Man of Steel answers insight commentary episode 14 epic mailbag will ask the obvious question start asking questions and answers welcome to Man of Steel answers insight commentary on your Man of Steel apologist Dr. awkward I cover a mosaic of topics for fans who love discussing the Man of Steel and the DC cinematic universe together will endeavor to answer the questions criticisms and controversies raised by Man of Steel and those excited by the anticipated DC cinematic universe this podcast dives deep into Man of Steel to answer the critics and the confused the show is not meant to convert anybody but the celebrate a film that will lead us into the DC cinematic universe reasonable minds will differ but this is a show for fans who love the Man of Steel and who love to chew their food what's up guys just wanted to take a break from the scene by scene beat by beat commentary that I've been doing I feel that that's a logical approach in showing how each scene is informed by the previous ones and how they just keep building on top of one another next will be doing a breakdown of Jonathan's incursion into Clark in the barn will take on the bar scene and Ellesmere will talk a little bit again about superspeed and I know I skipped over krypton but it's only because there so much a dental impact that I might never actually get to Superman before Batman be Superman comes out but I think what we'll do was briefly look at how and why it informs the rest of the film of course those are my lofty goals for which I've had no time to prepare this week last week I released a few videos intended to debunk Man of Steel maths and that use that my time for the podcast for those videos am trying to pick visual matters for the videos with points that can be clearly expressed in a very simple fashion mostly because I don't have the time to add recording and audio editing to the list of things I got it do for those videos so the points have to be short they have to fit in the subtitles and there should be some strong piece of visual evidence to make the point or convinced the viewer usually the actual core the myth can be disproven with basically a single image or sequence but I try to use the myth as a talking point for some larger themes or ideas for example in the Superman saves no one video I do give brief apologetics for why Clark doesn't talk with his mom about's odds ultimatum and what to do will go into that more in the future but that's the essential core of the argument in the scout ship video I try to get the viewer to think about the future implications of the technology on the DCC you more on that later regarding Batman's armor in the fetus video I tried to contrast's odds krypton against Jor-El's when all it really takes is to put that active in inactive chambers side-by-side disorder prove the point so trying to provide added value insight and provoke thought beyond simply debunking some rather obvious misconceptions anyways I got more videos planned but between that real-life and work the podcast is probably to have to slow down a bit to maintain the level quality that I'm looking for a could easily just give my opinion about matters without preparation or editing each week just rambling on in our it is time but I'd rather have quality over quantity reason over rambling and persuasion over pandering of course I don't mind a little bit of off-the-cuff answers and pursuant to me not having time this episode will be that kind of unpolished opinion and perhaps provide inspiration for more in depth discussion of future date the only prep I've done is to sort of remove some of the questions that were similar or organize them into groups and of course some of these questions I thought about for a while but haven't actually happening notes are written anything down let's just see how many we can get through tonight so starting off we have Hector who wants to know what I think about the fight choreographer's comments and if you don't release talking about there was a report for English-speaking networks emanating out of Batman on film and what they did was they reported on an interview with loss and Ace Diario you can see the fruit of me not prepping with fight choreographer or coordinator Guillermo Crespo that's GRI SPO and I believe he said something to the effect of there's the thought that Batman has no chance and that the other Superman will squash him like a bug but when you see the movie and how it all comes out is a very intelligent explanation as to why they would have a first-hand confrontation though it seems to be totally at Batman's disadvantage well for the purpose of the statement I'm just can read the why as a how I think that makes a whole statement more consistent because now you're talking about means and logistics through the whole thing out rather than switching from means to motive back to means again and I think that's the way most people have taken the statement the talking about apparently there's some sort of very intelligent mechanic for making a fight between Batman and Superman plausible and sensible world of mechanic that everybody immediately jumps to is probably kryptonite which is certainly traditional and it's plausible but I don't find it particularly interesting or very intelligent saying that my answers are more intelligent per se but at least they're more interesting way sort of approach this was I thought well we know that very likely he's going to be in some armor at the very minimum we seen that footage of Batman in armor during the comic con visual teaser and a lot of people think that Batman donning armor that nigh invincible or nine vulnerable like kryptonian armor gives him a way of standing toe to toe with Superman but the public that is it doesn't matter how strong or invulnerable the armor may be it doesn't matter because the contents about armor namely Batman can get completely jealous side by tremendous Superman level strikes after Superman hits that armor with the strength that he's capable of it doesn't matter if the armor is intact Batman would still turn into mush inside unless he has a way of controlling the amount of force he takes by say reducing it or he can control the amount of inertia that he experiences inside the suit in the control of force and the control of inertia both happened to be standard starship technologies usually we call them force fields or inertial dampeners if you watch the two videos that we put on the YouTube channel you do see that one of the things that we put forward is that the dropship is still out there and one of things implicit with having a starship is the need for force fields you have this object that's traveling at super luminal speeds it can travel up between land and spacelike nothing and even Cal wells vessel was able to get from Saturn to earth easily anything traveling that fast through space and through atmosphere it's got have shields otherwise the smallest piece of debris that you run into the smallest little bird strike or anything is can a turn into a colossal issue now the other thing we can notice is that when you're on the bridge of the black zero there are no harnesses there are no chairs there are no ways to secure yourself in position if anything shakes that means that they're not expecting anything to shake and that means that they have inertial dampeners inertial dampeners prevents that sort of Star Trek trope of everything shaking inside the ship when they come under attack and in the larger context of a were talking about the prevents Batman from being jealous fight inside kryptonian armor in the last thing that we shouldn't take for granted is the fact that the black zero has artificial gravity while it's in orbit while it hovers effortlessly and can door and in metropolis and there so many other examples of antigravity or gravity manipulation or gravity being a part of kryptonian technology so this is a race of people that have mastered gravity so between force fields and inertial dampening and the mastery of gravity all of these have defensive applications that you could used to prevent a physical threat like a punch from Superman of course the problem with