The Story.

[manofsteel4life]

I really like how in this story the last son of Krypton fights all those other last sons and daughters of Krypton. That's a really new and original idea.

I sense sarcasm

 

[Herolee10]

In any case; I just can't wait to see the final result. Given that we have Nolan and Goyer behind the story, I'm somewhat confident that it at least ensures that we'll have some quality creative minds that were responsible for putting this together; course it could all go to hell if they approach Superman's character as if he were Batman with superpowers.lol

Imho; it's never Superman that needs to be made more darker to fit with audiences, and that it's the world and environment present around the character that could be shown as gritty and dark; thus enabling the chance to show on how the character is truly that symbol of hope in all of that chaos.

Hell, I'd like to think that we'll see Earth experiencing the first stages of the issues that Krypton had itself with their society (civil wars, destruction, rebellions in the form of Zod), and how Superman having accepted Earth as his new home, is able to save it from going down that same path.

 

[Zionite]

This arguement is not going to go anywhere.

I'm just going to wait until we know more about the plot, then hunt out your old posts and go 'See, I told you it wouldn't be the same'

Personally i'm glad there is no hint of alien robots. I'm also glad we have General Zod because everything Shannon has said about him makes him seem like the most interesting version of him we've ever seen, and I can see the opportunities it presents in terms of both visual and character 'mirroring'.

Plus, I'm glad we have a human looking villain for connectability, but one who will give Superman a good fight... something we've been dying to see for a heck of a long time.

.

Agree to disagree then.
And how can you hate seeing Alien robots.Why do you think Transformers sells so well?
Like I said I dont hate that Zod is being used in the movie.I hate that it seems that Zod is being used in a Villain plot very remniscent of the one in S2

Yes, that was the basic story in the first few comics before they explored his backstory.

And then they did. And then Krypton became a huge part of the Superman mythos.

I don't want the 'Jor-el tells him it's his destiny' stuff, or really any indicationg that he becomes a hero because he finds out he's a kryptonian.

But Krypton playing a role in the film doesn't automatically equate to that.

It just means we get to see a world that has the potential to look visually spectacular, gives us a very rich backstory, and provides a contrast/mirror to what's going on in our world (i.e. perhaps whatever fate Krypton suffered, we are heading towards)

Krypton is a huge part of the Superman mythos not a part of his Origin mythos which was my piont.You can tell a Superman Origin story without going into Krypton backstory.

Earth one is an example of how I don't want it done. But that storyline didn't suck specifically because Clark didn't decide to become Superman without the threat of invasion... it sucked because of the way he did it, his reluctant characterisation.

As long as it's clear that Clark is an instinctive hero, and is performing acts of heroism before ever finding out about Zod, it won't matter to me when he actually dons the suit.

And since it looks like the suit is kryptonian, it kind of makes sense for him to don it in order to face a kryptonian threat.

I see your piont here and agree.I will like to add that another thing I hate about Clark becoming Superman to face an Alien invasion makes it seem like his purpose of being Superman is to stop Alien Invasions-which is wrong

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Agree to disagree then.
And how can you hate seeing Alien robots.Why do you think Transformers sells so well?
Like I said I dont hate that Zod is being used in the movie.I hate that it seems that Zod is being used in a Villain plot very remniscent of the one in S2

Haven't seen any of the Transformers films, but I definitely don't want MOS to be anything like them

And I do agree that if it IS just Zod, Faora and some unknown third party arriving on earth, attacking a small town and then trying to become ruler - it will be pants.

I just think it's too early to be seeing that, and I have a bit more trust in their reinvention of the franchise.

Krypton is a huge part of the Superman mythos not a part of his Origin mythos which was my piont.You can tell a Superman Origin story without going into Krypton backstory.

You can, sure. LnC did it, and I love that show.

But I hope they don't, because like I said, Krypton playing a role in this film makes for some interesting visual possibilities and story possibilities, as well as giving us a backstory for Zod that is perhaps very different to anything we've ever seen before. Like a Jor-el/Zod fight scene

I see your piont here and agree.I will like to add that another thing I hate about Clark becoming Superman to face an Alien invasion makes it seem like his purpose of being Superman is to stop Alien Invasions-which is wrong

Yeah that's why I'm hoping we get enough instances of regular 'saves' to know that he's an every day superhero, not just a defense against alien attacks.

 

[sf2]

Yes. That s a must!

