MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
This episode is on one hand very good and interesting, as it devicates STRONGLY from the usual The Simpsons-stuff. It brings the audience awfully, uncomfortably close to the depressing reality we all live in, while contrasting this dark, grimy reality with the cartoony, wacky and fun life of a cartoon character. We can't understand why we can't live as good a life as Homer, even though Homer seems to be just another dim-witted goofy guy.
The good points of this episode are, it's very 'different' from pretty much anything else, it's more 'realistic' than any episode usually dares to be, it shows us something about ourselves and the corporate world, but also pokes fun at the cartoony side of these cartoons - the fact that cartoons HAVE to be somewhat unrealistic to be entertaining is heavily underlined here. Obviously the acting job is phenomenal as well for everyone involved, the idea is unique and brave, the execution is brilliant and so on.
This is an amazing episode.
However, the bad points.. it ends a bit too dark, a bit too abruptly - they simply kill the 'realistic character' so the cartoony stuff can keep going. They basically mock and insult the audience for wanting even slightly more realistic 'nuclear powerplant' and the worst thing - this episode leaves you feeling bad.
The bad feeling you have at the end of this episode - no matter how fun and funny you think it was, no matter how much you enjoyed it - there's a deep truth about this episode that hurts on such a fundamental level, you can't help but feel at least a bit 'uneasy' after watching it. You may even come to some realizations about reality, but the awful feeling lingers, it stays.. the more you think of Frank, the worse you feel, because in some 'too real' ways, Frank is YOU.
This makes this episode basically a horror movie, an unexpected punch to your gut, something to shake you off your complacency, but also something to plunge you deep into despair about 'what's the point'.
This episode is a bit of mixed bag in my opinion. It kind of tugs your hearstrings while being unbelievably dark and depressing at the same time, and yet it makes you laugh due to how surreal Homer's success is really shown to be, and how that kind of Homer could never exist in real life without him being super SUPER lucky or basically a God of some kind.
Frank's confusion and frustration are very understandable, but because the audience knows more than Frank ever could, we also feel a bit helpless, wanting to help Frank understand and wanting to explain the true reason for all that to him, but knowing deep down, we never could, and he could never understand. How do you explain the concept of 'video game' to some RGP NPC?
Frank would probably be even more shocked, if he knew he's just a tool character in a long-running cartoon that has gone to very weird places and ridiculous achievements are just a byproducts of all that. Frank, just like the whole show, exists to entertain a TV audience, and that's the truth Frank could never understand or swallow.
So it's 'just as well' that he dies the way he does, without ever quite understanding the cause of his frustration, without ever quite reaching any kind of success he always wanted, without ever being able to even coming close to being able to compete with Homer, even though Frank is more intelligent, harder-working, more determined, has faced more hardships and struggles, and has basically all kinds of good qualities Homer doesn't.
It's like some people can never rise very high in some MMORPG PvP ranks no matter how hard they try, and it can stay a mystery to them why, because no one will tell them the core truth, and the super highly-ranked people seem to be just idiotic goofballs, just like anyone else, and yet they somehow succeed in things and on a level someone more intelligent can never even dream to.
Frank is the frustration in all of us when we see someone succeed in things we can't even become good at.
The idea, I think, was to introduce a 'realistic real-world character' into the 'cartoony world' of The Simpsons.
Frank Grimes is supposed to basically be 'the viewer', just as 'Scott' is in the Austin Powers-movies - no one in the audience really 'gets it', why the stupid villains have to always use ridiculous ways of trying to kill James Bond instead of just shootin him in the face (I mean, in-Universe, there is no legitimate reason, it's all done for 'filmmaking' reasons, for example, 'so the movie can happen')
However, the problem is, they made Frank Grimes a bit too unlikable, a bit too much of a jerk. I heard the voice actor tried to mimic the guy that plays the most hateable character in 'Fargo' (the movie), but I think he created his own 'Frank' voice that's perfect for the character.
Frank pretty much never smiles or has happy moments, so the episode is very dark. There are many dark moments in this show, but this is one of the most depressing ones - it basically shows there are people that no matter how much they try, how hard they work, they will never gain any kind of valuable success or high position in life, they will just keep failing and struggling on multiple levels, and it can only end in death.
