The Comics Professor

Read the introduction to A Philosopher Reads... Marvel Comics' Thor: If They Be Worthy

With the release of Thor: Love and Thunder quickly approaching, I'm pleased to share the introduction to my recent book, A Philosopher Reads... Marvel Comics' Thor: If They Be Worthy, for your enjoyment.

- -- --- ---- ----- ---- --- -- -

Who among us has not doubted our worth or worthiness at some point in our lives? Maybe it was about our worth as a friend, family member, or romantic partner, and maybe it was as a student, employee, or volunteer. Maybe it was just an issue with our self-esteem or self-worth in general, leading us to feel inadequate in many areas of our lives. Whatever the context or degree, most of us, at one time or another, have felt we were not living up to a standard, whether set by others or by ourselves, and however reasonable (or not). When you don’t feel worthy, it can be nearly impossible to do anything, to interact with other people, and to perform the most basic tasks, even picking up a pencil, a book, or… a hammer.

Consider Thor, the Asgardian God of Thunder and son of Odin the All-Father. (Yes, I know he’s not the only Thor—I’m getting to that.) Thor must be judged worthy in order to lift his mighty hammer Mjolnir and command his full powers. Granted, his alternative is not too shabby: In the early comics, the Odinson would otherwise be Donald Blake, handsome and successful doctor, beloved by his nurse Jane Foster. In later years, other than brief periods in other mortal forms, he would remain his enormous Asgardian self, with his beloved hammer in his hand—and the worthiness it implied.

Being judged worthy by Mjolnir is, of course, very important to him, and it’s not hard to see why, especially when we realize this goal was… ahem… hammered into him from a very early age. In general, everyone appreciates some occasional external validation, even when things seem to be going fairly well for them. Often, it’s difficult to tell why people feel bad about themselves, especially when things look great for them from the outside. You may have just received a promotion at work, had your first child, or climbed your first mountain, and people would assume you’re on top of the world (literally, if you just climbed a mountain). But none of that matters if you don’t feel worthy, or if you see yourself as inferior, lacking in some way, or maybe even a loser. This is only compounded if you rely on someone else—or something else—to validate your worth for you, another entity with a mind of its own that makes judgments based on standards that may be irrelevant, unreasonable, or impossible.

Now imagine being Thor. After untold centuries of defending Asgard and the other realms from Frost Giants, Dark Elves, and the occasional Fire Demon, you suddenly find yourself judged unworthy by your beloved hammer. You’re unable to lift it, or even budge it, and then you discover someone else was able to lift it and has taken your place as the new Thor. (Never mind that Thor is actually his name—we’ll get to that too.) On occasion, other people have been able to lift the hammer momentarily, most notably Captain America, but even he didn’t “become the new Thor” when he did it. (As you may know, Cap prefers a shield anyway.) One notable exception is Beta Ray Bill, an alien from the planet Korbin who fought Thor and picked up Mjolnir, transforming into a larger, armored version of himself. Normally, whenever someone other than Thor manages to lift the hammer, it’s merely an affirmation of their worthiness. But this time, when the Odinson was found unworthy, a new Thor appeared after she lifted the hammer, sending the original into an emotional and philosophical tailspin—one we will explore in this book.

What about this new Thor? Don’t think we’ve forgotten about her—she’s a big part of this book as well. After months of secrecy and false leads, she was revealed to be none other than Jane Foster, originally Blake’s nurse and love interest, who had since become a doctor herself and remained in Thor’s life as a valued colleague and confidante. While the Odinson was struggling with unworthiness, Jane was undergoing chemotherapy to fight cancer, only to have her progress stalled each time she transformed into the Mighty Thor.

Why did Mjolnir regard Jane as worthy and the Odinson as unworthy? Had something about the Odinson changed, or did Mjolnir “change its mind” about what it regarded as worthy? Does the Odinson become worthy again—and, if so, how? More generally, who (or what) is Mjolnir to be judging worthiness anyway? Who is the appropriate judge of worthiness, others or oneself? And most important, what does it mean to be worthy—and how might it be related to unworthiness?

All these questions and more are raised in the seven years of Marvel Comics about Thor written by Jason Aaron and illustrated by a cadre of magnificent artists such as Russell Dauterman and Esad Ribić. In this book, we will follow the saga of these two Thors, as told by Aaron and his artistic collaborators, thinking about the philosophical concept of worthiness as we go.

We will start with how worthiness was understood in the early comics, which matches many of our basic intuitions about what makes a person worthy, but also leaves many questions that will be answered as we go on. When Aaron’s run begins, we will see Thor begin to have doubts about his own worthiness as well as the worthiness of gods in general. This will raise the topic of what being a “god” means to an Asgardian and how this version of godhood can translate to our world. After the Odinson is declared unworthy, we will follow Jane Foster’s tenure as Thor, exploring how and why Mjolnir regards her as worthy, as well as the ways her worthiness may be different from that of her predecessor. As she fights to assert herself as the new Thor on Earth as well as on Asgard—Odin is not a fan, to put it mildly—the original Thor is left to deal with his own unworthiness, which gives us the chance to discuss how one experiences and deals with such feelings and begins to combat them. Finally, we will come to a deeper understanding of worthiness alongside the Odinson, and watch as he rejoins Jane to fight beside her before she… well, let’s leave something for later, shall we?

I’m excited that you’ve chosen to join me on this philosophical journey through one of the most fascinating and exciting storylines in a half-century of Thor comics. (And that includes the ones about the frog.) Jason Aaron and his artistic partners have given us a unique way to explore many dimensions of worthiness by observing how Thor Odinson and Jane Foster each deal with the burdens of being the God of Thunder, as well as why they were chosen—or, in the Odinson’s case, rejected—as being worthy of the honor. I wrote this book to be enjoyed by anyone, whether you’re new to Thor or philosophy, or you’re a longtime fan of either (or both). Regardless, when you reach the end of the book, I hope that, not only will you feel entertained and have a deeper appreciation for the stories of Thor, but you will have new ways to think about any issues you may have about your own worth, value, or self-esteem.

Copyright © Mark D. White 2022

- -- --- ---- ----- ---- --- -- -

See here for more on the book, including the table of contents, reviews, and related podcasts.

Buy the book at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or IndieBound.

My thoughts on The Batman

Being online so much finally paid off: I saw the announcement of the IMAX preview of The Batman just it was announced about a month ago, and was able to snag tickets for me and my son before it sold out (apparently within minutes). Last night we saw it, and we both walked out of the theater speechless.