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Totally agree. The other problem with Marvin's analysis is that he seems to think there is a correct, definitive Batman and that it is present in Year One. The distinction between Bruce and Batman wasn't as clear cut in the 70s and Denny O'Neil's runs with the character are very highly regarded. I'm fine with Bruce having an ironic/sarcastic sense of humor even while Batman, he's human after all. B:TAS is an excellent example of it as mentioned. No one can be grim 24/7. I love Year One as much as anyone, but it is FAR from perfect itself. Some of the Frank Miller-isms are freaking laughable. The corruption is over the top. Having the Mayor, Police Commissioner, Falcone, etc. all meet together for dinner is cheesy. All the references to "gestapo", "fascists", "soldiers", "war" is also over the top for me. Same with Miller's take on Selina Kyle and her origin. Not the biggest fan.

Or what has been said about the escape from the police/SWAT. Of Mask of the Phantasm, Begins, and Year One, I think Year One's take is the weakest. Police helicopters dropping bombs in the middle of a city is just ridiculous. I love the Arkham escape in Begins. The way he drops the remote, glides down, and then proceeds to grimly march down the hall is one of my favourite Batman moments ever. The way Batman lands crouching is just perfectly stylized.

Once again, I think Marvin's criticisms are subjective and come down to preferred take on the character. I get the sense that he is a big fan of 80s psycho Batman. I'm not. I prefer the Denny O'Neil stories and B:TAS. I like a dark and serious Batman, but a heroic one who is noble at heart.

Back to MOS, Nave, I'm not as worried about Goyer as you. I'm moreso worried about the combination of Goyer and Snyder. Goyer is great when he has the Nolans to polish his ideas and add a certain non-comic book fan perspective to the creative process. They give his story and the scripts more gravitas, seriousness, and broad appeal. My worry is what happens when you have Goyer left to his own devices and then pair that with Snyder's over the top, stylized direction. Snyder concentrates too much on the visuals to detriment of everything else I find. For instance, the majority of the performances in his films are uninspired. While I am cautiously optimistic about this movie based on Nolan's involvement and the inspired casting thus far, I have to admit I fear the combination of Goyer's cheesy, comic booky dialogue and Snyder's preoccupation with visuals without someone like Christopher Nolan to give the film gravitas and seriousness.

Thanks for the support I know what you mean about Goyer and Snyder, they each have their own flaws. In the past those flaws were corrected by their respective collaborators (we can assume), so to see them both together would be something of interest. I remember reading that Snyder had made several corrections to the original script, so it seems that he is taking it seriously (of course it matters a lot as to what it is that he changed). I'm not saying that they are incapable of overcoming those flaws, perhaps they have matured over the years, I'd like to think Goyer has with his experiences in writing two of the most celebrated films in the genre. It's adds a little bit of fun trivia that their star, Cavill, came fresh off from that very 300-esque The Immortals, so it seems that everyone is standing on familiar ground (with Cavill returning to a director who is focused on visuals). Nevertheless it seems to me that all of Snyder's projects seem to have at least some consideration for theme, at least for its story, so there's that.

This would be Snyder's second foray into a superhero movie, if anything, we know that both the director and the writer are deeply fond of comic-books, that should give us something positive to hope for

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Marvin, I'll try to make this one short so that the rest of the room doesn't start screaming about our Batman talk in the thread Bottom-line: I don't agree with you in seeing Batman Begins, or The Dark Knight as stories that fail to capture the essence of Batman. It's actually there.

ONE of the reasons why it falls short compared to other incarnations of the story is that it fails in portraying a well known and loved character aspect. I agree batman is not simply his prowess. But I would argue that the best batman story would be fool hardy to avoid such things. That would be like a young Sherlock homes movie featuring his struggle to become a "hero" but not featuring his analytical skills.