What makes it funny is how clueless homer is to Frank's pain (that we, the audience, feel a bit too strongly), and keeps sort of 'uninentionally' making fun of Frank. It's also funny how his 'casual, easy-mode' life that yet ends up being an unrealistic success EXACTLY because it's a cartoon is juxtaposed to Frank's more realistic life struggles that the audience can relate to much more.
It's almost as if Homer is making fun of us, but at the same time, we want to root for Homer, because he's an innocent, family-loving guy just wanting to live his life in a fun and satisfying way. It's sort of self-irony that the show underlines just how RIDICULOUS it would be for a Homerlike man to actually achieve all that Homer has - poking fun at 'cartoon'...
Your topic implies there's an actual point you want to make with the 'if'-structure, but your post is completely different. What gives, man?
To answer your - I think what's supposed to be a QUESTION, even though you did not understand to use a question mark for some reason..
01) Why would you want some hideous a-hole that everyone hates back to the show? It's a GOOD thing she was arrested, she was disgusting in all possible meanings of the word, no one wants her back, good riddance, I hope she rots in that damn prison cell.
02) This show is a zombie, it's no longer alive, so it doesn't matter WHAT they do with it, as long as they don't respect the source material or write good stories that are told well. You can't even talk about 'fumes', this zombie is dried out and can barely move, and even that probably because of some kind of bionic implants that have been artificially installed in it. Why would you care what happens in this version of the show anymore?
03) There is a reason 'Sideshow' brothers were interesting - they had charisma, played by known actors who had just the right sense of humor and tact to play this surprisingly complex character, not to mention 'Frasier' was fresh and popular at the time. It all fit together like a glove, creating perfection in villainy and story structures without forgetting wacky hijinks or even med-jinks.
Compared to this bland, charismaless, stupidly-shaped, depressing, uninteresting, no-personality fat blob of a stupid, hopelessly criminal, hated hag, the Sideshow brothers were a stroke of a brilliant genius.
No one would enjoy this no-charisma blob as a villain, why would you want HER back of all people? Even Snake would make a more interesting villain with his weird valley girl / surfer lingo, if you want to go the 'unredeemable criminal'-route (and why would you).
The thing is, there are BETTER VILLAINS that have already been used, so why would there be a need to use this super bland and annoying one?
Let it go.
I don't understand your confusion.
First of all, this is a battle between 'good' (Clark) and 'evil' (Dark Superman). No matter what happens visually or physically, this is supposed to be an inner struggle that the good man wins against the evil one.
The symbolism of 'powerful evil' vs. 'normal/weak man' seems to have escaped you completely - talk about 'woosh'.
Also, Clark never 'changes' into anything - he doesn't need to suit to be powerful. In other words, Superman's power does NOT come from the suit, he ALWAYS has the power, regardless of what he is wearing or whom he pretends to be (after all, he is really Kal-El, not Superman, not Clark Kent, so maybe it would've been even more interesting to have Kal-El fight Superman, but never mind)..
Your confusing is really baffling - this is the ONLY scene that makes any sense in this movie, the only scene worth watching, the only scene that's good, interesting, intense and 'Supermanny'.
Superman is not just muscles and heat beams, Superman is also preservence of human spirit (otherplanetarians, that people insultingly call 'aliens', are still human beings, because spirit dictates all, not the physical form), Superman is also intelligence, bravery, courage and daring.
Superman is the inner strength of man, not the physical muscles, not the special effects, not the fancy suit to dazzle the eye and make people mesmerized, not the S-logo, not the 'handsome face'.
Superman, as this scene clearly shows, is the inner power to conquer and vanquish your more animalistic, more brutal, barbaric self so he can treat everyone equally as human beings.
This scene also symbolizes everyone's struggle against the lower urges. The physical body needs many things, but if you always give in to all of its urges, you lose your humanity and you live as a half-demon, slave to the carnal desires, which leads to misery, suffering and chaos around you (think of any alcoholic, drug-addict or feminist).
Superman shows the human can win.
