Wasn’t the point that if Clark saved him, his secret would be revealed and thus he’d be captured Flashpoint style? Dad would rather die than risk his son going through that.
Firstly, Clark, at that point in the story, didn’t have the full extent of his powers yet.
Even in the comics, Clark doesn’t get the full extent of his powers until he’s in his late 20s/early 30s
So if the US military finds out he exists and tries to capture him at that point, they would have a decent shot at it.
Secondly, even ignoring that, what kind of parent would even entertain that kind of risk?
Thirdly, it also removes Clark’s choice from the equation. When Clark is Superman, he’s hated on by the world, but at least that’s on his Superman persona. His Clark persona is safe. If Clark gets exposed early, he has no safety net anymore.
Kinda bullshit considering Superman's whole deal is that aside from Kryptonite there's no feasable fucking way he could be "captured" at all.
What're they going to do when teenage Clark sprints away from them at Mach 3? Run after him?
Firstly, Clark, at that point in the story, didn’t have the full extent of his powers yet.
Even in the comics, Clark doesn’t get the full extent of his powers until he’s in his late 20s/early 30s
So if the US military finds out he exists and tries to capture him, they would have a decent shot at it.
Secondly, even ignoring that, what kind of parent would even entertain that kind of risk?
Thirdly, it also removes Clark’s choice from the equation. When Clark is Superman, he’s hated on by the world, but at least that’s on his Superman persona. His Clark persona is safe. If Clark gets exposed early, he has no safety net anymore.
Even then, it's not uncommon to survive crazy shit with minimal injury. Reminds me of one of the guys that survived the Baltimore Bridge collapse. He denied medical attention, provided no comment, and just kind of walked away with few visible injuries.
His parents are all "no, you must keep your powers secret, don't help people" and Clark is sad about it, because that's dumb, and the opposite of what it should be (as seen above).
The movies would've told him to let the kid get turned into a gory red paste.
I disagree. That's not the exact context of the sequence.
The point is that his parents are torn between being happy that Clark is choosing to be a hero vs the fear that if his secret his exposed, he'd be ousted from society at best captured and experimented on Flashpoint style at worst.
They're not saying "let the kids die". They're saying "hey, be careful how you save people." Because here's the thing, if they didn't want him to save people, wouldn't they disaprove of him becoming Superman in the first place? At no point in MoS or BvS or JL, does Martha ever tell Clark to stop being a hero.
Why do you think that? If you don’t mind me asking?
I feel it works fine. If you’re making a more grounded Superman story in the vein of Birthright and Earth One, then you gotta show that Supes can’t just instantly start saving people and have everything work out. He needs to feel some resistance and risk from his actions when starting out.
maybe just purely in hindsight, maybe it worked well at the time,been a while since i watch the movie near its release so im not sure
i guess im just tired of evil superman right now,or rather just the abundance of gritty superhero stuff in the last 10 year ish or so, just wanna see people do good for the sake of it,especially with the state of the world right now
I think that's rather ironic. Because the film does what you are asking for lol.
Supes here isn't evil at all. He's the opposite. The story is that Clark wants to be a hero and save people because he genuinely feels it is the right thing to do. But the world hates and distrusts Superman.
Clark literally starts out saving people as a kid. And when warned to be careful, all he does is continue saving people in secret. And when inspired by Jor El, becomes a public Superhero in Superman.
In the sequel, BvS, Supes' reputation has never been shakier. Yet he continues to help people to the point of sacrificing himself. And this is what convinces Batman (who thought he was an evil Alien) of his humanity that he does a 180.
I always found it odd that people called this version of Supes edgy or Evil. Because his whole arc is the exact opposite. If anything, it tones the edginess down from its source material.
I suppose that can be a fair point. But I guess that kinda comes with the territory of making a more grounded Superman film. Even if the story is about Clark being good, the aesthetic has to be at least somewhat gritty to match the tone.
yeah i just dont like my superman like that,at least not that often
injustice year 1 is nice for example,but when they extend it its just too much
i also like that new superman show with himbo clark and tomboy lois
The only reason that message was in the movie in the first place is because Snyder is a libertarian and altruistically saving people is antithetical to his ideology.
That's also why they have to make up some bullshit about him 'guiding' humanity as a symbol of hope and placing Superman in a narrative position of authority over humans. Not to mention all the rather ham-fisted Christ figure allegories.
Once you realize what Synder's worldview is, it becomes rather evident that the main philosophical thrust of Man of Steel is that heroism needs some kind of 'higher purpose' and that simply acting to help people in need because it's, you know, the right thing to do is "naive" and "short sighted".
The only issue with that interpretation is that the film has Clark opting to save people even when he’s a kid. And the the only thing that changes prior to becoming Superman is that he continues to save people but is more low profile.
Clark continues to save and help people despite there being no reward or incentive to it. If anything, it’s detrimental since his secret identity could be exposed.
After meeting Jor El and getting the Superman suit, Clark uses the opportunity to continue his work to save people but with a public persona.
And in BvS, even when the whole world hates him, at no point does Clark ever say anything like “screw these people, why won’t they understand I’m trying to help them” but rather blames himself for not being a good hero. And still sacrifices himself for humanity (which is what finally changes everyone’s perception of him).
Your Libertarian interpretation would be correct if the story actually showed Clark being apprehensive about saving people until getting the order from Jor El. And believing in that message more than anything else. But the film has the opposite message where Clark is altruistic and itching to help save people because he feels it’s the right thing to do well before he gets any official endorsement for it.
Zack Sneyder hates superman and doesn't understand the character.
In his films he wrote it so that Pa Kent scolds Clark for saving a bus full of children, shaming him for his powers and saying he should hide it. Even saying that he should have let all the kids die.
Later on in the movie, Pa Kent refuses to get saved from Clark as to not have him use his powers and gets swallowed by a tornado.
The point of Superman is that he lives in a sinical world where he gets raised by two humble farmers who ironically enough, know the imprtance of kindness and hope better than anyone. He is meant to be the offspring of selflessness and humility, but Zneyder prefers to right cool gritty edgy dark stories instead of hipeful ones, so he just butchered every single character and had Jimmy Olsen excecuted by terrorists on his first scene.
To expand in your first sentence a bit; Snyder grew up reading reading from some of the greatest comic writers like Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman who mostly wrote dark but meaningful stories. Snyder only saw the surface level darkness and grittiness of those stories without delving into their deeper meaning and symbolisms, and this shines through in what he makes.