this kind of approach is roughly threefold I mean first of all your making Batman very sort of sci-fi he much more than his sort of criminal contemporary roots but I think by the time you put them in a suit of power armor your sort of already crossing that line anyways it goes contrary to an intuition so when they're dealing with things that affect the fundamental forces of the universe it sort of expected that it requires a large starship and huge components in order to operate not things that are Superman portable when you think of even Cal wells vessel that required a C-17 to be delivered it wasn't just something that was man portable the other two problems deal roughly with implications going backwards and implications going forwards if you could have a man portable force field or inertial dampeners that could absorb Superman level strikes then widen the kryptonian's come up with a first why were there ships equipped with such defenses to repel something like Superman in Man of Steel and going forwards got asked the question of this is something that allows Batman to stand toe to toe with Superman why wouldn't Batman use it every day henceforth both is the way that the going and again I'm not saying that they are I'm just using this is a thought experiment but if this was the way that they're going I think they're all addressable I mean we have seen the little floating robots we did talk about them way back in episode one about Farrakhan a suggested that maybe they don't have antigravity but who knows maybe they do and if they do have antigravity that kind of suggests that kryptonian antigravity technology is man portable it can fit within the size of one of those robots additionally the shields or the inertial dampeners or the antigravity required by something like a starship is substantial but Batman he doesn't need to deflect space to breeze moving close to the speed of light now he does need something to survive Superman who was pulling his punches or likely to be pulling his punches that may allow for sufficient miniaturization to justify make it man portable and regarding those past and future implications all you got a do is right in some sort of limiter or danger a means of sci-fi's you can make up whatever kind of constraints of limitations or dangers that you want to make up you to got a make it so that it's inexcusable to use for any reason except when you're fighting a kryptonian so for example Batman's configuration of these force fields and inertial dampeners may require city blocks to be drained of all power in order to operate the suit itself might threaten to blow up like a nuke in a populated city so it's very high risk the suit could also say a radiate the user making it a high risk of say terminal illness or death something that say shortens your life by 10 or 20 years now Batman at the end of his life you may say what the hell let's go for it but any other rational person would put that suit on whatever limitation they put on it only have to do is make it the same sort of insane and suicidal thing that only a crazy humanlike Batman with developing used and not the more Stoic conservative and cautious kryptonian's anyways that's just the example of thinking something through we want Batman and Superman to fight we want Superman to have powers and that fight because otherwise it's a boring fight of Batman just beating up on somebody without powers wears the fun in that we don't necessarily want to rely on a crutch or something as boring as kryptonite or the atmospheric weakness and so were left with try to figure out how to keep Batman alive and the first step is to make him make his exterior invulnerable so we given that armor but then how do we make sure that he doesn't jealous by that's where we introduce some of the more magical aspects of science fiction with inertial dampeners or gravity manipulation or force fields as all of those things flow naturally out of spacefaring science fiction you haven't really broken the world by introducing those things so that's one way they could go about it I'm not saying that's the way they are going about it I'm not can a be disappointed if they don't go that way is just an experiment to show how is to work these things out that was sort of a tangent it was just something brought on by the choreographers comments the other things that he talks about he does talk about how they're going a really ramp up that style that is really with in Zack Snyder's wheelhouse to make sure that the fights are compelling and interesting and dynamic to look at so all of that is really exciting it does give us a hint of something that we already saw a little bit of an Man of Steel and I'm sure you're aware that my perspective I think moped most people's perspective of Man of Steel is that it is a very realistic film in terms of its rationality and the rigidity of its rules and I love that I think that's great I think that's a really good thing for the design and the style and the goals are met film but one of the places where they sort of dial back back a little bit and I don't think anybody's complaining about it takes well maybe a little bit but what were given that when we get into it I don't know for them to do it today but up one of the things where they dial that back a little bit is with the martial arts right now I'm not can a start a whole flame war or debate about the efficacy of martial arts but let's just say that it is a bit of a stylistic aspect to say you put somebody in with training and suddenly he takes out multiple individuals that are armed and who outnumber him and had training as well right that is a bit of a trope and it is one of the places where the film does fall into more traditional actions stereotype be us storytelling as opposed to being sort of a rigid realistic documentary style storytelling and do I might not it all I think it's one of the things that we go to the films to see is one of things that we really want to see from Batman and having the reality dial back a little bit in order to make the entertainment factor go up there is something I'm completely on board with but one of things that can happen with that is once we start peeling reality back is it it may go out and spread throughout the rest the story so once you're saying that martial arts makes you sufficiently effective to take on so many enemies how much further you go to say well may be a child with martial arts training can take on multiple enemies or in a what's the what's the difference in weight class what's the difference in skill what's the difference in all these other kind of things little factors that tend to be more objective but where were allowing this trope to sort of come into the world to make it more entertaining more interesting and again for Man of Steel I absolutely love the hyper realism I love the rigidity I love the care that was taken and observing these rules and maintaining them but it is hard to write around is very talks to maintain that was such a strict level of discipline while still completely serving these comic book characters these four-color extraordinary beings who are just let's face it not particularly real in and of themselves so at a certain point it may make sense to sort dial back the reality just to make adaptation easier to bring in elements from the more fantastic easier but look if they can do it if they can pull it off and do it all believably and do it all realistically and do it in a way that that doesn't insult anybody's intelligence but still honors the underlying work I'm all for it that I would love that I just don't know that everybody has the chops to do that for an entire movie universe but it will be exciting to see that the way they go worth it if that's not the way they go I've an open mind a matter how they go about it I just want good films and again whether it's starkly realistic or not it doesn't necessarily dictate where the film is good or not it certainly for Man of Steel made it a very novel story and one of the reasons I really appreciate it and the next question that we have comes from Maggie and it's actually kind of related she wants to know