People always talk about 'trolling', then they think it has something to do with the mythical creature that just HAPPENS to be called 'a Troll'. Of course, this is just a coincidence, and trolling is originally a form of fishing (not sure if a big net is used or not).
The metaphor is that a troller throws a big net into the water, then slowly drives up and down the river/lake/whatever until a lot of fish has been caught in it.
The fish are 'angry comments', the troller is 'provocateur', and the net is 'comment so absurd, it will trigger the biggest amount of people, thus, giving maximum amount of fish'.
Now, if this title is not the PERFECT example, an EPITOME of, or at least manifestation of, the clearest example of what TROLLING means in practice, I don't know what is. If there was a competition, if awards were given of the most idiotic ways of trolling, this line would surely be a winner:
"It's the best of the Reeve pictures...."
Calling a movie a 'picture' is not only archaic, but downright insulting, as there are millions of picture frames that a movie consists of. Calling a respected actor's filmography just 'Reeve pictures' could not be more insulting as well.
But the audacity to actually call _THIS_ the best of ANYTHING, other than garbage, just isn't logical enough for any rational human being to take seriously. This is DEFINITELY trolling, and I am not falling for it.
Obviously Christopher Reeve has made all kinds of movies, this comment does not even acknowledge that he's done anything other than Superman movies, and even 'Somewhere in Time' and 'Death Trap' are better than this stupid Pryor-movie (can't even be SAID to be a 'Reeve picture' even if you have no malice).
To not acknowledge Superman II as the best Superman movie, has also got to be a sin SO enormous, no one should ever take ANYTHING this Patrick.. BATE(!)man (see, how he's even using fishing terminology, BATING you to react and be triggered!) writes seriously whatsoever.
If not, why not?
I mean, can just ANYONE be 'the one', since it doesn't seem to require anything special?
If some dull-faced, insignifigant 'hacker nerd' can become super powerful, if the Morpheus crew already all know how to 'bend the rules' to jump super high and far without injury, why couldn't they just learn a little bit more and become 'the ones'?
What was special about that 'mystery man', what is so special about 'Neo', why can only those two become 'the ones'? If it's teachable, why did neither of them bother teaching that ability to everyone, how to become 'the one'?
If it's not teachable, then there must be some kind of 'special power' that somehow correlates with this COMPLETELY ARTIFICIAL COMPUTER PROGRAM RAN BY SOULLESS MACHINES to make it possible to become 'The One', and no one is researching this at all?
I wish this movie had explained these things a bit more.. now we just have to accept that Oracle doesn't tell them the important stuff she ABSOLUTELY should, someone can just magically be 'The One' and the reasons don't seem to enter the discussion, no one else can level up to 100 because.. err..
I mean, I could understand if it was a 'Zen'-type thing, where you have to be enlightened (or experience Zatori) to even understand what Zen means. But this is a COMPUTER PROGRAM, so it should not require anything more special than TEACHABLE SKILLS.
No matter how much I think about this, I can't understand why Neo can do that but others can't, when it has nothing to do with anything spiritual or enlightenment-type stuff, but it's just 'how to defeat a computer program'. Does Neo somehow SYNCHRONIZE himself with how the machines think, and that makes him able to see the 'code'?
Does Neo always see The Matrix 'in code' now, or is it like 'super vision' of some kind? (Not to be confused with 'supervision')
I have so many questions about the movie's flimsy explanations, this one mystery is not particularly important compared to all the rest..
Nope, not 'the second movie'. There is no 'second movie'.
First, this board exists for discussing 'The Matrix'. Please do so.
Second, the so-called 'sequels' are universally considered to be the worst kind of trash sequels that ever existed, that retcon, cheat, lie and make so little sense when compared to this movie, no rational adult would EVER take those movies seriously, but more importantly, consider them as canon in any way, shape or form.
Just because a movie has a similar name, same actors and similarly-named characters, and is fabricated by the same people, doesn't mean it explains ANYTHING about some other movie.