In short: This is the Batman movie I'd been waiting for.

When I write and talk about Batman, I focus almost exclusively on the comics. Don't get me wrong: I love that he's represented in so many types of media, and everyone has their favorite, but mine has always been the version in the comics. Notwithstanding the craft, talent, and hard work put into the films, I have rarely warmed to them. I have always said that in my ideal Batman film, you would rarely see Batman himself—you'd see the shadow, the silhouette, and people reacting to him, but rarely would you see Batman (and never in the light). Batman has such a mystique about him that it's difficult to capture his ethereal nature on film, even for the best directors, actors, writers, costumers, and cinematographers. Less is more, basically, and they should leave the rest to the audience's imagination.

The Batman came much closer to that ideal that any screen adaptation of the Dark Knight to date, and that's just one reason I enjoyed this film so very much.

WARNING: There may be mild spoilers going forward, although I don't discuss any plot points or details.

The Batman was sumptuously photographed, with so many breathtaking shots that I wished I could have lingered on (and surely will when the Blu-ray is released). The subtle score was gorgeous, especially when it took the place of sound effects, giving those dramatic scenes the feel of a silent film accompanied by music. In this movie, Batman is very much a creature of the shadows; most of the film is shot at night or in darkened spaces, and Batman is rarely seen in direct light, maintaining that ethereal quality I prefer to see. But at the same time, when we see his face, he is undeniably human, primarily due to the focus on his eyes, which was surprising effective. (I was also surprised how well the "half cowl" worked in retaining the classic silhouette while preserving mobility, and thankfully avoiding the bulky rubber cowls of films past. Was it inspired by Daredevil's cowl on the Netflix Disney+ show, I wonder?)

There are several aspects of Batman that I particularly appreciate in the comics that were also represented here. This Batman is more detective than superhero, working closely with Detective Jim Gordon on a series of grisly murders accompanied by cryptic messages from the enigmatic Riddler (with occasional input from Alfred). From the beginning, we also see many instances of members of the Gotham City Police Department reacting in different ways to Batman's presence at crime scenes, in the tradition of the Gotham Central comic, combined with the corruption in the police force, well known from Batman: Year One. We can tell that Gordon and Batman already have some history together from the enormous trust Gordon has for the Caped Crusader, whom he repeatedly has to defend to his fellow police. Even when helping to investigate a crime scene or observing a medical examination of a murder victim, this Batman is still and silent, watching and only occasionally contributing an insight, as if he appreciates Gordon's indulgence and doesn't want to overstep and risk this valuable relationship.

In general, Pattinson's Batman—and even his Bruce Wayne, whom we see much less than in other films—is for the most part still and silent, which makes the action scenes all the more striking in contrast (as well as the handful of laughs, mostly from other characters at his expense). There also seemed to be less action than earlier films, which will surely disappoint some viewers (understandably): Most of the movie was a battle of wits between Batman and Riddler, with occasional action scenes and fights primarily between our hero and flunkies or mob toughs, until the final act that ramps up the action quotient very dramatically. This is not a typical superhero film; in pacing and tone, I would compare it more to the Daredevil show, or maybe Logan.

Pattinson's Batman/Bruce Wayne is a tortured soul, which he doesn't even bother to hide when he attends a public function as Wayne. Maybe he will later, but this Bruce Wayne has not yet adopted the millionaire playboy persona to travel among high society; for now he couldn't care less, clearly obsessed (as Alfred notes) with fighting crime or, as he puts it, pursuing vengeance. Thankfully, this concept of vengeance does not involve killing, which he prevents another character from doing, giving the standard explanation of "you don't want to turn into them." (He also makes his dislike of guns clear in another scene.)

Speaking of vengeance, in what was perhaps the most surprising part of the film (in the best way), Batman has an epiphany at the end regarding his mission that is set up marvelously well, using a minor character that shows up only a handful of times throughout the film but plays an integral role in tying the whole thing together. (At nearly three hours of very steady but slightly drawn-out pacing, this was very useful.) Here, this young Batman discovers a positive aspect of what he does that can complement the negative aspect of fighting crime, and could serve to add a different tone to the next installment (although I hope it doesn't change the tone entirely).

Finally, the performances were excellent across the board. Robert Pattinson wisely chose to underplay both Batman and Bruce Wayne, using his face (which we see more of, even as Batman, than before) to show the tragedy that motivates him and the steely resolve that carries him on, despite discouraging odds. Zoë Kravitz was magnificent as Selina Kyle, portraying the self-determination and instinct for survival that allows her to prosper in any situation, both amongst the criminal element and alongside the Dark Knight (with whom she has undeniable playful chemistry, reflecting the best of their relationship in the comics). Gregory Wright was delightfully gruff as Jim Gordon; Andy Serkis's Alfred was not seen enough, but his few scenes were effective and heartfelt (even without the gentle snark often seen in the character); and Paul Dano was a terrifically unhinged Riddler (though he reminded me more of James Gordon Jr.), especially in the later part of the movie when he was not in his, ahem, questionable outfit. (Speaking as a huge Colin Farrell fan, I don't know why he played the Penguin as Robert DeNiro, but the character worked well in a role that sets him up well for future appearances.)

I went into this movie more curious than anything, but I walked out astonished, and I'm very eager to see what Matt Reeves and company do with Batman next (especially if it involves the character teased at the very end, which I hope they continue to tease for a while longer).

My thoughts on Spider-Man: No Way Home

SPOILERS FOR SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME BELOW! SO MANY SPOILERS!

My son and I saw the new Spider-Man film yesterday afternoon in a large theater with about twenty other people—which was a Christmas miracle, given how most showings sold out over opening weekend and our hesitation to see it amongst a large crowd in the current environment. In anticipation of this event, we rewatched all the earlier Spidey flicks over the last couple months, which really paid off, given how well No Way Home wrapped up the entire franchise to date, while setting an interesting direction for future installments.

Below I share a few of my thoughts about the movie. Before I start, I should warn you: I haven't read any other commentary or reviews yet, so it's quite likely that everything I have to say has already been said. (Still, no refunds!)

