Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

Mickeroo

jimboblep wrote: »

is that a joker easter egg on the left bottom of the pic?

No it's a wheel.

the_monkey

I'm still not convinced by this films idea ?

Batman v Superman ??? really ... I don't wanna get picky here, but come on - Batman is only a man ... it's not gonna be a contest ?

Or maybe they'll be rivals in fighting the same thing ? not sure how it will work ...

Professey Chin

the_monkey wrote: »

I'm still not convinced by this films idea ?

Batman v Superman ??? really ... I don't wanna get picky here, but come on - Batman is only a man ... it's not gonna be a contest ?

Or maybe they'll be rivals in fighting the same thing ? not sure how it will work ...

Only man Superman fears. And that's actually beaten him.

maximoose

He's only a man, but he has a few of these



I dont think "Batman Vs Superman" will be an accurate reflection of the film, more likely a working title chosen specifically to drum up interest. They'll probably have a showdown of sorts but will be working together against another enemy for the most part.

norrie rugger

Professey Chin wrote: »

Only man Superman fears. And that's actually beaten him.

doesn't he even have a hulk buster suit of sorts?

Supes is frightened of him indeed. He obviously knows that straight up he will destroy Bats but, when at a disadvantage, Bats never fights straight up. His planning and stage setting is second to none. They tried to show that in the last film with him having the bat symbol burn into the building, as a massive intimidation spectacle.

Basically it's his intelligence that superman fears.

SouthTippBass

the_monkey wrote: »

I'm still not convinced by this films idea ?

Batman v Superman ??? really ... I don't wanna get picky here, but come on - Batman is only a man ... it's not gonna be a contest ?

Or maybe they'll be rivals in fighting the same thing ? not sure how it will work ...

Lex Luthor is just a man as well! I doubt itl come down to a punch up, and if it does, it wont be before Bats lures Supes underneath a red sun generator. Then they go toe to toe, realize they should be working together, team up and go after Lex, who has been playing them against each other the whole time.

Also, Bryan Cranston is Gordan, and Green Arrow is there too for some reason.

/movie
/profit.

NyOmnishambles

norrie rugger wrote: »

doesn't he even have a hulk buster suit of sorts?

Supes is frightened of him indeed. He obviously knows that straight up he will destroy Bats but, when at a disadvantage, Bats never fights straight up. His planning and stage setting is second to none. They tried to show that in the last film with him having the bat symbol burn into the building, as a massive intimidation spectacle.

Basically it's his intelligence that superman fears.

That is one of my problems with the Nolan Batman movies (which I enjoyed overall) is that they never truly showcased how intelligent Batman is, there was never the sense that he was the worlds greatest detective and as such his intelligence now doesn't seem to be the threat it should be or that he would have the balls to kill Superman if he thought he was a big enough danger

I know they had Bruce design a free energy device but in fairness that was flawed and could be turned into a bomb and they barely played lip service to him designing it

pixelburp

NyOmnishambles wrote: »

That is one of my problems with the Nolan Batman movies (which I enjoyed overall) is that they never truly showcased how intelligent Batman is, there was never the sense that he was the worlds greatest detective and as such his intelligence now doesn't seem to be the threat it should be or that he would have the balls to kill Superman if he thought he was a big enough danger

I know they had Bruce design a free energy device but in fairness that was flawed and could be turned into a bomb and they barely played lip service to him designing it

To be fair, they had an entire sequence in Dark Knight where he checked out a crime-scene, removed a fragmented bullet and conducted a forensic investigation and reconstruction. That seemed like a pretty deliberate attempt to establish his abilities as a detective, no?

NyOmnishambles

pixelburp wrote: »

To be fair, they had an entire sequence in Dark Knight where he checked out a crime-scene, removed a fragmented bullet and conducted a forensic investigation and reconstruction. That seemed like a pretty deliberate attempt to establish his abilities as a detective, no?

True, had forgotten about that but as I said the movies never gave me the same impression of intelligence and determination as the comics/cartoon

Part of that was deliberate I guess but it was just something that I personaly felt was a let down in an otherwise good set of movies

stevenmu

They also had him marking bills to track the mob's money, and turning every phone in the city into a microphone. Although the nature of a feature length film meant they had to dual purpose those scenes and also focus on dialog to advance the plot rather than emphasising the detective nature of the work he was doing which got a bit pushed to the back.

