Again, what possible lesson could that guy learn from this impossible thing that happened to his truck that he in no way has any reason to associate with his actions in the bar?
He figured it out. Be a dick to a guy, guy disappears and your truck is mysteriously and strangely destroyed. It's why he is yet another in a long line of people who've encountered the myterious stranged Lois is tracking down at the start of the film.
What? How do you know he figured it out? We see him go "WTF?" And we don't see him for the rest of the movie. (I don't even think he shows up during Lane's investigation, it was the girl at the bar she talked to) He was an an asshole, probably the same for every other day in his life, and his truck gets totaled in a completely impossible way, without a damn sound.
Right, so the girl at the bar figured it out but the asshole some didn't? Please.
Why do you think the girl "figured it out." It was one freak event. Lois was the one putting the pieces together.
Cause if the girl didn't figure it out, there's nothing for Lois to use to connect Clark to the incident. Because the girl making the connection between the incident and Clark leaving is the only way that connection gets passed on to Lois.
Other than, you know, the giant fucking impossible truck wreckage that there was probably a police report for. Girl at Bar doesn't have any reason to assume it was Clark, because as far as she knows, Clark isn't capable of doing anything like that. Lois knows better, so when she interviews the Girl, she finds out a dude matching laser-beam icedude's description worked at the bar and left on the same day.
Seriously, if a giant wreckage like that showed up in front of your bar, your never going to think "maybe that one guy did it" because that's what a fucking lunatic thinks without knowing better. :
And it was douchebaggy of Superman because it fucks over a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the idiot or his actions in the bar.
How does it do anything of the sort?
Whatever that guy was up to, he now can't do. Insurance covers everything else.
Does insurance cover completely explainable, impossible things? I'm not sure the insurance company would let that on fall under "acts of god."
Why wouldn't they?
Beyond that, this is just silly overthinking of the film. The vagaries of the insurance contracts of a shipping company who have one employee appear for a few minutes in the film don't matter.
A bully gets his comeuppance. It's perfectly in line with the way Superman has behaved in previous movies as someone pointed out above you in the thread.
Because insurances companies don't like to cover stuff if they don't have to, and you kind of need some sort of cause to file a claim. "A dozen 500+ pound logs magically impaled themselves into my truck" I suspect isn't on any given insurance coverage.
And I disagree that this is overthinking the film. Minutia about insurance sure, but completely ignoring collateral damage is 100% an indictment of how this film handles things that look kewl vs putting any thought behind them, IMO.
And I already given my thoughts on the earlier films and how I feel they should be considered in a modern context. Multiple times even! If you'd like to discuss those points, I'd be happy to.
No, you are WAY WAY WAY over-thinking this because you are explicitly making this about the minutia of insurance contracts in fictional universes. Because your complaint, such as it is, only makes a lick of sense in that context. You are the one claiming that it hurts other people which means you are the one basing this claim on some crazy notion you are inventing in your head about how that guy's company's insurance company structures it's coverage.
When you are inventing fictional insurance loopholes between entities that don't even exist on screen to justify your complaint, you are over-reaching like Mr. Fantastic trying to avoid having to get off the couch for a beer run.
I don't get why I'm on the hook for the insurance thing when you're the one who brought it up and when I said it probably wouldn't cover it, YOU asked why not.
Don't ask me a question if you're just going to throw "You're thinking about it too much" in my face about it too.
And have you dealt with US's insurance industry? There ain't nothing fictional about the bullshit they get up to.
It might have been interesting if they had emphasized the idea of Clark having wasted his power/talents, especially when he goes to face the other Kryptonians. Even having spent his entire life with his powers, Clark still kind of sucks at using them. However, the other Kryptonians are able to master their powers easily despite only having a few days of exposure. Faora was zipping around like an acrobat. Zod controlled his senses by blinking his eyes a couple of times and learned to fly as well as Superman in 10 seconds.
It might have been interesting if they had emphasized the idea of Clark having wasted his power/talents, especially when he goes to face the other Kryptonians. Even having spent his entire life with his powers, Clark still kind of sucks at using them. However, the other Kryptonians are able to master their powers easily despite only having a few days of exposure. Faora was zipping around like an acrobat. Zod controlled his senses by blinking his eyes a couple of times and learned to fly as well as Superman in 10 seconds.
Geek logic answer: yes, though they're all soldiers trained in combat, so of course they'd have a better aptitude toward using these powers in combat.
Again, what possible lesson could that guy learn from this impossible thing that happened to his truck that he in no way has any reason to associate with his actions in the bar?
He figured it out. Be a dick to a guy, guy disappears and your truck is mysteriously and strangely destroyed. It's why he is yet another in a long line of people who've encountered the myterious stranged Lois is tracking down at the start of the film.
What? How do you know he figured it out? We see him go "WTF?" And we don't see him for the rest of the movie. (I don't even think he shows up during Lane's investigation, it was the girl at the bar she talked to) He was an an asshole, probably the same for every other day in his life, and his truck gets totaled in a completely impossible way, without a damn sound.
Right, so the girl at the bar figured it out but the asshole some didn't? Please.
Why do you think the girl "figured it out." It was one freak event. Lois was the one putting the pieces together.
Cause if the girl didn't figure it out, there's nothing for Lois to use to connect Clark to the incident. Because the girl making the connection between the incident and Clark leaving is the only way that connection gets passed on to Lois.
Other than, you know, the giant fucking impossible truck wreckage that there was probably a police report for. Girl at Bar doesn't have any reason to assume it was Clark, because as far as she knows, Clark isn't capable of doing anything like that. Lois knows better, so when she interviews the Girl, she finds out a dude matching laser-beam icedude's description worked at the bar and left on the same day.
Seriously, if a giant wreckage like that showed up in front of your bar, your never going to think "maybe that one guy did it" because that's what a fucking lunatic thinks without knowing better.
It's not just "that one guy". It's "that one guy who had just been insulted by the truck's owner who then disappeared right afterwords".
And it was douchebaggy of Superman because it fucks over a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the idiot or his actions in the bar.
How does it do anything of the sort?
Whatever that guy was up to, he now can't do. Insurance covers everything else.
Does insurance cover completely explainable, impossible things? I'm not sure the insurance company would let that on fall under "acts of god."
Why wouldn't they?
Beyond that, this is just silly overthinking of the film. The vagaries of the insurance contracts of a shipping company who have one employee appear for a few minutes in the film don't matter.
A bully gets his comeuppance. It's perfectly in line with the way Superman has behaved in previous movies as someone pointed out above you in the thread.
Because insurances companies don't like to cover stuff if they don't have to, and you kind of need some sort of cause to file a claim. "A dozen 500+ pound logs magically impaled themselves into my truck" I suspect isn't on any given insurance coverage.
And I disagree that this is overthinking the film. Minutia about insurance sure, but completely ignoring collateral damage is 100% an indictment of how this film handles things that look kewl vs putting any thought behind them, IMO.
And I already given my thoughts on the earlier films and how I feel they should be considered in a modern context. Multiple times even! If you'd like to discuss those points, I'd be happy to.
No, you are WAY WAY WAY over-thinking this because you are explicitly making this about the minutia of insurance contracts in fictional universes. Because your complaint, such as it is, only makes a lick of sense in that context. You are the one claiming that it hurts other people which means you are the one basing this claim on some crazy notion you are inventing in your head about how that guy's company's insurance company structures it's coverage.