1. Generally, everyone involved with this film pulled off an incredible juggling act, balancing the core story of Spider-Man and his amazing friends MJ and Ned with the multiversal spectacle of numerous guest-stars from the pre-MCU films. I had heard the rumors and had seen the set pictures, but I successfully avoided getting confirmation of who showed up in the movie before I saw it. Perhaps the most impressive aspect of this was that, with one notable exception (see #5-7 below), none of the invited guests were mere cameos; all of them had meaningful character beats and important roles to play in the story. Specifically, I was expecting the earlier Spideys to show up at the last minute to help out with the final fight, and was pleasantly surprised that they arrived early enough for some great character work between them.
2. Continuing with that thought: The casual interactions between Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, and Tom Holland, some touching and others funny, were some of my favorite moments of the movie. Tobey was the chill, elder statesman of the three, a more confident and competent version of Jake Johnson's Spidey from Into the Multiverse. In contrast, Andrew was still tormented by the death of Gwen Stacy in his second movie, now living a self-imposed life of solitude and self-loathing. Tobey sweetly tried to counter this ("You're amazing! Say it! Say you're amazing!"), but it takes the opportunity to save MJ from a similar fall that allows Andrew to start to move past his grief and guilt. And Tom took the leadership role while casually throwing out references to going into space and being an Avenger, which the others hilariously did not understand—but even better was seeing Andrew and Tom marvel at Toby being able to shoot webs out of his wrists instead of relying on homemade webshooters and webbing. (Now that's what I call fan service, given the endless debates about organic vs. mechanical webshooters on message boards.)
3. I was relieved to see that Doctor Strange was not the co-star of the movie, as the trailer suggested. (I get it: After all, they couldn't show much else). I was afraid he'd play the father figure that Tony Stark and Quentin Beck did in Holland's first two movies; instead, there was a great older hero/younger hero dynamic between them that thankfully stopped short of mentor/mentee. (And hey, was that Zelma, from the Jason Aaron and Chris Bachalo run of the comics, cleaning up the snow in the Sanctum Sanctorum?)
4. Holland's dedication to trying to save.help/cure the assorted villains, as opposed to Doctor Strange's plan to return them to their home universes to face their deaths, was perhaps the most positively surprising aspect of the story. This reflected the traditional Spider-Man idealism (especially during the Dan Slott "no one dies" period) and exemplified the less reactive or defensive approach to superheroing we often see these days among the younger set, such as Ms. Marvel or Squirrel Girl. (Although, to be fair, one of Batman's greatest regrets is not being able to help or redeem his worst villains, especially those like Two-Face who were once on the side of good, as I discuss in Batman and Ethics.) It was also nice to see that, other than Norman Osborn, the villains weren't truly evil; rather, each had been "turned" in his own way, which the Spideys were able to reverse, setting them back on the righteous path.
5. MATT MURDOCK!
6. CHARLIE COX AS MATT MURDOCK!
7. "I'm a very good lawyer." Fantastic line at the perfect time. (But I'm sad they missed the chance to have Matt turn in Happy's direction, take a sniff or listen intently for a second, and say "Foggy?")
8. Most important, this movie fixed what I've regarded as the biggest flaw of the first two MCU Spider-Man films: the absence of a motivating tragedy that serves to convince Peter to dedicate himself to helping people and doing what's right, regardless of the personal cost (which is consistently high). In the comics and the last two iterations in the movies, this crucial event has always been the death of Uncle Ben, which Tobey references as his greatest loss, while Andrew understandably focuses on Gwen. But the MCU movies chose for some reason to neglect Uncle Ben altogether (other than occasional suggestions of his past existence in this universe), leaving Peter to be a more carefree, happy-go-lucky wallcrawler, reveling in playing dress-up with Iron Man and the Avengers but not really motivated to be a hero for its own sake. But with this movie, Aunt May takes Uncle Ben's place, and her death becomes the horrible tragedy that Peter feels responsible for and will spend the rest of his life trying to rise up from. To paraphrase a popular political saying, with this movie Peter Parker became Spider-Man...
9. ...and he proves this by making a tremendous sacrifice at the end to save the multiverse, asking Doctor Strange to erase all memory of Peter Parker's existence, including MJ and Ned, the two closest people to him left in the world. (It will be very interesting to see how Peter goes about rebuilding these relationships in the upcoming "college trilogy.") The fact that he did so without hesitation and with full awareness of the incredible personal cost shows that this Peter Parker has become the Spider-Man we know and love.

All in all, Spider-Man: No Way Home was a stunning achievement by all involved, and it only heighten my excitement for what director Jon Watts does with the upcoming Fantastic Four film.

My thoughts on Avengers: Endgame (Spoilers clearly marked)

Well that was something!

After rewatching Avengers: Infinity War Thursday night, I saw Avengers: Endgame Friday morning by myself—well, me and the hundred other people in the sold-out small theater, but you knew what I meant—and then again with my kids in a much larger (but still sold out) IMAX theater. I grouse a lot about the modern movie experience, what with the ubiquitous cellphones and incessant chattering, and I've been going to the movies less and less the last several years because of it, but this was an occasion that demanded and justified the full social experience. The Friday audience was quiet, applauding only at the end of the movie, but the Saturday crowd was into it, cheering at every character introduction and revelation throughout the entire film. As many comic book fans of a certain age have noted, we were ostracized for our hobby as kids (and perhaps even more so as adults), so it's immensely gratifying to arrive in the year 2019 where we can sit in a theater with several hundred people, only a fraction of whom have likely every read a comic book, and cheer together to the exploits of the heroes of our childhood (and adulthood).

What about the movie itself? Again, I'm afraid I don't have much to say that probably hasn't already been said, and if you're looking for dispassionate criticism and analysis, look elsewhere my friend. I'm writing as an unabashed fan here.

Avengers: Endgame is a magnificent film, filling every last one of its 181 minutes without a lull, with excellent pacing and balance between its many subplots and storylines, and hitting every last emotional note it needed to. I'm frankly astonished at the magnitude of this movie and how well it put a bow on the unprecedented 22-film story that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe—so well, in fact, that I had a distinct feeling of loss at the end, not just for any events in the film itself, but for this initial stage of the franchise itself.

There isn't much more I can say without giving away story details, so this is where I warn...

THERE BE SPOILERS AFTER THIS GLORIOUS GIF OF GONEMMENEMMENEMMENON!

(Did you remember that he said that in Infinity War? I have to admit I did not, until I rewatched it Thursday night, after which I felt really stupid for forgetting it. Of course you remembered it, because you're all very smart.)

Here are my thoughts, with varying significance and coherence, starting with the six original Avengers themselves.