TheDoc

Looks like a receeding hood on the car like the 80's batmobile.

I sincerely approve

Tazzimus

the_monkey wrote: »

I'm still not convinced by this films idea ?

Batman v Superman ??? really ... I don't wanna get picky here, but come on - Batman is only a man ... it's not gonna be a contest ?

Or maybe they'll be rivals in fighting the same thing ? not sure how it will work ...

You should watch the dark knight returns to see batman handing superman his ass, I think you might disagree with yourself then

Bacchus

Is the main problem with a Superman - Batman fight in this movie down to the fact that Superman is not the Superman of the comics. i.e. he killed Zod. This is a Superman willing to kill (granted it was a last resort) to achieve victory. One of the things that levelled the field in the comic fights was that Superman would never go that far. That's not so in these movies. Maybe they'll backtrack a bit and make this a "I'll never kill again" kind of arc for Superman.

pixelburp

Bacchus wrote: »

Is the main problem with a Superman - Batman fight in this movie down to the fact that Superman is not the Superman of the comics. i.e. he killed Zod. This is a Superman willing to kill (granted it was a last resort) to achieve victory. One of the things that levelled the field in the comic fights was that Superman would never go that far. That's not so in these movies. Maybe they'll backtrack a bit and make this a "I'll never kill again" kind of arc for Superman.

It could still work; Batman would likely know Superman has committed murder (jesus, i’m no fan of Superman but just typing that proves how far off base the trainwreck that was Man of Steel turned out); if the script plays up the angst of Superman, who’d be desperately trying to maintain an ethical code & restraint, then naturally Batman would attempt to goad Supes into breaking that code, lose control & hand Batman an advantage. After all, that’s what Batman does: he cheats. He never plays fair and that’s why he & Superman make for such good partners / rivals.

norrie rugger

I'm sorry but how did Supes commit murder? That's way too harsh.

Mitch Connor

norrie rugger wrote: »

I'm sorry but how did Supes commit murder? That's way too harsh.

By breaking Zods neck, killing him.

techdiver

Mitch Connor wrote: »

By breaking Zods neck, killing him.

Albeit Justified. Also, as pointed out previously, Superman has killed before, so the outrage is boring at this stage!

googled eyes

Bacchus wrote: »

Is the main problem with a Superman - Batman fight in this movie down to the fact that Superman is not the Superman of the comics. i.e. he killed Zod. This is a Superman willing to kill (granted it was a last resort) to achieve victory. One of the things that levelled the field in the comic fights was that Superman would never go that far. That's not so in these movies. Maybe they'll backtrack a bit and make this a "I'll never kill again" kind of arc for Superman.

But Superman has killed Zod in the comics.

Here is a very good article from the comic book movie site. Now the article is by a fan but it shows how over the years Superman has had no problem killing people.

He also levelled parts of Metropolis in an animated movie while fighting Doomsday

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n1DGFpWRKc

pixelburp

techdiver wrote: »

Albeit Justified. Also, as pointed out previously, Superman has killed before, so the outrage is boring at this stage!

Where's the outrage? I see no outrage; like I said, I don't even like Superman that much - he's a narrative dead-end and pretty charmless - but he murdered Zod, no matter how justified it might have seemed, or how psychopathic Zod behaved. Murder is murder *shrug* Has he killed before in the comics? Maybe, I don't know, don't care either: the cinematic Superman is meant to be an ideal to strive for, killing Zod didn't really tally with that. As I also said, the murder could ultimately work as a wedge to be driven between Batman and Superman, so it could yet be useful

norrie rugger

Mitch Connor wrote: »

By breaking Zods neck, killing him.

Killing him and murdering him are two completely different things. It's tiresome at this stage

techdiver

pixelburp wrote: »

Where's the outrage? I see no outrage; like I said, I don't even like Superman that much - he's a narrative dead-end and pretty charmless - but he murdered Zod, no matter how justified it might have seemed, or how psychopathic Zod behaved. Murder is murder *shrug* Has he killed before in the comics? Maybe, I don't know, don't care either: the cinematic Superman is meant to be an ideal to strive for, killing Zod didn't really tally with that. As I also said, the murder could ultimately work as a wedge to be driven between Batman and Superman, so it could yet be useful

The cinematic Superman killed Zod also. In Superman 2, he crushed a defenceless Zod's hand and threw him into a chasm after removing his powers.

pixelburp

techdiver wrote: »

The cinematic Superman killed Zod also. In Superman 2, he crushed a defenceless Zod's hand and threw him into a chasm after removing his powers.