what about an all ages DCC and her email basically talks about how she loves Man of Steel but she wonders if it means that the entire DCC you will never be all ages in other words it's can have that same can't kind of tone or seriousness or mature content as Man of Steel think it's a good question I think it's way too early to call this one the new era of heroes is still being ushered in an just as the tone of a franchise can get darker you may be surprised but it it can happen franchises can also get lighter it's actually pretty common for sitcoms to grow more and more cartoonish over time and particularly with summer blockbuster film franchises a lot of times those actions films or those busters as their budgets expand they can leave the more rigidly realistic and start to enter more stylized arena as and when they do that sometimes to become later or they become a more self-referential or they become different Intel and and they can and they do sometimes become all ages not one of those attempts to go from dark to light are as successful as a times to go from light to dark but they exist and their out there and if I had prepared more thoroughly I probably would've had examples lined up but I'm just doing all this from the top my head so the only one coming to mind are all bad movies so don't worry about those maybe I'll come back to this when I can think of five some better films but look for the sake of argument I think it's a good point I don't get too much and semantics but I'd argue that Man of Steel is still and all ages film just not an all audience film in other is some swearing there is childbirth there is intense violence and there are very complicated themes that I think even adults failed to pick up on or catch but I don't think there's anything in there that hasn't been presented children in the past through it out fairy tales or say the Bible or or other forms of storytelling albeit you know that's less graphic and that's less visceral and I fully acknowledge and accept that that isn't and probably shouldn't be the standard by which anyone parents right you should be looking at the lowest possible threshold of what has come before but I think if you know your audience and you know what their proclivities are in what they can see this is something that can reach any and all ages just not honestly all audiences some audiences are not can be comfortable with the content that I just talked about really know that Man of Steel is acceptable for young kids just say generally and personally knowing how divisive the film has been I think the appropriate response is to air on the side of caution as opposed to trying to thrust or evangelize the film upon people without common sense right for the sake of the question let me just concede that Man of Steel isn't all ages what is that mean for the DCC you at all I think it seems that Marvel has an advantage here because the fans of today will grow up to be the fans of tomorrow and the plan for these films is long-term and the franchises can grow up with their audiences and honestly I can't think that the all ages approach is a better strategy overall however the adult oriented strategy can succeed man I wish I had prepared but I'm going to guess that if you look at the top 25 worldwide grossing films of all-time the guess that all ages films are the exception rather than the rule talking about tone but on talk about content this pretty terrible but I bet I I don't think of as a the top do so like avatar end and Titanic but it is a trite example I don't think many people would consider say Titanic a dark film but nonetheless it contains say nudity right so I'm sure the dark Knight returns and probably dark Knight rises are both in that top 25 worldwide gross is billion-dollar films and of course neither of those are particularly light or completely family-friendly films right to the bottom line is that there isn't one and only one way to do things doesn't matter if one vision works or one vision is more likely to work there is enough room here and the market is open enough and most people's minds are open enough that you can try different approaches and take different tax is not like art or life or investment is a very sort of discrete to min maxing where all the rules are laid out in not perfect order and it of formula that could be followed absolutely right if if the formulas were perfect that everybody would follow the formulas and everybody would receive a perfect return on all of their investments and that's simply not how the world works aren't I am definitely rambling today just he and obviously because it's a more relaxed episode I do have my Scotch here and I'm going to enjoy it and let's just want so where we going next let's see how just one other point that I did I want to cover with with Maggie's question you don't forget that these properties are just movies obviously the movies are probably the biggest single investment and the biggest single return on investment but in terms of overall mind share and opportunities to make fans of younger audience members DC does have that in other arenas they have teen Titans go to have the DC TV properties but it overall I I think Maggie's got a good point it's a reasonable general criticism that DC overall right now is probably lacking in as much all ages material as say Marvel as long as you're not talk about going into the back catalog and going into the media that they've already made because of your talk about ongoing stuff DC has all of that in spades so if you got younger people in your life that you're trying to turn into DC fans I think one of the best ways is to go into that back catalog and direct them towards the stuff that's already come out right that that when way longer than I thought this is this is Dr. awkward unscripted was look at the next question angle he says that he felt the scene about Lois calling out Clark's name could've been clear he puts himself in the cops shoes and says he would remember what happened and he would tell the FBI and this is a response to a think I was episode nine which I think was about to the secret identity and I appreciate the response I think he's doing what a lot of people do is they put themselves into the character shoes in a trite empathize with them and I think that's a good approach I think that's the first step to getting insight into any scene or into any movie it's is that empathy trying to think things out like the characters what or like the filmmakers word in approaching something I think the trick though is to not to lock into a position to sit right I think you should try to see it from multiple positions or multiple goals for the larger picture if you can to see what is probably more consistent right I think a lot of times when people do is they lock into position for one perspective and and and they stop their they make a value judgment or they make a they they take a position the same this is this is the truth when they stop looking any further I'm blaming angle for that at all I'm just saying that if you want to get a complete picture or if you want to get the most insight you may want to try to put yourselves into multiple shoes right so what I would suggest is in any kind of circumstance and in interpreting any work not Messerli just Man of Steel you want to give the filmmakers and all the characters the benefit of the doubt you want to make sure that you're approaching the scene assuming that the characters are what the film has said that that those characters are up to that point and that the filmmaker is conveying what they intend to convey right so when were in that scene and in case I went over to quickly were talking of the scene again where Superman is with Martha and Lois comes up to him yelling Clark's name out loud in that scene were not shown anything that suggests that Lois is foolish or that Superman or Martha is upset at her for calling out his name for all the mix response there was to amazing Spiderman to write one of the best executed scenes where it made it into some of the trailers is one of the few scenes it's understand that when you think back on it is where Gwen