Man of Steel (SPOILERS)

[GasparZizou]

Hey, I have a dog, too, and I love that little dude, but, if he were in the path of a tornado and my son was Superman, I'd either tell my son to go get him or that dog would be toast. No way in hell, though, am I, a 50 year old man, going to jump in between a bunch of cars in the midst of a tornado to save him, though.

who knows man, maybe the adrenaline will kick in.

Whether Kryptonian or just plain mortal, it should've been an inherent part of Superman's character. This is the whole reason for the "stereotypical" small town upbringing. Not having that aspect negates the whole purpose of Smallville other than superficially namedropping as a backhanded slap to the comic geeks.

That's what I'm saying, his nature is intact, therefore I stand by my post.

backhand slap? There are no slaps here, as a fan I don't feel slapped or spanked, I feel great.

Also, wow you guys are insensitive or maybe I love my animals too much

 

[thenammagazine]

That's what I'm saying, his nature is intact, therefore I stand by my post.

We'll agree to disagree then, because that's what most of us are saying. We didn't see the "Smallville" mentality when it came to Superman being the protector.

Also, wow you guys are insensitive or maybe I love my animals too much

While I've no doubt there are many humans I'd let die to save an animal, I certainly wouldn't abandon my family to save one. There's just no feasible scenario where that makes sense. I lumped that with Talia's death as one of the dumbest moments in recent cinema history.

 

[batfan08]

who knows man, maybe the adrenaline will kick in.

You mean like Superman's foot if he were the one who was caught in the car?

 

[GasparZizou]

We'll agree to disagree then, because that's what most of us are saying. We didn't see the "Smallville" mentality when it came to Superman being the protector.



While I've no doubt there are many humans I'd let die to save an animal, I certainly wouldn't abandon my family to save one. There's just no feasible scenario where that makes sense.

Fair enough

I know but I'd still feel like ****

You mean like Superman's foot if he were the one who was caught in the car?

Yeah, or think about Hamm, what would Hamm do? Age is just a number

 

[batfan08]

While I've no doubt there are many humans I'd let die to save an animal, I certainly wouldn't abandon my family to save one. There's just no feasible scenario where that makes sense. I lumped that with Talia's death as one of the dumbest moments in recent cinema history.

"As of 2009, the leading cause of death in males, aged 45-54, was saving family pets from certain death from tornadoes, via the CDC. Wait...hang on, I read that wrong. Yes, no, I'm sorry, I was referring to heart disease, I just had the wrong Superman film on my mind."

 

[batfan08]

Fair enough

I know but I'd still feel like ****



Yeah, or think about Hamm, what would Hamm do? Age is just a number

I don't know what Hamm would do, but I know what Draper would do. Stand under the overpass and smoke a cigarette while he made Betty get the dog.

 

[Niltusk]

I don't know what Hamm would do, but I know what Draper would do. Stand under the overpass and smoke a cigarette while he made Betty get the dog.

 

[GasparZizou]

I don't know what Hamm would do, but I know what Draper would do. Stand under the overpass and smoke a cigarette while he made Betty get the dog.

 

[CelticPredator]

By the way, I'm not 50, I was just making a guesstimate about Costner.

I was going to say.....

 

[thenammagazine]

Who said he had to save everyone? This is that MoS fanboy extremism at work again.

 

[batfan08]

I'd have no problem with him saving people from a crumbling building. I'm just arguing that he may not be able to save people from a crumbling building while in a fist fight with General Zod.

 

[GasparZizou]

just have to say all this arguing about Superman saving "everyone", your all wrong about Superman.

He doesn't save everyone. He saves the people he can around him that he sees. And usually the people he loves come first, like Lois.

The issue has been for a long long time is Metropolis really better with or without him because of all the destruction he causes fighting his enemies.

But go back further to Golden Age, he started off only saving certain people in certain cases, it wasnt EVERYONE. As Clark Kent would investigate stories for the Daily Star (not Planet) and he would use his Superman powers to make wrong things right. He even saved criminals who were getting ripped off by their crime boss at one point. And he would scare the crap out of his enemies. Not just give them over to authorities. He scared them straight!

But this notion that Superman is able to save EVERYONE, is just not true, i think its something casual fans over the years have not realized that he really doesn't save everyone. Maybe its the Reeve's movies that made people think that, idk because he spun time back flying around the earth at supersonic speed, and also JorEl told him not to mess with the time?....

But the point of MoS is their will be consequences, people will die, he physically cant save everyone if he's fightin mass destructive enemies. And the question is the world better with him or without him. Thats even how the new DC52 Superman is being written. People die in the destruction, and who mourns them? How does he feel about it? And is Metropolis better with or without him.

now...here comes the disagreements...im sure...

100% agree

Who said he had to save everyone? This is that MoS fanboy extremism at work again.

It was implied several times c'mon, I don't see any fanboyism in his post, just knowledgeable opinion.

I'd have no problem with him saving people from a crumbling building. I'm just arguing that he may not be able to save people from a crumbling building while in a fist fight with General Zod.

 

[CelticPredator]

Implications shouldn't be in a Superman movie.

 

[batfan08]

Implications shouldn't be in a Superman movie.

I think he was referring to the thread, not the film.

 

[GasparZizou]

Wth are you talking about Celtic?

 

[CelticPredator]

Oh ok.

 

[Ramatuelle]

TLDR: Zomg!!!!! Why does MoS have complicated stuff like Codexes and talk of DNA as if we are all a bunch of genetic researchers?! How can I enjoy a science fiction film WITH ALL THIS TALK OF SCIENCE IN IT!!!?? Stop confusing meeeeeeeeeeee

*sigh* come on people we are all smarter than this right? Right.......?

Ok back to your regularly scheduled Greatest I MEAN HATEST Hits. Cause we dont know much but one thing we do know is Haters Gonna Hate.

 

[batfan08]

Don't do this. We were all getting along just fine and having a nice conversation with opposing viewpoints. No need to stir the pot.

 

[CelticPredator]

It's not that the plot is hard to follow because we're "stupid", its because the plot is stupidly complicated for no ****ing reason other then padding out the running time. The plot is meaningless compared to what the movie was attempting to say.

 

[Ramatuelle]

Don't do this. We were all getting along just fine and having a nice conversation with opposing viewpoints. No need to stir the pot.

Looked a lot like more of the same "You are an idiot if you don't agree with my odd theory/delusional or arbitrary belief" to me. But that's just me.