Yeah I know the cinematic one did, that's where this whole line of discussion’s coming from, and that I think it was a stupid move. Look, I’m not going to force the issue because ultimately Man of Steel was a terrible, terrible film for a lot more reasons than Superman killing/murdering/deadening/going to an upstate farm with Zod, the damage was long done by then, but the execution of that entire sequence was a poor punctuation in an attempt to give what was supposed to be a beacon of hope some needless angst. The tone was just way off.

brevity

norrie rugger wrote: »

I'm sorry but how did Supes commit murder? That's way too harsh.

I'm sure that with the amount of destruction he caused during that last fight someone has to have died.

norrie rugger

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah I know the cinematic one did, that's where this whole line of discussion’s coming from, and that I think it was a stupid move. Look, I’m not going to force the issue because ultimately Man of Steel was a terrible, terrible film for a lot more reasons than Superman killing/murdering/deadening/going to an upstate farm with Zod, the damage was long done by then, but the execution of that entire sequence was a poor punctuation in an attempt to give what was supposed to be a beacon of hope some needless angst. The tone was just way off.

He is talking about Donner's Superman II

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUORL-bvwA0

Zubeneschamali

brevity wrote: »

I'm sure that with the amount of destruction he caused during that last fight someone has to have died.

Well, yes, but he was stopping Zod from killing everyone on the planet.

norrie rugger

brevity wrote: »

I'm sure that with the amount of destruction he caused during that last fight someone has to have died.

So just like in the comics and animated shows?

krudler

What annoyed me about the destructive aspect of Man of Steel's climax was that Superman made not attempt to try get Zod away from the city, at least in the Donner movie he tries to stop humans being killed, there was none of that in MoS he happily lobs Zod through a city block utterly wrecking it.

I know he's new to this whole being Superman gig but it's something that must be addressed in the sequel. Maybe Bruce helps rebuild Metropolis along with Lex Luther, who's trying to get the leftover Kryptonian tech from the crashed ships and rubble around the place.

pixelburp

krudler wrote: »

What annoyed me about the destructive aspect of Man of Steel's climax was that Superman made not attempt to try get Zod away from the city, at least in the Donner movie he tries to stop humans being killed, there was none of that in MoS he happily lobs Zod through a city block utterly wrecking it.

I know he's new to this whole being Superman gig but it's something that must be addressed in the sequel. Maybe Bruce helps rebuild Metropolis along with Lex Luther, who's trying to get the leftover Kryptonian tech from the crashed ships and rubble around the place.

The Smallville sequence was perhaps more unforgivable considering it was Clark's hometown; you'd at least think the emotional attachment to the place would have triggered a desire to move the fight to another location.

But then as sensible as that might be, the CGI artists and Synder wouldn't have been able to get their blockbuster boners on - can't have a marquee film without the appropriately destructive 3rd act! It's such a depressingly common trend these days; Captain America 2 being the most recent example of this. Solid adventure movie, exciting, visceral & grounded action, good conspiracy plot. 3rd Act? OMG EXPLOSIONS!

Zubeneschamali

krudler wrote: »

What annoyed me about the destructive aspect of Man of Steel's climax was that Superman made not attempt to try get Zod away from the city, at least in the Donner movie he tries to stop humans being killed, there was none of that in MoS he happily lobs Zod through a city block utterly wrecking it.

In Donner's version superman fights all three bad guys in the streets of metropolis, and lobs Zod through a giant coke sign.

It's just thet the power levels on display in Donner's film are mostly ordinary WWE wrestler level, rather than superhuman can-tow-whole-planets-through-space power levels.

krudler

pixelburp wrote: »

The Smallville sequence was perhaps more unforgivable considering it was Clark's hometown; you'd at least think the emotional attachment to the place would have triggered a desire to move the fight to another location.

