So why was it ok for Donnerman to beat up truckers, but not for Snyderman?

[Jon-El]

Having the access we have to films now leads to over analyzing sometimes. We spot flaws & question motives that weren't apparent or even intended.

[Agent Z]

Ok.

I'm not really sure to what level I did that.

Can't blame Superman for other peoples free-will. But leaving, for example, a loaded gun with a shooter can be comfortably called into judgement.

We do not arrest nor blame people for things sexual predators do when they are angry. If that guy was as unhinged as you say, then it didn't matter what Clark did. There is zero evidence this guy was a murderer. I'm sure your head canon is wonderful but let's stick to what's on screen.

And going by your inane logic, then Clark would have had to shadow Rocky from Superman II 24/7 to make sure he actually learned his lesson and didn't decided to take his anger out on someone else.

Clark had quit his job at the diner that day. Any responsibility he had to that place was done.

But hey, I'll be sure to keep your argument in mind next time somebody tries to defend Clark handing Luthor over to a justice system that will give him a slap on the wrist at most all the while Clark is aware of what a bastard Lex truly is

[Agent Z]

Turning the man's truck into a giant teepee cover instead of just kicking him and possibly his friends out of the bar isn't exactly what I'd call self-control.

Besides, who said beat him up? Let the guy wail on Clark and hurt himself. Or, if he IS going to trash the truck, leave the note like I'd suggested.

It's more self control than the Donner version displays.

That only works if the trucker tries to beat him up or if Clark goads him into it. As for the note, what makes you tghink this will accomplish anything other than piss the trucker off? You have a way to optimistic view of bullies.

[Agent Z]

2. We don't know that he'll learn his lesson, but he's just had his ego checked big time, which can't hurt. Heck of a lot better than just letting him get away with things - bullies unchecked often go on to do more. They start small, work their way up. After that trouncing, he's likely trying to piece together just what the heck happened. As for his bills, this is a Superman who's shown to be both comfortable and very in control of his power. The guy has a busted hand and had his "bell rung", maybe a new phobia of guys with thick black glasses lol, but otherwise I'm sure he's fine.

Wow hwo would have thought getting sent head first into a juke box would be so uneventful.

3. LOL! Point well made and well taken - but this is just a matter of cause/effect. It doesn't accomplish the goals that Clark has in the bar (getting the drunk guy away from the girl) and potentially exacerbates the situation.

Again, this is a pretty huge leap. Clark already got the guy to stop harrasing the waitress. The truck was the payback. Donner's version is motivated by nothing but wounded ego in both confrontations with Rocky.

Yes, but one has a much better chance than the other.

How many bullies do you know change their ways after getting beaten up?

[Jon-El]

I didn't have an issue with either scene. Just showed Superman is human. Extremely noble and thoughtful but who enjoyed sticking it to some bully who had it coming.

I remember a story from the late 70's where Superman enlisted Batman's just to screw with Steve Lombard. Who didn't want to stick it to a bully at sometime?

[Username taken]

I don't have any problem with any of them.

Both those bullies deserved it.

[_Feely_]

We do not arrest nor blame people for things sexual predators do when they are angry. If that guy was as unhinged as you say, then it didn't matter what Clark did. There is zero evidence this guy was a murderer. I'm sure your head canon is wonderful but let's stick to what's on screen.

And going by your inane logic, then Clark would have had to shadow Rocky from Superman II 24/7 to make sure he actually learned his lesson and didn't decided to take his anger out on someone else.

Clark had quit his job at the diner that day. Any responsibility he had to that place was done.

But hey, I'll be sure to keep your argument in mind next time somebody tries to defend Clark handing Luthor over to a justice system that will give him a slap on the wrist at most all the while Clark is aware of what a bastard Lex truly is

Now, now. No need to be rude. It's not like your logic, or sense of morality for that matter, is entirely iron-clad.

When all's said and done, one film asks us to put our brains in neutral and enjoy the ride. The other asks us to comprehend the very real danger of Gods walking the Earth.

That's why I have a problem with the scene in MoS.

EDIT: The sentence I just deleted harsh and unnecessary. Forgive me.

[Agent Z]

Now, now. No need to be rude. It's not like your logic, or sense of morality for that matter, is entirely iron-clad.