Captain America. As you might guess, my favorite moments were those centered on Captain America, who received a fantastic send-off. Before he "retired," he managed to poke a little fun at his catchphrase "I can do this all day" as well as his fan-favorite rear end, and also wield the mighty Mjolnir (as he has several times in the comics), which brought perhaps the loudest round of cheers in the Saturday showing. (And I have to wonder how much Nick Spencer paid the Russos to have Cap say those two little words. They used it well, but geez guys, give us some warning next time!)

Most interesting, compared to the comics, was that Cap retired at all. A constant theme, which I highlight often at my The Virtues of Captain America blog as well as the book of the same name, is that he continually feels the contrasting pulls of duty and love (or "mission" versus "life") and reliably picks the former. As much as he feels he's done enough and deserves happiness, he always returns to the shield, without fail. Of course, given the realities of comic book publishing where established characters rarely change too much, this is understandable, but Evans's retirement gave the filmmakers the opportunity to have their Cap make the other choice—while leaving a world with a very capable successor in Sam Wilson. (This makes me wonder if the announced Disney streaming series featuring Falcon and the Winter Soldier was just a ruse, or if it was always meant to be about Sam as Cap and Bucky helping him.)

Iron Man. Despite the tremendous moments that Cap had in this film, the emotional center was definitely Tony Stark, which was appropriate given that it was Iron Man, as played by Robert Downey Jr., that got this entire party started in 2008. For the same reason, it made sense that he would die while dealing Thanos the final blow (or snap). (I like to think that, as he usually does in the comics, he uploaded a version of his consciousness into a computer so he can be the AI in a successor's armor, whether that successor is Pepper, which is doubtful, or someone like Riri Williams, Ironheart from the comics, who did have an AI version of Tony in her helmet for a while.)

Speaking of Pepper, it was amazing to see her in the armor, even if (as I suspect) just for this one time. We all knew it was coming after the earlier scene with little Morgan, but to actually see it... that elicited another huge cheer from the Saturday crowd (as did the collection of the MCU's incredible collection of female heroes protecting Peter and the gauntlet at the end). And seeing her fighting back-to-back with Tony... that, together with the stakes of the situation, made me forgive the fact that, as Rescue in the comics, Pepper's armor had no weaponry.

(And Tony's final words to his daughter, "I love you three thousand"... I'm tearing up again as I type it.)

Black Widow and Hawkeye. Black Widow made the ultimate sacrifice, of course, to Hawkeye's objections. (I'm sure he felt he should be the one to die, given the fact that he had racked up quite a few murders in the preceding five years, but would good ol' Frank have done the same thing?) But, I suspect she will be back, depending on how Cap "returned" the Soul Stone in his reverse-time-heist before getting hitched and living out his days as Married Old Man Steve. If the goal was to restore the original timelines, did he just give the stone back to the Red Skull—I really want to see that conversation—or did he just prevent Nat from sacrificing herself in the first place? And if he gave it back, could he somehow have saved Nat? (If only Evans didn't want to retire, I would ask for a streaming series on Cap's trips in the past to restore the Stones. Hear that, Feige?)

The Hulk. The newly chill Hulk was wonderful (calling back to Bruce's efforts at maintaining inner peace when Nat found him the first Avengers movie), especially with the kids who wanted their picture with him, with Scott when he saw he'd lost his taco, and especially when revisiting the Battle of New York and having to fake his old raging self. It also made his sadness and grief more apparent after losing Natasha, when he did show his anger a little more.

Thor. And of course, "the Odinson abides." This was the one part I think they took a little too far, though it provided some great laughs, especially with Rocket (who would imagined those two would make such a great pair, in both Infinity War and Engame), and a touching moment with his mother. I was sorry we didn't see him interact with Jane, though, which leads to my next comment...

Playing with time. What better way to pay tribute to the entire 22-film series than revisit some key scenes from the earlier films to the process of finding the Infinity Stones in the past? That was simply brilliant. Both times I saw it I tried to figure out which scenes which pulled from the earlier films, such as the famous shot of the six Avengers standing back-to-back in a circle during the Battle of New York, and which ones were new, such as the elevator scene in New York (calling back to Captain America: Winter Soldier even though it was set during Avengers) and the subsequent lobby scene with Alexander Pierce (also from Winter Soldier), which featured a key move from Loki (who managed to play an integral role despite dying early in Infinity War). I have to assume the quick shot of Jane Foster was old and Natalie Portman didn't shoot any new footage—otherwise, I think someone would have interacted with her. What's more, I found it very clever of the Russos to use the time travel device (plot device, that is) to bring in the Ancient One as well as the younger Howard Stark, Jarvis, and best of all, Peggy Carter.

There's so much more I could mention, such as the emotional reunion of Peter Parker with Tony Stark, the return of the Wakandans, Valkyrie on her magnificent flying steed, Janet van Dyne (!) at the end, and Captain Marvel's limited but effective role (my favorite scene of hers being when she met Peter, showing that she doesn't have to be fierce all the time). My one complaint: I wish they would have done more to show the return of half the life in the universe than Clint getting a call from his wife and Scott seeing more birds outside. I realize the movie was long enough as it is, but just a 30-second montage of people hugging returned loved ones around the world (and on other words) would have been nice to show the enormity of what our heroes accomplished (before Thanos arrived and blowed them up but good).

That ending. The funeral scene, with the slow pan over the entire cast of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, was poignant in its intimacy as well as breathtaking in its scope, showing the scale of that universe with all the sub-franchises contained in it, and everyone paying tribute to the hero that started it all. as well as, I like to think, the actor—very much still alive—that played him so well.

That other ending. Even though, in spirit, the series began and ended with Tony Stark, as a Cap fan I appreciated that the final shot of the film showed Steve and Peggy dancing (I assume in the late 1940s), picking up not long after where they left off when Cap made the ultimate sacrifice himself in his first film. That gave the movie, which was incredibly heavy emotionally, an optimistic conclusion, showing that true love and lasting happiness is indeed possible... if you have Pym particles and a time machine. (If anyone knows where I can get these things, let me know!)

That other other ending. The cast credits, ending with tributes to the six that started it all, really drove home that this is the end of an era, even if it is also the beginning of a new one. It really hit me, especially on my second viewing, that this was the last time we'll see some of these characters on the big screen, and what they, along with everyone else involved in these films, have accomplished. Twenty-two interlinking movies in twelve years, most of them standing fairly well on their own and each mini-franchise possessing its own unique aesthetic, but all feeding to a large narrative... just like the Marvel Universe of the comics.