When you are inventing fictional insurance loopholes between entities that don't even exist on screen to justify your complaint, you are over-reaching like Mr. Fantastic trying to avoid having to get off the couch for a beer run.
I don't get why I'm on the hook for the insurance thing when you're the one who brought it up and when I said it probably wouldn't cover it, YOU asked why not.
Don't ask me a question if you're just going to throw "You're thinking about it too much" in my face about it too.
And have you dealt with US's insurance industry? There ain't nothing fictional about the bullshit they get up to.
No, you are the one that brought it up. You are the one complaining about the issue. So yeah, it's on you.
If you want to claim that it hurts someone other then the driver, you are assuming someone else must pay for it. In which case the obvious answer is "the insurance/company will pay for it". And so, no big deal.
The only way your complaint that it hurts people other then the driver works is if you make alot of assumptions about the insurance policies of his unmentioned fictional company. Your entire "point" relies on a bunch of assumptions about things that don't matter at all to the movie. It's just silly and it's reaching for no reason other then pedantic silliness.
I mean, maybe one of those oil-rig workers he saves is a serial killer. Clark just caused the deaths of another half-dozen women in their 20s the fucking monster!
Or we could not try to read a bunch of shit into the film that's not there.
It might have been interesting if they had emphasized the idea of Clark having wasted his power/talents, especially when he goes to face the other Kryptonians. Even having spent his entire life with his powers, Clark still kind of sucks at using them. However, the other Kryptonians are able to master their powers easily despite only having a few days of exposure. Faora was zipping around like an acrobat. Zod controlled his senses by blinking his eyes a couple of times and learned to fly as well as Superman in 10 seconds.
Geek logic answer: yes, though they're all soldiers trained in combat, so of course they'd have a better aptitude toward using these powers in combat.
More likely answer: Snyder is a shitty director.
Zod explicitly says the first one in one of the better lines of the film.
If you want to claim that it hurts someone other then the driver, you are assuming someone else must pay for it. In which case the obvious answer is "the insurance/company will pay for it". And so, no big deal.
"I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"
"No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”
"The insurance company will pay for it" doesn't mean the money comes from nowhere and magically makes a problem go away. That money comes from somewhere and usually at the cost of people who can't afford it.
And regardless it's still a dumb scene because there's no way that should have happened with no one ever noticing while it was going on.
It might have been interesting if they had emphasized the idea of Clark having wasted his power/talents, especially when he goes to face the other Kryptonians. Even having spent his entire life with his powers, Clark still kind of sucks at using them. However, the other Kryptonians are able to master their powers easily despite only having a few days of exposure. Faora was zipping around like an acrobat. Zod controlled his senses by blinking his eyes a couple of times and learned to fly as well as Superman in 10 seconds.
Geek logic answer: yes, though they're all soldiers trained in combat, so of course they'd have a better aptitude toward using these powers in combat.
More likely answer: Snyder is a shitty director.
Zod explicitly says the first one in one of the better lines of the film.
Zod actually contradicted himself. The reason he gave for wanting to terraform earth was that he didn't want future Kryptonians to spend years to adapt to earth's atmosphere. So if Zod can adapt so easily, all they have to do is give future Kryptonians the proper training and they wouldn't have to suffer like young Clark.
Also, Clark has been using his powers too. There was that oil rig rescue in the beginning of the film and Lois tracked him by researching various unexplained incidents that involved super powers.
If you want to claim that it hurts someone other then the driver, you are assuming someone else must pay for it. In which case the obvious answer is "the insurance/company will pay for it". And so, no big deal.
"I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"
"No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”
"The insurance company will pay for it" doesn't mean the money comes from nowhere and magically makes a problem go away. That money comes from somewhere and usually at the cost of people who can't afford it.
And regardless it's still a dumb scene because there's no way that should have happened with no one ever noticing while it was going on.
Exactly. The bar patrons and staff are going to notice it and talk to their friends and douchebag is going to talk to his friends. It'd be on the internet in five minutes. If it's a slow new day it might show up on the local news.
If you want to claim that it hurts someone other then the driver, you are assuming someone else must pay for it. In which case the obvious answer is "the insurance/company will pay for it". And so, no big deal.
"I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"
"No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”
"The insurance company will pay for it" doesn't mean the money comes from nowhere and magically makes a problem go away. That money comes from somewhere and usually at the cost of people who can't afford it.
And regardless it's still a dumb scene because there's no way that should have happened with no one ever noticing while it was going on.
Exactly. The bar patrons and staff are going to notice it and talk to their friends and douchebag is going to talk to his friends. It'd be on the internet in five minutes. If it's a slow new day it might show up on the local news.
I'm not even talking about that.
Bro impaled a semi right outside with electrical posts ripped from the ground.
That is not a stealth move. Someone should have heard that.
It might have been interesting if they had emphasized the idea of Clark having wasted his power/talents, especially when he goes to face the other Kryptonians. Even having spent his entire life with his powers, Clark still kind of sucks at using them. However, the other Kryptonians are able to master their powers easily despite only having a few days of exposure. Faora was zipping around like an acrobat. Zod controlled his senses by blinking his eyes a couple of times and learned to fly as well as Superman in 10 seconds.
Geek logic answer: yes, though they're all soldiers trained in combat, so of course they'd have a better aptitude toward using these powers in combat.
More likely answer: Snyder is a shitty director.
Zod explicitly says the first one in one of the better lines of the film.
Zod actually contradicted himself. The reason he gave for wanting to terraform earth was that he didn't want future Kryptonians to spend years to adapt to earth's atmosphere. So if Zod can adapt so easily, all they have to do is give future Kryptonians the proper training and they wouldn't have to suffer like young Clark.
Also, Clark has been using his powers too. There was that oil rig rescue in the beginning of the film and Lois tracked him by researching various unexplained incidents that involved super powers.
Proper Kryptonians, by Zod's thinking, will not all be soldiers like him.
Regardless, other Kryptonians apparently start with superpowers anyway according to the movie, so whatever.
It's not just "that one guy". It's "that one guy who had just been insulted by the truck's owner who then disappeared right afterwords".
But she has no reason to associate that argument with what happened, because no sane person would, which is my point.
And it was douchebaggy of Superman because it fucks over a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the idiot or his actions in the bar.
How does it do anything of the sort?
Whatever that guy was up to, he now can't do. Insurance covers everything else.
Does insurance cover completely explainable, impossible things? I'm not sure the insurance company would let that on fall under "acts of god."
Why wouldn't they?
Beyond that, this is just silly overthinking of the film. The vagaries of the insurance contracts of a shipping company who have one employee appear for a few minutes in the film don't matter.
A bully gets his comeuppance. It's perfectly in line with the way Superman has behaved in previous movies as someone pointed out above you in the thread.
Because insurances companies don't like to cover stuff if they don't have to, and you kind of need some sort of cause to file a claim. "A dozen 500+ pound logs magically impaled themselves into my truck" I suspect isn't on any given insurance coverage.
And I disagree that this is overthinking the film. Minutia about insurance sure, but completely ignoring collateral damage is 100% an indictment of how this film handles things that look kewl vs putting any thought behind them, IMO.
And I already given my thoughts on the earlier films and how I feel they should be considered in a modern context. Multiple times even! If you'd like to discuss those points, I'd be happy to.