I actually agree that even in the 'origin' stories you need to capture some basic essence of the character he becomes later on, some fully-realised self that is there. But I also think that this was captured wonderfully in Begins. The drive, the conflict with defining justice, the need to perfect his skills etc. it's all there. He is traditionally the best 'Batman' when he is confronting Ra's, or when he is fighting with Falcone in his first appearance (still the most Frank Miller scene in Nolan to date). Yes, there are some disturbing flaws but they don't underwhelm what we're seeing: a man who channels his hate, fear, and rage against the world of criminality at large. Out of all the origin stories and adaptations we've seen, Begins explores the characterisation of Batman the most, in all its complexities. It does dramatise the essence of Batman: his fear, his struggle, the monster within him, his desperation. The "keen mind" is never lost - it's still there, it just takes a more savage progression to get to it. His obsessions with criminals, undercover stuff, trials and errors, etc. The only juvenile/arrogant aspects I saw of his were a) with Rachel, and b) with Fox. He's like a kid. But isn't he supposed to be? We also see Bruce's uncertainty of deciding what he ought to do, the same uncertainty that is such an important part of Year One. The scenes of Bruce looking at his father's stethoscope, his pure uncanny hatred of the gun, and his bottled-up guilt and rage against an ENTIRE SYSTEM are hallmarks of Batman's origin and of himself, that we see dramatised in Begins. It also dramatises how for Bruce never had a face to blame for his misery; yes, Chill, but he's still a human being. You can't go all Frank Miller on that. And as a superhero he has to live up to that struggle, knowing that these are corrupt people, but still people nonetheless. I loved that about Begins, and I loved how you saw Batman struggling with that emotionally - trying to understand the true meaning of justice, and constantly, constantly being alone.

As for the prison scene - it works well because it's the starting point. You start off with Bruce Wayne lost in his own 'cave', and then slowly moving out of it. I can go on for pages how powerful that shot of young Bruce falling down the well and then waking up into the prison says about Batman - he's fallen, he's lost, and he's trapped. Later on when he closes the well you get a feeling that he's overcome his fears and that he's emerged from that cave as a fully reborn being - a superhero and agent of justice. Not a vigilante out for personal vendetta, but the night itself.

For a movie that's about such things, it sure enjoys flying though them. I do however appreciate the issue of his objective morality, I admit that was handled fairly well and is a staple of the character. The waste land of "criminality" that is Gotham(like I've been harping) was more tell then show. I never felt that it was any sort of difficult place to live in, in desperate need of a hero. It literally seemed to have comparable corruption to Chicago. Fine for some, not for me.

One thing that I always loved was FM's Gotham City - watching Year One again reminded me of that world, and to be honest, BB captures that world or neo-noir corruption, grit, and decadence very well, even on a visual and realistic level even. It's far from Burton's gothic and sad Gotham. That waste land is there, and no there were the judges, the cops, the very 'Sin City' like idea that you can die on your way home from work, the jobless, economic gloom, it was all there. Best seen through Gordon. The only gripe I have with BB is that Jim wasn't explored enough. But nevertheless, we get the point.

Daredevil didn't even bother to explain what justice was, Begins, on the other hand, showed us how we see justice - emotionally when he's in that rage, objectively when he's guiding it, and finally tangibly, when we have to confront it and stop those who are putting it in risk. But we can go on forever with this. There's still guided rage - Gotham is still the cesspool of criminals, and we actually SEE it decay. We also see the so-called 'heroes' trying to correct it: ra's, bruce's dad, etc. and failing to. Heck, we can draw this with Krypton in MoS. Batman's rage is always there; initially it seemed it was against himself, now it's against that system of criminals. Heck, that rage is manifested into the crazy, growly Batman from Nolan's world.

I think we're coming from the same place on this. I personally would just prefer it to be stronger. To the point where it's what the audience talks about. I can see you prefer it as it is. That's fine. I'm coming from a world of extremes and perhaps that's my upbringing(I also see the more celebrated takes on the character using this paradigm). I literally see Equillibrium(lack of emotion) and American Psycho(public persona) as the two extreme aspects of the character and Bale is capable of achieving both. There is a middle ground but like in those movies it would be good if bats was the most interesting character in presence and was later talked about after the films done. I blame the subtle direction(again).

I remember watching Equilibrium and loving Bale's performance exactly because of that. It was very Batman. But that's one dimension of his, the other, you yourself have said, is guided rage. A third would be his skills as a detective. And, to be honest, I think Batman really is the most interesting character in presence from the two films - we're a lot more mesmerized by the Joker, true, but how can people who have watched the movie as it is ignore the things Bruce goes through? A majority of the audiences have held that view, but it doesn't mean that the majority is right! How can you watch Inception and think that the movie is all about LADY COBB when the entire story focuses around DOM COB?! Or in the original STAR WARS trilogy, on HAN SOLO or DARTH VADER, when it is Luke's POV that we see the universe?