can't help herself but to call Al Peter's name while he's costumed as Spiderman and then she immediately catches her mistake she claps her hand over her mouth and clearly regrets shouting it out in the scene clearly conveys that the intention is that Gwen was making and excited utterance and that it was an accident in this scene we got nothing to indicate that Lois has made a mistake or that anyone is concerned right you know Superman is an ill condemning her sing shush or anything like that and so if it's not an accident nobody's reacting to it like it's abnormal and if the up till now we've been shown that Lois is intelligent and nobody's concerned that I think it's completely reasonable to try to read between the lines and find the reason why there is no concern right so in episode nine I gave a series of events that would explain why they're not concerned go over it all again here out but is basically that Lois had already shared Clark's identity and when she did that he came as no surprise that the police who are going to maintain the secret anyways out of loyalty to Superman so as long as you're willing to accept that Lois is intelligent and that nobody in the scene is concerned you can come up with any number of explanations or apologetics disorder reach the desired outcome for example we could say that Lois was picked up by Ofc. Smith and everybody in town knows that Ofc. Smith suffers from hearing loss right so it's okay that she cries out Clark Clark but I think I already mentioned in episode nine that even if Lois had been completely silent if the cops future testimony was an issue just placing Superman at the Kent farm is an issue in and of itself so assuming that is counterfactual to the film because the film what a presents is that nobody there is concerned and that it isn't an issue so that seems to imply that his future testimony will not be an issue Lords that they suspect or believe that he's going to maintain their confidence that will probably tackle this a little bit later in one of those other questions but all of those logistics that we just talked about is not central to the story this film is Clark callow's story and all of those logistics I talked about is more of say Ofc. Smith's story or more of file Lois's story and I don't know that is necessary for the film to tell us their story when we can sort of figured out or arrived at those explanations on her own I think that the scene presents a question right you can ask why did the police act as chauffeurs for Lois and why nobody was concerned about the presence but I think we can answer those questions for ourselves and we don't needed to be put in the film and I think it's obvious that the police don't just drive you wherever you want especially if they're receiving reports that downtown has become a war zone over dispatched right that those are their townspeople those are their citizens there there to serve and protect and if headquarters is saying downtown is a war zone or you just writing this reporter wherever she wants to go right unless your passenger has some pretty compelling reason to persuade you so I think Lois just affirmed something that they already knew or that they are ready suspected and that's why in that scene nobody was concerned about the police his presence or about her yelling the name right now the scene could of been crafted another way possibly to avoid that but again that might become more about logistics and it is less about something central to the story but let me know I'm maybe there's us a different way that you correct right that scene or structure it the way that's as elegant and get you the same place the same conclusion is as were talking about this you got a minor collateral matter you note Lois doesn't really know Clark by any other name at that point no one has said Superman out loud yet and certainly nobody's said it to Clark for him to answer to Lois may know intellectually that he is Cal Al but to her he's Clark so it seems natural that she'd call out the name that she knows and buying that he'll answer to an and again irrespective of what she says is she doesn't say the PD can put the pieces together a merely on-site alone and the fact that nobody's concerned I think implies that there is no reason to be concerned so they will keep the secret that's all in assumption but I think it's a reasonable assumption right loyal listener Jonathan has a ton a question you I'm not laughing at a democracy that I really appreciate them putting forward a lot of fun allow the questions it is called Man of Steel answers and what good are answers if we don't have question so thank you Jonathan for your questions and I got apologetics me a long time to get to these of the way I approach the episodes is I always try to pick a theme or a goal or a topic and if the questions don't fit neatly into that topic or if they're not you know related to the topic that I don't viscerally want them in their two to be lost in other words I want the people were going to that episode to hear about that topic to hear the questions are related to that topic so that they get the most insight of the more of the most answers for their listening block right and but the same time Jonathan is been extremely patient he's asked many these questions long time ago so I thank you Jonathan I'm going to tackle's maze I can tonight right the first question I got here is but see why did Zide show images of earth suffering if he wanted callow's help and honestly I don't think I don't think we know but I think we can reasonably speculate a lot of this has to do with the fact that the dream machine is unknown or unknowable technology that they didn't go into it and and I'm glad to be didn't because again this is a story about Clark and Cal Al it's not a story about how kryptonian technology are history necessarily of those things are related their tangential to it but that's not the story right so they don't need to spend screen time explaining or describing that technology necessarily the speculation I have is that the dream machine might have an aspect of treating us to it a world where getting that from is that the assets and the images they have to come from somewhere right and I don't think either's odd or Jor-El sat down and crafted artistic and symbolic sequences for their respective displays Zide in the dream machine and Jor-El when he is talking about krypton's history for the first time to Clark maybe you are takes time it takes effort and they strike me as busy individuals with much more on their agenda then putting together pretty presentations so instead I think that the images and the presentation comes from their consciousness and I think it's perhaps mediated by some sort of artificial intelligence is definitely mediated by some sort of software and that could mean a certain lack of control or lack of filter or a lack of ability to withhold the truth of basically what you think comes out in the dream machine maybe I had we don't know that given that there interrogation technology is reliable and what Zide really wanted out that exchange was information about the codecs in might be a relevant what Cal Al thinks about Zide no matter what Zide shows them so long as they're undergoing the process you know in other words Cal wells cooperation in that scene may have been irrelevant it certainly was with Lois right she says something to the effect of the she tried to resist but nonetheless they were able to extract information from her so Zide may be only asking his the questions that he asks as a prompt or a way to elicit the thoughts that he needs from Cal Al now if Zide didn't want callow to join him the sequence could be seen as a litmus test the work in some sort of test of his loyalty just to see where he lies I mean may be there as deeply ingrained into Cal Al as they are in sod or maybe his natural birth has made him loyal to these inferior beings know if we think back to the ultimatum Zide says that Cal Al his hidden among them for reasons unknown so Zide doesn't know how Cal Al feels about humanity's odd may just be honestly offering or expecting that Cal Al might want the