No, you are WAY WAY WAY over-thinking this because you are explicitly making this about the minutia of insurance contracts in fictional universes. Because your complaint, such as it is, only makes a lick of sense in that context. You are the one claiming that it hurts other people which means you are the one basing this claim on some crazy notion you are inventing in your head about how that guy's company's insurance company structures it's coverage.
When you are inventing fictional insurance loopholes between entities that don't even exist on screen to justify your complaint, you are over-reaching like Mr. Fantastic trying to avoid having to get off the couch for a beer run.
I don't get why I'm on the hook for the insurance thing when you're the one who brought it up and when I said it probably wouldn't cover it, YOU asked why not.
Don't ask me a question if you're just going to throw "You're thinking about it too much" in my face about it too.
And have you dealt with US's insurance industry? There ain't nothing fictional about the bullshit they get up to.
No, you are the one that brought it up. You are the one complaining about the issue. So yeah, it's on you.
If you want to claim that it hurts someone other then the driver, you are assuming someone else must pay for it. In which case the obvious answer is "the insurance/company will pay for it". And so, no big deal.
The only way your complaint that it hurts people other then the driver works is if you make alot of assumptions about the insurance policies of his unmentioned fictional company. Your entire "point" relies on a bunch of assumptions about things that don't matter at all to the movie. It's just silly and it's reaching for no reason other then pedantic silliness.
I mean, maybe one of those oil-rig workers he saves is a serial killer. Clark just caused the deaths of another half-dozen women in their 20s the fucking monster!
Or we could not try to read a bunch of shit into the film that's not there.
You asked me a question and when I answered you called me out for overthinking it.
If you don't want me to explain something, please don't ask me about it. And please don't call me being pedantic for doing something YOU ASKED ME TO DO.
You don't need to make up a bunch of fictional insurance policies to know that a huge wrecked delivery truck in a parking lot would cause a lot of problems for multiple people. No one's over-thinking anything, it's the movie under-thinking the consequences of Clark's actions, something that happens repeatedly throughout the movie.
[edit] And it is the movie disregarding consequences, not Clark. If it was trying to make a point of Clark being irresponsible and wrong, it never made that point apparent.
It's not just "that one guy". It's "that one guy who had just been insulted by the truck's owner who then disappeared right afterwords".
But she has no reason to associate that argument with what happened, because no sane person would, which is my point.
And it was douchebaggy of Superman because it fucks over a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the idiot or his actions in the bar.
How does it do anything of the sort?
Whatever that guy was up to, he now can't do. Insurance covers everything else.
Does insurance cover completely explainable, impossible things? I'm not sure the insurance company would let that on fall under "acts of god."
Why wouldn't they?
Beyond that, this is just silly overthinking of the film. The vagaries of the insurance contracts of a shipping company who have one employee appear for a few minutes in the film don't matter.
A bully gets his comeuppance. It's perfectly in line with the way Superman has behaved in previous movies as someone pointed out above you in the thread.
Because insurances companies don't like to cover stuff if they don't have to, and you kind of need some sort of cause to file a claim. "A dozen 500+ pound logs magically impaled themselves into my truck" I suspect isn't on any given insurance coverage.
And I disagree that this is overthinking the film. Minutia about insurance sure, but completely ignoring collateral damage is 100% an indictment of how this film handles things that look kewl vs putting any thought behind them, IMO.
And I already given my thoughts on the earlier films and how I feel they should be considered in a modern context. Multiple times even! If you'd like to discuss those points, I'd be happy to.
No, you are WAY WAY WAY over-thinking this because you are explicitly making this about the minutia of insurance contracts in fictional universes. Because your complaint, such as it is, only makes a lick of sense in that context. You are the one claiming that it hurts other people which means you are the one basing this claim on some crazy notion you are inventing in your head about how that guy's company's insurance company structures it's coverage.
When you are inventing fictional insurance loopholes between entities that don't even exist on screen to justify your complaint, you are over-reaching like Mr. Fantastic trying to avoid having to get off the couch for a beer run.
I don't get why I'm on the hook for the insurance thing when you're the one who brought it up and when I said it probably wouldn't cover it, YOU asked why not.
Don't ask me a question if you're just going to throw "You're thinking about it too much" in my face about it too.
And have you dealt with US's insurance industry? There ain't nothing fictional about the bullshit they get up to.
No, you are the one that brought it up. You are the one complaining about the issue. So yeah, it's on you.
If you want to claim that it hurts someone other then the driver, you are assuming someone else must pay for it. In which case the obvious answer is "the insurance/company will pay for it". And so, no big deal.
The only way your complaint that it hurts people other then the driver works is if you make alot of assumptions about the insurance policies of his unmentioned fictional company. Your entire "point" relies on a bunch of assumptions about things that don't matter at all to the movie. It's just silly and it's reaching for no reason other then pedantic silliness.
I mean, maybe one of those oil-rig workers he saves is a serial killer. Clark just caused the deaths of another half-dozen women in their 20s the fucking monster!
Or we could not try to read a bunch of shit into the film that's not there.
You asked me a question and when I answered you called me out for overthinking it.
If you don't want me to explain something, please don't ask me about it. And please don't call me being pedantic for doing something YOU ASKED ME TO DO.
No, you made a complaint about a part of the movie. That complaint relies on a bunch of ridiculous assumptions about the loopholes in fictional insurance contracts between fictional companies and, according to Quid, also the makeup of fictional risk-sharing pools. I'm not the one asserting the structure or existence of any of these things. We are well off in ridiculous land to make this work.
If you want to claim that it hurts someone other then the driver, you are assuming someone else must pay for it. In which case the obvious answer is "the insurance/company will pay for it". And so, no big deal.
"I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"
"No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”
"The insurance company will pay for it" doesn't mean the money comes from nowhere and magically makes a problem go away. That money comes from somewhere and usually at the cost of people who can't afford it.
And regardless it's still a dumb scene because there's no way that should have happened with no one ever noticing while it was going on.
Exactly. The bar patrons and staff are going to notice it and talk to their friends and douchebag is going to talk to his friends. It'd be on the internet in five minutes. If it's a slow new day it might show up on the local news.
I'm not even talking about that.
Bro impaled a semi right outside with electrical posts ripped from the ground.
That is not a stealth move. Someone should have heard that.
Anyone who thinks the movie is presenting Clark as inexperienced and growing to be a better superhero is the one over-thinking things, the movie never presents any of his actions as anything other than the right thing to do. Snyder thinks he's already space-jesus, and that's the problem.
It's not just "that one guy". It's "that one guy who had just been insulted by the truck's owner who then disappeared right afterwords".
But she has no reason to associate that argument with what happened, because no sane person would, which is my point.
And it was douchebaggy of Superman because it fucks over a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the idiot or his actions in the bar.
How does it do anything of the sort?
Whatever that guy was up to, he now can't do. Insurance covers everything else.
Does insurance cover completely explainable, impossible things? I'm not sure the insurance company would let that on fall under "acts of god."
Why wouldn't they?
Beyond that, this is just silly overthinking of the film. The vagaries of the insurance contracts of a shipping company who have one employee appear for a few minutes in the film don't matter.
A bully gets his comeuppance. It's perfectly in line with the way Superman has behaved in previous movies as someone pointed out above you in the thread.
Because insurances companies don't like to cover stuff if they don't have to, and you kind of need some sort of cause to file a claim. "A dozen 500+ pound logs magically impaled themselves into my truck" I suspect isn't on any given insurance coverage.
