Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:17:09 — 70.9MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
[Previously recorded July 15, 2016 and unaired episode] Who returned the checks? Viewing Wallace Keefe’s protest as abstract art. Insight into Bruce’s blindness and Lex’s patterns of speech and ability to exploit the efforts of others.
Answers, insights, and commentary on:
- Conjunction Fallacy
- Plausible patsy prerequisites
- Why is Bruce and Keefe’s wife also on his Superman Wall of Shame?
- Bruce is blind
- Audience believing checks are enough are blind too
- Lex talks to hear himself
Web: ManOfSteelAnswers.com
Twitter: @mosanswers
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts / RSS / Stitcher / YouTube 
#unaired #notafan
Thanks so much for every episode you do. They are all so well done and entertaining. Your podcast is one of my favorite pieces of entertainment period. I would actually pay money for what you produce. It is so much fun to chew our food, and you make it way more interesting and fun to rewatch and love MOS and BVS. Thanks!
Thanks for the kind words and encouragement!
Great episode as usual! The Keefe’s cheques were always a bit of a messy topic for me until now. It’s such a simple issue, yet a very confusing one at first sight. Like a very complicated knot, that you beautifully untied into simplicity. Thank you very much for your work Doc!
Thank you. Honestly, I’m surprised by the positive reaction. I really actively dislike this episode. I’ll get into why in a brief sometime. I’ve got more I might release. This month, I’m focused on our first family trip overseas in years.
Yet another fantastic episode, Doc!
Could you answer a small (and yes, slightly silly) question I have about BvS? It seems like a minor and insignificant detail in the film, but I cannot come up with feasible apologetics for it yet – how do you think Lex got the jar of urine onto Senator Finch’s desk without anyone questioning, or noticing it?
Thank you. Sure, this is a fun one. It’s very plausible as it has happened in real life: https://i.imgur.com/t8stFcr.jpg
Short answer: Lex anonymously paid service staff to do it. They are sadly vulnerable part of our government infrastructure: https://www.eater.com/2015/5/4/8544139/many-food-workers-in-the-u-s-capitol-building-need-second-jobs-to
Long answer: First, we have to disabuse ourselves of the assumption that Lex, himself, accomplished the feat. Security does not allow visitors to bring liquids into the Capitol Building, much less mason jars. Maybe Lex brings the masking tape, a pen, and 300 ml of fluid in his own bladder… then gets a 500 ml jar from the commissary to use… and voids his bladder. Or maybe Lex brings a dye to accomplish the same with water (as it isn’t strictly necessary for it to BE urine). BUT the logistics of him personally getting it to the daius is implausible, no? Especially if Mercy is following him around and unaware of his bomb plot. Especially since freshly voided urine 95 degrees F. Especially with all the cameras and live footage. If Lex is a magician, he could still pull it off, but given that the jar is already there before the Senators or Lex arrive, it seems far easier to pin it on service staff.
It’s probably harder to issue a hit in prison or to bail someone out anonymously than it is to instruct, through puppets, service staff to place the custom drink at her seat as the room is setup (along with their name plates and reserved seats). They absolutely do custom by-request person-specific orders and, generally, avoid sealed-branded bottles to avoid any allegations of impropriety (being in the pocket of Pepsi or cronies with Coke, or risk looking un-American by drinking bottled water owned by a French multinational)… so open, generic containers aren’t uncommon. If it is ACTUALLY peach tea, there’s nothing more nefarious than paying someone to put that detail on the manifest of prep. If it is actually urine, it’s more tricky but still doable. Note the issue and evidence is vaporized in the explosion and only Finch ever knows there is an issue.