return of krypton even if the expense of humanity maybe he wants as much or as bad liaison does something that comes to mind I think in the our book Deborah Snyder makes an interesting remark that in kryptonian culture Zide is responsible to adopt the sun of his fallen colleague and that means that he's responsible to adopt Cal Al I think I was properly excluded from the film but it does had a potential interesting layer if Zide is this third father figure in the film there's probably some sort of crazy tripartite symbolism more theme that you could argue their I'm not can ago there but it's a very think about right the next question is do most people like or dislike Man of Steel and bite nearly every reliable quantitative measure that we have all those websites all those polls all of those measures Man of Steel was received positively now depending on the measures it was either by a slim and narrow margin or it was overwhelmingly positive but I've yet to run into any substantial qualitative or quantitative measure that's predominantly negative I can't answer generalities of whether all people was people like it but by every measure that I'm aware of yes those people liked it okay next question why do Superman react to killings odd but not to his destruction of krypton so the damaging of the chamber and the destruction of the world engine I just this indirectly in that video that just went up on Friday about whether Superman killed any kryptonian fetuses and whether his remarks are justified if you think about it sort of abstractly the only krypton quote unquote killed was's odds's odds krypton is the one that needs all those pieces of technology all those extra trappings the the chamber the eugenics the terraforming in the world engine but Jor-El's vision of krypton it didn't require any of that it to allowed for coexistence it didn't require terraforming it certainly didn't anticipate or expect eugenic programming anymore it might not have required a Genesis chamber so in my view Jor-El's krypton still lives or still has a potential to live and only's odds krypton has died and that's why Superman has no serious qualms or remorse about that particular vision or aspect of krypton expiring and I figure point out in the video that even Jor-El points out that that krypton's data ready to sort of as a random tangent the when we have that discussion eventually about Superman killing it's interesting that there is a segment of fans that are quite comfortable with Superman killing sentient but supernatural undead being so like ghosts or vampires and the like right so things that may have a form of life to them but are technically undead so tangentially the sort of falls and that same category of he simply putting him something that has already gone past it's natural time perhaps you look at that way it may not be a problem some other random thing that comes to mind is as a dog owner and as somebody who grew up on a farm perhaps with a certain amount of livestock these kinds of decisions would be something that a human race Clark may have experience with so that's just another thought let's move onto the next question does Superman react to the destruction that's an entire other show that the Jonathan has insights here he has some comments and he says essentially that that Superman prioritizes lives over collateral damage to mere things that Superman's facial expressions and his performance conveys his reactions so ill you I've I think that's that's accurate think that's good I think will be breaking down those performances certainly in the future eventually and I think that's deftly a fair comment that that the film expects us to get a lot of the content through the performances of visually and not to simply spoonfeed us everything through necessarily hat heavy-handed dialogue a little bit of that is necessary a little bit of that is necessary just to make things work but now I I agree with him that we can get some of his reactions probably from his face I haven't done in a way frame by frame breakdown yet but we will only get there will see if there is a insight that we can get from Superman's reactions the next question would see the need to be some falling action after metropolis and before the drone seen I haven't really thought too much about this but instinctually I think I disagree and I think I disagree because is nothing that could be shown that will lead to additional questions that just eat up screen time and dilute the focus of the story from Clark to Superman's all or metropolis or the world it's something that I keep repeating and will deftly have to go over it in a podcast or or video or something in the future but that you know the central focus of this story is Clark Kent and Cal Al I think there's a reason the Henry cavil is credited as Clark Kent in Cal Al and that Superman and in a except for maybe a handful a sequences or examples and again will have to deal mechanically break that down to really prove it but I think the film is very tightly bound to Clark's story and Clark's perspective right a lot of the questions that people ask are questions about the world at large or other characters of collateral matter is over the world of the world reaction always kind of other things but that's not Clark's story from his perspective from his eyes right and in a bar a little bit from again J band he did a creative analysis video where he puts forward a common belief that Superman is in born doesn't quite enter the world as Superman until the death of the right so from that point on your tending to tell Superman's story your no longer telling Clark callow storytelling Superman story if you do a montage or cutaway or series of scenes of Superman saving people or reacting or helping people in metropolis now you're telling Superman story and this is Man of Steel not Superman six or Superman the return or it's not a Superman film per se and a lot of those other things are there more like world building questions or world building stories when again this is a very personal almost POB kind of story for Clark now I understand Clark is interacting with the world that is an important moment in his life as well you'll seeing the destruction or reacting to what has happened or into what his role is with people but I think like a set anything that they would showing that little gap with suddenly spawn all sorts of other questions how did he get over's odd so quickly right you wising he crying about this widening thing about that or what you how is he able to comfort this person or has he say this note basically I I feel like they sidestepped the issue but I think the appropriately sidestepped the issue I don't think there's anything necessarily of value in that moment that when completely derail the film right once you getting into that moment I think you really have to into say 9/11 imagery way to deeply way to sensitively you've tapped into it with maybe way too much realism at which point completely derailed the film in a but will eat we will talk about this again in the future felt that I think that's the best answer I can give for now I think sort of that falling action idea or sort intermittent scenes would dilute what the purpose of this film was a where were going with this film because at that point which started to tell Superman story as opposed to Clark or callow story right we have the question of why does Jenny think or say that Superman saved them when she doesn't see him destroy the world engine and I think she was simply reacting to the black zero going away and I think that's enough reason for that so that's that's that Jonathan also lists a number of videos or commentary by notable YouTube individuals who you have bashed on or criticized or mocked Man of Steel and he asked me to do a in a reply podcast about and I think I answered him in on that point somewhere in the comments I don't remember exactly what I said but I imagine I said something sort of like you know my emphasis on this show is to show the strengths of Man of Steel and I will focus on positivity I know that this criticism out there I know that there's people who dislike the film