And I disagree that this is overthinking the film. Minutia about insurance sure, but completely ignoring collateral damage is 100% an indictment of how this film handles things that look kewl vs putting any thought behind them, IMO.
And I already given my thoughts on the earlier films and how I feel they should be considered in a modern context. Multiple times even! If you'd like to discuss those points, I'd be happy to.
No, you are WAY WAY WAY over-thinking this because you are explicitly making this about the minutia of insurance contracts in fictional universes. Because your complaint, such as it is, only makes a lick of sense in that context. You are the one claiming that it hurts other people which means you are the one basing this claim on some crazy notion you are inventing in your head about how that guy's company's insurance company structures it's coverage.
When you are inventing fictional insurance loopholes between entities that don't even exist on screen to justify your complaint, you are over-reaching like Mr. Fantastic trying to avoid having to get off the couch for a beer run.
I don't get why I'm on the hook for the insurance thing when you're the one who brought it up and when I said it probably wouldn't cover it, YOU asked why not.
Don't ask me a question if you're just going to throw "You're thinking about it too much" in my face about it too.
And have you dealt with US's insurance industry? There ain't nothing fictional about the bullshit they get up to.
No, you are the one that brought it up. You are the one complaining about the issue. So yeah, it's on you.
If you want to claim that it hurts someone other then the driver, you are assuming someone else must pay for it. In which case the obvious answer is "the insurance/company will pay for it". And so, no big deal.
The only way your complaint that it hurts people other then the driver works is if you make alot of assumptions about the insurance policies of his unmentioned fictional company. Your entire "point" relies on a bunch of assumptions about things that don't matter at all to the movie. It's just silly and it's reaching for no reason other then pedantic silliness.
I mean, maybe one of those oil-rig workers he saves is a serial killer. Clark just caused the deaths of another half-dozen women in their 20s the fucking monster!
Or we could not try to read a bunch of shit into the film that's not there.
You asked me a question and when I answered you called me out for overthinking it.
If you don't want me to explain something, please don't ask me about it. And please don't call me being pedantic for doing something YOU ASKED ME TO DO.
No, you made a complaint about a part of the movie. That complaint relies on a bunch of ridiculous assumptions about the loopholes in fictional insurance contracts between fictional companies and, according to Quid, also the makeup of fictional risk-sharing pools. I'm not the one asserting the structure or existence of any of these things. We are well off in ridiculous land to make this work.
None of that changes the fact you still asked what you asked and then did what you did. If you're not interested in my points, you don't need to respond to them, but belittling them and myself isn't terribly productive, especially given I'm not the only one who shares these thoughts it appears.
I feel one of the best examples of the fundamental problems with the movie is the scene where Zod kicks a tanker truck at Superman and Superman just casually floats over it, letting it blow up the building behind him. In this movie looking cool and badass is more important than putting in minimal effort to prevent collateral damage.
It's not just "that one guy". It's "that one guy who had just been insulted by the truck's owner who then disappeared right afterwords".
But she has no reason to associate that argument with what happened, because no sane person would, which is my point.
And it was douchebaggy of Superman because it fucks over a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the idiot or his actions in the bar.
How does it do anything of the sort?
Whatever that guy was up to, he now can't do. Insurance covers everything else.
Does insurance cover completely explainable, impossible things? I'm not sure the insurance company would let that on fall under "acts of god."
Why wouldn't they?
Beyond that, this is just silly overthinking of the film. The vagaries of the insurance contracts of a shipping company who have one employee appear for a few minutes in the film don't matter.
A bully gets his comeuppance. It's perfectly in line with the way Superman has behaved in previous movies as someone pointed out above you in the thread.
Because insurances companies don't like to cover stuff if they don't have to, and you kind of need some sort of cause to file a claim. "A dozen 500+ pound logs magically impaled themselves into my truck" I suspect isn't on any given insurance coverage.
And I disagree that this is overthinking the film. Minutia about insurance sure, but completely ignoring collateral damage is 100% an indictment of how this film handles things that look kewl vs putting any thought behind them, IMO.
And I already given my thoughts on the earlier films and how I feel they should be considered in a modern context. Multiple times even! If you'd like to discuss those points, I'd be happy to.
No, you are WAY WAY WAY over-thinking this because you are explicitly making this about the minutia of insurance contracts in fictional universes. Because your complaint, such as it is, only makes a lick of sense in that context. You are the one claiming that it hurts other people which means you are the one basing this claim on some crazy notion you are inventing in your head about how that guy's company's insurance company structures it's coverage.
When you are inventing fictional insurance loopholes between entities that don't even exist on screen to justify your complaint, you are over-reaching like Mr. Fantastic trying to avoid having to get off the couch for a beer run.
I don't get why I'm on the hook for the insurance thing when you're the one who brought it up and when I said it probably wouldn't cover it, YOU asked why not.
Don't ask me a question if you're just going to throw "You're thinking about it too much" in my face about it too.
And have you dealt with US's insurance industry? There ain't nothing fictional about the bullshit they get up to.
No, you are the one that brought it up. You are the one complaining about the issue. So yeah, it's on you.
If you want to claim that it hurts someone other then the driver, you are assuming someone else must pay for it. In which case the obvious answer is "the insurance/company will pay for it". And so, no big deal.
The only way your complaint that it hurts people other then the driver works is if you make alot of assumptions about the insurance policies of his unmentioned fictional company. Your entire "point" relies on a bunch of assumptions about things that don't matter at all to the movie. It's just silly and it's reaching for no reason other then pedantic silliness.
I mean, maybe one of those oil-rig workers he saves is a serial killer. Clark just caused the deaths of another half-dozen women in their 20s the fucking monster!
Or we could not try to read a bunch of shit into the film that's not there.
You asked me a question and when I answered you called me out for overthinking it.
If you don't want me to explain something, please don't ask me about it. And please don't call me being pedantic for doing something YOU ASKED ME TO DO.
No, you made a complaint about a part of the movie. That complaint relies on a bunch of ridiculous assumptions about the loopholes in fictional insurance contracts between fictional companies and, according to Quid, also the makeup of fictional risk-sharing pools. I'm not the one asserting the structure or existence of any of these things. We are well off in ridiculous land to make this work.
None of that changes the fact you still asked what you asked and then did what you did. If you're not interested in my points, you don't need to respond to them, but belittling them and myself isn't terribly productive, especially given I'm not the only one who shares these thoughts it appears.
I was hoping you had an actual reason that didn't rely on fictional insurance contracts. When you didn't, I pointed out that you were hugely overthinking the entire issue.
I feel one of the best examples of the fundamental problems with the movie is the scene where Zod kicks a tanker truck at Superman and Superman just casually floats over it, letting it blow up the building behind him. In this movie looking cool and badass is more important than putting in minimal effort to prevent collateral damage.
I feel one of the best examples of the fundamental problems with the movie is the scene where Zod kicks a tanker truck at Superman and Superman just casually floats over it, letting it blow up the building behind him. In this movie looking cool and badass is more important than putting in minimal effort to prevent collateral damage.
It might have been interesting if they had emphasized the idea of Clark having wasted his power/talents, especially when he goes to face the other Kryptonians. Even having spent his entire life with his powers, Clark still kind of sucks at using them. However, the other Kryptonians are able to master their powers easily despite only having a few days of exposure. Faora was zipping around like an acrobat. Zod controlled his senses by blinking his eyes a couple of times and learned to fly as well as Superman in 10 seconds.
