I'm finally catching up on this thread, so I've got a lot of comments to what others have said.
Originally posted by Tzigone:
"Blinded by love" doesn't work for me on multiple levels. Caveat that I don't remember the actual speech from Wells at all. But I don't like the concept of that.
...
And lastly, I think seeing a person as they really are in their entirety and loving them for that is far more romantic than than being blinded by love. Give me clear sight any day - to see all the flaws and all the strengths and still love.
I completely agree. I hate Wells' speech about this. It's a load of baloney to make Lois feel better about having fallen for Clark's deceptions.
I also don't like the idea that Lois can only really forgive Clark for pretending to be two people if he can convince her that he had
always intended to tell her. This theme crops up in a lot of fanfiction, and it makes me cringe. In both cases she just needs to accept that he had good reasons for keeping his identity a secret from
everyone, and rather than having to come up with excuses why he
didn't tell her, he would need specific reasons why he should tell her at all.
AmyPrime said:
I also stand by my earlier assessment of Jonathan: "There's more at stake here than our lives and the lives of those around us. The world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything, our beliefs, what it means to be human, everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared. People are afraid of what they don't understand."
Who is Jonathan to determine whether the world is "ready" to know about Clark? How can the world really be ready if it's not generally accepted that there are aliens? Jonathan seemed to assume that the world would be ready some time in Clark's lifetime, but how would he know when that would be? Jonathan's reasoning didn't make a lot of sense to me.
I would contend that Clark wasn't ready for the world to know about him. He needed to mature and learn not only to handle his powers safely, but also to hide them when appropriate. He also needed to decide whether to be "out" as Clark Kent or to come up with an alternate persona. Then when Clark was ready to reveal himself, the world would take care of itself.
AmyPrime said:
Perry refers to Clark as the new "stringer," i.e. freelancer, so maybe he just had to show up with one good story that Perry wanted to buy. Then the only curious bit is that he assigned his Pulitzer-winning star to "show him the ropes."
I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out. It makes more sense that Clark would start as a freelancer, since even if he did have a degree in journalism, he has no experience (or at least no recent experience).
Mozartmaid said:
I now like the new suit, sans red pants. :Big Grin: The detail on the cape was quite nice as well...
I liked the suit except for the weird pointy design around his waist. Why does Superman have an outfit that points at his crotch?
Before seeing the movie, I had massive reservations about the texturing on the suit, but it works the way they portrayed it as part of the Kryptonian military uniform. It's kind of the padded armor under the platemail. I'm not sure how easily he'll be able to wear it under his street clothes, though. It's pretty thick. But I guess we can hand-waive that issue away along with "where do his boots go when he's in street clothes?" and "How does he fit his glasses and shoes into that pocket in his cape without destroying them?" People seem to harp on wondering where his cape goes, but I've read comics where it shows him tucking the cape into his pants.
John Lambert wrote:
On the other hand, I think the death of Zod was unavoidable. The reasons and situations were compelling. I do not think he had any choice there. Maybe I am conditioned by having read the Book of Mormon so many times and having dealt with Nephi killing Laban. Still, there are situations where killing is unavoidable, and dealing with a invading, war fighting enemy is one of them.
They certainly wrote Superman into a corner. He didn't seem to have any other option than to kill Zod. I hadn't made the connection to Nephi, but that comparison breaks down for me because their paths to deciding to kill are completely different. I see as more similar to the defense of "freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children". Under the circumstances, Superman was right to kill Zod. It was a war in defense of his freedom and his people, and the only way to stop Zod was to kill him.
If it was anyone else in Superman's place, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I contend, though, that the writers shouldn't have written Superman into that corner in the first place. Despite killing being acceptable under the circumstances, it goes against Superman's character to have him kill. In
Kingdom Come, for example, Magog is a new superhero that resorts to killing the villains, and the public cheers him on. Magog and the public make fun of Superman for refusing to kill, and they end up driving him away because he's "too old-fashioned" and won't keep up with the times and kill. Without too many spoilers, things go massively awry because of the methods of Magog and his ilk, and Superman's morals are vindicated.
I like the way
Mark Waid explains why Superman killing Zod doesn't work. (He has written Kingdom Come, other Superman comics, and a whole slew of other comics. I agree with everything he says in his review except for his opinion about Pa Kent.) I also like his
comment further down the page why claiming "But he killed Zod in the 80s" isn't a solid argument why he should have killed Zod in the movie.
I also liked a
review on Comics Alliance that ended with
And it’s also clearly stated that the only reason Zod and his cronies are on Earth at all is because of Superman, which raises the question “Wouldn’t everybody be a whole lot better off if Superman never landed on Earth?”
That’s not a question anyone should come out of a Superman movie asking.
That's exactly how I felt as I was leaving the theater.
