I do believe Clark would have handled these questions perfectly fine if it was another reporter, but it being Lois made it personal for him because, like he stated, she was being dishonest and asking questions in bad faith knowing full well that her conducting an interview is no better than Clark conducting an imaginary one on himself.
She wasn’t being dishonest. I think he would have handled the questions better but not perfect if a different reporter had asked them, because he wouldn’t have been in love with that other reporter and expected them to go a bit easier on him because they know and understand him.
He knows that she knows him and his pure intentions, so the line of questioning his motives cuts him to the quick. Were it a different reporter, he wouldn't have been so caught off guard.
She critiqued him for interviewing himself, but she's interviewing the guy she has been secretly dating for three months, and there's no way she would have disclosed that in the published version.
Her conducting an interview is also problematic, but it’s less problematic than interviewing yourself, especially considering she wasn’t giving him softball questions.
In what way is it dishonest to point out that someone else is doing something more unethical? She didn’t say “I have never done anything ethically dubious, Superman, so why didn’t you take a beat before acting?”
She wasn't being dishonest, nor acting in bad faith, she was asking questions that any good reporter would, and they aren't easy questions to answer. Superman will always try to do what is morally right, but that doesn't always tally up with what is legally right. So it's not always easy to do The Right Thing.
Lois is a good reporter, who is good at asking the hard questions. Questions that Clark wasn't asking Superman. She was not going easy on him. Clark was just softballing Superman.
You are correct, but there is a big caveat to this. Lois shouldn't be interviewing Clark or Superman because of their relationship. Clark shouldn't either, but that's a different can of worms. She knows things, too, that she can't disclose and would make her reporting suspect. The questions themselves are fine, sure, but because she's in a relationship with Clark, it's not good to ask these questions.
Now, the thing is, this isn't a real interview (it's also kind of an argument they've been meaning to have for awhile now), so it's okay to have this conversation. It makes sense both of them react the way they do. She isn't being dishonest, because it's not a real interview and they both know that.
Source: I was a reporter for a few years and I have a degree in journalism.
No Clarke just acts like a 16 year old.
He should know that the interview being with lois shouldn't change anything. He couldn't respond to basic questions. How was lois dishonest?
Clark was ready to answer a puff piece, not a full blown interrogation. The only time he raises his voice is to say “people were going to die.”
He’s frustrated because of him the most important thing is saving lives. He can’t understand how anyone could think politics and red tape should be a barrier for doing the right thing.
It’s a great sequence that shows the dichotomy between Clark and Lois, exemplifies all of Clark’s morals and how strongly he believes them, and adds a bit of conflict between Clark and Lois as they transition into a more serious relationship.
It’s a great way to give an “infallible” character a bit of depth.
Yeah, it's a great way to show where he is in his journey balancing being Superman in relation to the way our world works. It makes sense that he's not fully formed in his first few years doing it. That he thinks a discussion might be easy without recognizing the underlying pressures of his decisions.
I don’t have any issue with Clark being staunchly passionate about saving lives and getting upset when saving people is being questioned as the right choice.
But I do feel this scene would have worked a LOT better if it was from a “Year One” Superman perspective and not a “Year Three”. At least if it was from the perspective of a younger, just starting out version that hasn’t yet been media-tested due to only being interviewed by “himself,” it’d make more sense why Lois’s questions would upset him and catch him off guard.
But Year Three where he’s had three years on the job would probably be more experienced at answering the tough questions.
1 and 3 are just different numbers. This Superman is established as a younger version just starting out. The open title crawl establishes he’s never lost a fight, the Daily Planet scene establishes that Clark just had his first front page exclusive, the conversation between Clark and Lois establishes that Superman has only ever done interviews with Clark Kent.
Clark gets frustrated because, for the first time in his life, his good intentions of saving people have had consequences. Which was Lex Luthor’s entire plan from the start. Put Superman in a position where his good actions lead to trouble, hence the whole Hammer of Boravia thing.
Up until this point in time, all Superman has had to do is save people. This movie is the first time he’s truly been challenged, physically but also intellectually as well. The movie very clearly presents an early in his career Superman. The year number makes little to no difference imo.
There’s a big difference in 3 years. A junior in college is a lot different than a freshman. And a 3-year person on a job (if they’re good at it) is probably in line for a few promotions or at least knows how to teach newbies a few things from being 3 years into their careers.
Three years is a longer time than just “numbers”.
Year three Superman of the animated series was facing off against Darkseid and was an experienced superhero.
Year three Superman in the Post Crisis comics had already faced the majority of his rogues gallery and was also a member of the Justice League and was very experienced.