and – it but I don't necessarily feel the need to give them more of a voice or more screen time or more attention then you know they've already garnered for themselves your much of the criticism I feel is unfounded and it it's it's poorly argued it's counterfactual and a lot of it is up you like painfully pedantic like extremely nitpicky in other crawl and oversight every line of the film or every moment of the film and is coming up with all sorts of the attacks against every little bit of it and it's vastly easier to throw out a thoughtless comment or to tear something down than it is to in a effectively address that comment or build it up is really easy to say for example that the world is flat or that the sun goes around the earth but for me to prove otherwise I'd have to use math and science and proofs that goes well beyond the effort that it took just to make those two thoughtless comments so my approach is to put thought into what the good is in Man of Steel and what I'm talking about the good of it if it happens to answer criticism orbit answers or addresses a controversy great ill I'm glad but the focus is not the criticism or the controversies themselves so that's just a insight on how I approach the questions I think I also had a discussion with Jonathan in the comments some time earlier and additionally in I want to have an answer know I don't want and merely just offer an opinion for something that's plainly divisive and controversy oh you everybody has an opinion but in I pride myself in being to provide at least some answers with some substance right so because of that I'm a little less interested in answering heavily subjective questions so that's why I do tend towards more die genic stuff for more technical or logistic stuff but it doesn't mean that I won't weigh in on subjective things for that I think anybody subjective opinion necessarily wrong it just that it's less valuable to argue about those things in my opinion right at see next question Jonathan points out that some say that Man of Steel is three movies a sci-fi one in the first third a drama in the second in an action movie taking up the last one and he asks if that's an unfair criticism I think on a superficial and a visceral level essentially probably a fair reaction or reception of the film but I think if you really delve into the film and you really look at it closely and take it in more than just a purely visceral experience we sorted disengage a brain it don't think too much I think each act informs the others will talk about this more in future podcasts but part of the reason that were shown krypton so heavily is because it so thoroughly characterizes odd and his motives and the technology and so on you one of the things that I'm finding very valuable from a editing the videos that I'm doing is just opening IIs to seeing how much proof and answers and groundwork is up laced throughout the film to make things actually very clear as long as your paying attention and so I don't think that the film is as disjointed or separate or severable as people sometimes argue or suggest that it is for example when we see's odd kill Jor-El on krypton we see their that he isn't driven purely by say necessity right at that point in theory he could be just could've taken Jor-El He didn't need to kill them but what it shows us is that he is passionate and violent he can be talked down he can be reasoned with right and that's sort of important thing for us to know before he just suddenly appears on earth and ill other parts of the film showed us that Zide isn't driven by say purely utilitarianism we know for example he has a geneticist on board and in theory he could start kryptonian reproduction but because his vision of krypton is so narrow and singular that's not it adaptation or a variation on krypton that would be acceptable to the sun that we are shown right sort of the other things that we learn about krypton that layer out throughout the film ill we got this hot blooded swashbuckling outlaw scientist that is Jor-El and we see that that guy is in callow's genes it's it it's in his blood and it's meaningful for that to be there because that gets contrasted against that more sort of Stoic and distant AI and he gets contrasted against the more perhaps caring cautious Jonathan Kent so again will definitely talk about this later in more of our commentary but all of the film I feel is integral an integrated and it's very tough to cut or add stuff on non-something it's already running two hours and 20 minutes and that leads us right into the next question which is a does Man of Steel had bad pacing that sort of him is some kind goes to some of my earlier comment I think is a very is a heavily subjective question but I personally don't think so I can see the point of view that from small bill on it can be exhausting if you're not invested in the story or if you're not entertained by the action you know you've got small bill been the world engine the black zero then Zide but I think that the film has given the audience every opportunity to be invested and that the action is slickly executed so I have no problem of the pacing again the more than answer breaking down this film those video responses I'm releasing the genius of how some of the scenes are organized and how some of the exposition is delivered just so efficiently so cleverly and I almost feel that because the film is so tight it's easy to miss things and because people miss things they have some serious misconceptions about the film and as part of the reason I'm doing a video series to help people go over certain parts of it that they might've missed might not quite have grasped might not quite have seen all the implications for and that show that the film did you know explain itself or excuse itself even if it just flew by in the blink of an eye to make it tough for the less invested viewer right and I think the fact that people react to some of the pacing and how a lot of people comment that the Zide fight goes on and on forever right but it absolute time is actually only five minutes and it's less than three if you exclude the monologues which is practically nothing it's a blink of an eye if if if you watched Jackie Chan films or anything with substantive fight choreography is actually pretty tiny chunk of time for a production sequence but nonetheless the fact that this is built and building and building on the past action sequences can make it feel long and can start to kick in some of those feelings of pacing but we'll talk about this more later in more in future podcast but I feel a lot of that is intentional I think you are sorted to start to feel that that weight that that sensation of war you know literally oppressive continual combat of war sort of dawning on Clark dawning on Superman and him starting to realize yet I'm I'm at war and and I'm going to have to take the steps that happen in war right and the next question is does Man of Steel have bad dialogue and ill overall I think the dialogue is incredibly delicate and carefully picked and deftly performed Lois is a pretty real person and Clark mostly acts like a real person in till he begins to approaches odds demise and that's when he starts to adopt some of the more lofty Shakespearean style dialogue of krypton both sod and Jor-El launch into sort of more stylized ways of speaking and speech and although Pok Kent does have moments like that as well I think there excusable for Pok Kent in the sense that he has been preparing for that conversation for years right he's preparing to sail these things he's been running over you know the talk in his head in till this opportunity speak so all of that I'm okay with but in absolute terms like it of the question is does Man of Steel have been dialogue is a over all it does not but does it have examples is thereby a dialogue in the film think the answer is yes right clearly there are some contentious lines I don't think it's nearly as bad as the detractors think I think that every piece of dialogue has apologetics can be explained can be justified but I think a lot of those lines probably could have been workshop smoothed out