And that, perhaps more than even the faithful renditions of the characters and the Easter eggs for the diehards, is what makes the MCU gratifying to comics fans: The movies feel like the comics. With both, we can revel in the continuity of the large-scale narrative at the same time that we appreciate each individual story, scene, and line. Not all of the movies need to be equally good, and you don't have to like every character as much as your favorites, but you can still enjoy most if not all of the movies on their own and the series as a whole. (For my part, I regard all 22 movies as at least good, with most of them very good and a few of them excellent.)

What's even better than that? As I mentioned at the beginning, my childhood obsession is now a cultural phenomenon. And when an entire large theater erupts in cheers, five minutes into the movie, at the first appearance of Captain Marvel—a character introduced into the mainstream consciousness in her first movie just a few months ago—you know that something amazing has happened. I'm thrilled to have been there to experience it... and I can't wait to see what happens next.

New interviews and articles about Captain America: Civil War and my book, A Philosopher Reads Marvel Comics' Civil War

It's been an exciting couple of weeks around the release of Captain America: Civil War, with several articles, interviews, and a review of my book A Philosopher Reads... Marvel Comics' Civil War appearing online. I collect them all on the dedicated page for the book at profmdwhite.com, but I thought a Comics Professor blog update was called for as well.

1. I did two interviews about the movie, its relation to the comics, and the ethics and politics behind both:

"A Philosopher Watches... Captain America: Civil War," interview with Skye Cleary for the Blog of the APA (American Philosophical Association), May 10, 2016

"The Post-9/11 Ethics of Captain America: Civil War," interview with Katie Kilkenny for Pacific Standard, May 9, 2016

2. Michael Dudley of the University of Winnipeg reviewed my book for the Winnipeg Free Press on May 7, 2016 in "Civil discourse: Comics book series says plenty on liberty, security and morals," containing the immortal attribution, "something of a rock star in the world of comics." (I wish!)

3. Finally, I wrote two pieces based on my book and the Civil War comics (before the movie came out):

"What Can We Learn from Watching a Superhero Civil War?" Psychology Today blog, May 3, 2016

"Captain America: Civil War -- conflicted heroes and a clash of philosophies," The Guardian, April 21, 2016

~~~  ~~~  ~~~

Even though it's "old news" by now, I'm also very happy with my chat with Scott Niswander for his Nerdsync podcast:

~~~  ~~~  ~~~

As always, if you like any of this stuff, let me know on Twitter and check out my book, A Philosopher Reads... Marvel Comics' Civil War, available now!

My thoughts on Captain America: Civil War (No spoilers!)

OK, no surprise... I loved Captain America: Civil War. I was fairly certain I'd like it, of course, but it surpassed my expectations, which were well heightened by all the positive  comments from everyone who saw it before me. (And that seems to be everyone I know. I will have my revenge, mark my words.)

So here are some scatted thoughts, as usual... (If I had no shame I would title this post "7 Things I Loved about Captain America: Civil War... and 1 I Didn't," but with any luck Google will pick up on that anyway.)

1. The movie was very well paced, and I was never tempted to check the time, which is impressive for a 147-minute movie. There was a point at which I thought the movie could have been essentially finished, except there was a scene from the trailers that hadn't come up yet, but this was a minor lull.

2. Despite the inclusion of a dozen heroes, several of them appearing throughout the film, the Russo brothers did a great job keeping the focus most of the time on Cap and the main secondary characters, Falcon, Bucky, and Iron Man. There were times that it did feel like an Avengers movie—especially during the fight scene between the two teams, which was much longer (and better) than I expected—but these spots were occasional enough that the movie still felt like a Cap movie. (Although, to be fair, there was enough substantial Iron Man content that it almost could have been titled something stupid like Captain America v Iron Man. Like anyone would do that.)

3. The story itself was not as close to the comics version as I expected—and I didn't expect it to be very close at all—but I think the changes worked well within the context of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. For instance, as many people noted ahead of the film, not many of the heroes we've seen in the films have secret identities, so that aspect of the comics story wouldn't translate well to the film, and it was wisely left out. Nonetheless, the movie did touch of several iconic images and lines from the comics, which I found enormously gratifying (being rather fond of the comics, as you may have heard). Would I have loved more explicit discussion of the issues underlying the conflict? Of course, but I was satisfied with how much there was, and the dialogue on this front was concise and on target, hitting the most important points of the debate. (I expect to be talking more about that aspect of the film in the near future.)

4. The action scenes were simply incredible, both those with two characters as well as a dozen, and felt more visceral than Whedon's in the two Avengers films, even when all the heroes were onscreen at the same time. Maybe it was the Russo brothers' more subdued color palette, or the slight jerkiness of the camera (which, to be honest, became somewhat tiresome), but these scenes were more reminiscent of a war movie (appropriately enough) than a traditional superhero film. Kudos to everyone involved in these scenes, most of all the sound people—every time one of the heroes got hit, was thrown in a wall, or fell 50 feet to the ground, I flinched thanks to the combination of performance, cinematography, and especially the sound effects. (But at the same time, even when Cap and Iron Man went all out on each other, there was none of the senseless brutality we saw in that other superhero battle movie this year.)

5. Black Panther... ah, my king! He could have easily been the star of this movie if any of the other characters had let me down, and I am looking forward even more (if that were possible) to his solo film. Chadwick Boseman gave T'Challa a thoroughly regal demeanor, with the perfect combination of determination, class, and fierceness. The Panther's movements were magnificently graceful, especially the way he would land after a jump or being thrown. And even with his short time in the film, we saw his character experience growth.

6. I am a big fan of both Tobey Maguire's and Andrew Garfield's portrayals of Peter Parker/Spider-Man (though not necessarily of every film they were in), and Tom Holland's version adds yet another unique take on the character. He played a relatively small role in the movie, and didn't have much to do with the Civil War storyline itself (unlike in the comics, where he was a major player), but we see much more of him than I expected, in and out of costume.

7. The Stan Lee cameo was perfect. 'Nuff said.

If I have one criticism with the film, it's with the ending. I can't say much more without giving anything away, so I'll just say that I thought some things were left unresolved, but I trust the Russo brothers to be setting up their first Avengers film (which cannot come soon enough).