I agree, the storyteller needs to find the best path to the character and he needs to present that to the audience. Superman is tricky because we've seen a few different formulas, even in live action. The the toned down human approach seems to work wonders for Marvel but I fear DC works best when they present an Greek style approach. Batman's protrayal in Year One vs the early TAS for example. All Star Superman vs the Lois&Clark.
I do think Waid was on the right track with Birthright however.

Yes Goyer is very hit and miss. This is no more present than in his Blade work. And it tends to come down to his filter.

All things going right then I think it will be a success like no other.

Agreed. I should give Birthright another read, it's been a while now. And I think we can get away with a Tim Burton-esque 'format' to introduce Man of Steel - like he was in the original comics (Action #1 first, back-story later). But I doubt that's what Goyer is going after. I fear that the guy, after all his experiences, might actually go the route of Stephen King and "stick to the formula that worked". Personally, I'd prefer something else entirely.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

lol; well I've always thought that it would still be hard to create a great Superman story even if fans were the ones in charge of writing it since the character has been around for so long and gone through revisions as a character throughout the decades that there's bound to be endless amounts of fans having a different interpretation of how they see the character as.

Heck, it'd almost be like a Christian trying to make a biblical movie that would appease Catholics, Jehovah witnesses, Mormons, and Islam believers.lol


If anything, I would think that one of the best recipes towards making a great Superman film would be:

1. Pay respect to the source material

2. Have the ability to tell a great general story

I mean, one could make a great Superman movie, but would that equate to a great movie in a whole for a average viewer?lol

I guess that's one of the many challenges that Snyder will have to buck up for. Making Superhero movies is SERIOUS BUSINESS!

On the flip side - I was too young to know the details but how did the Catholics, Jehovah witnesses, Mormons, and Islam believers react to Passion of the Christ? Did all gore and strange language unify the 'fanboys' then

(sorry, didn't mean to offend any one from there, or any fans of the film, I personally loved it).

 

[sf2]

I wish to see superman has a brain to handle the obstacles/ villains. Most of the movies/animations show superman brainless, just have the muscle; which have made people regard him as boring n uninteresting.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

That's not entirely true... Superman has always been shown to outwit his foes (even in Superman II, Superman III and Quest for Peace! Two of the latter which could actually be qualified as non-superman movies). He's just a good-hearted guy, and a strong one at that. That doesn't make him a brainless moron with muscles. Not one bit.

He's no detective, but don't forget that the guy's an investigative journalist and all-out saviour of the world. To me, Clark is the guy who acknowledges the politics around him, he knows you have to live with them and still find a solution... Bruce... he's a more active, deconstructionist, guy who'd challenge an entire system just to set a moral standard. I guess it boils down to their respective powers; it works for Bruce Wayne, a human-being, but not for a Superman.

It makes me wonder if we'll ever see that journalistic side of him in this film. Lex Luthor is the best villain when it's spread out like that, and so far, he's MIA.

 

[manofsteel4life]

That's not entirely true... Superman has always been shown to outwit his foes (even in Superman II, Superman III and Quest for Peace! Two of the latter which could actually be qualified as non-superman movies). He's just a good-hearted guy, and a strong one at that. That doesn't make him a brainless moron with muscles. Not one bit.

He's no detective, but don't forget that the guy's an investigative journalist and all-out saviour of the world. To me, Clark is the guy who acknowledges the politics around him, he knows you have to live with them and still find a solution... Bruce... he's a more active, deconstructionist, guy who'd challenge an entire system just to set a moral standard. I guess it boils down to their respective powers; it works for Bruce Wayne, a human-being, but not for a Superman
It makes me wonder if we'll ever see that journalistic side of him in this film. Lex Luthor is the best villain when it's spread out like that, and so far, he's MIA.

Yea I hope so....I think in MOS were gonna see why he becomes superman and the reporter, and what shaped him to become that man, but I don't think well see to much of the reporter, I mean I hope I'm wrong, but that's the vibe so far i get from MOS

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Same here, though to be honest I don't think that's such a bad thing either. I'm sure that any modern reboot or retelling of Superman would find a proper balance between the two roles (or in fact, be content with showing that he has two-roles), when it comes to characterisation, especially concerning the plot that is being told, you do need to favour one as more prominent than the other. I want to explore that a little more...