But then as sensible as that might be, the CGI artists and Synder wouldn't have been able to get their blockbuster boners on - can't have a marquee film without the appropriately destructive 3rd act! It's such a depressingly common trend these days; Captain America 2 being the most recent example of this. Solid adventure movie, exciting, visceral & grounded action, good conspiracy plot. 3rd Act? OMG EXPLOSIONS!

Ha yeah, like the sequence where Zod has his mother up by the throat, Clark arrives in, literally ploughs Zod through a field, horses him through a grain silo or something then into a petrol station surrounded by people and blows it up. Now, that's a few people's livelihoods he just wrecked because he was pissed off. Whatever about the army lacing the streets with rounds and the bad guys wrecking stuff, but Clark should be trying to save the place not make it worse.

I agree about the compulsory big 'splosion laden 3rd act being annoying these days, it's like blockbusters are afraid to have a character driven climax. Mission Impossible III was a good example of how to have the big sequences earlier and let the character's actions dictate the finale.

Zubeneschamali

krudler wrote: »

I agree about the compulsory big 'splosion laden 3rd act being annoying these days, it's like blockbusters are afraid to have a character driven climax.

I think that the finale in MoS should have been spectacular and destructive. The fights in Superman 2 were just feeble. But it was also pretty stupid. Supes and Zod both should both have learned pretty quickly that punching each other through buildings was not having any effect.

krudler

krudler wrote: »

Ha yeah, like the sequence where Zod has his mother up by the throat, Clark arrives in, literally ploughs Zod through a field, horses him through a grain silo or something then into a petrol station surrounded by people and blows it up. Now, that's a few people's livelihoods he just wrecked because he was pissed off. Whatever about the army lacing the streets with rounds and the bad guys wrecking stuff, but Clark should be trying to save the place not make it worse.

I agree about the compulsory big 'splosion laden 3rd act being annoying these days, it's like blockbusters are afraid to have a character driven climax. Mission Impossible III was a good example of how to have the big sequences earlier and let the character's actions dictate the finale.

I felt that the Smallville fight was Clark's human side taking over. In the comics Superman often comes across as someone so bound by rules that he is rigid and honestly it's rare for him to be all that interesting. In the film he was far more humane and fallible and it was a rather interesting change to the character.

Yeti Beast

Deleted User wrote: »

I felt that the Smallville fight was Clark's human side taking over. In the comics Superman often comes across as someone so bound by rules that he is rigid and honestly it's rare for him to be all that interesting. In the film he was far more humane and fallible and it was a rather interesting change to the character.

I'd agree if I thought Snyder was capable of such depth, but he really, really isn't.

Mickeroo

Any qualms I have over what they did with Supes in MoS are all secondary to how badly it was executed.

pixelburp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think that the finale in MoS should have been spectacular and destructive. The fights in Superman 2 were just feeble. But it was also pretty stupid. Supes and Zod both should both have learned pretty quickly that punching each other through buildings was not having any effect.

Presumably though you can't blame the script in this instance: I'm not that familiar with scriptwriting, particularly when it comes to scripts with a lot of action involved, so I don't know how much would have been on the page, but surely it would have amounted to a broad outline of the action beats. I can't shake the prejudice and belief that directors et al are giving free reign to FX houses to dazzle & be spectacular, without ever engaging their creative common sense, simply because they're under orders / are expected to 'wow'.

splashthecash

So historically Superman doesn't cross the line and kill people and in the Dark Knight, Batman had that same rule with the Joker trying his best to have him break it...using those two versions, we'd just have the two boyos beating the lard out of each other all day without either of them giving the final killing blow....riveting stuff

techdiver

pixelburp wrote: »

The Smallville sequence was perhaps more unforgivable considering it was Clark's hometown; you'd at least think the emotional attachment to the place would have triggered a desire to move the fight to another location.

But then as sensible as that might be, the CGI artists and Synder wouldn't have been able to get their blockbuster boners on - can't have a marquee film without the appropriately destructive 3rd act! It's such a depressingly common trend these days; Captain America 2 being the most recent example of this. Solid adventure movie, exciting, visceral & grounded action, good conspiracy plot. 3rd Act? OMG EXPLOSIONS!

Yes, because the concept of a action pack final act in an action movie is just all wrong!

It's a movie about superhuman flying aliens. If you don't want to see CGI, watch a period drama. I like all genres of movie, but when I go to watch a specific type of movie I accept it for what it is.