So that’s why it matters.
(Also, it really doesn’t make sense why Clark Kent is only now just getting his first front pager when it’s established that he’s the only reporter that gets exclusive Superman interviews, enough that even Lex Luthor views him as his closest known ally - in the comics, his exclusive interview with Superman is what lands him his job in the first place and his debut article is an instant front pager - not really a “plot hole” per say, but a world-building oversight that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense).
Great, but this year 3 Superman isn’t the same Superman as TAS or the Post Crisis comics. It’s a completely new story and rendition of the character.
I’m just addressing your original comment where you say:
I feel this scene would’ve worked a LOT better if it was from a “Year One” Superman perspective and not a “Year Three”
It would be one thing if the movie wrote this Superman as some veteran making these mistakes, but they clearly don’t. The movie already wrote this “year three” Superman to be more amateurish/just starting out. So if the only thing holding this scene back from working better for you is a 1 instead of a 3 in the opening text, then the complaint is arguably a bit superficial.
The Batman literally presents a year two Batman that doesn’t realize that his violence is inciting terrorism and still hasn’t even begun being Bruce Wayne yet. The movie literally ends with him realizing that he can do more good saving lives than punching people. The numbers are meaningless, it’s the character writing behind them that give them weight.
But my point is that it doesn’t make a lot of sense for a “year three” Superman being treated as if he’s “just starting out”. Especially when it’s long established in comics, shows and other media that Year Three Superman is more than capable and experienced enough to be beyond these growing pains by his third year.
That’s why I said it would have worked a lot better IMO if it was just stated outright it was year one.
Besides, narratively, there’s so many things in the movie that reinforces the idea that this is year one anyways. And it really doesn’t change anything in the plot a great deal if the description of the opening crawl just said this is Superman’s first year. The only thing that really changes is Gunn wont have a snappy “Three hundred years, Thirty years, three years, three hours, three minutes” way of words to play with for a memorable opening crawl.
As for The Batman argument, one year is a bigger difference, so year two still works. And he’s not treated as a Batman that’s just starting out either - more of a Batman that is still developing because he’s already got an established relationship with Gordon at the GCPD, he’s a good detective, he’s an experienced hand to hand fighter, he’s not a newbie. And plus there are no other superheroes that exist in that world, so he’s alone in writing his own rules.
Lastly, one of the issues with Superman being year three is they don’t treat it as a lot of the things that happen for the “first time” are big deals. Like, a year one Superman brushing off his first ever loss is more or less fine. But a year three Superman not treating it like a big deal is questionable. He doesn’t even show any sort of fear or emotion at Ultraman defeating him twice (in the Hammer guise) and he doesn’t actively look for him nor does the world really react to this major deal of Superman showing he’s vulnerable for the first time either.
its basically year 1. it was just establish that lex luthour is already a villian so that james gunn diesnt have to do an origin for him hating superman
He thinks she's being unfair because she knows things other reporters don't know. He thinks he was right about saving people, and she's focusing on the wrong things.
She is being fair, and she's asking the right questions. While he's focusing on his goal, she's looking at the bigger picture. This was also explored in Man of Steel when Jonathan Kent talked to Clark about saving people.
Honestly it always cracks me up how he swears hes ready for anything and then completely unravels the second Lois pushes a bit harder. Dudes kryptonite is just honest questions at this point
Yeah this bothered me too. Not only is it uncharacteristic of Clark to yell like this in this moment (not about innocent people being harms way, that is fitting) but clark isn’t stupid enough to believe Lois is ACTUALLY arguing against him in this point but merely playing the devils advocate reporter in order to have him see the bigger picture.
He would have seen that and asked for help figuring it out from the woman he loves. Not yell at her for trying to help.
I do believe Clark would have handled these questions perfectly fine if it was another reporter, but it being Lois made it personal for him because, like he stated, she was being dishonest and asking questions in bad faith knowing full well that her conducting an interview is no better than Clark conducting an imaginary one on himself.
She wasn’t being dishonest. I think he would have handled the questions better but not perfect if a different reporter had asked them, because he wouldn’t have been in love with that other reporter and expected them to go a bit easier on him because they know and understand him.
I think that's a lot of it.
He knows that she knows him and his pure intentions, so the line of questioning his motives cuts him to the quick. Were it a different reporter, he wouldn't have been so caught off guard.
She critiqued him for interviewing himself, but she's interviewing the guy she has been secretly dating for three months, and there's no way she would have disclosed that in the published version.