Certainly moreso than yours.

When all's said and done, one film asks us to put our brains in neutral and enjoy the ride. The other asks us to comprehend the very real danger of Gods walking the Earth.

The latter has nothing to do with what a sexual harasser does. Your leaps in lofic could make the Incredible Hulk greener with envy.

I actually couldn't care less of your opinion and more fool me for engaging with you.

Feeling's mutual.

[_Feely_]

Certainly moreso than yours.

The latter has nothing to do with what a sexual harasser does. Your leaps in lofic could make the Incredible Hulk greener with envy.

Feeling's mutual.

I deleted that last sentence. I apologise again for being harsh. It was unnecessary.

[JAK]

It's more self control than the Donner version displays.

No, I don't agree. At best, it's even. But one has more long-term effects than the other.

That only works if the trucker tries to beat him up or if Clark goads him into it. As for the note, what makes you think this will accomplish anything other than piss the trucker off? You have a way to optimistic view of bullies.

So... the guy's truck being totaled doesn't piss him off, but the note will do it? I'd say he's pissed before he ever sees the note. I'll tell you exactly what will happen with the note: here's a guy who has never seen a person with this kind of power. He sees the note on his totaled truck, he knows someone did this (who knows how). He gets mad and goes to grab the note but it burns away before he can. That drunk trucker now has the crap scared out of him because that's X-files type stuff. If that's what happened to the truck - and the notes says it's a first warning - what happens to him if he tries that again? The guy would most likely never come back, and may need a new pair of pants.

Wow hwo would have thought getting sent head first into a juke box would be so uneventful.

Never said it was uneventful, just that it wouldn't necessarily be all that serious given the control that version of Clark was generally shown to have with his powers. Not to mention the liberties the Donner/Lesterverse takes with human durability and the laws of physics to begin with (Gus Gorman skiing off a building, for instance).

Again, this is a pretty huge leap. Clark already got the guy to stop harrasing the waitress. The truck was the payback. Donner's version is motivated by nothing but wounded ego in both confrontations with Rocky.

So, given this reading, both are largely even, as I'd already said. Both are reactions of ego. And in all of what I've said about Reeve's Superman having potentially larger reasons for coming back to the diner, I never said ego wasn't any part of it. Just that I don't feel it was necessarily all of it. Which gives it an ever-so-slight edge, or potential edge.

How many bullies do you know change their ways after getting beaten up?

More than the number who change if nobody does anything, which is what was happening without Clark's presence - in both versions. There's nothing wrong with bully comeuppance in movies - it's a pretty standard theme in a lot of them. But as movies and people have progressed, writers/directors thinking these things through becomes more important. A scene giving the audience their jollies and serving no other real purpose doesn't work as well as it used to - especially in a movie that conditioned the viewer's expectation (since the first trailers and the ad campaign) toward "real life" and not something lighter and campier. Things that work in a movie like "Goonies" or "Superman II" won't play as well under a heavy banner of "dramatic pseudo-realism" (I only say pseudo because it's a movie skewed toward realism about an alien who can fly, that's not meant as a knock), and vice versa.

[Agent Z]

No, I don't agree. At best, it's even. But one has more long-term effects than the other.

One inflicts damage on an inanimate object that can be replaced. The other inflicted damage on a person.

So... the guy's truck being totaled doesn't piss him off, but the note will do it? I'd say he's pissed before he ever sees the note. I'll tell you exactly what will happen with the note: here's a guy who has never seen a person with this kind of power. He sees the note on his totaled truck, he knows someone did this (who knows how). He gets mad and goes to grab the note but it burns away before he can. That drunk trucker now has the crap scared out of him because that's X-files type stuff. If that's what happened to the truck - and the notes says it's a first warning - what happens to him if he tries that again? The guy would most likely never come back, and may need a new pair of pants.

And as we all know, fear has never motivated people into committing violence.
Here’s the thing; you know as well as I do what that guy is going to do next, which in both out cases is jack with a side order of squat. Both films ignore the bullies’ actions following their encounter with Clark. Rocky could simply opt to pick on people who don’t wear glasses in future.

Never said it was uneventful, just that it wouldn't necessarily be all that serious given the control that version of Clark was generally shown to have with his powers. Not to mention the liberties the Donner/Lesterverse takes with human durability and the laws of physics to begin with (Gus Gorman skiing off a building, for instance).

