildren with literally no downside" and the other is "let your adopted father die" indicates a hamfisted attempt at Nolanesque moral ambiguity.

I thin it has been mentioned that the comics have introduced real moral dilemmas at certain points where Superman can't save everyone and has to deal with it, and I cannot remember Nolan's Batman making such sacrifices. However, this isn't that Superman, its about someone in the process of becoming Superman whose formative experiences involve taking a horn in a moral dilemma whereas the Superman people know will have it both ways, avoid the dilemma entirely, or rewind time regardless of what Jor-El says.

How does Nolanesqe means moral ambiguity? Nolan's Batman seems pretty adept at navigating between his ideals, the realities, and comes up with a fitting solution that is perfectly satisfactory.

[Devonix]

One major MAJOR problem I have is this excuse that Oh this is just Superman starting out so he's making all these stupid mistakes.

Sorry but no. Clark never just decides to be a superhero and go out breaking stuff. He trained his ass off just as long and just as hard as Batman. He goes away. trains for years to hone his powers and abilities, learns languages, customs and cultures because he wants to dedicate himself to the world and humanity as a whole.

I can't see Snyder's Superman going to a China, speaking to the people there on their own terms, and then going off to Iran, saving people. If they wanted to Nolanize Superman they should have taken the things he and Batman have in common. The amount of time and effort they took into forging themselves into who they were.

[Math_Mage]

I thin it has been mentioned that the comics have introduced real moral dilemmas at certain points where Superman can't save everyone and has to deal with it, and I cannot remember Nolan's Batman making such sacrifices. However, this isn't that Superman, its about someone in the process of becoming Superman whose formative experiences involve taking a horn in a moral dilemma whereas the Superman people know will have it both ways, avoid the dilemma entirely, or rewind time regardless of what Jor-El says.

I should have put "moral dilemma" in quotation marks. It's not. It's just the movie pretending Pa Kent's position has a shred of credibility for long enough to manufacture conflict before rejecting it.

How does Nolanesqe means moral ambiguity? Nolan's Batman seems pretty adept at navigating between his ideals, the realities, and comes up with a fitting solution that is perfectly satisfactory.

Similarly, I should have put "Nolanesque" in quotation marks. It's not. It's the movie giving a pointlessly grim tone to e.g. Superman's relationship with Pa Kent.

[Shinken]

You know, I could almost buy the "this is not really Superman yet, he will inspire hope some day" argument if everything about the next movie didn't look as grimdark as the first movie.

I mean, that's basically what happened in Amazing Spider-Man. Peter Parker is a jerk in the first movie, but by the second movie he is your friendly neighborhood's Spider-Man.

[TheThan]

Reading this is occurs to me that MOS has, maybe deliberately, taken the complete opposite view of the original Superman. In that the story is about Superman developing and completely abandoning the philosophy Pa Kent taught him.
I mean think about it, at the beginning he's trying to live his life as Pa taught him. Drifting from town to town, making absolutely no attempt to help people, doing nothing with his abilities and staying under the radar.
Its only later that he decides to become a hero and completely ignore everything Pa told him
Hmmm, I only saw the movie once. Did Jor-El tell him (either in person or as a hologram) to protect the people of the planet he was being sent to ? Is the story of Kent growing up and totally rejecting Pa Kent's values and accepting those of Jor-El instead ?

Maybe, but they’re giving mixed singles, because Clark is saving people, rescuing the people on the oil rig etc. Lois Lane even used his actions to track him down, indicating that he’s leaving enough of a trail that someone could follow and potentially get in front of him as he drifts about the world.
If he really wanted to stay under the radar and never use his powers to save people, he could have stayed on the Kent family farm but instead he leaves the privacy of his home to what? see the world?

[theNater]

Take, for instance, theNater's post, which seems to be earnestly advancing the theory that Clark rescuing a schoolbus full of children contributed to the "grimdark" tone because the reaction to his doing so was not entirely positive.

So, a question(and remember, I haven't seen it, so I actually don't know):

Does the movie actually show any characters at all reacting positively to the rescue? Cheering, thanking Clark, telling him he did good? Anything like that? Or are you just assuming it must have happened, because children were rescued?

[Shinken]

So, a question(and remember, I haven't seen it, so I actually don't know):

Does the movie actually show any characters at all reacting positively to the rescue? Cheering, thanking Clark, telling him he did good? Anything like that? Or are you just assuming it must have happened, because children were rescued?