Geek logic answer: yes, though they're all soldiers trained in combat, so of course they'd have a better aptitude toward using these powers in combat.
More likely answer: Snyder is a shitty director.
Zod explicitly says the first one in one of the better lines of the film.
Zod actually contradicted himself. The reason he gave for wanting to terraform earth was that he didn't want future Kryptonians to spend years to adapt to earth's atmosphere. So if Zod can adapt so easily, all they have to do is give future Kryptonians the proper training and they wouldn't have to suffer like young Clark.
Also, Clark has been using his powers too. There was that oil rig rescue in the beginning of the film and Lois tracked him by researching various unexplained incidents that involved super powers.
Proper Kryptonians, by Zod's thinking, will not all be soldiers like him.
Regardless, other Kryptonians apparently start with superpowers anyway according to the movie, so whatever.
Zod is already has enough mental flexibility to try to overthrow their entire government and install himself as leader. He doesn't need all future Kryptonians to be soldiers, he only needs to teach them to adapt to earth's atmosphere so they could gain super powers.
No one on Krypton seemed to have super powers. They only demonstrated powers after getting to earth.
The movie makes a comment that young kryptonians struggle with Earth's thick atmosphere. Young Kal might have very well died and just got lucky.
If Kal could have died then why did Jor-El even send him to earth?
Also, Zod has a giant ship capable of generating Kryptonian atmosphere. So they can just build up their children's resistance to earth's atmosphere by slowly exposing them to earth instead of all at once. It's a small price to pay for super powers.
It might have been interesting if they had emphasized the idea of Clark having wasted his power/talents, especially when he goes to face the other Kryptonians. Even having spent his entire life with his powers, Clark still kind of sucks at using them. However, the other Kryptonians are able to master their powers easily despite only having a few days of exposure. Faora was zipping around like an acrobat. Zod controlled his senses by blinking his eyes a couple of times and learned to fly as well as Superman in 10 seconds.
Geek logic answer: yes, though they're all soldiers trained in combat, so of course they'd have a better aptitude toward using these powers in combat.
More likely answer: Snyder is a shitty director.
Zod explicitly says the first one in one of the better lines of the film.
Zod actually contradicted himself. The reason he gave for wanting to terraform earth was that he didn't want future Kryptonians to spend years to adapt to earth's atmosphere. So if Zod can adapt so easily, all they have to do is give future Kryptonians the proper training and they wouldn't have to suffer like young Clark.
Also, Clark has been using his powers too. There was that oil rig rescue in the beginning of the film and Lois tracked him by researching various unexplained incidents that involved super powers.
Proper Kryptonians, by Zod's thinking, will not all be soldiers like him.
Regardless, other Kryptonians apparently start with superpowers anyway according to the movie, so whatever.
Zod is already has enough mental flexibility to try to overthrow their entire government and install himself as leader. He doesn't need all future Kryptonians to be soldiers, he only needs to teach them to adapt to earth's atmosphere so they could gain super powers.
No one on Krypton seemed to have super powers. They only demonstrated powers after getting to earth.
They demonstrate them right off the bat, with none of the acclimation issues. Until Zod anyway.
It's not just "that one guy". It's "that one guy who had just been insulted by the truck's owner who then disappeared right afterwords".
But she has no reason to associate that argument with what happened, because no sane person would, which is my point.
And it was douchebaggy of Superman because it fucks over a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the idiot or his actions in the bar.
How does it do anything of the sort?
Whatever that guy was up to, he now can't do. Insurance covers everything else.
Does insurance cover completely explainable, impossible things? I'm not sure the insurance company would let that on fall under "acts of god."
Why wouldn't they?
Beyond that, this is just silly overthinking of the film. The vagaries of the insurance contracts of a shipping company who have one employee appear for a few minutes in the film don't matter.
A bully gets his comeuppance. It's perfectly in line with the way Superman has behaved in previous movies as someone pointed out above you in the thread.
Because insurances companies don't like to cover stuff if they don't have to, and you kind of need some sort of cause to file a claim. "A dozen 500+ pound logs magically impaled themselves into my truck" I suspect isn't on any given insurance coverage.
And I disagree that this is overthinking the film. Minutia about insurance sure, but completely ignoring collateral damage is 100% an indictment of how this film handles things that look kewl vs putting any thought behind them, IMO.
And I already given my thoughts on the earlier films and how I feel they should be considered in a modern context. Multiple times even! If you'd like to discuss those points, I'd be happy to.
No, you are WAY WAY WAY over-thinking this because you are explicitly making this about the minutia of insurance contracts in fictional universes. Because your complaint, such as it is, only makes a lick of sense in that context. You are the one claiming that it hurts other people which means you are the one basing this claim on some crazy notion you are inventing in your head about how that guy's company's insurance company structures it's coverage.
When you are inventing fictional insurance loopholes between entities that don't even exist on screen to justify your complaint, you are over-reaching like Mr. Fantastic trying to avoid having to get off the couch for a beer run.
I don't get why I'm on the hook for the insurance thing when you're the one who brought it up and when I said it probably wouldn't cover it, YOU asked why not.
Don't ask me a question if you're just going to throw "You're thinking about it too much" in my face about it too.
And have you dealt with US's insurance industry? There ain't nothing fictional about the bullshit they get up to.
No, you are the one that brought it up. You are the one complaining about the issue. So yeah, it's on you.
If you want to claim that it hurts someone other then the driver, you are assuming someone else must pay for it. In which case the obvious answer is "the insurance/company will pay for it". And so, no big deal.
The only way your complaint that it hurts people other then the driver works is if you make alot of assumptions about the insurance policies of his unmentioned fictional company. Your entire "point" relies on a bunch of assumptions about things that don't matter at all to the movie. It's just silly and it's reaching for no reason other then pedantic silliness.
I mean, maybe one of those oil-rig workers he saves is a serial killer. Clark just caused the deaths of another half-dozen women in their 20s the fucking monster!
Or we could not try to read a bunch of shit into the film that's not there.
You asked me a question and when I answered you called me out for overthinking it.
If you don't want me to explain something, please don't ask me about it. And please don't call me being pedantic for doing something YOU ASKED ME TO DO.
No, you made a complaint about a part of the movie. That complaint relies on a bunch of ridiculous assumptions about the loopholes in fictional insurance contracts between fictional companies and, according to Quid, also the makeup of fictional risk-sharing pools. I'm not the one asserting the structure or existence of any of these things. We are well off in ridiculous land to make this work.
None of that changes the fact you still asked what you asked and then did what you did. If you're not interested in my points, you don't need to respond to them, but belittling them and myself isn't terribly productive, especially given I'm not the only one who shares these thoughts it appears.
I was hoping you had an actual reason that didn't rely on fictional insurance contracts. When you didn't, I pointed out that you were hugely overthinking the entire issue.
Then why did you ask about the fictional contract if you were just going to be dismissive of it? Seriously, your question was in response to me talking about coverage; what else would I have been talking about, tv reception?
Also, your use of "fictional" as a pejorative is kind of odd give it was about a fictional truck that got wrecked by fictional alien with superstrength.