I’ve thought about this one as well. Lex clearly has influence all over the place, it’s not an impossibility that he has under his control the person who organises the general refreshments and housekeeping basics. This also leaves Mercy or Barrows as possibilities
Hi Doc,
Long time no see. It has been a while. I would like to ask your opinion about the 2 years time skip between MoS and BvS. Some fan are having a problem with the 2 years time skip because the film never establish or provide the information on superman status prior to the nairomi incident in BvS. We never get to know whether or not superman have been controversial like all along like in BvS because BvS seems to indicates that superman have only started to be this controversial and heavily debated due to nairomi incident. We also didn have the clear picture on whether superman is actually well loved or not by the public because the majority of the film are more focus on how controversial and hated he is but we didn’t see he is well loved by the public figure(wasn’t focus enough). that is why some people felt that death of superman felt rush and unearned in terms of public figure mourn for superman death when superman have been controversial and hated for the duration of the film.
Also the comics have lay out so many worldbuilding stuff that BvS seems to be totally lacked off due to use of 2 years timeskip. The comic have cover the detail such as superman neutrality and the kryptonians technology being sell in black market. Do u think all the worldbuilding stuffs lay out in the prequel comic would have further enhance the event in BvS if it is briefly explained such as about the superman neutrality so that it can further increase the importance of the controversy in nairomi incident and pointed out that superman have been neutral all along and he only being this controversial due to what happen in nairomi incident of the film being vague about superman neutrality?
Last question, do you think black zero event would have been much more powerful source of controversial for superman instead of nairomi? People pointed out that BvS have miss the opportunity in truly addressing the consequences of superman action in black zero event and felt that superman controversial would be more better if it is because of his action in black zero event that cost so many people die instead of nairomi. I aware that we have defended this many times and state that black zero event cannot be used as a source of controversial for superman because it is already very clearly shown that superman save the world and fought back against kryptonians to defend humanity. Therefore, black zero event cannot be used as a source of controversial for superman since he is view to be a hero who save metropolis that time. But since black zero event are meant to be an allegory to 9/11 and you know how in real life terror cause suspicious and people blame on Muslims/immigrants/sikh. Do u think black zero event would be much more suited for superman controversial status than the nairomi?
Actually I feel as though BvS is at pains to tell you how the world feels about Superman, it’s not told to you in a simplistic format, the movie asks of you to discover. Clark ignores the discontent easily, there’s a statue of him in Heroes park, the reporte says “beloved statue”, Perry says “end of love affair with man in the sky, Swanwick tells Lois about returning his halo, Wallace Keefe’s apartment is littered with his heroics, there’s a montage of his deeds, Martha tells him people see what he does they know who is, Bruce says to Clark “puff piece editorial…”, after the capitol bombing a little boy asks his mom if Superman isn’t a hero….and so on and so forth
I thought it was obvious Lex took advantage of the Wallace Keefe situation, I really never thought that Lex was writing the letters, that just plausibly never jumped into my mind as a possibility, especially as the film plots out when and where Lex first takes notice of Keefe. I mean, Lex doesn’t even decide to take action against the Senate until he meets Finch in his library, and he also can’t control when Bruce will tip. Lex invites Bruce to his “R&D” because he knows he needs to push him over the edge while the narrative against Superman is building. Keefe is just a nice little bonus that he grabs while he has the chance to use him.
The reason I thought originally Lex wrote the letters is because one of them has a picture of the capital on fire, which Wallace didn’t know about. Alfred picks it up after chopping wood
Haha, the original recording was twice as long with 20 min on that check, 20 min on the newspaper clipping (which you can read, btw), and another 30 min working out a way for intercept timing to work but showing the gymnastics and how you have to assume Greg is wrong, etc. It diluted the episode too much but I was never happy with the edit and just released the last version without revisiting it for the fifteenth time.
The easiest apologetic for the check is just to add it to Lex’s list of responsibilities since that covers the direct nature of it, the incongruity of it (a picture unlike all the other protests; similar to how Lex sends the clipping when Keefe only sends checks), and possibly the timing. Problem is it’s the most salient check with Keefe in the Capitol but not brought to his attention first? I can’t recreate the whole discussion here, but the timing forces more analysis.