There is one guy that stops bullying Clark after that, IIRC

[Dienekes]

So, a question(and remember, I haven't seen it, so I actually don't know):

Does the movie actually show any characters at all reacting positively to the rescue? Cheering, thanking Clark, telling him he did good? Anything like that? Or are you just assuming it must have happened, because children were rescued?

The mom of the daughter who was rescued sees Clark as a savior, it's Pa Kent who gets worried about it. Mostly after that Clark leaves before anyone can thank him (except, one soldier guy I think).

[Reddish Mage]

I should have put "moral dilemma" in quotation marks. It's not. It's just the movie pretending Pa Kent's position has a shred of credibility for long enough to manufacture conflict before rejecting it.


Similarly, I should have put "Nolanesque" in quotation marks. It's not. It's the movie giving a pointlessly grim tone to e.g. Superman's relationship with Pa Kent.

Indeed, and this this inadequate pretending, manufacturing and pointlessness, leads me to the conclusion that the movie itself is simple ineffectual and pointless.

I think a Nolan Superman (Batman) would have to deal with great emotional trama (like death of parents) by becoming Superman, which is a persona he has to learn to become. However his personal morality would be challenged by this persona but he will react with uncompromising morality (that will work out), all of that would be set up before he came to Metropolis (Gotham) and had to deal with the villain who would challenge his training and ultimately that personal morality (but Superman would conquer).


The thing is Nolan's Batman was actually intellectually a disappointment to me. Batman doesn't "kill" barehanded or with a weapon but is glad to trap the villain in a situation that ensures his demise. It looked good in the movie and "I don't have to save you" is a great line, it just appears to me to be the exact same morally (but in one case Batman's literal hands don't literally become bloody with literal gore).

[Zrak]

No, the movie is operating under a serious misconception about how to treat Superman. Trying to make the audience take seriously a moral dilemma where one horn is "rescue a bus full of schoolchildren with literally no downside" and the other is "let your adopted father die" indicates a hamfisted attempt at Nolanesque moral ambiguity.

As this also answers your reply to me, I'll forgo replying to that specifically.

What? No, it doesn't. At all. It answers a question I didn't ask about whether or not that scene represented the kind of Superman you want to see. I am aware that it did not. I am not arguing that it did. I am arguing that its tone was not "grimdark," or even anything close to grimdark, despite the fact that it is continually lambasted for its grimdarkness. In support of this view, I pointed to the fact that it's ludicrously tenuous to suggest that a lukewarm reaction to a bus full of schoolchildren being saved even approaches grimdark, or grim, or dark.

You're the only person I've ever seen defend the Pa Kent scene. I defend this movie all the time, but that scene was ridiculously stupid. Pa Kent committed suicide for no reason. Clark is literally invulnerable and fast enough to get the dog and be back before anyone even knows he's gone. It's easily the worst part of the movie.

I'm not even really defending the scene (though I think the overlong Krypton intro was the worst part of the movie) I'm just saying that the chorus of people bemoaning the fact that he goes after the dog instead of sending Clark "for no reason" are either intentionally misreading the scene or outright bad at watching movies. Jonathan goes to get the dog so his literally invulnerable son can protect Martha and that little girl he just handed over to Clark in the event something exactly like what happened were to happen. His motivations are very clear and relatively reasonable.

No I think he's just stupid because an overpass is literally one of the worst places to go when there is a tornado. You are literally safer just lying in a ditch. I think lying in an open field might even be safer then an overpass.

All the better reason to have Clark over there protecting those poor idiots.
As someone who grew up in tornadoland, though, the fact that everyone went to the overpass was really grating. It's not even that Jonathan Kent is stupid, it's that every single person in the scene ostensibly lives in tornado alley and has no idea what to do during a tornado.

Drifting from town to town, making absolutely no attempt to help people, doing nothing with his abilities and staying under the radar.

So your reading of the scene where he saves all the guys on the oil rig is that he's just really, really clumsy and it was all, what, a happy accident? "Oh, damn it, I slipped on these crab guts and now I accidentally saved this guy's life. I gotta back to the fishing ship before anyone notices. Oh, no, I tripped over this rail and saved like six more dudes. What is wrong with you today, Clark?"