Yeah I guess human durability was only an issue when it was time to show how pathetic Clark is without his powers.

So, given this reading, both are largely even, as I'd already said. Both are reactions of ego. And in all of what I've said about Reeve's Superman having potentially larger reasons for coming back to the diner, I never said ego wasn't any part of it. Just that I don't feel it was necessarily all of it. Which gives it an ever-so-slight edge, or potential edge.

There is nothing in the movie to support Donner Superman doing it for anything more than his ego.

[Buried Alien]

There is nothing in the movie to support Donner Superman doing it for anything more than his ego.

I always thought it was because that diner served the best freshly squeezed orange juice to be found in the Western Hemisphere.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[JAK]

One inflicts damage on an inanimate object that can be replaced. The other inflicted damage on a person.

The damage to the person wasn't that bad. And the property damage was paid for.

And as we all know, fear has never motivated people into committing violence.
Here’s the thing; you know as well as I do what that guy is going to do next, which in both out cases is jack with a side order of squat. Both films ignore the bullies’ actions following their encounter with Clark. Rocky could simply opt to pick on people who don’t wear glasses in future.

Regular fear is one thing, and if that was the case you'd be right. But this is a whole other level entirely. If that modified MoS scenario happened to you, you'd be thinking twice before repeating whatever behavior that was warning against. The truck being trashed like that (with three full-length logs completely through the cab) is a lot more intimidating than anything that man could have ever seen before in his life.

And yes, the narrative says exactly what you're saying since we don't see it. It's just that when the movie touts "real life" and sets that tone in the viewer, a more critical yardstick should be expected. And for S2, you're possibly right - Rocky may well just avoid people with glasses (I actually said that already)... which would be a step in the right direction, I suppose. lol

Yeah I guess human durability was only an issue when it was time to show how pathetic Clark is without his powers.

In the Donner/Lesterverse? Yes, quite specifically. Physics and durability changed on a whim to suit the mood of the scene. And yes, he was pretty pathetic without his powers.

There is nothing in the movie to support Donner Superman doing it for anything more than his ego.

There is, but it isn't specific and it's subtle enough that it's not irrefutable (as I've said a good number of times), but there are things there that can lend to the other being at least an added possibility (which doesn't exist in MoS's scene). Which brings back my 0 vs 0.1 rating.

I always thought it was because that diner served the best freshly squeezed orange juice to be found in the Western Hemisphere.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

HA! Well done, sir!

[Agniwolf]

The damage to the person wasn't that bad. And the property damage was paid for.



Regular fear is one thing, and if that was the case you'd be right. But this is a whole other level entirely. If that modified MoS scenario happened to you, you'd be thinking twice before repeating whatever behavior that was warning against.

And yes, the narrative says exactly what you're saying since we don't see it. It's just that when the movie touts "real life" and sets that tone in the viewer, a more critical yardstick should be expected. And for S2, you're possibly right - Rocky may well just avoid people with glasses (I actually said that already)... which would be a step in the right direction, I suppose. lol



In the Donner/Lesterverse? Yes, quite specifically. Physics and durability changed on a whim to suit the mood of the scene. And yes, he was pretty pathetic without his powers.



There is, but it isn't specific and it's subtle enough that it's not irrefutable (as I've said a good number of times), but there are things there that can lend to the other being at least an added possibility (which doesn't exist in MoS's scene). Which brings back my 0 vs 0.1 rating.



HA! Well done, sir!

the only thing i undertood from this, and it is legitimate, is that we end liking one better that the other and as such we justify to ourselves one as having better reasons than the other, even if that is 0,1

[JAK]

the only thing i undertood from this, and it is legitimate, is that we end liking one better that the other and as such we justify to ourselves one as having better reasons than the other, even if that is 0,1

That's absolutely legitimate. I would say it also has to do with our own life experiences - two people can see the same scenarios and, even if both approach them from an honest standpoint of rationalizing each, will find one more easy to do than the other.

It's one reason these discussions can be interesting; it gets to the heart of other perspectives and rationalizations, so we can look at those ourselves and see if there's something of merit we can add to expand our own. If that makes any sense.