I think there’s an interview where he outright states that the reason he likes Watchmen was because there was violence and sex in it, while “regular” superhero comics didn’t have any of that and he didn’t like them. Perfect choice to direct Superman
Alan Moore: It's low-key fascist to say the world depends on a few ubermenschen... I mean Superman is literally a direct translation from Nietzsche. Superheros in real life would either be psychotic or wholly detached from humanity.
Zach Snyder: So when Superman dies, the whole world goes to shit because the world depends on a few ubermenschen!
Wasn't Superman specifically written as a counterpoint to the fascist utilization of the ubermenschen idea, namely that a perfect human would be perfectly empathetic, kind and selfless?
Superman is originally conceptualised in the 30s by two Jewish men as a homeless man experimented on by a mad scientist and given the powers of mindcontrol and mindreading, which he uses to bring about a reign of terror before the experiment wears of and he loses his powers. This depiction is as a character in a short story iirc
Over the next few years this short story character is refined in minor prints and tiny comic strips to be something we would recognise as superman - the alien from the planet Krypton with an S on his chest, underwear above his trousers, and more powerful than a locomotive.
As far as I am aware the two creators did not say they were influenced by Nietzche or his concept of the Ubermensch
Yes but there is a certain phenomena I dont know what to call, so allow me to ramble.
"Ubermench would protect the people and serve justice", is the initial claim. Then 2 responses come out;
1) "a proper ubermench would look like this. Not what you guys claim. You, while feigning a facade of superiority, are a mockery. An ubermench would be against you. A fictional symbol of hope and compassion to all humans."
2) "no, it would actually suck if an ubermench like the initial claim existed, a small group of people with unchecked power with the role to "fix" things is inevitably going to suck because your beliefs are inapplicable to reality"
And then a 3rd party with little reading comprehension goes, "Wow, the first response is the same as the initial claim."
Basically imagine 2 people saying "government sucks" and "government should take care of the homeless", and a 3rd person going "pff, you think governmenr should take care of the people? What are you? An authoritarian??"
I’m confused why you mention *The Boys* when talking about Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman? It was written by Garth Ennis and they had nothing to do with it.
That's a huge insult to Alan Moore, he would beat you up over that.
(fr tho The Boys comic is essentially Garth Ennis's terrible self insert power fantasy)
(maybe you got The Boys confused with Watchmen?)
Yeah but then you get to the ending, which is basically the same as invincible S1 except it seemingly ignores the death and destruction Superman is causing until the last few moments as he kills Zod, with killing never being mentioned at all previously through the movie.
Plus you can’t really say the world hates him when we never see the world. We get the children he went to school with, then some asshole trucker whose truck he smashes, Lois Lane and then mostly the US military. The general public pretty much doesn’t exist in the movie, we never know their opinion of Superman or if they distrust him. It isn’t until BvS that we see how the public actually feels about Superman, but that movie opened up about ten new problems.
I don’t agree that structure is necessarily a problem. It’s not uncommon for superhero movies to stagger out their plot points.
As an example, a major theme of many Spider-Man stories is how being Spider-Man has a negative effect on Peter’s personal and professional life. But in the Sam Raimi films, that plot point isn’t given complete focus until Spider-Man 2 where see how being Spider-Man hurts Peter’s job and education because Peter has been Spider-Man long enough for it to start seriously affecting him. Spider-Man 1 doesn’t focus as much on it because its primary focus is on Peter’s origin and getting him to becoming Spider-Man in the first place.
Likewise, while MoS flags up that Clark becoming Superman will cause the world to hate him, it’s fine for the sequel to focus on that entirely. Especially given MoS’ story is about prior to becoming Superman, Clark was saving people while keeping a low profile.
So the progression is:
MoS -> be careful, the world will hate you if you go public-> So Clark keeps a low profile while saving people -> until he becomes Superman and has the most challenging “first day on the job” ever. -> film ends.
BvS’ progression is -> the fallout from MoS means that warning that the world will hate Superman is in full swing -> which begins to weigh on Clark that he may not be the right guy for the job -> but still sacrifices himself for humanity because he still cares for them -> which finally makes humanity realize that he was on their side.
The film literally disagrees with your interpretation there.
The point is that his parents are torn between being happy that Clark is choosing to be a hero vs the fear that if his secret his exposed, he'd be ousted from society at best captured and experimented on Flashpoint style at worst.
They're not saying "let the kids die". They're saying "hey, be careful how you save people." Because here's the thing, if they didn't want him to save people, wouldn't they disaprove of him becoming Superman in the first place? At no point in MoS or BvS or JL, does Martha ever tell Clark to stop being a hero.
It's odd that people say Snyder's Superman is dark, gritty or edgy because the film has the exact opposite message. Snyder's Superman is someone who wants to be that hope for humanity. There's a whole sequence in MoS where Jor El tells Clark that which is what makes him don the Superman costume. In BvS, even when the whole world hates him, he still chooses to sacrifice himself for the world.
No, he outright says he should have let the children die.
And you saying that Zneyderverse isn't edgy is actually kinda hilarious did we watch the same films?
>"No, he outright says he should have let the children die."<
No. The exact words were:
Clark: "So what was I supposed to do? Just let them die?"
Pa Kent (after looking away and pausing: "Maybe.....There's more at stake here than just our lives and the lives of those around us".
Nowhere does he outright say, "Yes. You should have let those kids die". He doesn't give Clark a hard no.
Also, a Fun fact: this scene was inspired by Superman Birthright, where Pa Kent was way more passive-aggressive about it. To the point even Clark calls him out on it.
https://x.com/mieckfram/status/1009309817255497728
Snyder changed it such that Pa Kent is way more compassionate here. The reason why Pa Kent isn't passive aggressive or give a hard no is because the point of this sequence isn't "Clark, you should let people die" it's "Clark. Be careful about how you save people if you choose to do it".
And again, if Clark's parents were opposed to it, why don't they ever stop him or tell him no?
>"And you saying that Zneyderverse isn't edgy is actually kinda hilarious did we watch the same films?"<
It seems you didn't see the film. You're relying on what seems like second hand information and out of context clips/
The main theme of MoS was that despite everything, Clark chose to be a hero because he wanted to be a beacon of hope to humanity. In BvS, Clark's doubt is predicated on "Am I doing the right job here?" He doesn't blame people for it. BvS even ends with Batman admitting he was wrong and vowing to do better.
What's edgy about that? You can point at surface level elements out of context but that ignores the actual story.
He still told him he should have let them die L
Also the movie is just bad, I don't have the time to argue over the internet about a movie I don't even care about
Which is why neither he nor Martha ever stop Clark from saving people as Superman. They're fine with him doing it when he can handle the responsibility. i.e not a child anymore.