As far as the 'man born inside' - it's just another 'convenient mystery' that makes no sense. They could have delved deeper into that, they could have SHOWN it instead or at least with telling about him, they could have explained how the mechanics of 'someone being born inside' work (do people that are 'grown' (not born, mind you, so he must've been a special case) get to be 'born' at the same, exact time in 'The Matrix' as they change from 'fetus' to 'baby' in the physical world? And HOW is this orchestrated? You'd think it would be almost impossible to synchronize and coordinate all the people having sex with the 'growing of bodies', and needlessly convoluted as well, considering they are just BATTERIES!)..
This movie doesn't really explain anything that the viewer might want to know about, so this 'mystery man that was born inside' is just ONE of the about 9 zillion points I have already posted about that make no sense and are not explained at all.
I would have preferred to have actually SEEN this explanation instead of just looking at a boring dark room, two of the main actors just not doing anything but talking on a flat angle. I would have wanted to see SOME kind of visual about it..
What _I_ would rather ask about this whole thing is.. WHY was that man 'born inside'? Why did he have that power? If he could have it, can anyone?
It also doesn't 'predate' anything - online games have existed as long a LAN networks have, which is a pretty darn long time.
FPS games have also existed WAY longer than you give them credit for. WoW is also NOT an FPS, it's a MMORPG that uses a third-person perspective, so nothing you say in your stupidly short post makes any sense.
Did you realize the game 'Doom', which is one of the first 'First-Person Shooters' (did you even know the acronym you used means this?) you could play in a LAN network, modem-to-modem, and so on, was created in 1993 and was wildly popular exactly in 'online FPS shooting'?
So Doom actually 'predates' (to use your ridiculous term) this movie by about six years - people WERE playing computer and video games long before this movie came along, and you can BET your buttockses there were a big bunch of addicts even in mid-eighties, let alone early nineties, LET ALONE 1999.
Did you EVER heard of things like 'Unreal', 'Unreal Tournament', 'Quake', 'Quake II', 'Quake III'? WILDLY popular 'online FPS' games, that all 'predate' (I am so tired of this term) this movie.
Could you please crawl back under the rock you obviously came from for some reason to post absolute nonsense..? Thank you.
WoW did not create a 'level of addiction'. Computers and games have been 'addictive' since seventies, so please think again.
There goes THAT theory is right, when it comes to YOUR nonsensical comment, but you could at least have added SOME kind of punctuation...
BTW - YES, it (NOT 'HIM') _IS_ a dang ROBOT, not a cyborg, Kyle Reese doesn't know what he's talking about!
Where did he learn to read, by the way? Do they have schools in that crappy future, even though there's no TV or food or basically any necessities (although the dogs still look very well fed for some reason..)?
As I mentioned in my other post.. yes, Fight Club clearly has a very similar theme, it's all rooted in the same basic age-old story trope or staple.
Let's list a few where this kind of story can easily be seen:
- Star Trek TOS (I am sure TNG also, but can't name an episodes besides DataLore right now)
- Twilight Zone / Outer Limits (not sure which it was, but Bruce Willis was in the episode)
- Fight Club
- Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
- The Nutty Professor (and its remake)
- Some Hitchcock adaptation of the story
- The original novel or whatever it was (Case of Mr. Pelham, I think?)
In my opinion, as interesting as this movie is, the ending is too ambiguous and the whole movie suffers from it, becoming quite sloppy.
In all honesty, Star Trek did it better, because it made it clear Kirk needed both halves to function as a captain - or you could say, both Kirks needed each other, as neither was full without the other half.
So if you want to see this story done in a way that actually makes sense, doesn't drag as much, is more clear and has more satisfying an ending, watch the Star Trek-version.
I love the 1970s style, Roger Moore's performance and many other things about this movie, but let's face it, Star Trek did it best.
Fight Club isn't QUITE the same thing, as it is questionable how much of it happens in his mind, and how much in reality, and the events ABSOLUTELY can't happen the way we are shown them happening, because the movie lies and cheats so much - at least if we are to believe what the movie eventually tells us... (the 'alternate' versions of events are also pretty much BS, they could not have happened that way, either - also, there are NUMEROUS scenes, where Tyler and Narrator HAD to be in two completely separate locations or very far from each other doing things SIMULTANEOUSLY, or things could not have happened at all the way shown, and so on)..
In this movie, the dobbelganger is an actual PHYSICAL replica, not only in his mind.