It might have been interesting if they had emphasized the idea of Clark having wasted his power/talents, especially when he goes to face the other Kryptonians. Even having spent his entire life with his powers, Clark still kind of sucks at using them. However, the other Kryptonians are able to master their powers easily despite only having a few days of exposure. Faora was zipping around like an acrobat. Zod controlled his senses by blinking his eyes a couple of times and learned to fly as well as Superman in 10 seconds.
Geek logic answer: yes, though they're all soldiers trained in combat, so of course they'd have a better aptitude toward using these powers in combat.
More likely answer: Snyder is a shitty director.
Zod explicitly says the first one in one of the better lines of the film.
Zod actually contradicted himself. The reason he gave for wanting to terraform earth was that he didn't want future Kryptonians to spend years to adapt to earth's atmosphere. So if Zod can adapt so easily, all they have to do is give future Kryptonians the proper training and they wouldn't have to suffer like young Clark.
Also, Clark has been using his powers too. There was that oil rig rescue in the beginning of the film and Lois tracked him by researching various unexplained incidents that involved super powers.
Proper Kryptonians, by Zod's thinking, will not all be soldiers like him.
Regardless, other Kryptonians apparently start with superpowers anyway according to the movie, so whatever.
Zod is already has enough mental flexibility to try to overthrow their entire government and install himself as leader. He doesn't need all future Kryptonians to be soldiers, he only needs to teach them to adapt to earth's atmosphere so they could gain super powers.
No one on Krypton seemed to have super powers. They only demonstrated powers after getting to earth.
They demonstrate them right off the bat, with none of the acclimation issues. Until Zod anyway.
Only after they arrived on earth. Neither Zod nor Jor-El demonstrated any super powers when they fought. That means either they have powers on earth due to its lower gravity or they gained power through exposure to yellow sunlight. However, since the terraformers were going to increase earth's mass and thicken its atmosphere to turn it into Krypton, whatever powers they've gained would be gone.
It might have been interesting if they had emphasized the idea of Clark having wasted his power/talents, especially when he goes to face the other Kryptonians. Even having spent his entire life with his powers, Clark still kind of sucks at using them. However, the other Kryptonians are able to master their powers easily despite only having a few days of exposure. Faora was zipping around like an acrobat. Zod controlled his senses by blinking his eyes a couple of times and learned to fly as well as Superman in 10 seconds.
Geek logic answer: yes, though they're all soldiers trained in combat, so of course they'd have a better aptitude toward using these powers in combat.
More likely answer: Snyder is a shitty director.
Zod explicitly says the first one in one of the better lines of the film.
Zod actually contradicted himself. The reason he gave for wanting to terraform earth was that he didn't want future Kryptonians to spend years to adapt to earth's atmosphere. So if Zod can adapt so easily, all they have to do is give future Kryptonians the proper training and they wouldn't have to suffer like young Clark.
Also, Clark has been using his powers too. There was that oil rig rescue in the beginning of the film and Lois tracked him by researching various unexplained incidents that involved super powers.
Proper Kryptonians, by Zod's thinking, will not all be soldiers like him.
Regardless, other Kryptonians apparently start with superpowers anyway according to the movie, so whatever.
Zod is already has enough mental flexibility to try to overthrow their entire government and install himself as leader. He doesn't need all future Kryptonians to be soldiers, he only needs to teach them to adapt to earth's atmosphere so they could gain super powers.
No one on Krypton seemed to have super powers. They only demonstrated powers after getting to earth.
They demonstrate them right off the bat, with none of the acclimation issues. Until Zod anyway.
Only after they arrived on earth. Neither Zod nor Jor-El demonstrated any super powers when they fought. That means either they have powers on earth due to its lower gravity or they gained power through exposure to yellow sunlight. However, since the terraformers were going to increase earth's mass and thicken its atmosphere to turn it into Krypton, whatever powers they've gained would be gone.
Kryptonian superpowers has always been due to yellow sunlight. On the flip side, it's also been shown that one of the ways to turn Superman into a normal person with no powers is to stick him in an environment with red sunlight, similar to Krypton.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
You don't need to make up a bunch of fictional insurance policies to know that a huge wrecked delivery truck in a parking lot would cause a lot of problems for multiple people. No one's over-thinking anything, it's the movie under-thinking the consequences of Clark's actions, something that happens repeatedly throughout the movie.
[edit] And it is the movie disregarding consequences, not Clark. If it was trying to make a point of Clark being irresponsible and wrong, it never made that point apparent.
Calling it now: In BvS, Superman will punch a bad guy and then be all "GIVE ME YOUR FAAAACE." We will be expected to cheer.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It might have been interesting if they had emphasized the idea of Clark having wasted his power/talents, especially when he goes to face the other Kryptonians. Even having spent his entire life with his powers, Clark still kind of sucks at using them. However, the other Kryptonians are able to master their powers easily despite only having a few days of exposure. Faora was zipping around like an acrobat. Zod controlled his senses by blinking his eyes a couple of times and learned to fly as well as Superman in 10 seconds.
Geek logic answer: yes, though they're all soldiers trained in combat, so of course they'd have a better aptitude toward using these powers in combat.
More likely answer: Snyder is a shitty director.
Zod explicitly says the first one in one of the better lines of the film.
Zod actually contradicted himself. The reason he gave for wanting to terraform earth was that he didn't want future Kryptonians to spend years to adapt to earth's atmosphere. So if Zod can adapt so easily, all they have to do is give future Kryptonians the proper training and they wouldn't have to suffer like young Clark.
Also, Clark has been using his powers too. There was that oil rig rescue in the beginning of the film and Lois tracked him by researching various unexplained incidents that involved super powers.
Proper Kryptonians, by Zod's thinking, will not all be soldiers like him.
Regardless, other Kryptonians apparently start with superpowers anyway according to the movie, so whatever.
Zod is already has enough mental flexibility to try to overthrow their entire government and install himself as leader. He doesn't need all future Kryptonians to be soldiers, he only needs to teach them to adapt to earth's atmosphere so they could gain super powers.
No one on Krypton seemed to have super powers. They only demonstrated powers after getting to earth.
They demonstrate them right off the bat, with none of the acclimation issues. Until Zod anyway.
Only after they arrived on earth. Neither Zod nor Jor-El demonstrated any super powers when they fought. That means either they have powers on earth due to its lower gravity or they gained power through exposure to yellow sunlight. However, since the terraformers were going to increase earth's mass and thicken its atmosphere to turn it into Krypton, whatever powers they've gained would be gone.
Kryptonian superpowers has always been due to yellow sunlight. On the flip side, it's also been shown that one of the ways to turn Superman into a normal person with no powers is to stick him in an environment with red sunlight, similar to Krypton.
Things are different in MoS. Apparently, exposure earth's atmosphere gives Kryptonians powers. It's not really clear if yellow sunlight does anything. That's why Superman becomes weak after getting on Zod's ship but then instantly gets his powers back when the Jor-El AI changes the ship's atmosphere.
Kryptonian superpowers has always been due to yellow sunlight
Except for that period where it was Earth's gravity and Superman just jumped good.
John Byrne tried to make it a telekinetic field. It didn't stick.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
The source of Superman's powers is that the movie says he has powers.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited August 2014
re: the truck thing, it felt like a cheap moment of power fantasy. "Yeah, fuck that guy!" It was exactly the kind of thing I'd expect to see in a Wolverine movie. For Superman it should be a low point, but instead it's a throwaway joke moment because, hey, the dick had it coming, haven't you always wanted to see a dick get what he deserves? That's not really what Superman should be about, though.