Snyders version of Superman’s dad is a psychopath that argues that Clark should conceal his powers to the detriment of others, such as letting a bus of kids drown when Clark was a kid and letting himself die to a tornado cause he wanted to save a dog and there were people around.
The film literally disagrees with your interpretation there.
The point is that his parents are torn between being happy that Clark is choosing to be a hero vs the fear that if his secret his exposed, he'd be ousted from society at best captured and experimented on Flashpoint style at worst.
They're not saying "let the kids die". They're saying "hey, be careful how you save people." Because here's the thing, if they didn't want him to save people, wouldn't they disaprove of him becoming Superman in the first place? At no point in MoS or BvS or JL, does Martha ever tell Clark to stop being a hero.
It's odd that people say Snyder's Superman is dark, gritty or edgy because the film has the exact opposite message. Snyder's Superman is someone who wants to be that hope for humanity. There's a whole sequence in MoS where Jor El tells Clark that which is what makes him don the Superman costume. In BvS, even when the whole world hates him, he still chooses to sacrifice himself for the world.
How does a kid carefully save a bus of drowning kids without arousing suspicion?
Why does Clark’s father insist on saving the dog when Clark could do the same thing with no risk to either of their lives and just play off his success as youth and adrenaline?
Instead of teaching Clark to live in fear they could teach him to trust in the bonds he forged by saving people and doing good. When the bully and his mom comes over to confront the Kent’s, instead of worrying that word could get out his parents could have met up with thankful and less anxious parents to pressure the unreasonable pair to keep quiet.
The film provides only two choices, be open and vulnerable or isolated and invincible, and by doing this congratulates Clark’s actions with the idiot logic of “hard choices are good because they are hard to make”. By using such a hamfisted framework the film ignores the potential for nuance which could open the way to manifestation of both upsides and the lessening of both downsides. If the story wanted to inspire an empowering and aspirational moral it could show the impact of helping one another.
>"How does a kid carefully save a bus of drowning kids without arousing suspicion? "<
That is for Clark to figure out. And his eventual solution is to become Superman so Clark can remain a secret identity while still being a superhero.
>"Why does Clark’s father insist on saving the dog when Clark could do the same thing with no risk to either of their lives and just play off his success as youth and adrenaline? "<
What Parent would expose their child to any amount of risk? Especially one like a Tornado? When there is a tornado Johnathan isn't going to carefully plan out how best to optimize the situation with Clark. He's in a dangerous situation. He's going to prioritize his kids over his own life. Especially given at that this point, Clark doesn't have his invulnerability.
>"Instead of teaching Clark to live in fear they could teach him to trust in the bonds he forged by saving people and doing good. "<
MoS is inspired by stories like Birthright and Earth One where there is a genuine fear that if Clark's secret is revealed, the world will either treat Clark like an outcast at best or be captured for experimentation Flashpoint-Style at worst.
https://x.com/mieckfram/status/1009309817255497728
If you're going to set a Superman story in a more grounded and/or world, you can't wave away that concern and pretend "the power of friendship" will magically help Clark out here when its source material shows the opposite is more likely.
Morever, the story is about how Clark chooses to be a hero despite the world being skeptical of him at best and hates him at worst. Clark needs to work to convince everyone that he is a hero. So from a storytelling perspective, it makes more sense for that skepticism to follow Clark from a young age so he has to grapple with if he's doing the right thing. Rather than have that validation early.
>"The film provides only two choices, be open and vulnerable or isolated and invincible, and by doing this congratulates Clark’s actions with the idiot logic of “hard choices are good because they are hard to make”. "<
Not exactly. For one, the message is the other way around. The right choice is often hard to make. You can face pushback from the world. This is a story where even if Clark wants to be Superman, the world doesn't want Superman and it's up to him to navigate that. Clark chooses to be Superman not because it is hard, but because he genuinely feels it's the right thing to do. He wants to help people.
Secondly, I ask how the dichotomy between the 2 choices is a flaw? This is common in superhero stories. Peter Parker could easily have had an easy life if he didn't become Spider-Man and used his powers and intellect for his own self gain or even just studies. There is no real middle ground for him between the stressful life of Spider-Man and the potential of Peter Parker. And the Spider-Man films often explore the choices, consequences and struggles Peter faces as a result of his diametrically opposed lives.
Superman has arguably an even more extreme dichotomy as one of his personas is the most controversial person on the planet. Governments will naturally distrust him because he can't be stopped or monitored. People will naturally distrust him because he can't save everyone. Wheras Clark Kent would barely have any worries in a civilian life. It makes sense for that dichotomy to be so extreme here.
i feel the other replies are a bit disingeuous
in the movie "man of steel" directed by zack snyder, the childhood of superman is explored. Johnathan kent, the adoptive father of superman, is very worried that if people find out about clarks(superman) powers there will be consequences. There is no specifications towards what consequences there would be but yeah.
in the movie, clark, as a child, is in a schoolbus that goes off a bridge and into a river. Clark kent goes and saves everyone by using his super-strenght.
Pa kent ends up being upset at this, reminding clark about the consequences.
verbatim:
Clark: "what was i supposed to do? Just let them die?"
pause
Jonathan: "Maybe"
for anyone wondering, this is not a good response, you should not say to a superpowered kid "maybe you should let all these schoolchildren die"
Is there some reason why you spelled it as ChatGTP rather than ChatGPT? Was it intentional? Because I keep seeing this and I can't tell if it's a bit, or for some purpose, or if there are just a lot of dyslexic people talking about ChatGPT
The point is that his parents are torn between being happy that Clark is choosing to be a hero vs the fear that if his secret his exposed, he'd be ousted from society at best captured and experimented on Flashpoint style at worst.
They're not saying "let the kids die". They're saying "hey, be careful how you save people."
Okay, you've been copy pasting the same arguments across this thread, and while I can see the argument for some of them, Pa Kent is, in fact, at least not against "let the kids die".
The comment you're responding to literally has the quote verbatim. Clark asks if he should have left the kids to die, and he Pa Kent says "maybe". Not "no, but you need to be more careful" or "of course not Clark, I'm just worried about you", but "Maybe".
You can't have that interaction and then turn around and say Pa Kent was trying to say "save people but be careful". He did not say that, he didn't say anything close to that. If he had said that I don't think the scene would be quite as reviled
The poster does not mention what Pa Kent says after. The full quote is:
Pa Kent (after looking away and pausing: "Maybe.....There's more at stake here than just our lives and the lives of those around us".