So although this movie itself, if you look at just what the movie actually is, is nothing to type home about, nothing to praise too much, doesn't give or deliver the viewer much of anything new or anything they have not seen before, it has SOME kind of charm (apparently), and Kevin is a 'cute character' with 'funnily childish worldview' that may make people nostalgic for their own childhood or something.
The 'wet bandits' are not more believable than the similar crooks in '101 Dalmatians', the stuff that doesn't make sense is just too much, the story really goes nowhere besides one tiny location (I want to explore galaxies, dangit!), so for an adult human being, there's nothing much here.
It gained popularity partially also because masses are incredibly stupid, and they will gobble anything that's more intelligent than them, which means even this movie seems brilliant to them. People also have a very formulaic, very predictable, very pattern-based way of living, so they HAVE to watch 'christmas movies' at christmas, so of course if there's a 'popular christmas movie', 'our family must also watch that', which just makes the popularity of a movie skyrocket exponentially.
(It's a bit like 'preselection' - if one woman loves a man, then the man must be worth something, so other women will love him, too - if other women love a man, then I must love him, too, etc..)
It's a slightly below mediocre movie that has basically been lifted to huge success by external hubris that makes it look better than it actually is.
This movie is a crossroad middle point of many paths to success - christmas theme, cute (and competent) child actor, goofy stuff for the kids, family cozyness and tearjerking soap for the women, and so on. The movie itself doesn't have to be brilliant when all these themes combine to do the heavy lifting for it.
THAT is why it's popular.
This is one of those movies, where circumstances conspired to make it popular without it having to be anything remarkable.
The other thing is, it isn't a particularly bad movie, it's well made, professionally slick, visually interesting sometimes, but maybe the icing on the cake that really sealed the deal is how good Macalay Culkin is as a child actor - he actually delivers. His performance is actually really star level, that's very rare for child actors as far as I know.
So him being 'adorable', but delivering his lines professionally basically makes the movie.
This movie is a mess when you watch it as an adult human being, but it has all these trappings for women that they can't resist (family theme, holiday stuff, tearjerking and heartstring-tugging bruteforce stuff, decorations, cuteness (or what passes as such), and so on). The only thing missing is 'injected romance', which I hate with a burning passion.
Of course the whole 'mom-son' stuff always appeals to women's nurturing instincts. Hey, don't kill the messenger..
As a movie, as a story, as a 'something to watch', this is 'passable' at best, but all these sort of superficial or superfluous elements combined easily make it very popular indeed. I never saw the point of watching this movie, but youtubers always react to it, so I have stomached it a few times, and the only things worth something about it in my opinion are the aforementioned child actor performance, some of the humor, the relatable old man stuff, the surreal basement monster-stuff (I wanted more of surreal stuff like this) and John Candy.
That's about it.. can't really think of anything else that appeals to me in this movie.
In my opinion this movie is factually below mediocre and not really worth watching, because we've seen it all before and it doesn't bring anything truly interesting or new. No exploration of new and amazing worlds/territories, no good spiritual message, no gorgeous nature scenes, no inspiring music, etc.
In my opinion, this is not a particularly good movie, and it has very long stretches of 'boredom' and many scenes are too long anyway - the whole beginning with the family drama and the tickets and the attic and pizza and all that is just too long to wade through more than once.
It also doesn't make almost any sense at all, it stretches the suspension of disbelief thinner than most saturday morning cartoons with falling anvils and such.
I don't think all movies become popular because they're somehow amazing or good movies, or even have any kind of 'magic' to them. Some do, but this is not one of them.
There's nothing all that good or interesting about this movie, but as it has been 'professionally made', it has a 'sappy melancholy' about it, it's a 'christmas theme' movie, and it's 'safe viewing' for a family, it has been selected and picked a lot for watching with a family (you can't always watch all good movies with your family, because they are either too dark, have too much sexual content, too much cursing or violence.. err, forget the last part).
Then families watched it, and it was 'an OK experience' that panders to what women love (though, don't almost all movies..), so moms loved this movie due to all the 'cuteness', kids love it due to the cartoony violence and stupidity of the thugs, men tolerate it because everyone else in the family loves it and so on.
