Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was the 9/11 imagery gimmick necessary?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I usually like reading Neal Bailey's reviews, but I definitely disagree with his comparison to 9/11. I just think he was over reacting. To be honest, I was up on my feet cheering for Clark because he finally showed the one thing he hasn't in 9 years... balls. It wasn't until I read Neal's review that I made even the vaguest of connections to September 11th.

    With that in mind, I don't see people from London overreacting every time a train or subway crashes or blows up in a movie, nor do I see people up in arms every time the Emmerich family gets together and destroys their favorite monuments in one of what seems to be 100 end-of-the-world flicks.

    It's like the people that over reacted when Samuel Sullivan made an earthquake to destroy a whole town in Heroes, because there just happened to be an earthquake in Haiti. Really?

    Give me a f'n break! It's a make-believe story, with make believe super heroes and make believe super powers.

    I think anyone who SERIOUSLY thinks the SV writers were trying to make veiled 9/11 references are still harboring a great deal of guilt for what happened on that day. Maybe because they felt powerless, and couldn't do anything about what happened. It's a tragedy, yes, but we can't live our lives by it.

    EDIT: Also, let's keep in mind that Smallville is the story of how Clark eventually BECOMES Superman. He isn't Supes quite yet, so he is bound to make a mistake here and there. Imagine if he was already doing everything perfectly: it would be the most boring show ever, like Lois & Clark season 4.

    Comment


    • I really think people have been overreacting to this. I don't think the 9/11 imagery was intentional, and I didn't even really think about it that way until I read reviews and what people were saying here.

      Plus, Clark wouldn't have destroyed the towers unless he knew everyone else was safe.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hopefulsuicide
        Normally I can't stand Neal Bailey. Normal I think he over reacts to everything. But I agreed with everything he said...

        It makes my head hurt to watch that scene again. It now goes in the denial bin a long with 'ageless', 'requiem' and 'doomsday'.

        For me, it wasn't just the ending. I had issue with most of the episode. TBH I just don't think the writer understands Superman. It's only her second time writing an episode of Smallville, and it's only the directors first time as well.

        All I can say is that i'm glad it doesn't look like they are doing any more.
        I just read this so called "review", and to me, it is the rant of an unstable and overzealous fan who waved bye-bye to the line between reality and fiction long ago. This guy has obvious disdain for the show, and decided he would latch on to something controversial to add some support for his disdain. In one such display of his detachment from reality, he even attempted to attach racial implications to recent events. He mentions that we have lost our sense of right and wrong when we call the underwear bomber (who happens to be black) a terrorist, but the white guy who flies his plane into the IRS building is not. Earth to Neal (if he even cares) - lost in your delusion is the fact that one bomber had ties to Al Qaeda (the black guy) and one had lost his marbles (the white guy). One was an obvious attempt to kill innocents and sow the seeds of terror (the underwear bomber), the other was an obvious lone act of desperation by a man who became so frustrated and detached from reality that he felt the need to lash out violently. Attaching racial motives to these scenarios reveals how truly delusional this "reviewer" is.

        So he moves onto his 9/11 Clark comparison. Seeing how detached he is from reality (based on his race baiting), one should react with caution to his rant about the black clad hero who pulls an Al Qaeda and destroys a building. This is utter nonsense. Has he simply ignored all the episodes prior, in which Clark has followed the wishes of his once again dead father and attempted to save the man who history has shown not only destroyed his home planet, but also plans (through our visions into the future) to enslave the earth? He has literally tried everything to save this killer, and destroying the buildings was his way to keep Zod alive and powerless so that he could continue his mission. Bailey hardly pays any attention to these facts - he is so hell bent on his mouth frothing comparison to 9/11 he loses sight of the storyline from the larger perspective. He cannot step away from his own delusion long enough to see any good from this...as if Superman was the last unassailable part of his miserable life, and Smallville destroyed that for him.


        Of course, we can all look back on many Superman storylines and think to ourselves "did Superman check to see if those buildings were empty before he destroyed them?" I suppose when Superman punched Doomsday or Darkseid into an edifice, he screened the buildings with his xray vision to ensure no one gets hurt. Half of Metropolis has been destroyed in many of these fights (to the point where one wonders if the mayor would simply ask Superman to move to another city until they can rebuild). Does this bother Neal? Probably not. Of course, he probably can't make any political remarks in these cases without getting rent piecemeal by fans, so he keeps his peace. Once he finds that some fans are not on board (as is the case with this episode), off he goes...off his rocker that is.


        Most will agree that this show is about Clark becoming Superman. The road to becoming a hero is not always one where the hero in waiting makes the right decision. If that was the case, there would be no need for training. Most are keenly aware that Clark has not had the standard storyline Superman training regimen, and that most of it has been on the job, so he will make mistakes. One obvious mistake is his decision to stay hidden in the shadows and wear black. We all know he becomes red and blue, and makes himself known to the world, so the sane know where this storyline is headed - it is headed for a major correction. Much of this escapes Neal, and his "review" (or rather his personal rant) reveals this clearly.

        Comment


        • [Mod Edit]
          Last edited by Lexgirl33; 03-01-2010, 05:41 PM. Reason: Violation of rule #10 & #14 Calling people names is agaisnt the rules.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by borednow
            There is no way to show the image of a tower being destroyed now without someone being reminded of 9/11...
            Agreed. There was no way aound that. It is unfortunate that some were upset by this, but that will happen sometimes.