Her conducting an interview is also problematic, but it’s less problematic than interviewing yourself, especially considering she wasn’t giving him softball questions.
True. But she scolds him on the ethics yet interviews him anyway.
In what way is it dishonest to point out that someone else is doing something more unethical? She didn’t say “I have never done anything ethically dubious, Superman, so why didn’t you take a beat before acting?”
Had she run the interview she would have been withholding the info.
She wasn't being dishonest, nor acting in bad faith, she was asking questions that any good reporter would, and they aren't easy questions to answer. Superman will always try to do what is morally right, but that doesn't always tally up with what is legally right. So it's not always easy to do The Right Thing.
Lois is a good reporter, who is good at asking the hard questions. Questions that Clark wasn't asking Superman. She was not going easy on him. Clark was just softballing Superman.
You are correct, but there is a big caveat to this. Lois shouldn't be interviewing Clark or Superman because of their relationship. Clark shouldn't either, but that's a different can of worms. She knows things, too, that she can't disclose and would make her reporting suspect. The questions themselves are fine, sure, but because she's in a relationship with Clark, it's not good to ask these questions.
Now, the thing is, this isn't a real interview (it's also kind of an argument they've been meaning to have for awhile now), so it's okay to have this conversation. It makes sense both of them react the way they do. She isn't being dishonest, because it's not a real interview and they both know that.
Source: I was a reporter for a few years and I have a degree in journalism.
Jesus.
Media Literacy is incompatible with "I'm on Superman's side here!"
Lois asked honest questions as a journalist.
Clark was used to Clark questions as a compromised source.
Clark is still Superman, so it's okay to see him struggle.
Lois also has issues, as seen in the film.
No Clarke just acts like a 16 year old. He should know that the interview being with lois shouldn't change anything. He couldn't respond to basic questions. How was lois dishonest?
I honestly don’t get the hate for this scene.
Clark was ready to answer a puff piece, not a full blown interrogation. The only time he raises his voice is to say “people were going to die.”
He’s frustrated because of him the most important thing is saving lives. He can’t understand how anyone could think politics and red tape should be a barrier for doing the right thing.
It’s a great sequence that shows the dichotomy between Clark and Lois, exemplifies all of Clark’s morals and how strongly he believes them, and adds a bit of conflict between Clark and Lois as they transition into a more serious relationship.
It’s a great way to give an “infallible” character a bit of depth.
What’s that line that all the BvS defenders use? Oh yeah…
“I think that you’re not smart enough to understand this movie.”
BvS was 10 years ago
You’re a damn dirty liar!
That came out in 2016, which was only… fuck… almost 10 years ago…
Lol I mean people prove it quite often 🤣
When it comes to Superman, yes. Quite often.
When it comes to BvS, no.
Hahahah sure, the only instance everyone has got it completely correct. Those odds sound about probably pretty high, right?
If only there wasn’t countless examples of people getting it wrong and claiming they got it 🤣
Granny's Peach Tea.
Mad psychological warfare. And even when there is no escape for her.
Lex really is a megalomaniac 👏
Yeah, it's a great way to show where he is in his journey balancing being Superman in relation to the way our world works. It makes sense that he's not fully formed in his first few years doing it. That he thinks a discussion might be easy without recognizing the underlying pressures of his decisions.
Are you in the Dr Light files?
Where do babies come from?
Vagina
How is babby formed?
I don’t have any issue with Clark being staunchly passionate about saving lives and getting upset when saving people is being questioned as the right choice.
But I do feel this scene would have worked a LOT better if it was from a “Year One” Superman perspective and not a “Year Three”. At least if it was from the perspective of a younger, just starting out version that hasn’t yet been media-tested due to only being interviewed by “himself,” it’d make more sense why Lois’s questions would upset him and catch him off guard.
But Year Three where he’s had three years on the job would probably be more experienced at answering the tough questions.
In all fairness, what’s the difference?
1 and 3 are just different numbers. This Superman is established as a younger version just starting out. The open title crawl establishes he’s never lost a fight, the Daily Planet scene establishes that Clark just had his first front page exclusive, the conversation between Clark and Lois establishes that Superman has only ever done interviews with Clark Kent.
Clark gets frustrated because, for the first time in his life, his good intentions of saving people have had consequences. Which was Lex Luthor’s entire plan from the start. Put Superman in a position where his good actions lead to trouble, hence the whole Hammer of Boravia thing.
Up until this point in time, all Superman has had to do is save people. This movie is the first time he’s truly been challenged, physically but also intellectually as well. The movie very clearly presents an early in his career Superman. The year number makes little to no difference imo.