One good thing about this movie - it does NOT have 'injected romance'! So far, my list of such movies is rather small, maybe 7 movies altogether. I can only remember a few off the top of my head:
- Bad Taste
- Stand By Me
- Misery
There are more, thankfully, but can't remember them right now. Even 'Memento' is not fully free of this.. well, maybe 'Shutter Island'?
I mean, why does 'diversity' always HAVE to mean 'blackwashing'?
I would LOVE to see an Asian or Caucasian 'Black Panther'! Why not? I mean, we have had black Nick Fury, female 'Ancient One' and so on. Why can't we do anything to any character, why would there have to be some artificial limitation?
I say go ALL-OUT on this stuff, stop saying 'diversity' means 'black people' - let it truly mean ALL people! Let ANY actor/actress of any age/shape/etc. play _ANY_ character they damn well please! Wouldn't that be freedom? Wouldn't that be true equality? Denying someone a role because of their physical body is just... wrong, isn't it?
Instead of race being important and 'a problem', why not toss it aside and raise important things like your personality, your soul, your character, your humor and so on above this temporary physical stuff?
I say LET white people wear blackface without consequences - why not? Can't we just finally take back the freedoms we let historical monsters take away from us? Modern white people have not enslaved black people or mocked them in blackface like the historical monsters did, so why would they have to suffer?
I also say let black, asian, eskimoan, mongolian, aboriginian, indian, etc.-bodied (remember, it's JUST A BODY, not YOU!) wear ANYface!
Indian wearing 'yellowface' would be something no one would probably even care about, let alone mind. But draw a Manji somewhere and people lose their minds and call you a naazee.
Why is this? Manji isn't even the same as the dreaded swastika. But even swastika only has power, because people GIVE it power. Why can't we take it back, take it AWAY from the naazees and use it for good?
Freedom of speech is something we ALL have, but for some reason, only black people can say the N-word. What the hell is that? There are also many other 'forbidden' words, like 'Porch simian', etc. Why should this be? Can't we have humor about words and call each other whatever? It ain't right..
Why don't YOU discuss?
I am tired of people throwing a topic they DO NOT OFFER their own opinion/viewpoint on, and then telling _OTHERS_ to discuss.
It's like saying 'my lawn is full of overgrown grass, mow..'
Who the heck is gonna be motivated to do anything that you do not do yourself? We can't expect others to do what we are not willing to do ourselves, now can we?
However, because the topic itself is semi-interesting, I will ignore your ALL-CAPS topic and your ONE-WORD post where you demand others discuss something you yourself WON'T.
An 'Asian Superman' - well, Superman is KRYPTONIAN, so there goes that point.
Asian actor to PLAY that Superman? Now, that's a different story.
I have always thought everyone should have the same opportunities in life, regardless of things they can't change, like physical stuff.
Obviously, movies are a visual medium, so sometimes this might be a bit challenging; to combine 'full equality' with 'satisfying audiences visually' is a tough job. A midget playing a giant might be slightly difficult to pull off.
However, kids do not have strict limitations the same way, so when they play, they can easily 'be anything', regardless of their or anyone else's physical body features or bugs.
This means, an asian or black kid can easily play a superman role with other kids, and no one sees anything weird about it. Why can't adults do the same? Why can't we all have the freedom to do, play and be whatever we want? I mean, if an asian man wants to play a historical black woman, why should their physical limitations be some kind of good way to deny them? Is it right to judge the man because they happen to reside in a specific physical body?! Isn't that the VERY DEFINITION OF RACISM?!?!
In any case, at this point, when we have had so many weird things, like female Thor but no Male Black Widow or Male Wonder Woman (well, we did have all kinds of things in comics, of course)... why not an asian Superman?
You see how idiotic this statement is? Brighter tomorrow? You've GOT to be kidding me!
There are MANY things that are TOO BRIGHT that should be dimmed down! Most people's browser backgrounds, sunlight in your eyes when you are driving, a lamp without a shade that makes it hard to read, the flashes from a fire/smoke alarm that also intrude on your ability to just sit and stare or read a book, and SO ON.