The ending notwithstanding, I thought the movie was exceptional. It was more of an action movie than a political one, but there was enough of the latter to make this fan of the comics story happy.

-----

As I mentioned, I have a number of interviews planned over the next week in which I'll speak to the ideological debates in the movie and the comics, so stay tuned, both here and on Twitter. And don't forget to check out my book, A Philosopher Reads...Marvel Comics' Civil War: Exploring the Moral Judgment of Captain America, Iron Man, and Spider-Man, available now!

Six reasons why Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is the best superhero movie yet

I saw Batman v Superman last Thursday, and meant to get a post up more quickly, but it took me this long to digest all the Snyder-y goodness packed into those two-and-a-half hours of sheer cinematic bludgeoning.

Let me list some of things I loved about this movie (there may be spoilers):

1. I was very happy when Superman broke the fourth wall and addressed the audience, admitting that he was completely out of character killing Zod at the end of Man of Steel, and apologized for the resulting disillusionment of the next generation of Superman fans. But the following 20-minute discussion with Batman about why heroes don't kill was even better, and validated my faith in Snyder that he never really thought that Superman killing could ever be appropriate. (In general, the in-depth treatment of all the issues raised in the movie was much appreciated; I was so relieved Snyder didn't just gloss over these points to focus on grandiose, emotionally-laden set pieces with little meaningful content or narrative coherence.)
2. Jesse Eisenberg's subtle, delicately nuanced portrayal of Lex Luthor added the gravitas necessary to offset the goofy antics of the title heroes. Most of the film was a bright and giddy celebration of fun-filled adventure and superheroics, and it needed Luthor to lend it solemnity to give it the careful balance between unrestrained joy and emotional depth we've come to expect from Zack Snyder.
3. Speaking of lighthearted fun, I howled at Batman and Superman's impromptu vaudeville-style tap routine to the Beatles' "Martha My Dear." It allowed Affleck and Cavill the opportunity to show off their dance skills, which will come in handy in Justice League (which my sources tell me will be a broad reworking of A Chorus Line, Snyder's favorite Broadway-themed movie other than all the others).
4. Wonder Woman was integrated very well throughout the entire movie. I was so afraid she'd be shoehorned into the end of the movie to clean up after the boys nearly killed each other (silly, right?), or used for gratuitous eye-candy earlier, but I should have known Snyder was better that. (That would have been a real sucker punch indeed.)
5. The dream sequence where Batman turns into the Punisher and then Superman turns into the Punisher and then one Punisher goes all Punisher on the other Punisher but it's even better because it's Batman and Superman and everyone really wants them to be the Punisher because wow the Punisher's just so awesome and... yeah. The seven-year-old in me who really doesn't understand Batman or Superman loved that part.
6. My favorite moment:  before the final throwdown, when Superman shouted "Speedos!" into Bruce Wayne's pool and Aquaman jumped out and said, "hey, I'm in a movie!"

I could go on, but I'll leave something for my review of the R-rated cut, in which I hope Batman and Superman can really cut loose and engage in some more uncharacteristically brutal violence and the rumored epic breakdance battle, which was too intense for PG-13. (Wait until you see Batman pop and lock... and load!)

My thoughts on the 2015 Fantastic Four movie (spoiler-free)

Why do I feel inspired to write about only the movies I'm disappointed in? Maybe I worry I'll be too fanboy-ish about the movies I love and will fail to say anything insightful about them, sounding like Chris Farley meeting his idols on Saturday Night Live ("You know that movie you were in? ... That was cooool.") Hence, I've written nothing on Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Avengers: Age of Ultron, or Ant-Man (just to name a few), but plenty about Man of Steel... and now its aesthetic cousin, Fantastic Four.

[UPDATE: As has been pointed out to me, I did in fact write about Avengers: Age of Ultron. But it is rather fanboy-ish, isn't it?]

As you may know, I love the Fantastic Four; if you don't, I gushed about them recently over at the Cultural Gutter. Even though I avoided actual reviews of this movie, there was more than enough doubt in the air to dispel any hopes I had that I would be happy with it. I had the worst of expectations. As I told a friend yesterday, I couldn't not see it; I just had to know.

As I watched last night, in a local theater with about a dozen teenagers with nothing better to do on a Thursday evening—what a difference from early showings of other recent superhero flicks, which were packed with diehard fans—I couldn't help but think about Man of Steel. If it had been about any other superpowered person, Man of Steel would have been an interesting and entertaining movie—my problem with it was that the Superman it showed bore little resemblance to the Superman I believe in.

Fantastic Four, on the other hand, did no particular disservice to its characters, if only because they had very little character at all, and faced no tragic dilemma that would have revealed something about their heroic dispositions. This is no fault of the four lead actors, all of whom did the best they could with what they were given. What a horrible waste of talent this was, especially that of Miles Teller and Michael B. Jordan, who have both shone in other work. (And the less said about Doctor Doom, the better. At least he wasn't a blogger, as widely reported earlier.)

My issue with Fantastic Four wasn't the portrayal of the lead characters. It was simply a bad movie. Utterly lifeless, it had no discernible plot, and no drama or suspense—only when the denouement came did you know that the climax had passed. The dialogue was bland and cliched (and not even based on comic book cliches, beyond the awkward insertion of several beloved catchphrases, one introduced in a particularly depressing way).

Visually, it made Man of Steel look like Pee Wee's Playhouse—I don't think the color blue appeared once, much less any other primary colors. Even the other dimension they travel to was disappointing, a slight improvement on the alien sets from the original Star Trek series. (On a brighter note, the flame effect on Johnny Storm was very well done, and the Thing's appearance works better than I imagined, and for the first time in a movie you can see how he would inspire true fear and not just disgust or discomfort.)

As a concept, the Fantastic Four is supposed to be about wonder, adventure, and exploration, but there was none of that in this movie. It's also supposed to be about the relationships between the four members, but there was very little of that in this movie. And it is supposed to be fantastic—and there was definitely none of that in this movie.

P.S. Maybe this will lead people to reconsider the first two Fantastic Four movies, which were far from perfect but captured very well the playful and optimistic spirit of the comic (as well as simply being more entertaining.)

Thoughts about Avengers: Age of Ultron (Spoilers galore!)

Not a review, per se, but just some collected thoughts...

MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW—BE WARNED!