or rewritten in a way to avoid these kind controversies like to give a quick example is on says at one point this ends only one way either you or I die right of you blood made a mockery of that they say either you or I dying is two different options of his more than one way that this can and will look at Dr. awkward I'm your DCC you your Man of Steel apologist right so I can explain this I can provide apologetics for this is for example Zide had said this only ends one way you got is that literally describing only one way that this can and now it's actually describing a set of ways that this Kent right any different instance where Cal Al dies would still fall in within the set of ways where he dies and saying that there is only one way this can end what he is saying is there is only one set of ways that this Kent and he's describing the set by saying you.right so if you use that analogy the extend that out then if you saying there is only one way you conduct and then he says either you or I die either you or I die is not two different alternatives what it is is a mathematical expression of all the sets of possibility that fit the one way in which this will at right if you're not a computer scientist like I used to be if you're not used to parsing things strictly logically then perhaps that's too much of an extraction for you to follow but the bottom line is that the line technically works limited and specific point of view and interpretation but all you had to do was reword that slightly and that issue when arrives right there are apologetics for Feodor is lines about morality and evolution which make the phrasing completely rational and logical but again in others ways that you could've worded or ways that you could of gone around those issues of the many many strengths of this film some of those points of dialogue are actually my one and only a real nitpick with this film in the sense of things that prevent this from being a more or less perfect film in my view but at the same time at the end of the day as much as I love this thing it is just a movie his does the film and among the lose any sleep over it so that's a question does Man of Steel have been dialogue overall know but it does have instances of questionable headlock justifiable dialogue but questionable. Next question could there be a Man of Steel trilogy no yes and no I think of Superman trilogy is possible I think the Man of Steel branding might get retired after this first felt based on sort of the creative intentions of that title but as I discussed in a previous episode I don't remember which one I think titles are driven more by marketing the necessary the filmmakers so who knows whether it strictly called a Man of Steel to film or in Superman something else Superman of tomorrow or you any of the other ways that they can rename the film with the current announcement of films that we have and Henry cavil is just made remarks that he be happy to do this job as long as there willing to do it which is a wonderful attitude and it's the smart and political and but I feel genuine thing that he's saying you with the current announcement of films we will have seen Superman in at least four films by 2019 and that doesn't include the un-calendared standalone Superman film and any other cameos that cavil agrees to be in orbit that they right him into we don't know how much of an appetite for Superman will be created by Batman be Superman justice league and if people are just really excited to see him he may get even more cameos right so is all the actors are willing and now we've just learned that Henry is willing right and the studios wanted a big part of that that helps make them want it is if the actors willing right because if you do is not willing then it can be a struggle it can be a monetary struggle like there was without for example Robert Downey Junior I don't want to get too much into the politics of it but Robert Downey Junior's representation sort of held his appearances hostage and then about Eiger actually wanted Downing Junior written out of the Marvel films and Kevin fight he stepped the gap and insured everything came out smoothly but the obviously we don't want or need that kind of drama on the WB or DC side of things so in a we've got the actors lined up we've got studio lined up so all we need is the creative talent behind in a writer and a director and as long as there is economic incentive to do it that will do it now go after it right you know one thing that I maybe have particular insight into as an attorney is that as the first superhero there are unique reasons to aggressively pursue him in the next two decades first in all Superman has finally been unencumbered by rights related lawsuits those have all but been finished the only remnants of little things out there are unlikely to converted any kind of issue or liability for DC or the WB so he's finally free of those things after decades and decades of fighting over his rights which would compromise of the profitability of Superman if you got a hand over half of those profits are half of those right sort a gutted that things by going through the heirs it's going to chill your desire to use that property well he's finally unfettered he's finally free of all those things that have no reason not to use him and then second Superman's domestic copyright enters the public domain in 2033 okay ill that may seem far off now but in the span of Superman's lifestyle that's the whole Lotta time anything about how long it takes to make movies or how many movies you get between now and then is not actually all that long so you're talking about a limited period of exclusivity told Lee unfettered from legal rights restraints to exploit this property so there is good reason to go after drive hard after more Superman so this may be the second Golden age of Superman before he reenters the public domain and maybe one of these days down the road I'll talk more about of legal implications of that the intellectual property rights and all that kind of stuff I do teach a course on the stuff so I have to figure out a way to sort of condensed it down into something palatable for the general audiences rather than say law train students but without giving whole lecture on the matter right copyright expires and it protects the creator however trademark doesn't expire as long as the consumer can be protected by the Mark in the Lords the source of the product when they see the sign for the market the product it makes them think about the source the product and is those that sources always accurate that's the goal of trademark to protect the consumer into quality assurance knowing where the thing is coming from and because of that protection is indefinite copyright in always limited it it expires after surmounted time is a ton more nuanced to this like a set of there's a whole course or lecture that can do on this but basically trademark protection is how Disney maintains its hold over things that are generally perceived as or otherwise are public domain fairytales right these are things that are in the public domain anybody can exploit them however Disney has their own particular spin on them they have their own trademark over them but trademark is use it or lose it it's indefinite but you have to keep using it in order to keep it so that means that the WB has very strong incentive to just keep economically exploiting and pushing Superman out there as much as possible and the next two decades to make sure that he gets a strong return on investment and is strongly branded in our minds so that they can maintain sort of their protection hold over him in a similar fashion to the way Disney maintains their control over their fairytale properties as Superman is still one of the top five superhero brands in the United States that is a strong and a safe gamble so in answer to the question yes I asked who he believed that I apologist for the tangent in the rabbit hole but yes I absolutely believe there could be a Man of Steel trilogy okay well I think I'm going to actually answer the questions that there's two more questions and let's see the next question is who