If it’s chronologically the last check, it’s easy for that to be Lex’s OR for it to be Keefe’s under Lex’s influence, but submitted BY Lex (influence makes sense, because Lex helps Keefe connect the dots between his anger and Senator Finch, when his protest before did not have a political focus) however delivery doesn’t make sense since detection of a threat against the Capitol Building wouldn’t do if Keefe has to make his way there three more times (first meeting, press conference, and then the hearing / bombing)… and doesn’t make sense once Keefe has an ally in Finch. So Lex either originating or delaying delivery makes the most sense here.
However, [and again the full discussion is longer] the chronology of the check suggests it was sent in 2014 (the Ghost and Eyes checks are December 2013; and BvS ends in November 2015; so the flaming check was December 2014, but someone with 4K can let me know). In that case, you either have to go with the crazy time travel gymnastics (doable but really inelegant) OR you have to justify Keefe’s anger at Congress, and the latter is not too hard to do if you picture them as equally complicit as Bruce Wayne. In this latter case, Keefe’s check actually inspires Lex to bomb Finch (which he uncovers while researching Keefe while held after arrest). Again, a full discussion is much much longer…. [there’s also the small matter of it being cut from the theatrical release and the canonicity of prop details.]
Wow! Thanks for the reply. You and Zack Snyder both frustrate the heck out of me. Because in Zack’s case I would totally watch his five hour first version of a movie never intended for mass consumption. And with you I would listen to as many hours of content, no matter how incoherent, as you made availabile. You are both so good at what you do :). Thanks again!
Hi, Doc, great episode.
Interesting thing about Wallace is, unless I’m mishearing, he says ‘I work for Bruce Wayne’ not ‘I worked for Bruce Wayne’. So either his job was so important to him that it’s still part of his identity, or he’s still working for the company.
While I never thought Lex sent the cheques per se, I thought he must have had some influence, since otherwise how could he know about them? But of course he met Keefe, it’s such a simple easy explanation. So thanks for that.
I was also assuming that Lex could have been keeping an eye on Wallace in a ‘this man could be useful somehow’ way rather than ‘I might need someone to bomb the Capitol in two years’ way.
Minor nitpick: I think Bruce Wayne of all people understands that money alone doesn’t necessarily heal trauma by itself, it’s still a reasonable response to a visibly down on his luck Keefe to wonder if he’s been getting the cheques, it doesn’t mean that, say, he hasn’t been offered counselling as well.
Thanks. It’s too long to comment on all but I’ll address at least the first one…
Per the artbook, quoted in the episode, Scoot McNairy says, “he’s lost his legs and he’s lost his family and he’s LOST HIS JOB, and his life sucks.” Even if actors aren’t authorities on their own characters, his performance was guided as if he had lost his job. The state of his life supports this inference independently. Before, he supported a family of three.
Lex intercept is all about income effecting discontent. If his income was the same post-BZE why was he discontent? He says his wife “walked out” not that he was kicked out. So if he was still employed by Wayne and drawing the same income… why would Wayne’s Victim Fund checks matter? In the alternative there’s the identity argument, but it’s not supported by either theory where he’s insulting Bruce with each check.
There’s a disconnect between “I consider being a Wayne employee my identity” yet “I refuse payment, assistance, entitlement, or charity from Wayne.” If he’s willing to return the checks and insult Bruce (even under Lex’s presentation of the case), then no theory considers his employment central to his ID. Moreover, it’s inconsistent with Keefe’s own placement of Bruce’s “hero headline” on his wall with Superman’s hero headlines. Lex didn’t make Keefe do that. So why would Keefe put his honored boss up there with his hated alien enemy?