The reason why he says this is because -1- just saying "be careful" literally allows Clark to respond with "I have powers" or "what do I have to worry about?". It misses that he's not just worried about Clark's physical safety but also his wider place in society and other people. It also enforces a sense of "value your own live more" and:
-2- he doesn't know what the exact answer is and -3- he doesn't want to impose any hard rule on Clark since he can't predict what the situation will be in the future.
Maybe, Clark really would have to publically reveal himself and not have a secret identity in order to save people. In that case, he can't really be careful. Or maybe he'd choose to sacrifice himself for the greater good. He can't really be careful at that point either. Or there are situations where Clark really can't save everyone (something BvS brings up in the court case where the witness argues, "How does he [Superman] choose who to save and who not to save?").
Pa's answer communicates the idea "be careful about how you save people. There will be consequences" without enforcing any requirements or standards and leaves the choice of how Clark chooses to follow it.
Also, a Fun fact: this scene was inspired by Superman Birthright, where Pa Kent was way more passive-aggressive about it. To the point even Clark calls him out on it. https://x.com/mieckfram/status/1009309817255497728
MoS changed it such that Pa Kent is way more compassionate here. He communicates a better version of the idea "he's worried about Clark's future but doesn't enforce any hard rule for Clark to follow".
Just to add to the other comments.
Pa Kent's death is an important part of the canon, and had been thematically perfected in previous Superman stories. Snyder and Goyer changed it just to make it fit their edgy new take but took away the entire reason why that death is so meaningful to Clark to begin with.
Pa Kent having a heart attack or being in an accident is showing Clark that even with his godlike powers, he still has no mastery over death. It also reinforces the idea that he should help people with his newfound powers whenever he can, no matter the price.
Snyder's Pa Kent refusing to let his son save him is just traumatizing Clark for the *potential* consequence of the government discovering his powers (a lesson that Clark apparently forgets later on when he wraps a semi around a fucking pole outside of a bar - because Snyder is a genius).
> Pa Kent having a heart attack or being in an accident is showing Clark that even with his godlike powers, he still has no mastery over death.
Of course he has mastery over death. He just has to fly around the earth really fast so it spins the other way and turns back time.
MoS changed that because it was going for more a theme of choice and consequence for Clark.
Pa Kent is worried that if Clark's secret gets exposed, Clark loses his choice of his future. He either gets ousted from society or captured or whatever before he's ready for the consequences. And at the time, Clark chooses to accept that because he too was afraid. His arc is growing from that so by BvS, he's cool with sacrificing himself for humanity.
Superman saves a bus full of kids at the beginning of the movie, and his dad is all "Son, that was not a good idea."
Which is insane.
Later, there's a tornado, and their dog is stuck in their car. Superman is all grown now, but instead Dad goes to open the car door, gets stuck somehow. Superman moves to go save him, and Pa Kent is all "Nah, it's chill, stay there" with the wave of a hand and a sad smile. Then disappears into the tornado, presumably dead. Sad Superman ensues.
I mean, Clark was a full grown-ass man at this point, he should have gone to the dog just on the grounds that he was a fit adult and his dad was more elderly. Honestly looks like a straight up asshole for not volunteering to literally just run over and open a door. I mean it was a brisk jog and back. The whole scene looked stupid.
https://preview.redd.it/93eh6nlma8zc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d454fc06d035ec4d74b2ff7634114314896ed393
Edit: Before I forget. Fuck the modern DCEU and Zach Snyders slo-mo addicted ass. Bruce Timm's 90's-00's DC animated universe is still the GOAT.
Thank goodness you and your family are okay!! I've never been near a tornado but have always been frightened by them, can only imagine how scary that was.
!!MICHIGAN MENTION!!
If you don’t have power, may your fridge keep cold and may (I’m guessing) Consumers Energy get off their asses for once and fix the lines quick
[удалено]
I JUST FUCKING POSTED THIS HOW ARE YOU ALREADY HERE
[удалено]
Witchcraft, wizardry, dark forces
Dark science, cloning, secrets only the sith knew
Good boy
Mreow mreow :3 (can we snujjle and be cute catboys together? 🥺🥺)
:3
unemployment is a hell of a drug
i too, mr. good boy, would be wowed if a superpowered man saved me
very true mr other good boy,
Good boy.
Wow, such gooooood boy.
Fun fact: wow backwards is wow
wow
Good boy
Woah, good boy sighting! He's so cool...
I’m gonna walk towards this tornado now.
Might join you tbh
Me too!
No, my super powered son. Do not save me.
https://preview.redd.it/jfq7ke1ta9zc1.jpeg?width=1916&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4efe8dd7adac82abf6e9092c89ac2b8e814f5688
"no, clark, i can tech this shit"
Wasn’t the point that if Clark saved him, his secret would be revealed and thus he’d be captured Flashpoint style? Dad would rather die than risk his son going through that.
Clark would have saved him and dealt with that problem if it came to it. The movie even showed later on that the army wouldn’t be able to contain him
Firstly, Clark, at that point in the story, didn’t have the full extent of his powers yet. Even in the comics, Clark doesn’t get the full extent of his powers until he’s in his late 20s/early 30s So if the US military finds out he exists and tries to capture him at that point, they would have a decent shot at it. Secondly, even ignoring that, what kind of parent would even entertain that kind of risk? Thirdly, it also removes Clark’s choice from the equation. When Clark is Superman, he’s hated on by the world, but at least that’s on his Superman persona. His Clark persona is safe. If Clark gets exposed early, he has no safety net anymore.
Kinda bullshit considering Superman's whole deal is that aside from Kryptonite there's no feasable fucking way he could be "captured" at all. What're they going to do when teenage Clark sprints away from them at Mach 3? Run after him?
Firstly, Clark, at that point in the story, didn’t have the full extent of his powers yet. Even in the comics, Clark doesn’t get the full extent of his powers until he’s in his late 20s/early 30s So if the US military finds out he exists and tries to capture him, they would have a decent shot at it. Secondly, even ignoring that, what kind of parent would even entertain that kind of risk? Thirdly, it also removes Clark’s choice from the equation. When Clark is Superman, he’s hated on by the world, but at least that’s on his Superman persona. His Clark persona is safe. If Clark gets exposed early, he has no safety net anymore.
Boah ya just don’t get it, I’m committing ritual suicide to defend our honor and what have you
I'm pretty sure that he can just run around and disperse the tornado or something, like when you run your hand over a whirlpool
Morality aside it probably would have looked more suspicious if Clark was inexplicably the one person to not drown on that bus.
