Let's Talk About The Man of Steel *Major Spoilers Ahead*

Well, let's jump right into it. I saw Man of Steel not all that long ago, and I really enjoyed it. At first I thought General Zod was an odd choice for a villain since they've used him before, but I think it really worked. Now, I've seen a lot of people complain about...

*Again, massive spoilers, turn back now if you have not seen this movie*

...how Superman was forced to kill Zod in the end. People have complained, "Superman wouldn't do that! He wouldn't kill Zod." I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but yes, he's done this multiple times fighting Zod. In issue #22 of Superman from 1988, he was forced to execute the General and his underlings by exposing them to Kryptonite (which would be a terrible way to go since it's slow and painful).

Perhaps you're like, "Well, I don't care what any dumb comic says (which would be weird for you to say, since we are talking about a man who can fly, shoot lasers from his eyes, and freeze things by breathing on them, but whatever), the Superman I know, Christopher Reeve, wouldn't have executed Zod like that." Really? Really?! Let's just roll this clip, then we'll talk.

Did you see that? Prior to this clip, Superman activated a device that permanently de-powered Zod and the rest of the Krytonian criminals. They were no longer a threat, he could have easily hauled them off to jail, but what does he do? He crushes Zod's hand and throws him against a wall, watching as he descends into the bottomless pit below. He simply watches as the second one (I'm not good with names) tries to fly, but then just falls to his death. And he does absolutely nothing after Lois punches the third one of a cliff. He has super speed, he could have easily saved all three of them and not even be winded. But no, he just stood there and watched, all while grinning like an idiot (please note that this is not an insult to the late, great Christopher Reeve, but merely an observation of the goofy smile he was wearing while murdering Zod). In comparison, snapping his neck while screaming at the atrocity he was forced to commit is VERY in character with Superman.

While we're here, let's step away from killing Zod and address another issue people seem to have: "Why didn't Superman just go back and talk to the Jor-El simulation to find out how to defeat Zod when he showed up?" I've seen a few people bring this one up, but really, Jor-El wouldn't have known how to stop Zod's ship at first. Remember, it wasn't until he was uploaded into Zod's ship that he found out they retrofitted the Phantom Zone generator into an engine. Only then did he have the knowledge that they use that to send the ship into the Phantom Zone.

Lastly, "Why did Superman let them cause all that destruction? Why wasn't he able to contain it better." I'm beginning to think you and I did not see the same film. I mean really, if you're just one guy (a super guy, yes, but still one guy) going against an army of near-invincible, highly trained soldiers with technology so advanced that it warps the gravity around it, don't you think there would be a lot of collateral damage?

It's okay, though. I'm sure you can probably take comfort in the fact that Batman will inevitably address all of your grievances with Supes in the next movie in a calm and rational manner (by punching him in the face with a piece of Kryptonite).

Till Next Time, Space Monkeys!

Facts And Opinions

There is a difference between facts and opinions. Opinions are how you perceive the world around you. Facts are verifiable and objective, with documentation, statistics and references. Some people seem to mix up the two, claiming opinion as fact and vice versa. This bugs me to no end, so here are some ways to tell if you are dealing with a fact or an opinion (online, at least).



1. Where are their sources? I'll see this one a lot: someone will enter a conversation and post a wall of text that claims to be 100% full proof fact, and not cite any sources. Now, I'm not talking about friendly chat between friends, I mean one those heated debates. I've even seen people's claims refuted by others (who used sources) and they still said their facts were correct. If you want to state that something is your opinion in a debate, that's fine with me, but do not try to pass it off as fact.


2. Their sources are from where?! Having reliable sources is just as important (if not more so) than actually having any sources. Sure, they could say, "Look, sources", but if those sources are from stinkybuttholes.net™ (as a note, this wasn't an actual site when I typed this post. If that has changed since then, my sincerest apologies) then they probably aren't legit. What would be a legit source? Hard to say, but something unbiased like a scientific study from a renowned institute or some news sources (I know this one can be tricky, as there are a few news organizations that either try to appeal to an audience on the left/right or sensationalize every story. Perhaps BBC, Reuters, or the AP? Maybe it's just easier to say avoid Fox News, MSNBC, The Blaze, and Bill Maher.)


3. Google is your friend. If someone makes a claim that you are unsure about, do an internet search. It's the fast, dirty way to verify that are, indeed, full of shit. Seriously though, don't take what someone says at face value, especially if they claim they're telling you the incontrovertible truth.



I'm not bashing opinions, I just think there is a time and a place for them. We use them to express how we feel on certain issues or how we see everything. We need opinions just as much as we need facts. Just remember that the two are not interchangeable, but they both serve a purpose: to better understand ourselves and the world we live in.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

Till Next Time, Space Monkeys!