The problem with the movie isn't that it's not adhering to the classic idea of Superman, it's that it's not adhering to any idea of Superman longer than a scene or three. Is he the guy so noble and selfless that he'll save lives even if it means blowing his cover, or the guy so petty he'll destroy a bully's truck? Is he the person whose very clothing and legacy symbolizes hope, or is he the person throws his birth culture aside without a second thought and flies halfway around the world to fight a machine instead of inspiring terrified Metropolis citizens? Is he super into Lois or what? Does he enjoy his powers or what? I can't tell what he's thinking in the movie because only a mentally ill person vacillates so widely between moods and motivations. It's just bad character writing.
And the movie wants to have it both ways. It wants you to bring extra knowledge of Superman's iconic history (from his relationship with Lois and Daily Planet job to the moment where they cut Lois off before she can name him), but when we look for that classic character it's, "Oh, this is our new interpretation." If you're going to do that, you have to lay the groundwork. Batman Begins shows its work, creating a world that may be different (like where the Batmobile comes from) but is complete in and of itself. (It spends time telling us why Bruce chooses the symbol of a bat, for instance.) It doesn't just assume we bring information to the film. This lets it tell a good story about the Batman it wants to talk about and nobody said boo or complained that that wasn't Batman.
re: the truck thing, it felt like a cheap moment of power fantasy. "Yeah, fuck that guy!" It was exactly the kind of thing I'd expect to see in a Wolverine movie. For Superman it should be a low point, but instead it's a throwaway joke moment because, hey, the dick had it coming, haven't you always wanted to see a dick get what he deserves? That's not really what Superman should be about, though.
The problem with the movie isn't that it's not adhering to the classic idea of Superman, it's that it's not adhering to any idea of Superman longer than a scene or three. Is he the guy so noble and selfless that he'll save lives even if it means blowing his cover, or the guy so petty he'll destroy a bully's truck? Is he the person whose very clothing and legacy symbolizes hope, or is he the person throws his birth culture aside without a second thought and flies halfway around the world to fight a machine instead of inspiring terrified Metropolis citizens? Is he super into Lois or what? Does he enjoy his powers or what? I can't tell what he's thinking in the movie because only a mentally ill person vacillates so widely between moods and motivations. It's just bad character writing.
To be fair Cavill did look like Wolverine, maybe Snyder thought he was making a Wolverine movie.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
So in Superman II Clark gets picked on by a guy at a diner when he loses his powers and when he gets them back he goes to the diner again and gets him to punch him again, breaking te bones in his hand.
How exactly is that not the same kind of attitude this movie has, just adjusted for forty years of cultural shift?
So in Superman II Clark gets picked on by a guy at a diner when he loses his powers and when he gets them back he goes to the diner again and gets him to punch him again, breaking te bones in his hand.
How exactly is that not the same kind of attitude this movie has, just adjusted for forty years of cultural shift?
That was a dick move for Superman back then. Superman's lucky that man didn't die for that hit. What's worse from the truck is that it's harder to cover up superhuman activities. Of course, the military have to be very stupid not to put it all together after what happened in MOS. The truck was the least stupid thing he did that would have destroyed his secret identity. He's meant to be hiding from the government.
edit: Hollywood loves Superman to be a jerk that kills people in the movies.
So in Superman II Clark gets picked on by a guy at a diner when he loses his powers and when he gets them back he goes to the diner again and gets him to punch him again, breaking te bones in his hand.
How exactly is that not the same kind of attitude this movie has, just adjusted for forty years of cultural shift?
They're both shitty things to do. Though the older one at least requires an active act of assholism on the dicks part. It's not like Clark was in on the side of the road and the trucker swerved to hit him or anything.
Like I said earlier, those movies were made in a time when it was a miracle to even get a movie based on a superhero comic. That's not the case today; we're pretty much guaranteed to get future Superman movies. (And if they bomb, WB will sit on the IP and try a reboot in few years). I don't think it's too outlandish an idea to ask for an interpretation that lacks some of the flaws from those decades old films. But that's just my take on it.
I think it's slightly easier to justify in that it's direct comeuppance. Clark just told him he was garbage (and honestly he kind of was the way he acted). It was the jerk's idea to get up, push the diner owner away when he asked him not to wreck his shop again, and punch a "weaker" man.
Compared to the superhero version of keying the guy's car behind his back. That's just being a little shit no matter what the reason.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
So in Superman II Clark gets picked on by a guy at a diner when he loses his powers and when he gets them back he goes to the diner again and gets him to punch him again, breaking te bones in his hand.
How exactly is that not the same kind of attitude this movie has, just adjusted for forty years of cultural shift?
In Superman 2, Clark was confronting the bully and teaching him a lesson about not picking on people. Granted, the idea of "you can only beat bullies by hitting them back" is pretty outdated, Clark stood up to the jerk face to face. The guy knew why it was happening and he's being taught the lesson that if he keeps being a dick to people, someone might stand up to him and he'll be the one to get hurt.
In MoS, the trucker has no idea that his truck was trashed because he was being a douche. Seeing his truck like that would have no impact on his future douchey behavior.
I don't get the love for the old Christopher Reeves Superman movies. Well, the first two. I don't think anybody liked the third and fourth one.
Those movies loved giving Superman bullshit powers. The world going backwards thing, the Lois Lane mind wipe, masonry vision, and probably a few others I am forgetting about.
Edit: That one scene where he takes the S off his chest and throws it at someone.
Posts
Other than, you know, the giant fucking impossible truck wreckage that there was probably a police report for. Girl at Bar doesn't have any reason to assume it was Clark, because as far as she knows, Clark isn't capable of doing anything like that. Lois knows better, so when she interviews the Girl, she finds out a dude matching laser-beam icedude's description worked at the bar and left on the same day.
Seriously, if a giant wreckage like that showed up in front of your bar, your never going to think "maybe that one guy did it" because that's what a fucking lunatic thinks without knowing better. :
I don't get why I'm on the hook for the insurance thing when you're the one who brought it up and when I said it probably wouldn't cover it, YOU asked why not.
Don't ask me a question if you're just going to throw "You're thinking about it too much" in my face about it too.
And have you dealt with US's insurance industry? There ain't nothing fictional about the bullshit they get up to.
Geek logic answer: yes, though they're all soldiers trained in combat, so of course they'd have a better aptitude toward using these powers in combat.
More likely answer: Snyder is a shitty director.
It's not just "that one guy". It's "that one guy who had just been insulted by the truck's owner who then disappeared right afterwords".
No, you are the one that brought it up. You are the one complaining about the issue. So yeah, it's on you.
If you want to claim that it hurts someone other then the driver, you are assuming someone else must pay for it. In which case the obvious answer is "the insurance/company will pay for it". And so, no big deal.
The only way your complaint that it hurts people other then the driver works is if you make alot of assumptions about the insurance policies of his unmentioned fictional company. Your entire "point" relies on a bunch of assumptions about things that don't matter at all to the movie. It's just silly and it's reaching for no reason other then pedantic silliness.
I mean, maybe one of those oil-rig workers he saves is a serial killer. Clark just caused the deaths of another half-dozen women in their 20s the fucking monster!
Or we could not try to read a bunch of shit into the film that's not there.