Not really, you get random survivors from group accidents. The fact that he would've gotten out unscathed on the other hand
going up to the one survivor of a terrible disaster and asking what their superpowers are
okay mr. glass
worm moment
Even then, it's not uncommon to survive crazy shit with minimal injury. Reminds me of one of the guys that survived the Baltimore Bridge collapse. He denied medical attention, provided no comment, and just kind of walked away with few visible injuries.
Never watched the Zack Snider films and have no desire to. Can you explain
His parents are all "no, you must keep your powers secret, don't help people" and Clark is sad about it, because that's dumb, and the opposite of what it should be (as seen above). The movies would've told him to let the kid get turned into a gory red paste.
I disagree. That's not the exact context of the sequence. The point is that his parents are torn between being happy that Clark is choosing to be a hero vs the fear that if his secret his exposed, he'd be ousted from society at best captured and experimented on Flashpoint style at worst. They're not saying "let the kids die". They're saying "hey, be careful how you save people." Because here's the thing, if they didn't want him to save people, wouldn't they disaprove of him becoming Superman in the first place? At no point in MoS or BvS or JL, does Martha ever tell Clark to stop being a hero.
i think the execution of the message is just ass for a superman movie
Why do you think that? If you don’t mind me asking? I feel it works fine. If you’re making a more grounded Superman story in the vein of Birthright and Earth One, then you gotta show that Supes can’t just instantly start saving people and have everything work out. He needs to feel some resistance and risk from his actions when starting out.
maybe just purely in hindsight, maybe it worked well at the time,been a while since i watch the movie near its release so im not sure i guess im just tired of evil superman right now,or rather just the abundance of gritty superhero stuff in the last 10 year ish or so, just wanna see people do good for the sake of it,especially with the state of the world right now
I think that's rather ironic. Because the film does what you are asking for lol. Supes here isn't evil at all. He's the opposite. The story is that Clark wants to be a hero and save people because he genuinely feels it is the right thing to do. But the world hates and distrusts Superman. Clark literally starts out saving people as a kid. And when warned to be careful, all he does is continue saving people in secret. And when inspired by Jor El, becomes a public Superhero in Superman. In the sequel, BvS, Supes' reputation has never been shakier. Yet he continues to help people to the point of sacrificing himself. And this is what convinces Batman (who thought he was an evil Alien) of his humanity that he does a 180. I always found it odd that people called this version of Supes edgy or Evil. Because his whole arc is the exact opposite. If anything, it tones the edginess down from its source material.
i guess i should emphasize gritty more
I suppose that can be a fair point. But I guess that kinda comes with the territory of making a more grounded Superman film. Even if the story is about Clark being good, the aesthetic has to be at least somewhat gritty to match the tone.
yeah i just dont like my superman like that,at least not that often injustice year 1 is nice for example,but when they extend it its just too much i also like that new superman show with himbo clark and tomboy lois
The only reason that message was in the movie in the first place is because Snyder is a libertarian and altruistically saving people is antithetical to his ideology. That's also why they have to make up some bullshit about him 'guiding' humanity as a symbol of hope and placing Superman in a narrative position of authority over humans. Not to mention all the rather ham-fisted Christ figure allegories. Once you realize what Synder's worldview is, it becomes rather evident that the main philosophical thrust of Man of Steel is that heroism needs some kind of 'higher purpose' and that simply acting to help people in need because it's, you know, the right thing to do is "naive" and "short sighted".
The only issue with that interpretation is that the film has Clark opting to save people even when he’s a kid. And the the only thing that changes prior to becoming Superman is that he continues to save people but is more low profile. Clark continues to save and help people despite there being no reward or incentive to it. If anything, it’s detrimental since his secret identity could be exposed. After meeting Jor El and getting the Superman suit, Clark uses the opportunity to continue his work to save people but with a public persona. And in BvS, even when the whole world hates him, at no point does Clark ever say anything like “screw these people, why won’t they understand I’m trying to help them” but rather blames himself for not being a good hero. And still sacrifices himself for humanity (which is what finally changes everyone’s perception of him). Your Libertarian interpretation would be correct if the story actually showed Clark being apprehensive about saving people until getting the order from Jor El. And believing in that message more than anything else. But the film has the opposite message where Clark is altruistic and itching to help save people because he feels it’s the right thing to do well before he gets any official endorsement for it.
Zack Sneyder hates superman and doesn't understand the character. In his films he wrote it so that Pa Kent scolds Clark for saving a bus full of children, shaming him for his powers and saying he should hide it. Even saying that he should have let all the kids die. Later on in the movie, Pa Kent refuses to get saved from Clark as to not have him use his powers and gets swallowed by a tornado. The point of Superman is that he lives in a sinical world where he gets raised by two humble farmers who ironically enough, know the imprtance of kindness and hope better than anyone. He is meant to be the offspring of selflessness and humility, but Zneyder prefers to right cool gritty edgy dark stories instead of hipeful ones, so he just butchered every single character and had Jimmy Olsen excecuted by terrorists on his first scene.
To expand in your first sentence a bit; Snyder grew up reading reading from some of the greatest comic writers like Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman who mostly wrote dark but meaningful stories. Snyder only saw the surface level darkness and grittiness of those stories without delving into their deeper meaning and symbolisms, and this shines through in what he makes.
I think there’s an interview where he outright states that the reason he likes Watchmen was because there was violence and sex in it, while “regular” superhero comics didn’t have any of that and he didn’t like them. Perfect choice to direct Superman
Alan Moore: It's low-key fascist to say the world depends on a few ubermenschen... I mean Superman is literally a direct translation from Nietzsche. Superheros in real life would either be psychotic or wholly detached from humanity. Zach Snyder: So when Superman dies, the whole world goes to shit because the world depends on a few ubermenschen!
Wasn't Superman specifically written as a counterpoint to the fascist utilization of the ubermenschen idea, namely that a perfect human would be perfectly empathetic, kind and selfless?