1. Loved it. It started like a Bond film with an intense action sequence, expertly shot in a similar fashion to the Battle of New York in the first film, with the focus flowing seamlessly from one character to the next, then calmed down as we saw the threat of Ultron building. Then it was off to the races again, only to be followed by setback, then regrouping for the final battle...

2. ...which was focused on SAVING ALL THE PEOPLE.

3. They SAVED ALL THE PEOPLE.

4. ALL OF THEM.

5. Ok, where was I... oh, right.

6. The focus on the six main Avengers seemed much more even this time, with Black Widow and Hawkeye getting more attention (especially with the surprise revelation that Hawkeye has been married to Velma all this time—no womanizing cad this Clint Barton).

7. I wish Black Widow hadn't been made the captured Avenger that had to be rescued, but that role was played by Hawkeye in the last film, and the others are too powerful. But still.

8. The humor was fantastic—I tried to remember all of my favorite lines but last track twenty minutes into the film. And they weren't all one-off gags: the running joke about Cap's early comment about "language" was fantastic. Even the scene from the preview with the Avengers trying to lift Mjolnir set up Vision's validation in the face of his new friends.

9. The new characters were integrated extremely well. The early antipathy of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch Pietro and Wanda towards Stark and the Avengers was easily motivated and then dispelled gradually. I was surprised not to see Pietro healing at the end of the film; Wanda was the more longstanding Avenger of the two in the comics, but nonetheless I liked their relationship in the film. And the Vision, wow...

10. The Vision was simply magnificent. One advantage of attending the first showing of the film was the number of diehard fans in the audience, all of whom applauded when Vision rose from his "cocoon." (Not to mention the gasps the first time Wakanda was mentioned.) Paul Bettany played Vision with the quiet dignity he deserved, and I can't wait to see him again.

11. I was a bit put off by Ultron's sense of humor, which is a distinct departure from the comics, but it grew on me, and made excellent use of James Spader's voice talents. And visually, he looked amazing.

12. Similar to Guardians of the Galaxy, teamwork was the focus of this film. The Avengers never really disassembled (even after Wanda's mindgames), so there was no need to rally at the end. I'm talking about the subtle, small types of cooperation, such as the one-two fight moves that Cap and Thor had obviously worked out in practice, and the way Clint and Natasha had each other's back throughout the film.

13. The cameos... well, I won't spoil those. There was Stan Lee, of course, but other MCU players made welcome appearances as well.

14. While the mid-credits bonus scene wasn't spectacular, it was gratifying to see the names of all the heroes—Avengers old, new, and "see ya next time"—in the main credits preceding it.

15. Tony, Tony, Tony... when will you learn? (What am I talking about? See my new post at the And Philosophy blog.) Also nice to see the continuing ideological differences between Tony and Cap referenced but not stressed (there's time for that in Captain America: Civil War).

16. I can't stress this enough: the last quarter of the movie was as much about getting all the people off of the floating city as it was about defeating Ultron. That's what the Avengers risked their necks to do. That's what Fury and Hill brought the helicarrier back for. That's what Clint almost died for—and Pietro did. It's sad that this kind of heroism is notable in a superhero movie, but in a Zack Snyder world, it is.

17. And did anyone fear for reality a little bit when Wanda lost it after Pietro died? I half-expected to see little Tetris pieces flying around.

18. And finally... Natasha and Bruce. I like it because it felt organic, and the scene in which she shares some of her Red Room background with him justified it even more. And of course, Bruce's "I can't be with you, I'm a monster" speech was well appreciated by this Thing.

P.S. It's Natasha Romanova. It's not too late to correct a grievous wrong. Respect.

To sum up, Avengers: Age of Ultron took advantage of the fact that it started with a team already assembled to jump head-first into the action and then spared no time in bringing the main threat to the stage. It was extremely well paced, with excitement, humor, and pathos throughout, and terrific performances by everyone involved. If this is Joss Whedon's farewell to the MCU, he couldn't have done a better job—this was a love letter to the Avengers, Marvel Comics, and to Marvel Zombies everywhere.

My thoughts on Man of Steel

Hmm. [Opens mouth to speak, nothing comes out.] Hmm.

Before I start, a caveat: I couldn't help but notice the controversy over Man of Steel on Twitter, much of it involving Mark Waid, one of the standard-bearers for a view of Superman I share. Passions are running hot over this one, which is both good and bad—it's good that people are talking this much about a Superman movie (or a DC Comics movie in general), but it's disheartening that they're arguing over the fundamental nature of a character that should be well established by now. Anyway, I've avoided reading any reviews or commentary, so other people may very well have said what I'm about to say, and if so, likely much better.

I'm going to offer some general comments about the movie, and then some discussion about some ethical topics raised by it. I'll keep the spoilers until the second part, and I'll warn you when they're coming.

First, Man of Steel as a movie (not as a Superman movie): I liked it. I loathe long films—90 to 100 minutes is perfect as far as I'm concerned—but even at 143 minutes it didn't feel long, and no parts of it dragged. Henry Cavill impressed me as Clark/Superman, having only seen him in The Tudors, and Amy Adams (whom I've seen in most everything she's done) played an effective Lois, but neither blew me away. The finest perfomances by far were Russell Crowe as Jor-El and Michael Shannon as Zod—both stole every scene they were in, and interactions between them were marvelous to watch. (The filmmakers cleverly found a way for Jor-El to appear throughout the movie despite... well, you know.)

The action scenes were spread throughout the movie nicely, broken up by emotional dialogue or flashback. This was important, because the action scenes themselves were intense—while there was little blood, there was more than enough destruction and explosions to earn the PG-13 rating. (I would not be comfortable taking my kids, 5 and 10, to this movie, and they've seen all the recent Marvel superhero movies.)

Visually, the movie was very stylish. While the Smallville and Metropolis scenes were by necessity reminiscent of past depictions, the designs of Krypton and Kryptonian technology were breathtaking, from their 3-D sculpting technology (for lack of a better term) to the armor the Kryptonians wore on Earth. But the movie was just so dim, like it was all shot through a fine gauze. There were no bright colors at all: Krypton was gray with accents of gray. Smallville was brown. Metropolis was—guess what—gray. And if you thought Superman would bring a ray of sunshine into any of this, you would be wrong. We've all seen the movie costume, all muted red and blue, with just a touch of muted yellow thanks to DC Comics' New 52 redesign. (And don't even get me started on the costume's texture, which reminds me of that rubber thingie you use to open the jar of pasta sauce that's been in your refrigerator since Superman Returns was out.)