Similarly, I should have put "Nolanesque" in quotation marks. It's not. It's the movie giving a pointlessly grim tone to e.g. Superman's relationship with Pa Kent.

In the grim darkness of the future, there is some tension between fathers and their adolescent sons.

So, a question(and remember, I haven't seen it, so I actually don't know):

Does the movie actually show any characters at all reacting positively to the rescue? Cheering, thanking Clark, telling him he did good? Anything like that? Or are you just assuming it must have happened, because children were rescued?

Insofar as I recall, some parents and some cop or whatever thank him, the other kids seem more freaked out than anything else, and Jonathan Kent is worried about what'll happen if people finds out his eight-year-old is also basically a weapon of mass destruction.

[comicshorse]

So your reading of the scene where he saves all the guys on the oil rig is that he's just really, really clumsy and it was all, what, a happy accident? "Oh, damn it, I slipped on these crab guts and now I accidentally saved this guy's life. I gotta back to the fishing ship before anyone notices. Oh, no, I tripped over this rail and saved like six more dudes. What is wrong with you today, Clark?"

No and if you'd fully quoted me you might have included

I mean think about it, at the beginning he's trying to live his life as Pa taught him. Drifting from town to town, making absolutely no attempt to help people, doing nothing with his abilities and staying under the radar.

The fact that he occasionally gives in to his own instincts (or Zor El's lessons) is indicative that he's in conflict between them and the lessons taught him by Pa Kent

[Metahuman1]

In support of this view, I pointed to the fact that it's ludicrously tenuous to suggest that a lukewarm reaction to a bus full of schoolchildren being saved even approaches grimdark, or grim, or dark.



I'm not even really defending the scene (though I think the overlong Krypton intro was the worst part of the movie) I'm just saying that the chorus of people bemoaning the fact that he goes after the dog instead of sending Clark "for no reason" are either intentionally misreading the scene or outright bad at watching movies. Jonathan goes to get the dog so his literally invulnerable son can protect Martha and that little girl he just handed over to Clark in the event something exactly like what happened were to happen. His motivations are very clear and relatively reasonable.

1: No. The fact that it isn't Grimdark, does not mean, intrisically and aboslutly, that it is Neither Grim Nore Dark. And while it isn't grimdark, it is specifically set up and played out in a fashion that's on the darker more cynical side of things and tends to be Grim.


2: We specifically see John Kent signal Clark not to save him at the last moment. That's not "I tried to protect others and it backfired." That's "I'm so hung up on this asinine idea that I'll just let myself die for it, and the movie wil play out in a way that will make doing so have been totally pointless, and thus, I committed suicide for no good reason."



3: There was a point were they were starting to talk about Batman and Superman and the vibe they gave of the plan for that move was that it would deal with the fall out of the world having a superman who answers to no one, will kill, and can't be destroyed and the emotional and psycological consequences of him Having genocided the last survivors of Krypton. That Batmans role was probably gonna be to sit Superman down with him and go "Look, your being too much controlled by your fear and I know cause I've spent a long time using fear against and to contorl people. I'm needed as I am, scary, not understood, in the shadows, untraceable. But you? You need to be something else, becuase while it does work for me, we are very different people. The world needs us to be different, needs you to be something other then another boogyman to fear. You can, and should, try to inspire hope instead, be something to look forward to, to strive toward, to make the promise that things can get better."

If that against all odds is done and well exicuted in the movie, I will nuke every critisum of Man of Steel I ever Made in a microwave, douse it with ketchup and eat it.


But with all the announcments of the Casting and all the extra characters there trying to cram in and the fact that Frank "Move over Sperm Bank/I'll Kill You Diana/Are You Retarded? I'm The God Damn Batman!!!" Miller is even being mentioned as having his worked looked at during this project let alone being allowed in on it in any capacity, and that Goyer and DC editorial and WB executives seem to have in the mean time proven beyond doubt that they utterly suck at there jobs, I hold out no hope barring an act of god of this next movie doing any of that and allowing superman to inspire any hope, or them getting either Wonder Woman or Batmans characters right, or anyone else who shows up in this movie.


My only hope at this point is that Aquaman will show up and do something that erases the super-friends image of him from Pop-culture collective thought and memory and in a good way, and even that seems a streach.

[Scowling Dragon]

Its the costume and design. Aquaman needs a beard, otherwise he just looks like such a childish derp.

[Daze]

Re: Pa kent...