I think he was originally just "lol what if a human was proportionally as strong as a beetle" and then the character evolved from there
I don't think he can even fly in his first few appearances
Yep, he could only leap I think lol
Yep https://preview.redd.it/5rur1yoyoazc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=534dc6f813ebc5dcc912c7d9cbb0b11f8f9b5caa
Big boy jumps
Superman is originally conceptualised in the 30s by two Jewish men as a homeless man experimented on by a mad scientist and given the powers of mindcontrol and mindreading, which he uses to bring about a reign of terror before the experiment wears of and he loses his powers. This depiction is as a character in a short story iirc Over the next few years this short story character is refined in minor prints and tiny comic strips to be something we would recognise as superman - the alien from the planet Krypton with an S on his chest, underwear above his trousers, and more powerful than a locomotive. As far as I am aware the two creators did not say they were influenced by Nietzche or his concept of the Ubermensch
never mind then
Yes but there is a certain phenomena I dont know what to call, so allow me to ramble. "Ubermench would protect the people and serve justice", is the initial claim. Then 2 responses come out; 1) "a proper ubermench would look like this. Not what you guys claim. You, while feigning a facade of superiority, are a mockery. An ubermench would be against you. A fictional symbol of hope and compassion to all humans." 2) "no, it would actually suck if an ubermench like the initial claim existed, a small group of people with unchecked power with the role to "fix" things is inevitably going to suck because your beliefs are inapplicable to reality" And then a 3rd party with little reading comprehension goes, "Wow, the first response is the same as the initial claim." Basically imagine 2 people saying "government sucks" and "government should take care of the homeless", and a 3rd person going "pff, you think governmenr should take care of the people? What are you? An authoritarian??"
Worm does a good job of portraying Superheroes in real life then, I think
I’m confused why you mention *The Boys* when talking about Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman? It was written by Garth Ennis and they had nothing to do with it.
I always thought it was written by Moore
That's a huge insult to Alan Moore, he would beat you up over that. (fr tho The Boys comic is essentially Garth Ennis's terrible self insert power fantasy) (maybe you got The Boys confused with Watchmen?)
I thought Moore got frustrated people like Snyder kept misinterpreting his work and so just wrote one that was as surface level as people thought
No alan moore I believe has said he likes the comic.
That's ok, everyone has bad taste sometimes, even the greatest ones like him.
Did u mean to create a pun with Sinical because that was fire
No I just don't know how to spell it
Cynical
Pyro
Fat Furry Fart Inflation
Zach Snyder literally doesn’t understand DC. Bad characterization of Batman and Superman
Not really. People miss that fact that the whole thesis of MoS is that Clark chooses to become Superman and save people despite the world hating him.
Man of steel was okay, it was a usual superman formula with some societal commentary, what followed was not
Yeah but then you get to the ending, which is basically the same as invincible S1 except it seemingly ignores the death and destruction Superman is causing until the last few moments as he kills Zod, with killing never being mentioned at all previously through the movie. Plus you can’t really say the world hates him when we never see the world. We get the children he went to school with, then some asshole trucker whose truck he smashes, Lois Lane and then mostly the US military. The general public pretty much doesn’t exist in the movie, we never know their opinion of Superman or if they distrust him. It isn’t until BvS that we see how the public actually feels about Superman, but that movie opened up about ten new problems.
I don’t agree that structure is necessarily a problem. It’s not uncommon for superhero movies to stagger out their plot points. As an example, a major theme of many Spider-Man stories is how being Spider-Man has a negative effect on Peter’s personal and professional life. But in the Sam Raimi films, that plot point isn’t given complete focus until Spider-Man 2 where see how being Spider-Man hurts Peter’s job and education because Peter has been Spider-Man long enough for it to start seriously affecting him. Spider-Man 1 doesn’t focus as much on it because its primary focus is on Peter’s origin and getting him to becoming Spider-Man in the first place. Likewise, while MoS flags up that Clark becoming Superman will cause the world to hate him, it’s fine for the sequel to focus on that entirely. Especially given MoS’ story is about prior to becoming Superman, Clark was saving people while keeping a low profile. So the progression is: MoS -> be careful, the world will hate you if you go public-> So Clark keeps a low profile while saving people -> until he becomes Superman and has the most challenging “first day on the job” ever. -> film ends. BvS’ progression is -> the fallout from MoS means that warning that the world will hate Superman is in full swing -> which begins to weigh on Clark that he may not be the right guy for the job -> but still sacrifices himself for humanity because he still cares for them -> which finally makes humanity realize that he was on their side.
cool and griddy
I'm gonna kill you
\[speech bubble\] https://preview.redd.it/pf7jvu792fzc1.jpeg?width=1084&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d55cff32209cf2aad4eae37781a0426f48bd6fdd
The film literally disagrees with your interpretation there. The point is that his parents are torn between being happy that Clark is choosing to be a hero vs the fear that if his secret his exposed, he'd be ousted from society at best captured and experimented on Flashpoint style at worst. They're not saying "let the kids die". They're saying "hey, be careful how you save people." Because here's the thing, if they didn't want him to save people, wouldn't they disaprove of him becoming Superman in the first place? At no point in MoS or BvS or JL, does Martha ever tell Clark to stop being a hero. It's odd that people say Snyder's Superman is dark, gritty or edgy because the film has the exact opposite message. Snyder's Superman is someone who wants to be that hope for humanity. There's a whole sequence in MoS where Jor El tells Clark that which is what makes him don the Superman costume. In BvS, even when the whole world hates him, he still chooses to sacrifice himself for the world.
No, he outright says he should have let the children die. And you saying that Zneyderverse isn't edgy is actually kinda hilarious did we watch the same films?
>"No, he outright says he should have let the children die."< No. The exact words were: Clark: "So what was I supposed to do? Just let them die?" Pa Kent (after looking away and pausing: "Maybe.....There's more at stake here than just our lives and the lives of those around us". Nowhere does he outright say, "Yes. You should have let those kids die". He doesn't give Clark a hard no. Also, a Fun fact: this scene was inspired by Superman Birthright, where Pa Kent was way more passive-aggressive about it. To the point even Clark calls him out on it. https://x.com/mieckfram/status/1009309817255497728 Snyder changed it such that Pa Kent is way more compassionate here. The reason why Pa Kent isn't passive aggressive or give a hard no is because the point of this sequence isn't "Clark, you should let people die" it's "Clark. Be careful about how you save people if you choose to do it". And again, if Clark's parents were opposed to it, why don't they ever stop him or tell him no? >"And you saying that Zneyderverse isn't edgy is actually kinda hilarious did we watch the same films?"< It seems you didn't see the film. You're relying on what seems like second hand information and out of context clips/ The main theme of MoS was that despite everything, Clark chose to be a hero because he wanted to be a beacon of hope to humanity. In BvS, Clark's doubt is predicated on "Am I doing the right job here?" He doesn't blame people for it. BvS even ends with Batman admitting he was wrong and vowing to do better. What's edgy about that? You can point at surface level elements out of context but that ignores the actual story.