But the dull tinge of the movie matched its narrative tone well—this is a dark movie through and through. Not quite Nolan-Batman dark, but more like Webb's Spider-Man but with none of the humor. The team behind The Amazing Spider-Man was able to give us a superhero film starring an upbeat character that fit with the current times but still retained some of the irreverance we expect from Webhead. But Man of Steel, featuring a character whose big red "S" stands for hope, was sorely lacking in hope, optimism, or joy. This is definitely a movie for a generation that is more likely to look in the sky and say "it's a bird, it's a drone—yep, it's a drone" with little hope of seeing a hero.

And nothing illustrates that point better than the ethics-loaded notes in the movie. This is where the SPOILERS start, so read on at your own risk if you have yet to see the movie.

----------

I have very mixed feelings about how Man of Steel showed Superman's heroism and ethical decision-making. Don't get me wrong, there are several inspiring scenes of heroism in the movie, such as the scene from the trailers in which young Clark pushes the schoolbus out of the river (at the risk of revealing his powers), and the scene near the end of the movie in which he destroys the world engine while it robs him of his powers. Other characters get in on the action too: Lois, Perry White, and Jonathan Kent all get chances to be heroic. These were fantastic moments in an otherwise dour film.

Unfortunately, these moments we expect from a superhero movie are overshadowed by other scenes that we don't. Clark/Superman makes some questionable moral choices in the movie, choices that may be understandable if any other person made them, but not Superman (or even any other cinematic superhero outside of Wolverine).

I've written a bit the last couple years about Superman's need to use moral judgment, rather than his incredible powers, to resolve tragic dilemmas, conflicts in principles or duties from which he cannot excape "with clean hands." In the comics, this usually takes the form of Luthor leaving Lois dangling off the ledge at the top of a skyscraper in Metropolis while a tidal wave threatens to wipe out a town in Indonesia. What will Superman do? If he can't save both, he has to make a choice, and by necessity that choice will involve a foregone option.

But guess what? In the comics, he manages to do both, to save Lois and the Indonesians. Because he's Superman. He does the impossible. He doesn't let the situation (or Lex Luthor) define his options—Superman defines his own options. He finds a way.

This is most relevant to the end of the movie when Superman kills Zod. After Lois helped the government scientists send the other Kryptonians and their battleship back to the Phantom Zone, Superman faced Zod alone. Zod indiscriminately used his heat vision to reap destruction and murder on Metropolis, and even after Supes had him in a chokehold, the deadly rays from Zod's eyes crept closer and closer to a small group of innocent bystanders. At the last moment, Superman snapped Zod's neck; Zod fell to the ground and Superman fell to his knees in tears.

Superman's remorse was obvious—and so was mine. (Not everyone felt this way; many in the theater cheered, which I've heard was not an uncommon reaction across the country.) This resolution to the story doen't work for me in a number of ways.

First, if Superman had the strength and control to twist Zod's head to snap his neck, why couldn't he turn Zod's head just to divert it from the bystanders? I can let this one go: Zod is a more experienced fighter than Superman is, and perhaps Superman had to put the last of his might into twisting Zod's head without being able to moderate his exertion sufficiently to avoid killing him. Also, this is a young Superman, fighting a physical equal for the first time in his short career. I can excuse him for not having the experience and wisdom to consider other options—people were going to die and he had to make a choice. I get that.

But I don't blame Superman for what he did in the story—I blame those who wrote the story and chose to portray Superman killing his opponent, presumably to make an "edgy" Superman for the 21st century. Even if I accept that Superman had no other choice in that situation, the people who made the movie had a choice whether to put him in that situation. They didn't have to show Superman killing someone—they chose to. They didn't even wait until the third movie, after his heroic ideals had been established and then his "necessary" compromise takes on more weight. No, they chose to show Superman killing someone in his first movie, thereby setting up his moral code for the rest of this appearances in this cycle of films. (Watch out, Luthor.)

And I find that choice despicable. I know full well that tough decisions sometimes have to be made, and Superman is not immune to them. And I love stories that show that moral struggle. But I also love to see Superman find a way to rise above the moral struggle, to show us that if you try hard enough, think the situation through, and refuse to compromise, you can find a way out.

This won't always work for normal human beings, but Superman isn't a normal human being. Superman is an ideal. The ideal. He shows us the best of what we can be. As Mark Waid said on Twitter, Superman shouldn't be written to more like us—he should be written so we want to be more like him. But this is not how the Man of Steel was written, and that's why it fails as a Superman movie.

----------

I saw Man of Steel Friday afternoon, and Saturday morning I went to Barnes & Noble with my son, who loves superheroes. We always look at both the regular graphic novel section and the rack in the kids' section with superhero books. (And we might happen to pass the philosophy shelves in between, just to make sure all my books are facing outwards. I'm a helper.) There's a new book in the kids' section titled Man of Steel: Superman Saves Smallville that tells a simpler version of the story in the movie, including the climactic ending. But it tells the ending a little differently:

So there were other ways to end the story without Superman killing his enemy—whew, and here I thought it was just me. (Ironically, the one reviewer so far at Amazon says even this book is too violent for small children!) Sure, in the storybook the villain got away. But that's one of the ways superhero movies usually end: either the villain is captured, gets away, or dies by his own hand (as the hero tries to save him, of course). More to the point, that's how Superman movies should end.

Of course, we can easily imagine situations in which Superman would have no choice but to kill his enemy, and skilled creators could craft an engaging story around it. (See my chapter from Superman and Philosophy for one example.) But an argument can be made that not only would it be a bad Superman story, but that it would not be a Superman story at all. Superman isn't the guy who usually does the right thing—Superman is the guy who does the right thing by definition. Any less and it just isn't Superman.

----------

Epilogue: I couldn't find anywhere to mention this, but I was also disturbed by the scene in which Clark lets his father walk into the path of the tornado to save the family dog and help people get to safety. I get that it was supposed to show Clark the folly of hiding his abilities at the cost of innocent lives. But it threatens to introduce an "Uncle Ben" aspect to the Superman mythos in which Clark would forever be plagued by the knowledge that his father died because he stood back. Furthermore, it made no sense in story: Clark could have done exactly what Jonathan did (rescue the dog and help people to safety) without revealing his powers, and in the process protecting his father. As shown, it was a confounding story element that introduces an unnecessary and possibly disturbing element to the Superman backstory—another disappointing choice on the part of the filmmakers.