Why the hate?

Kevin Costner is a terrible actor and always engenders hate.

My opinion of course, but gods be good that guy is a stiff in everything he does!

Did like Diane Lane as the Ma though.

And did enjoy the movie, thought it was a more modern interpretation and a good reboot.

Now Brandon Routh's "Superman"... that was truly terrible. Although Kevin Spacey was a good casting as Lex.

[Coidzor]

Its the costume and design. Aquaman needs a beard, otherwise he just looks like such a childish derp.

Well, you know, there's a reason there's a trope for that.

Musical Whatever this is has got to be one of the more esoteric super powers though.

[Zrak]

1: No. The fact that it isn't Grimdark, does not mean, intrisically and aboslutly, that it is Neither Grim Nore Dark. And while it isn't grimdark, it is specifically set up and played out in a fashion that's on the darker more cynical side of things and tends to be Grim.

I didn't say that the movie isn't grimdark and therefore is neither grim nor dark, I said that it isn't grimdark and also isn't really very grim or very dark. It's not even really particularly cynical; the film is entirely in earnest when it has Superman explain the design on his chest is a symbol for hope.

2: We specifically see John Kent signal Clark not to save him at the last moment. That's not "I tried to protect others and it backfired." That's "I'm so hung up on this asinine idea that I'll just let myself die for it, and the movie wil play out in a way that will make doing so have been totally pointless, and thus, I committed suicide for no good reason."

Those are different complaints. A lot of people have been saying it was stupid for him to go after Hank instead of sending Clark in the first place. I'm pointing out that his motivations for doing so are both clearly explained and generally reasonable.

[Jayngfet]

I didn't say that the movie isn't grimdark and therefore is neither grim nor dark, I said that it isn't grimdark and also isn't really very grim or very dark. It's not even really particularly cynical; the film is entirely in earnest when it has Superman explain the design on his chest is a symbol for hope.

Grimdark is relative. It's also a term used to show how stupidly overblown and bleak things can get.

When Clark catches flak for saving a busload of children, it's stupid enough to be grimdark. When he gets told not to stop a waitress from getting harassed, then takes it out by ruining the guys whole livliehood, it's stupid enough to be grimdark. When the situation is so blatantly contrived to kill his father in such a stupid way, that's grimdark. The neck snapping was even more contrived and stupid, so it was grimdark.

The difference between Man of Steel and 40k is that the latter knows what it is and playfully winks at the audience, but the former tries to do the same thing, but the wit falls on it's face.

[Metahuman1]

What? No, it doesn't. At all. It answers a question I didn't ask about whether or not that scene represented the kind of Superman you want to see. I am aware that it did not. I am not arguing that it did. I am arguing that its tone was not "grimdark," or even anything close to grimdark, despite the fact that it is continually lambasted for its grimdarkness. In support of this view, I pointed to the fact that it's ludicrously tenuous to suggest that a lukewarm reaction to a bus full of schoolchildren being saved even approaches grimdark, or grim, or dark.


I'm not even really defending the scene (though I think the overlong Krypton intro was the worst part of the movie) I'm just saying that the chorus of people bemoaning the fact that he goes after the dog instead of sending Clark "for no reason" are either intentionally misreading the scene or outright bad at watching movies. Jonathan goes to get the dog so his literally invulnerable son can protect Martha and that little girl he just handed over to Clark in the event something exactly like what happened were to happen. His motivations are very clear and relatively reasonable.


All the better reason to have Clark over there protecting those poor idiots.
As someone who grew up in tornadoland, though, the fact that everyone went to the overpass was really grating. It's not even that Jonathan Kent is stupid, it's that every single person in the scene ostensibly lives in tornado alley and has no idea what to do during a tornado.

1: Bold for Emphasis. That kind of statement works better when I can't quote you. So yeah, you did say that, and my point that it is incorrect stands. Now, you might have had something if you hadn't thrown that last sentence at it, but you did, so you don't.

2: Here's the thing, the fact that he did that hand signal at the last minute sinks the argument that he was just trying to protect his wife and as many people as possible. He could have survived in that moment, and chose not too. Not for any valid logical reason, but because the plot demanded he have a stupid idea and be willing to cling to it to death for no good reason other then "Plot demands it."