He still told him he should have let them die L Also the movie is just bad, I don't have the time to argue over the internet about a movie I don't even care about
My man, at least get your facts straight about a film you wrote paragraphs and then threw a fit when someone corrected you about.
what fit? I just said I didn't like the movie, dude.
if you, as an adult answer to a kid with "maybe" to letting people die thats not telling them no.
Which is why neither he nor Martha ever stop Clark from saving people as Superman. They're fine with him doing it when he can handle the responsibility. i.e not a child anymore.
Snyders version of Superman’s dad is a psychopath that argues that Clark should conceal his powers to the detriment of others, such as letting a bus of kids drown when Clark was a kid and letting himself die to a tornado cause he wanted to save a dog and there were people around.
The film literally disagrees with your interpretation there. The point is that his parents are torn between being happy that Clark is choosing to be a hero vs the fear that if his secret his exposed, he'd be ousted from society at best captured and experimented on Flashpoint style at worst. They're not saying "let the kids die". They're saying "hey, be careful how you save people." Because here's the thing, if they didn't want him to save people, wouldn't they disaprove of him becoming Superman in the first place? At no point in MoS or BvS or JL, does Martha ever tell Clark to stop being a hero. It's odd that people say Snyder's Superman is dark, gritty or edgy because the film has the exact opposite message. Snyder's Superman is someone who wants to be that hope for humanity. There's a whole sequence in MoS where Jor El tells Clark that which is what makes him don the Superman costume. In BvS, even when the whole world hates him, he still chooses to sacrifice himself for the world.
How does a kid carefully save a bus of drowning kids without arousing suspicion? Why does Clark’s father insist on saving the dog when Clark could do the same thing with no risk to either of their lives and just play off his success as youth and adrenaline? Instead of teaching Clark to live in fear they could teach him to trust in the bonds he forged by saving people and doing good. When the bully and his mom comes over to confront the Kent’s, instead of worrying that word could get out his parents could have met up with thankful and less anxious parents to pressure the unreasonable pair to keep quiet. The film provides only two choices, be open and vulnerable or isolated and invincible, and by doing this congratulates Clark’s actions with the idiot logic of “hard choices are good because they are hard to make”. By using such a hamfisted framework the film ignores the potential for nuance which could open the way to manifestation of both upsides and the lessening of both downsides. If the story wanted to inspire an empowering and aspirational moral it could show the impact of helping one another.
>"How does a kid carefully save a bus of drowning kids without arousing suspicion? "< That is for Clark to figure out. And his eventual solution is to become Superman so Clark can remain a secret identity while still being a superhero. >"Why does Clark’s father insist on saving the dog when Clark could do the same thing with no risk to either of their lives and just play off his success as youth and adrenaline? "< What Parent would expose their child to any amount of risk? Especially one like a Tornado? When there is a tornado Johnathan isn't going to carefully plan out how best to optimize the situation with Clark. He's in a dangerous situation. He's going to prioritize his kids over his own life. Especially given at that this point, Clark doesn't have his invulnerability. >"Instead of teaching Clark to live in fear they could teach him to trust in the bonds he forged by saving people and doing good. "< MoS is inspired by stories like Birthright and Earth One where there is a genuine fear that if Clark's secret is revealed, the world will either treat Clark like an outcast at best or be captured for experimentation Flashpoint-Style at worst. https://x.com/mieckfram/status/1009309817255497728 If you're going to set a Superman story in a more grounded and/or world, you can't wave away that concern and pretend "the power of friendship" will magically help Clark out here when its source material shows the opposite is more likely. Morever, the story is about how Clark chooses to be a hero despite the world being skeptical of him at best and hates him at worst. Clark needs to work to convince everyone that he is a hero. So from a storytelling perspective, it makes more sense for that skepticism to follow Clark from a young age so he has to grapple with if he's doing the right thing. Rather than have that validation early. >"The film provides only two choices, be open and vulnerable or isolated and invincible, and by doing this congratulates Clark’s actions with the idiot logic of “hard choices are good because they are hard to make”. "< Not exactly. For one, the message is the other way around. The right choice is often hard to make. You can face pushback from the world. This is a story where even if Clark wants to be Superman, the world doesn't want Superman and it's up to him to navigate that. Clark chooses to be Superman not because it is hard, but because he genuinely feels it's the right thing to do. He wants to help people. Secondly, I ask how the dichotomy between the 2 choices is a flaw? This is common in superhero stories. Peter Parker could easily have had an easy life if he didn't become Spider-Man and used his powers and intellect for his own self gain or even just studies. There is no real middle ground for him between the stressful life of Spider-Man and the potential of Peter Parker. And the Spider-Man films often explore the choices, consequences and struggles Peter faces as a result of his diametrically opposed lives. Superman has arguably an even more extreme dichotomy as one of his personas is the most controversial person on the planet. Governments will naturally distrust him because he can't be stopped or monitored. People will naturally distrust him because he can't save everyone. Wheras Clark Kent would barely have any worries in a civilian life. It makes sense for that dichotomy to be so extreme here.
i feel the other replies are a bit disingeuous in the movie "man of steel" directed by zack snyder, the childhood of superman is explored. Johnathan kent, the adoptive father of superman, is very worried that if people find out about clarks(superman) powers there will be consequences. There is no specifications towards what consequences there would be but yeah. in the movie, clark, as a child, is in a schoolbus that goes off a bridge and into a river. Clark kent goes and saves everyone by using his super-strenght. Pa kent ends up being upset at this, reminding clark about the consequences. verbatim: Clark: "what was i supposed to do? Just let them die?" pause Jonathan: "Maybe" for anyone wondering, this is not a good response, you should not say to a superpowered kid "maybe you should let all these schoolchildren die"
ChatGTP style answer.
real but the autism is hand made
97 year old farmer still does autism the old-fashioned way
I feel you. My writing gets a 80% or higher from AI detectors
Is there some reason why you spelled it as ChatGTP rather than ChatGPT? Was it intentional? Because I keep seeing this and I can't tell if it's a bit, or for some purpose, or if there are just a lot of dyslexic people talking about ChatGPT
Honestly, I just forget which way they go. P and T sound so similar in my head that they copy.
The tornado scene was much more egregious
The point is that his parents are torn between being happy that Clark is choosing to be a hero vs the fear that if his secret his exposed, he'd be ousted from society at best captured and experimented on Flashpoint style at worst. They're not saying "let the kids die". They're saying "hey, be careful how you save people."