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Maybe I’m still stuck in Smallville, I don’t know, but there are some things you can’t remove from the heroic side of Superman—the idea that he is the greatest, most complete superhero out there (which should have been synonymous with his underpants!!!) But hear me out here.

To continue from my previous post on archetypes and how certain types fall naturally to our superheroes (the last one was onBatman in Batman Begins), I think I’ve found one that suits Kal-El the best, especially if this is the way he is conceived in Man of Steel. But I am not talking about Superman or Clark Kent, I am talking about Kal-El: the last son of Krypton. The archetype I’m referring to is the ‘Primordial Child’, from Jung’s fame.

The figure of the child is regarded as divine in primal mythology; this image places the vision of a god or deity in his moment of birth. Child Apollo, Dionysus, Hermes, even Zeus are excellent examples, along with the many, many ‘heroes found in a casket ashore’ (yes, even Perseus and Hercules to an extent). What’s interesting isn’t that this image existed in Greek or European mythology, but also, as Jung concluded, recurred in every culture, folk-tale, and even our psychological dimensions. But more to the point; this image of the primordial child in a primordial time echoes very close to our very own Kal-El.

More often than not, the child god is an abandoned foundling—an orphan (Joseph Campbell’s work is phenomenal in this regard in showing us just how many of our heroes began as orphans. But what I’m driving at is that this ‘orphan’ isn’t a pop-cultural concept, it has roots that extend back to pre-history, and even pre-culture). The orphan is often threatend by extraordinary dangers: it may be devoured or torn to pieces, but these ‘dangers’ are the absolute natural state of a world that is chaotic and orderless (in Zeus’ case, belonging to the ‘Titans&#8217. What’s interesting is the role of the father here—like Jor-El, he is usually absent; but unlike him the father is sometime seen to be hostile and even the enemy of the child. In a Vogul tradition we see just such a child, with the mother’s role peripheral at best, who is considered in a Divine Assembly. The child is sent to Earth to be taught ‘tameness’ and ‘humanity’, and is set off in a “silver cradle” to the house of his uncle, who hardens him with bitterness. Now yes, that last bit is reversed in Kal-El, but consider that in these primitive stories the very concept of ‘humanity’ was not yet liberated from ‘savagery’. In the utmost moment of his torment, the child is intended as a sacrificial victim, but that’s when he springs and annihilates the land: the vengeance of the orphan child catapults him into the status of a god.

Most fairytales show this barbaric account of the archetype, but even then the point is that the child is all-powerful and the divinity exists in him. The element of barbarism is immediately associated as Dionysian, while the more constructive image (where we see the same child inventing the lyre) is seen as Apollonian. The image of the divine being adrift in solitude of the world-ocean is another strong symbol that we see in Superman. What the ancients perceived with the coming of this child is, immediately, a new world order. The chaotic world of the past, of Titans, etc. Are to be removed by the birth of this divine being, and yes, I’m thinking of how Superman also happens to be the ‘first superhero’ in our time. The primordial element from which he springs forth is an allegory of the cosmos: this is the universe being born, the moment when all that we are familiar with is created, and often that ‘void’ (back then waters, today space?) was seen as maternal. For Kal-El, the rational, scientific world of Jor-El, and Krypton, is the father’s world while the deepness of space (where with John Byrne we hear he is conceived) births him. However, it isn’t until he reaches Smallville, or ashore, that he is truly ‘born’. The question of whether or not Superman’s heroism is due to his upbringing or his birth should be an interesting question to tackle in Man of Steel, and I absolutely see Zod as that hostile father or sacrificing ‘uncle’ (in the event of the Kents’ deaths). This would ground the movie as a Kal-El story.

Finally, we see that the child god, in reaching his divinity, is not born from an orphan’s, human life, but is allegorical to cosmic life and cosmic existence. He is at the same time the god, the universe, and the new order. That’s why the image of the child is so important in mythology—it’s the beginning. In Jack Kirby’s Thor stories we hear how the God of Thunder is passionate about mortals because his mother is Gaea, really that isn’t very different from Superman. Of course, the reason Superman works as he does is because of he was raised in Smallville, close to earth and to humanity. I’d like to see that element of his torn away—the orphan of Krypton becomes the orphan of Smallville and he is searching for his role in life. This second tragedy also has important heroic archetypes, but I’ll leave that for later.