Zod explicitly says the first one in one of the better lines of the film.
"The insurance company will pay for it" doesn't mean the money comes from nowhere and magically makes a problem go away. That money comes from somewhere and usually at the cost of people who can't afford it.
And regardless it's still a dumb scene because there's no way that should have happened with no one ever noticing while it was going on.
Zod actually contradicted himself. The reason he gave for wanting to terraform earth was that he didn't want future Kryptonians to spend years to adapt to earth's atmosphere. So if Zod can adapt so easily, all they have to do is give future Kryptonians the proper training and they wouldn't have to suffer like young Clark.
Also, Clark has been using his powers too. There was that oil rig rescue in the beginning of the film and Lois tracked him by researching various unexplained incidents that involved super powers.
Exactly. The bar patrons and staff are going to notice it and talk to their friends and douchebag is going to talk to his friends. It'd be on the internet in five minutes. If it's a slow new day it might show up on the local news.
I'm not even talking about that.
Bro impaled a semi right outside with electrical posts ripped from the ground.
That is not a stealth move. Someone should have heard that.
Proper Kryptonians, by Zod's thinking, will not all be soldiers like him.
Regardless, other Kryptonians apparently start with superpowers anyway according to the movie, so whatever.
But she has no reason to associate that argument with what happened, because no sane person would, which is my point.
You asked me a question and when I answered you called me out for overthinking it.
If you don't want me to explain something, please don't ask me about it. And please don't call me being pedantic for doing something YOU ASKED ME TO DO.
[edit] And it is the movie disregarding consequences, not Clark. If it was trying to make a point of Clark being irresponsible and wrong, it never made that point apparent.
No, you made a complaint about a part of the movie. That complaint relies on a bunch of ridiculous assumptions about the loopholes in fictional insurance contracts between fictional companies and, according to Quid, also the makeup of fictional risk-sharing pools. I'm not the one asserting the structure or existence of any of these things. We are well off in ridiculous land to make this work.
Superman is very gentle.
None of that changes the fact you still asked what you asked and then did what you did. If you're not interested in my points, you don't need to respond to them, but belittling them and myself isn't terribly productive, especially given I'm not the only one who shares these thoughts it appears.
I was hoping you had an actual reason that didn't rely on fictional insurance contracts. When you didn't, I pointed out that you were hugely overthinking the entire issue.
That's Snyder as a director.
Exactly.
Zod is already has enough mental flexibility to try to overthrow their entire government and install himself as leader. He doesn't need all future Kryptonians to be soldiers, he only needs to teach them to adapt to earth's atmosphere so they could gain super powers.
No one on Krypton seemed to have super powers. They only demonstrated powers after getting to earth.
If Kal could have died then why did Jor-El even send him to earth?
Also, Zod has a giant ship capable of generating Kryptonian atmosphere. So they can just build up their children's resistance to earth's atmosphere by slowly exposing them to earth instead of all at once. It's a small price to pay for super powers.
They demonstrate them right off the bat, with none of the acclimation issues. Until Zod anyway.
Then why did you ask about the fictional contract if you were just going to be dismissive of it? Seriously, your question was in response to me talking about coverage; what else would I have been talking about, tv reception?
Also, your use of "fictional" as a pejorative is kind of odd give it was about a fictional truck that got wrecked by fictional alien with superstrength.
Only after they arrived on earth. Neither Zod nor Jor-El demonstrated any super powers when they fought. That means either they have powers on earth due to its lower gravity or they gained power through exposure to yellow sunlight. However, since the terraformers were going to increase earth's mass and thicken its atmosphere to turn it into Krypton, whatever powers they've gained would be gone.
Kryptonian superpowers has always been due to yellow sunlight. On the flip side, it's also been shown that one of the ways to turn Superman into a normal person with no powers is to stick him in an environment with red sunlight, similar to Krypton.
Calling it now: In BvS, Superman will punch a bad guy and then be all "GIVE ME YOUR FAAAACE." We will be expected to cheer.
Things are different in MoS. Apparently, exposure earth's atmosphere gives Kryptonians powers. It's not really clear if yellow sunlight does anything. That's why Superman becomes weak after getting on Zod's ship but then instantly gets his powers back when the Jor-El AI changes the ship's atmosphere.
John Byrne tried to make it a telekinetic field. It didn't stick.
The problem with the movie isn't that it's not adhering to the classic idea of Superman, it's that it's not adhering to any idea of Superman longer than a scene or three. Is he the guy so noble and selfless that he'll save lives even if it means blowing his cover, or the guy so petty he'll destroy a bully's truck? Is he the person whose very clothing and legacy symbolizes hope, or is he the person throws his birth culture aside without a second thought and flies halfway around the world to fight a machine instead of inspiring terrified Metropolis citizens? Is he super into Lois or what? Does he enjoy his powers or what? I can't tell what he's thinking in the movie because only a mentally ill person vacillates so widely between moods and motivations. It's just bad character writing.
And the movie wants to have it both ways. It wants you to bring extra knowledge of Superman's iconic history (from his relationship with Lois and Daily Planet job to the moment where they cut Lois off before she can name him), but when we look for that classic character it's, "Oh, this is our new interpretation." If you're going to do that, you have to lay the groundwork. Batman Begins shows its work, creating a world that may be different (like where the Batmobile comes from) but is complete in and of itself. (It spends time telling us why Bruce chooses the symbol of a bat, for instance.) It doesn't just assume we bring information to the film. This lets it tell a good story about the Batman it wants to talk about and nobody said boo or complained that that wasn't Batman.
To be fair Cavill did look like Wolverine, maybe Snyder thought he was making a Wolverine movie.
How exactly is that not the same kind of attitude this movie has, just adjusted for forty years of cultural shift?
That was a dick move for Superman back then. Superman's lucky that man didn't die for that hit. What's worse from the truck is that it's harder to cover up superhuman activities. Of course, the military have to be very stupid not to put it all together after what happened in MOS. The truck was the least stupid thing he did that would have destroyed his secret identity. He's meant to be hiding from the government.
edit: Hollywood loves Superman to be a jerk that kills people in the movies.
They're both shitty things to do. Though the older one at least requires an active act of assholism on the dicks part. It's not like Clark was in on the side of the road and the trucker swerved to hit him or anything.
Like I said earlier, those movies were made in a time when it was a miracle to even get a movie based on a superhero comic. That's not the case today; we're pretty much guaranteed to get future Superman movies. (And if they bomb, WB will sit on the IP and try a reboot in few years). I don't think it's too outlandish an idea to ask for an interpretation that lacks some of the flaws from those decades old films. But that's just my take on it.
Compared to the superhero version of keying the guy's car behind his back. That's just being a little shit no matter what the reason.
In Superman 2, Clark was confronting the bully and teaching him a lesson about not picking on people. Granted, the idea of "you can only beat bullies by hitting them back" is pretty outdated, Clark stood up to the jerk face to face. The guy knew why it was happening and he's being taught the lesson that if he keeps being a dick to people, someone might stand up to him and he'll be the one to get hurt.
In MoS, the trucker has no idea that his truck was trashed because he was being a douche. Seeing his truck like that would have no impact on his future douchey behavior.
Those movies loved giving Superman bullshit powers. The world going backwards thing, the Lois Lane mind wipe, masonry vision, and probably a few others I am forgetting about.
Edit: That one scene where he takes the S off his chest and throws it at someone.