The reason the Donner movies (which I adore btw) didn't get criticised as much, is that the technology wasn't around at the time to accurately depict what would happen when such beings collide. It's not as if that incarnation of Superman didn't cause destruction. He basically ****ed Non through a skyscraper injuring bystanders on the ground and through Zod into a giant Coke sign. Also watch Superman/Doomsday and you will see proper destruction.

I have followed Superman as a character all of my life, and come to appreciate the many nuances of his character over the years. There is more to his character than the boyscout who rescues cats from trees.

pixelburp

techdiver wrote: »

Yes, because the concept of a action pack final act in an action movie is just all wrong!

It's a movie about superhuman flying aliens. If you don't want to see CGI, watch a period drama. I like all genres of movie, but when I go to watch a specific type of movie I accept it for what it is.

I never said I didn't want to see CGI, that's not the point I'm making at all, give over with the period drama remarks. The point I'm making is that these days the trend with the third act of these sorts of films is that the filmmakers literally level whole cities because of this belief that an action film isn't a proper one unless the stakes go through the roof in the last half hour, even if it flies in the face of the tone up to that point. Man of Steel, Iron Man 3, Captain America 2, Thor 2 etc. etc. (though to be fair Thor's finale was at least conceptually unique with the portal madness going on) are all guilty of this. It's particularly galling when action set-pieces before that are all broadly grounded, such as in Iron Man 3 or Cap. America 2

It's all action with little emotional context, just noise and explosions because ooh fireworks and it looks good. If that's enough for you, fair enough & more power to you, but personally I prefer my action finales to have a little more of a narrative or emotional pay-off than watching 30 minutes of a city getting pulverized because Zack Synder has a horn for big splashy visuals. I found it utterly boring, and that's a criminal charge for any action film.

I'll always go back to the gold standard as far as actions films go: Die Hard. The finale wasn't a punch-up on a crashing helicopter, riding on the shockwave of a nuclear explosion. It was a simple stand off between our hero, beaten and on the cusp of defeat, and the terrorist who holds the hero's wife at gunpoint. Thrilling.

norrie rugger

so what you all want is a superman film where they don't use the super powers and have a thriller OR where they do use the powers but fight where superman wants the fight to happen? Ignoring the amount of times that Metropolis gets smashed in comics/animated

krudler

pixelburp wrote: »

I never said I didn't want to see CGI, that's not the point I'm making at all, give over with the period drama remarks. The point I'm making is that these days the trend with the third act of these sorts of films is that the filmmakers literally level whole cities because of this belief that an action film isn't a proper one unless the stakes go through the roof in the last half hour, even if it flies in the face of the tone up to that point. Man of Steel, Iron Man 3, Captain America 2, Thor 2 etc. etc. (though to be fair Thor's finale was at least conceptually unique with the portal madness going on) are all guilty of this. It's particularly galling when action set-pieces before that are all broadly grounded, such as in Iron Man 3 or Cap. America 2

It's all action with little emotional context, just noise and explosions because ooh fireworks and it looks good. If that's enough for you, fair enough & more power to you, but personally I prefer my action finales to have a little more of a narrative or emotional pay-off than watching 30 minutes of a city getting pulverized because Zack Synder has a horn for big splashy visuals. I found it utterly boring, and that's a criminal charge for any action film.

I'll always go back to the gold standard as far as actions films go: Die Hard. The finale wasn't a punch-up on a crashing helicopter, riding on the shockwave of a nuclear explosion. It was a simple stand off between our hero, beaten and on the cusp of defeat, and the terrorist who holds the hero's wife at gunpoint. Thrilling.

Bingo, it's action for the sake of it with little to no consequence or depth. Look at Skyfall, now that's a movie with boatload of problems but the finale is brilliant, and it's not a cgi fest, it's centered on the drama and characters. The 'splosions and chasing are all before it.

People were complaining that there wasn't enough Iron Man in the third movie but I liked that about it, Tony Stark on his own without the crutch of the suit for a lot of the movie, then he has 42 of them and it's just mindless action.

Bacchus

Jasus things escalated since my last post Didn't mean it to be a thorough analysis of Superman through all his incarnations. I was just saying that this version of Superman has been shown to kill, even if it is a last resort. He's also shown a complete lack of regard for human life (as pointed out in this thread already).