It seems more consistent that Keefe doesn’t hold Bruce in esteem anymore which is why Bruce is up there, why he insults him in the checks, and why he joins up with Lex without a second thought (he doesn’t use Lex or ask Lex to put him in touch with Bruce or to get him his checks or to give him money… he goes along with what Lex wants because it’s what he wants… to be heard / to “stand for something”… after he had been ignored by Bruce). Not to mention if employee was his identity, there are more reasonable ways to reacquire or remedy the issue (like ASKING for a job, which he would SURELY get)… whereas if he’s upset with Bruce for his silent toleration of Superman, the statue protest and check returns make sense in THAT context (but don’t make sense if trying to reacquire an employment identity).
Therefore, “I work for Bruce Wayne” is not a sincere assertion of identity (Scoot already says, “lost his job”) but a lie… and what’s the function or purpose of the lie? “Appeal to authority” Even if immediately disproven by every legal and factual standard, it would work with the crazy types of people Keefe wants to reach.
re: Bruce’s first instinct to inquire about money. I agree that it is reasonable in the sense it is what people do… I disagree it is reasonable in the sense it is what people SHOULD do. You heard from the REAL WORLD case of the Chicago torture victims. Of course, the journalist was focused on the money, but all of the interviewees said her questions were crazy, missing the point, the wrong question, etc. If Bruce dealt with himself and others properly, he wouldn’t be like the journalist, he’d understand like the victims who aren’t envious of another getting 60x the payout- that their understanding of each others’ pain is more bonding and meaningful than the gap in money. What you ask first (only) shows your perspective, priorities, and that Bruce was blind… in more than one way in BvS.
I have long loved your podcast ever since discovering your “Lex Luthor Explained” episode. It was so fun and exciting to discover a fellow fan who truly analyzed and broke down the character and the movie as much as I have done (you and JLU Podcast). After that, I dove into your other episodes and nearly all of them have found their way to my iPod and they certainly take multiple listens for all the amazing info and in-depth level of analysis you provide. So it was really awesome that you posted this episode that you recorded a while back. You gave me a new insight into Wallace’s character, because as many times as I’ve seen the film (many many times) and analyzed it, I pretty much subscribed to the “Lex intercept” theory without really seeing all the holes in it. I *do* still believe that Lex is probably responsible for the letters, or at very least for “You Let Your Family Die” and maybe “Bruce = Blind” (that just feels so in-character for Lex to make a reference to Bruce’s secret identity that way, more to amuse himself than anything else).
Which brings me to my favorite part of your analysis: Lex speaking to hear himself talk. Yes! Spot-on. The examples you used actually made me chuckle out loud, because it’s funny to think of just how little Lex cares about conventional social interaction and like you said, how one-sided his conversations actually are. Another example of this: “My R&D is up to all sorts of no good”. Even though he’s genuinely trying to recruit Bruce in that moment, I always saw that as another of his little inside jokes, privately amusing himself with the knowledge that he’s up to “no good” and nobody in the room knows it, despite the fact that he’s practically rubbing it in their faces.
Anyway, love your analysis as always. Honestly, listening to this episode helped get me through a super stressful day teaching last week, just knowing I could dive deep into fiction at the end of the day on my drive home listening to it, haha. So thank you, and keep up the excellent work!
Hi Dr.
Please refer to this image about zack snyder on superman : https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYuqgkeUMAANhiE.jpg
Can Dr elaborate on what zack means on what superman embodies, especially about the place where a question that may truly never have an answer? This is quite a interesting interpretations here. Almost all fans think that superman embodies hope or truth,justice and american way. But zack however have a much more interesting perspective about superman.
What do you think?
So I’ve finally gotten to listen to this episode.
The biggest problem for me accepting an entirely “Wallace Refuse” theory is the final envelope with the newspaper clipping whose note Lex directly quotes (if he didn’t write it himself, he saw it beforehand, in a STASI-esque way where they read the letters but then continue sending them to the recipients as if nothing happened — Heyo, East Germany), and the cheque with the flaming Capitol building. I think the very final cheque was Lex’s doing so as to firmly frame that Wallace went in there ready to explode. — Which is probably your verdict as well.