There’s a big difference in 3 years. A junior in college is a lot different than a freshman. And a 3-year person on a job (if they’re good at it) is probably in line for a few promotions or at least knows how to teach newbies a few things from being 3 years into their careers.
Three years is a longer time than just “numbers”.
Year three Superman of the animated series was facing off against Darkseid and was an experienced superhero. Year three Superman in the Post Crisis comics had already faced the majority of his rogues gallery and was also a member of the Justice League and was very experienced.
So that’s why it matters.
(Also, it really doesn’t make sense why Clark Kent is only now just getting his first front pager when it’s established that he’s the only reporter that gets exclusive Superman interviews, enough that even Lex Luthor views him as his closest known ally - in the comics, his exclusive interview with Superman is what lands him his job in the first place and his debut article is an instant front pager - not really a “plot hole” per say, but a world-building oversight that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense).
Great, but this year 3 Superman isn’t the same Superman as TAS or the Post Crisis comics. It’s a completely new story and rendition of the character.
I’m just addressing your original comment where you say:
It would be one thing if the movie wrote this Superman as some veteran making these mistakes, but they clearly don’t. The movie already wrote this “year three” Superman to be more amateurish/just starting out. So if the only thing holding this scene back from working better for you is a 1 instead of a 3 in the opening text, then the complaint is arguably a bit superficial.
The Batman literally presents a year two Batman that doesn’t realize that his violence is inciting terrorism and still hasn’t even begun being Bruce Wayne yet. The movie literally ends with him realizing that he can do more good saving lives than punching people. The numbers are meaningless, it’s the character writing behind them that give them weight.
But my point is that it doesn’t make a lot of sense for a “year three” Superman being treated as if he’s “just starting out”. Especially when it’s long established in comics, shows and other media that Year Three Superman is more than capable and experienced enough to be beyond these growing pains by his third year.
That’s why I said it would have worked a lot better IMO if it was just stated outright it was year one.
Besides, narratively, there’s so many things in the movie that reinforces the idea that this is year one anyways. And it really doesn’t change anything in the plot a great deal if the description of the opening crawl just said this is Superman’s first year. The only thing that really changes is Gunn wont have a snappy “Three hundred years, Thirty years, three years, three hours, three minutes” way of words to play with for a memorable opening crawl.
As for The Batman argument, one year is a bigger difference, so year two still works. And he’s not treated as a Batman that’s just starting out either - more of a Batman that is still developing because he’s already got an established relationship with Gordon at the GCPD, he’s a good detective, he’s an experienced hand to hand fighter, he’s not a newbie. And plus there are no other superheroes that exist in that world, so he’s alone in writing his own rules.
Lastly, one of the issues with Superman being year three is they don’t treat it as a lot of the things that happen for the “first time” are big deals. Like, a year one Superman brushing off his first ever loss is more or less fine. But a year three Superman not treating it like a big deal is questionable. He doesn’t even show any sort of fear or emotion at Ultraman defeating him twice (in the Hammer guise) and he doesn’t actively look for him nor does the world really react to this major deal of Superman showing he’s vulnerable for the first time either.
its basically year 1. it was just establish that lex luthour is already a villian so that james gunn diesnt have to do an origin for him hating superman
"Answering the tough questions"
That he's asking himself?
Yes, that is the scene
Dr Fate would like to ask him a few questions?
Supersimp
Lois "Boravia has a right to defend itself" Lane
Not being able to handle this proved how soft this guy is.
33 year old man melts down like a baby when his girlfriend does her job
He thinks she's being unfair because she knows things other reporters don't know. He thinks he was right about saving people, and she's focusing on the wrong things.
She is being fair, and she's asking the right questions. While he's focusing on his goal, she's looking at the bigger picture. This was also explored in Man of Steel when Jonathan Kent talked to Clark about saving people.
Clark did handle the interview rather poorly.
Honestly it always cracks me up how he swears hes ready for anything and then completely unravels the second Lois pushes a bit harder. Dudes kryptonite is just honest questions at this point
I thought this Superman avoided the international market
Is pee stored in the balls?
IAMASURGEON
Yeah this bothered me too. Not only is it uncharacteristic of Clark to yell like this in this moment (not about innocent people being harms way, that is fitting) but clark isn’t stupid enough to believe Lois is ACTUALLY arguing against him in this point but merely playing the devils advocate reporter in order to have him see the bigger picture.
He would have seen that and asked for help figuring it out from the woman he loves. Not yell at her for trying to help.
The dude is one of us only that
And then proceeds to cry the whole movie