My understanding was that in the comics when Batman faced Superman, one of the things that gave Batman the edge was Superman's unwillingness to kill or do harm to humans in general. That entire aspect of the conflict is gone out the window with this version of Superman which, IMO, kinda ruins whatever edge Batman should have had over Superman.

norrie rugger

But you are ignoring that Superman has killed in the comics, levelled cities in the comics, and has even killed Zod in a film prior to Snyder's.

Posters here have had that pointed out to them and rather than accept this info, they decide to attack the third act and how over the top it is.

Is it over the top? Yes
Is it any different from happenings depicted in the comics/animated series? Not really

If anything it tries too much to be like the animated/comic material (much like Watchmen TBH)

pixelburp

norrie rugger wrote: »

But you are ignoring that Superman has killed in the comics, levelled cities in the comics, and has even killed Zod in a film prior to Snyder's.

Posters here have had that pointed out to them and rather than accept this info, they decide to attack the third act and how over the top it is.

Is it over the top? Yes
Is it any different from happenings depicted in the comics/animated series? Not really

If anything it tries too much to be like the animated/comic material (much like Watchmen TBH)

But just because it happened in the comics doesn’t make it better, or justify it happening in a modern-day film, with serious names and talent behind it (and yes, I include Zack Synder in that) and a tone that appeared to be playing things straight. I mean we’re talking of a series of comics where Superman was known to be turned into a baby, or a chimp, had superdog as a companion, or where Jimmy Olsen might turn into a soufflé, all because the writers just made sh*t up back in the day.

Now as has been said, there was so much wrong with Man of Steel anyway, focusing on the third act makes it sound like up until then I was enjoying the film. I did not, it’s a terrible movie, arguably the worst superhero film in recent years. I’m not personally sure what could have been done to make the finale less of an obnoxious piece of CGI excess, but there were ways of scaling things back, or adding useful context that could have saved the sequence while keeping the spirit of Superman alive. Just going 'but it happened in the comics!' doesn't seem like a legitimate response to me

Zubeneschamali

pixelburp wrote: »

Just going 'but it happened in the comics!' doesn't seem like a legitimate response to me

It's a legitimate response to claims that the movie is not "keeping the spirit of Superman alive".

saucyleopard

How about Jim Carey as Batman? He kicked ass in Kick Ass ,looks to have the right build and is about the right age for a mature Batman.

pixelburp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's a legitimate response to claims that the movie is not "keeping the spirit of Superman alive".

The spirit of Superman as a character. City-wide disaster-porn that went on for 30-odd minutes and served no purpose is an indispensable part of the spirit of Superman? I mean even if Superman paused the fight so he could rescue people trapped (dying?) in the collapsing skyscrapers, that might have felt better than the endless, boring, punch-up.

Anyway, Man of Steel sucked hard, and I'm pulling the agree-to-disagree card here cos the film doesn't really deserve this amount of dissection

Zubeneschamali

pixelburp wrote: »

I mean even if Superman paused the fight so he could rescue people trapped (dying?) in the collapsing skyscrapers, that might have felt better than the endless, boring, punch-up.

I disliked the punch up because both of them fight like idiots, but given the stakes, superman can't go rescuing kittens until Zod is defeated.

CatInABox

pixelburp wrote: »

The spirit of Superman as a character. City-wide disaster-porn that went on for 30-odd minutes and served no purpose is an indispensable part of the spirit of Superman? I mean even if Superman paused the fight so he could rescue people trapped (dying?) in the collapsing skyscrapers, that might have felt better than the endless, boring, punch-up.

Anyway, Man of Steel sucked hard, and I'm pulling the agree-to-disagree card here cos the film doesn't really deserve this amount of dissection

I have a feeling that your "Spirit of Superman" is very different to my "Spirit of Superman".

Oafley Jones

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I disliked the punch up because both of them fight like idiots, but given the stakes, superman can't go rescuing kittens until Zod is defeated.

TBH, that's the very essence of Superman. The guy that rescues a cat up a tree while trying the save the world.

Zubeneschamali

Oafley Jones wrote: »

TBH, that's the very essence of Superman. The guy that rescues a cat up a tree while trying the save the world.

Or in this case, the idiot who rescues a cat up a tree while Zod kills a million people.