The plot demands it is a forgivable reason for some things. Pa Kents Death was WAY beyond that point. And hell, it's for that same reason that everyone in that scene and a LOT of other scene's in the movie is an idiot. The whole plot only works cause Clrake, cause the plot required it, was too dumb to go see Jore El to begin with and get advice on Zod and what to do with him when he still had time and not a perfect element of surprise but at least some element of it since Zod would not have known the extent of his powers or knowledge about Krypton at that point. Or cause they stupidly took Louis on board the ship with him initially for no good reason. Or Cause Jore El didn't have an alternative plan even though in this version he apparently had a lot of advanced notice. Or that Zod couldn't cope with the idea of over throwing the government long enough to order mass evacuation and then worry about debating a major cultural change with the scientist later. Or cause he couldn't just Terraform Venus or Mars and say "Ok, look, were sorry, but we need this one ship and person that crashed on your planet years ago, if you could just let us get them for a day or two we give you our word you won't hear form us again until your sufficiently space faring yourselves to come to us. Thanks!" the whole movie is a idiot plot were everyone has to hold the idiot ball all the time for it to work.

So no, don't pretend that Pa Kent had a good logical reason to die. He didn't, and his death was stupid and needless the instant you don't make the plot depend on him dying in that fashion.






As for Aquaman: The Casting thing I keep hearing (which might be a rumor.) is to have the guy who played the 2011 Conan, Kal-Drogo on Game of Thrones, and Ronin on Star Gate Atlantis Play Aquaman. I could totally see him rocking a dye job, some colored contacts and the beard with a sword made out of water kicking total ass in the one scene in the movie that everyone likes and wiping the super friends image of aquaman out. I hope that happens, I have nothing else to look forward too for this movie, it would be something at least to make me feel like I didn't just waste the money on the ticket.

[Zrak]

As I have always understood the term and seen it used, "grimdark" refers to how bleak something is; something is "grimdark" if it wallows in unrelenting, hopeless despair. That's not what Man of Steel does. At all. That's just not a credible reading of the movie. It not only isn't bleak to a ridiculous extreme, it's just really not all that bleak. Yes, Jonathan Kent lectures Clark about the risks of using his powers when he rescues a schoolbus full of children; he also rescues a schoolbus full of children. Any way you swing that, it just isn't bleak. Spiderman catches flak for helping people to the point that it's a central aspect of the character, but I haven't really heard anyone call Spiderman grimdark. Jonathan Kent dies in most adaptations of the character; his death being more contrived does not make it more bleak. I don't really see how Superman smashing a guy's truck is bleak or despairing in any stretch of the imagination. Being forced to kill Zod is darker, but as I said earlier, it's pretty ridiculous to assert that the hero killing the villain, on its own, makes a movie particularly dark, let alone dark enough to warrant the epithet in question.

If the use of the term is relative, as you say, the question becomes "relative to what?" Is it ludicrously dark compared to all other Superman media? I think we both know that isn't true. Relative to other Superman movies? Superman Returns begs to differ. It's much darker than Superman media with a considerably lighter tone, but that's a pointless tautology.

1: Bold for Emphasis. That kind of statement works better when I can't quote you. So yeah, you did say that, and my point that it is incorrect stands. Now, you might have had something if you hadn't thrown that last sentence at it, but you did, so you don't.

I said it is not by any of the imagination grimdark or grim or dark, signifying that the three are separate things. That is what "or" means.
Unless you are talking about heraldry. Then "or" means yellow.

2: Here's the thing, the fact that he did that hand signal at the last minute sinks the argument that he was just trying to protect his wife and as many people as possible. He could have survived in that moment, and chose not too.

Which has nothing to do with him going to rescue Hank instead of sending Clark in the first place. As I said, I was responding purely to the recurring complaints that there was no reason for Jonathan to go get Hank out of the truck when he could have sent Clark.

[SiuiS]

If the use of the term is relative, as you say, the question becomes "relative to what?" Is it ludicrously dark compared to all other Superman media? I think we both know that isn't true. Relative to other Superman movies? Superman Returns begs to differ. It's much darker than Superman media with a considerably lighter tone, but that's a pointless tautology.

Thank you! I finally get what tautology is used for as a pejorative. That makes some things easier.

I said it is not by any of the imagination grimdark or grim or dark, signifying that the three are separate things. That is what "or" means.
Unless you are talking about heraldry. Then "or" means yellow.

There is both an inclusive and exclusive "or", actually.