Why is 'brighter' equaled to be better? Also, if 'tomorrow' is brighter (than WHAT? Today??), then it means, the day after THAT is going to be EVEN brighter. It will basically mean a neverending, escalating brightness that will eventually BLIND THE WHOLE WORLD!
Is this the agenda Superman wants to stand behind?!
It's so damn weak... it's like saying 'I wish things could be a bit better in the future, so I stand for that. Yay.'
HOW WEAK IS THAT?!
That is NOT heroic! You should take a STAND, and not be wishy-washy, like Charlie Brown! Heck, that line would even be too weak for him...
Take a stand, you POWERFUL, SUPER MAN ... stand for SOMETHING SUBSTANCIAL and not the vaguest, weakest thing you can find!
I can't get over how stupid that is.. brighter tomorrow. Brighter tomorrow! SOMEONE ACTUALLY THOUGHT THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. Let THAT sink in... just like my hopes of ever seeing a good movie.
Now, despite the 'american way' being ridiculously stupid, questionable propaganda, brainwashing doctrine, hypnosis to keep people nationalistic and fascist (without using those words), this 'brighter tomorrow' seems...
..I can't believe I am saying this..
..EVEN stupider.
Yes, they actually found a replacement that tops the earlier one in stupidity. I did NOT think that was possible.
How did anyone think THAT would be a good thing to say? Truth is important, Justice might be even more so. A third similarly powerful and virtuous word to stand behind might be freedom (maybe the most important thing for an individual - many only realize this when they lose it), altruism, compassion, love, understanding (a little weaker now)..
There must be dozens of words or concepts that are better than 'american way', hit an emotional cord in a similar way, fit in with the other words and so on that they could have chosen.
'Brighter tomorrow'? What?
This isn't even a thing! It's a weak wish at best, it does nothing for anyone in practical terms, like freedom, truth and justice would. What the heck? American way is similarly VAGUE, but what the heck? Brighter than what? Only tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow?
You also CAN'T stand for 'tomorrow', because you are not there yet, because future does not exist yet, except as a condept in your mind. So you are standing for a concept in your mind (or at least something that CAN only exist as such, without a time machine, of course, but Superman can't turn time forward, can he?)..??
Why is 'brighter' better? How can a 'tomorrow', which is already an abstract concept, be 'brighter' (which, I think, they mean FIGURATIVELY, which makes it even more of an abstract concept) than.. what, yesterday? Today? What if today is an especially bright day, then aren't you greedy instead of humble, when nothing is good enough for you, since you STILL want it to be brighter?!
Also, what if something is too bright, so it will blind you or...
I have always questioned the nationalistic jingoism in those movies. It was NOT originally 'and the american way' (whatever THAT means, since there are MULTIPLE Americas, multiple states within one of them and so on).
In my opinion, someone coming from another planet (a lot like me) would have an 'outsider's view' on things, and would NOT become part of pretty much ANY cult, whether it's the cult of nationalism, genderism, religions, et cetera. This is also why The Christ was not a 'jew' - the sperm was not even from an Earthian's body (normal body could not handle the high frequencies of the soul of a level three entity), and the insemination was artificial (hence, virgin Mary).
So Superman should ABSOLUTELY not stand for any 'American way', or at the very least, this 'American way' should be defined. When you are born and lived your life in another country, then watch this bit, it REALLY seems alien (especially to an alien) and jarring!
It's like 'WHAT did he say? Why American way?' - it ABSOLUTELY makes no sense, and I have always wondered and questioned that. It's very frustrating to have this 'admirable entity' that does good deeds, then suddenly he's Ronald Reagan? What the heck..
I think the original phrase WAS more universal, but for some reason, The United and sometimes not-so-United States And Other Territories That Will Never Be Accepted As States For Some Reasons of The Middle Part of Northern America And Some Polynesian Islands Among Other Things That Are Not In The Americas (the more accurate name..) is so nationalistic, it's downright fascist.
They are always told they are number one and the best country in the world that enjoy freedoms that do not exist elsewhere. But when one of them visits Europe, they will be shocked that the law is actually universal, thus human rights are location-independent, and freedom exists even more in Europe than in any of the 'Americas'.
It's like the people of that country are being systematically brainwashed..