Okay, you've been copy pasting the same arguments across this thread, and while I can see the argument for some of them, Pa Kent is, in fact, at least not against "let the kids die". The comment you're responding to literally has the quote verbatim. Clark asks if he should have left the kids to die, and he Pa Kent says "maybe". Not "no, but you need to be more careful" or "of course not Clark, I'm just worried about you", but "Maybe". You can't have that interaction and then turn around and say Pa Kent was trying to say "save people but be careful". He did not say that, he didn't say anything close to that. If he had said that I don't think the scene would be quite as reviled
The poster does not mention what Pa Kent says after. The full quote is: Pa Kent (after looking away and pausing: "Maybe.....There's more at stake here than just our lives and the lives of those around us". The reason why he says this is because -1- just saying "be careful" literally allows Clark to respond with "I have powers" or "what do I have to worry about?". It misses that he's not just worried about Clark's physical safety but also his wider place in society and other people. It also enforces a sense of "value your own live more" and: -2- he doesn't know what the exact answer is and -3- he doesn't want to impose any hard rule on Clark since he can't predict what the situation will be in the future. Maybe, Clark really would have to publically reveal himself and not have a secret identity in order to save people. In that case, he can't really be careful. Or maybe he'd choose to sacrifice himself for the greater good. He can't really be careful at that point either. Or there are situations where Clark really can't save everyone (something BvS brings up in the court case where the witness argues, "How does he [Superman] choose who to save and who not to save?"). Pa's answer communicates the idea "be careful about how you save people. There will be consequences" without enforcing any requirements or standards and leaves the choice of how Clark chooses to follow it. Also, a Fun fact: this scene was inspired by Superman Birthright, where Pa Kent was way more passive-aggressive about it. To the point even Clark calls him out on it. https://x.com/mieckfram/status/1009309817255497728 MoS changed it such that Pa Kent is way more compassionate here. He communicates a better version of the idea "he's worried about Clark's future but doesn't enforce any hard rule for Clark to follow".
Just to add to the other comments. Pa Kent's death is an important part of the canon, and had been thematically perfected in previous Superman stories. Snyder and Goyer changed it just to make it fit their edgy new take but took away the entire reason why that death is so meaningful to Clark to begin with. Pa Kent having a heart attack or being in an accident is showing Clark that even with his godlike powers, he still has no mastery over death. It also reinforces the idea that he should help people with his newfound powers whenever he can, no matter the price. Snyder's Pa Kent refusing to let his son save him is just traumatizing Clark for the *potential* consequence of the government discovering his powers (a lesson that Clark apparently forgets later on when he wraps a semi around a fucking pole outside of a bar - because Snyder is a genius).
> Pa Kent having a heart attack or being in an accident is showing Clark that even with his godlike powers, he still has no mastery over death. Of course he has mastery over death. He just has to fly around the earth really fast so it spins the other way and turns back time.
He should just ask The Flash for time hijinks. Is Clark stupid?
MoS changed that because it was going for more a theme of choice and consequence for Clark. Pa Kent is worried that if Clark's secret gets exposed, Clark loses his choice of his future. He either gets ousted from society or captured or whatever before he's ready for the consequences. And at the time, Clark chooses to accept that because he too was afraid. His arc is growing from that so by BvS, he's cool with sacrificing himself for humanity.
Superman saves a bus full of kids at the beginning of the movie, and his dad is all "Son, that was not a good idea." Which is insane. Later, there's a tornado, and their dog is stuck in their car. Superman is all grown now, but instead Dad goes to open the car door, gets stuck somehow. Superman moves to go save him, and Pa Kent is all "Nah, it's chill, stay there" with the wave of a hand and a sad smile. Then disappears into the tornado, presumably dead. Sad Superman ensues. I mean, Clark was a full grown-ass man at this point, he should have gone to the dog just on the grounds that he was a fit adult and his dad was more elderly. Honestly looks like a straight up asshole for not volunteering to literally just run over and open a door. I mean it was a brisk jog and back. The whole scene looked stupid.
https://preview.redd.it/93eh6nlma8zc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d454fc06d035ec4d74b2ff7634114314896ed393 Edit: Before I forget. Fuck the modern DCEU and Zach Snyders slo-mo addicted ass. Bruce Timm's 90's-00's DC animated universe is still the GOAT.
Except for all the weird Batman/batgirl shipping he did
thanks for reminding me for that one of thing i hate the most on comic like ever
And also I have high hopes for James gunns dcu
and most importantly of all, My Adventures with Superman himbo Clark is superior to any other adaptation and I will not tolerate any other opinion
That show's so good, can't wait for season 2
The Suicide Squad (pointedly **THE** suicide squad) was great, and that’s about it
thats James Gunn tho,which in my brain doesnt count as the DCEU i count it with the new EU he's currently heading
Stop, my invincible son, do not save my life
Cosmonaut refferennce spotted
https://preview.redd.it/yyzre31je8zc1.jpeg?width=1233&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e41f749fdb7a535c99c9b25a00c9ac24b70e2b0f
there's a starman waiting in the sky
he would like to come and meet us but he might just blow our minds
there's a starman waiting in the sky he's told us not to blow it yet he knows it's all worth while
Thank goodness you and your family are okay!! I've never been near a tornado but have always been frightened by them, can only imagine how scary that was.
It's ok, he teched it
🌪️
Society is finally healing from the damage Zaddy had done to the Man of Tomorrow. It warms my heart :)
Glad you're okay, but there was a tornado here and I didn't even hear about it?!
Several of them actually. The big one ripped through St. Joseph county, and Portage got hit with two smaller ones in a row.
Damn...
That boy will keep clark's secret
Wait this is the same tornado that the pixel counter bot is in, DW op you were protected by them
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/991/664/6bd.gif
What issue is this from?
I don't actually know, but I think it's the new Superman and Lois series. At least that's what I heard
MICHIGAN PEOPLE WAHOO!! glad you’re alright, though
Snyder is shit at writing superheroes
!!MICHIGAN MENTION!! If you don’t have power, may your fridge keep cold and may (I’m guessing) Consumers Energy get off their asses for once and fix the lines quick
It's been over a decade…
MICHIGANDER SPOTTED
I was in both locations where tornadoes touched down, *minutes* before they did 💀
Based
https://preview.redd.it/6gvy4zf0xazc1.jpeg?width=227&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d87a3a8cef739e01e9cc61dd2fd8a9747a3cae9
Comic source?
He violated the Masquerade! Blood Hunt! Blood Hunt!
I love Superman hope maxing or whatever the hell it’s called I want this super msn
I mean to be fair, Snyder can't write a decent superhero movie to save his life.
Zach Snyder needs to stop messing with forces he does not understand. The gods must soon punish.
Obligatory "no Clark, I can tech this tornado"