made the super suit and yet probably could do whole episode on just this but let me to try to run through it as quickly as I can think of what we look the film leaves it intentionally ambiguous so like a lot of the other things I mentioned how we can do apologetics we can do logistics we can do explanations but ultimately is not central to the story though in a way almost doesn't matter but we can speculate and I think there's two main possibilities either that the suit preexisted and I think that happens to be the filmmakers intention I think it is either mention either in the our book or the prequel comic or both something to that effect but another we could go is that the suit was fabricated by a Jor-El with that AI and while both are plausible I think both also have a logistic issues so that might be one of the reasons that they keep this whole you know how or who made the suit kind of thing little ambiguous with the first you know sort of the question of coincidence that there was a member of the house of L who had this available skin suit on the ship 18,000 years ago and that the crest and that the design has no survived all that time right but at all we can mitigate some of those factors maybe it wasn't a matter of chance per se they seem to a developed Robin he's a phrase here you may not know it service sci-fi reference but answerable technology and answerable is the ability to communicate faster than light right we have an indication that they can do that two different ways first Lara was able to find the planet in the first place right and second the signal beacon that Zide picked up on clearly had to travel faster than light right for Zonta perceive it and then travel to it within the timeframe that they did so in this world there is answerable technology and if there's answerable technology then Jor-El may have already know that the house of L was on earth he may have already anticipated it so is less of a coincidence and more a planned intention or another we can look at it is usually consider the great endurance of kryptonian technology and the stagnancy of its culture the house of L may have been represented on every scout ship so for all we know that there was individual from the house and though any and every scout ship or perhaps thousand dollars specifically charged with being like at a particular kind of crewmember on every ship the other thing that we don't know is you it is a surname or house name they can be captured in a single glyph this at least 1 billion individuals on krypton right I'm skeptical that Jor-El is exhausting that glyph for the entire planet right rather you'd expect slightly more you know even distribution of glyphs across the population but you also can expect the glyphs to be no infinitely intricate complex because at that point they lose their value or meaning as chest crests which is to say there must be limit or number of glyphs write the campy 1 billion glyphs because at that point all the glyphs you have lose their meaning as you know a symbol because they're just too diverse to have any sort of meeting there also can only be sate eight glyphs for the entire planet to divide into because then that was also lose their meaning right because if you're sharing the glyph with 1/8 of the scene people then big deal it has to have the sort of scaling degree of individuality or meeting I have no idea where I was going with that it just some sort of kind of insight or a connection that went into my mind so anyways those issues of coincidence can sort of be mitigated a little bit but it is you know kind of weird and it cut aware that the style was so different way the style available that leads us into the second is you so let's say Jor-El was the one that fabricated while the question there is a question of style why would Jor-El@so much color when the skin suits of his era where monochromatic right and you know when there's a number of questions we can ask or answer I can it's so speculative at this point in I don't know that I can really provide any meaningful insight but you know it could be to break tradition it could represent a limitation on his technology maybe those are the only colors available it could represent and symbolic adoption of humanity it could be subconsciously rendered from Clark's mind I think we'll talk about this also another future episode but this also did indications that there's some sort was her mind technology interface between krypton and the individuals innovate that the dream machine is something that could look into their minds him Jor-El's AI is novel but nonetheless not surprising to him's odd which means you know they have a certain expectation that copy unconsciousness is something that's possible is reasonable Jor-El was speaking English to Cal Al even before Zide ever arrived in the solar system that may relate to their ability to translate languages it may be relate to the possibility that Clark highly did the ship that it's a home other thing that will talk about another episode so there's there's a number of little indications that kryptonian minds have been able to meld with their technology or provide some sort of subconscious control or connection so for all we know this is are the RSI for residual self image a term borrowed from the matrix of what kryptonian garb would be ideally in Jor-El's new krypton either from Jor-El's consciousness or from Clark's and our last question why we got to the end why didn't the kryptonian's evacuated all my goodness that is a big question that's a huge one that something that I have talked about extensively with respect to the Superman tradition as a whole and night yet that that is definitely a whole episode in itself look of the gush out of the dark a quick answer I think well you know if there's sentencing's odd then perhaps they don't believe Jor-El and in other simply going on with life that's why they don't evacuate I don't think that's consistent with the film I don't think that's that that's actually what the film is saying so I don't think that's the answer I think that they do believe but I think they also agree with his premise that they're all dead I think there kind of fatalistic send their ways of what they might be doing is sort of like the fatalism of the the band on the Titanic that just continue to play as the Titanic sank into the sea and you will talk about this in the future episode I think I've rambled on long enough right so I think it's showing that in a reform is just not possible with this world for krypton to live on in a reform is absolutely necessary but look that's another episode so thank you for indulging me guys I apologize if there is a lot of extra sort of rambling on off tangents in the you know if you can follow me throw this thank you so much I appreciated there's next to be a whole lot of editing on this one so pretty much as the film this and as his but if you stuck with me through this whole thing thank you so much of the clock it looks like this is going to be a longer than normal episode and hopefully hold you guys over like as of the production the episode is probably got the slowdown I have some videos to work on and I've got real have to work so I got a bunch of cases coming off and of course got my life to get back to so hopefully this will hold you over till the next time thanks so much soliciting guys this is Dr. awkward Man of Steel answers insight commentary is a proud member of the Superman podcast network so here are some promos for the network shows that I suggest you check out if you want to extend your enjoyment of the Superman mythos got it together from the far reaches of beings that are assembled and that's what got dedicated to the bust greatest superhero is covered Superman like featuring Superman: the DC comics presents crisis Superman podcast is Superman this you will podcast is Superman forever and about the you you you are you will podcast KL from Superman homepage.com is John Wilson really help you are leaving my present bat your retailer Michael they start to Sam result is the original Mario is given by an highlighted I gave Younis and how has Gotti they because that what