            Comment


            • Personally Neal Baily pisses me off. The guy has a massive chip on his shoulder and too often uses his reviews as forum to whine about his crappy childhood. But the thing that pisses me off most is that more often than not I find myself agreeing with him. The point was clearly made that it wasn't the image itself that was offensive but the fact that superman was the cause of the image. It was an icon of hope causing a reproduction of an iconic image of terror. Personally whether people were hurt or not if a building burnt down like that in the middle of my city I'd be pretty terrified.

              Comment


              • I think the writers can can (and should) show anything they want 9/11 was 8 years ago, if you spend the rest of your lives avoiding anything that reminds anyone of buildings collapsing or planes crashing you are telling the the terrorists that they can control you.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cogito17
                  The 9/11 connection is purely superficial. So much so, that I didn't even make the connection until I saw it posted on K-site. The spirit of what was being done in Clark's actions vs. what happened on 9/11 couldn't be more different. One was an act of terrorism, the other was an act to stop a terrorist. The resemblance between the two acts, for me, is only on a superficial level.

                  I'm not going to say that people are being oversensitive, because I can't tell you how to feel. But, I do think our society has a tendency to be overly politically correct and infuse meaning into things beyond what was meant.

                  I don't get offended any time a show or film portrays a black man working for a white man because it could draw parallels to slavery.

                  I don't get offended any time someone is interred in a camp or prison because it could draw parrallels to the holocaust.

                  I don't get offended any time a woman is portrayed primarily as a wife or mother because it could be perceived as sexist.

                  You might say its "too soon" to be using that kind of imagery, but there have been movies about 9/11 and I know shows like "24" constantly have terrorists attacking buildings/planes and I haven't heard of anyone crying foul on those.

                  I completely agree 110 per cent and with every respect and I mean it, people are seriously over-reacting to something that had nothing to do with 9/11. I am sure the writers didnt plan on it being taken out of context either. I do however understand why people may not like it but to overcome their problems they may have to switch off TV altogether. Its like any action packed movie, there will always be something blown up and they do usually like to take down buildings in movies. I am sorry for anyone affected by it but I believe you are wrong complaining about Smallville because of it.

                  however on another note, I think its totally ridiculous that people have problems with women being protrayed as housewives. Seriously that to me is a little crazy. People need to grow tough skins and stop complaining about every little thing.

                  Comment


                  • An unfortunate choice of image.

                    Comment


                    • When I saw the scene with the towers I wasn't really thinking about 9/11. All I saw was Clark destorying a threat that all I saw. Although the writers could have chosen a different way of destorying the buildings.

                      Comment


                      • Gonna stir the pot a bit again maybe (I'd given K-Site up for Lent on account of grades... ).

                        To the people who hated the imagery: were any of you the same people who wondered why Clark didn't destroy the towers sooner? Maybe now you see why Clark was so reluctant do do that.

                        Me, I didn't even notice the comparison until someone else brought it up. Like, at all.

                        Comment


                        • I'm from NYC. My mother and sister work only a couple of blocks from the WTC (they came out safe, thankfully). I was reminded of 9/11 subconsciously. While I was watching the scene I was very upset but wasn't sure why. It kind of scared me because I never felt any real emotion while watching a television show, least of all Smallville. When I came online and some people were mentioning it, I figured out why I was so startled all of a sudden.

                          As for them doing it on purpose (to evoke, for controversy, for conversation, etc) I don't think so. But why did they have to be two towers? I find that very problematic. It could have been a coincidence but I'm not sure. I guess we'll never know unless we ask the writer who wrote the episode.

                          I wasn't exactly offended, but it made me kind of sick. I know buildings collapsing isn't mutually exclusive to 9/11 but I can't help but associate it with it. I can't even watch old movies that show the towers without being upset.

                          Originally posted by omegadirective
                          I think there are fewer complaints because Superman heroically saved the plane. He stopped it from crashing, saved all the passengers, and the only "casualty" was Lois Lane, who fainted upon seeing Superman. That was a clear-cut win by the good guys, while Flight 93 went down with all hands and became a tragic victory.
                          If anything reminded me of 9/11, it was the original first movie trailer for Spider-Man (which if I remember right, came out in 2001) where literally takes place at the WTC. The two robbers who are flying in helicopters are suddenly caught in between the big web between the towers.

                          This may sound silly but there are times that I wish superheroes did exist.
                          Last edited by bychance; 04-20-2010, 02:05 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by borednow
                            This are images that are very sensitive and very likely to pop out at us even when they aren't there that much... it's just human nature and I think taking the solar towers of evil coming down as offensive is just reading too much into it...
                            Agreed. It's just people wanting to either complain about something act like they were more o rely affected by 9/11 then they were or a few other psychological evaluations. I mean I can say that to me it felt like they were portraying the assassination of Lincoln and I'm "deeply offended by it" if some1 gets shot. I honestly NEVER NEVER NEVER took it that way or did the thought ever even cross my mind until I saw it in one of these "complainer" threads. But people ARE entitled to ther opinions and there feelings so have at it.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X
                            😀
                            🥰
                            🤢
                            😎
                            😡
                            👍
                            👎