What’s striking is how similar the concept of the orphan child falls in both Superman and Batman. Even in Begins we see a young Bruce just looking at the primordial state of things; the criminality surrounding his parents’ fortune, the criminals on the streets, etc; the trauma of the orphan torn apart from his parents, even the father’s wisdom. But even there the point isn’t that he’s the orphan child coming ashore. In my other post I was talking about how Bruce falls into a certain Paleolithic archetype of a boy emerging as a man from the caves (sexual innuendos were not intended :P)—his return to Gotham wasn’t seen as the child’s birth (in Begins we don’t see him arriving in Gotham, but in Year One we do, and both connotes different meanings) but rather as the hero’s triumphant return to his home land after honing his skills abroad. With Kal-El, the entirety of the Earth is that abroad; while every hero needs his quest, the journey to being Superman is Clark embracing his own self; his ‘arrival’ on Metropolis shows the coming of a fully-realised god. And I hope Snyder and his team fulfils that here.

 

[manofsteel4life]

I love and agree with all your points, but sadly for me it puts me in-between excited and nervous. Excited to see what will actually happen from all the ideas we have here and disappointed, cause some of have some awesome ideas in here, but it's like those thngs won't happen........it's like playing the lottery, and thinking about all I'm gonna do if I win, then reality sets in lol. That's how I feel here sometimes, but I love optimism, so I'm stuck....

 

[moviedoors]

I love and agree with all your points, but sadly for me it puts me in-between excited and nervous. Excited to see what will actually happen from all the ideas we have here and disappointed, cause some of have some awesome ideas in here, but it's like those thngs won't happen........it's like playing the lottery, and thinking about all I'm gonna do if I win, then reality sets in lol. That's how I feel here sometimes, but I love optimism, so I'm stuck....

Hooray optimism!

 

[manofsteel4life]

Hooray optimism!

Lol that's all I have left at the end of day

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Hehe, true... but hey at least we can speculate. That's (sorta) the fun bit.

2013...wow... it's really, really far away isn't it?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I don't think it's too far.

I mean, I'm 24, and I'll be 25 when I see it.

 

[Rusty Mcgoofy]

2013...wow... it's really, really far away isn't it?

Yes and no. Time is relative, depends on how you'll live the time up to the premiere. Year is almost over and it will be in a breeze. After that we are ´´only`` a year and a half away from the movie. I guess the slowest time will be from january till july when TDKR premieres. Though for me The Avengers, TAS and TDKR news and such will keep me busy though im not look foward to neither as much as I am to MOS. I suppose as the filming wraps up (either in February as Cavill said or April as some sources reported) news will be very slow until TDKR rises when you can be 100% sure we will get the first teaser trailer. No doubt about that whatsoever. And from then on it will be less then a year, official stills and news will start coming in and it will go by like a breeze. Hell the last 1 year for me was buy and it feels like a week and not a year. As I say time is relative. MOS is just around the door! t:

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

2012 is going to be a long year... Then half of 2013

Perhaps I can be put into a drug induced coma and woken up the day before the MOS première.

If not that, then WB better start releasing some stuff and I mean NOW!

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Yeah, and the speculation with TDKR is just tremendously crazy. I hope MoS does that as well. If it does, then yeah it wouldn't be that long of a wait

But y'know whats good to do between that? Re-reading. Yup. Re-reading the hell out of Superman comics.

*flies away*

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Re reading Superman comics, re watching the old films and tv shows, watching every film or tv show Henry Cavilll, Amy Adams, Russel Crowe, Michael Shannon etc has been in and 'imagining them' in their roles, re watching/reading old interviews (even ones that have nothing to do with MOS), re readin old posts, writing/reading fan fictions or fan made scripts....

Yeah I'm keeping myself busy

 

[chumchees]

I started watching season one of Boardwalk Empire, and Michael Shannon is all kinds of creepy.

 

[sad lieutenant]

I don't understand Superman's origin story. Jor-El: "Why do Kryptonians refuse to heed my repeated warnings that our planet is doomed? BTW, let's have a baby." Months later: "Now that our planet is doomed as I predicted, what do we do with our baby?"

 

[Boy Scout]

I don't understand Superman's origin story. Jor-El: "Why do Kryptonians refuse to heed my repeated warnings that our planet is doomed? BTW, let's have a baby." Months later: "Now that our planet is doomed as I predicted, what do we do with our baby?"

It doesn't have to go in that order, you know.