Illustrative image >!(link)!<

Between Myth, Ethics, and Collapse: A Reading of Superman in Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – Ultimate Edition

Man of Steel Analysis

Regarding Man of Steel, I like Man of Steel because it is a Superman movie that, first, has the longest depiction of Krypton, by far. It is the film that explores Krypton the most, and this time the planet is reinvented and re-signified (read: innovated), maintaining the essence of the original concept of Krypton, while re-signifying the entire aesthetic — something we don’t see as much in other Superman films.

Second, the Fortress of Solitude is explained in a linear way and is also reinvented within sci-fi, which is something complex to achieve. It is presented as a colonization ship with advanced extraterrestrial technology, almost like a UFO, manifesting a science fiction atmosphere different from the original — evidencing the will to innovate, regardless of risk, while still maintaining the original essence.

Third, the messianic setting continues to exist in Superman’s lore. Jor-El keeps giving kind advice to his son Kal-El, something almost messianic, from Jor-El to Kal-El, maintaining the idea present in other films that “the son becomes the father, and the father becomes the son,” morally instructed by the father. Unlike, unfortunately, the 2025 Superman, which subverts this concept and perverts the parents’ figure, completely changing their essence, now wanting their son to do a… what? A harem on Earth and rule the planet… what?

Fourth, the aesthetic and visual approach to Kryptonian technology changes the visual aesthetic, with Jor-El’s hologram reinventing itself visually and no longer being a giant floating head, but rather a full-size hologram, something like Star Trek, which, again, does not change the character’s or lore’s essence, and is innovative.

Fifth, the film deals directly with Superman’s morality. When he is holding General Zod and ends up killing him, that does not mischaracterize the character. Do you know why? Because that scenario is a moral duality built throughout the entire film: either he kills Zod and, consequently, people live, or Zod lives and people die. There is no middle ground, it is an inevitable moral duality.

Superman’s choice, both in his original conception and in the film’s construction, was developed from the beginning to prioritize the life of the people of Earth. So much so that, after this inevitable choice, Superman deeply laments what he did. Still, the decision remains consistent with the work, as he prioritized humans. Otherwise, he would be indirectly allowing Zod to kill them, and thus indirectly killing his own people.

>!<

Sixth, the juxtaposition between General Zod and Kal-El, with both having end-of-conflict struggles, since one wants to restore the people he lived with, the people of Krypton, by killing the people of Earth — with Zod not allowing the annihilation of his Kryptonian people — and Superman, in contrast, not accepting the idea of annihilating the people he lived with, the Earthlings, in exchange for resurrecting Krypton’s people — this creates a duality juxtaposition again, where only one people can prevail, and the film forces Superman to wisely choose between the life of Krypton’s people or Earth’s people, since only one can exist.

Seventh, Krypton and Superman are developed on different planes, each with considerable duration, something never seen before. At a certain point, these two planes connect, aligning Krypton’s heritage with Superman/Kal-El on Earth. It is unprecedented, where both Kal-El and Jor-El share protagonism, each supporting the other — which is very beautiful — a narrative alignment of planes that is visually stunning.

Eighth, Superman has character development. The film explores Clark Kent’s childhood in Smallville, his interactions with friends, the growth of these relationships over time, and conflicts that transform into lasting friendships.

Ninth, Superman’s patience is otherworldly. Throughout the film, he is confronted, facing clear conflicts with hostile humans and even barbarians, yet he never reacts. He never reacts because it is consistent with his construction from the beginning of the story and is part of the character’s development.

>!<

He always endures, as his father Jonathan Kent taught him. That is why the title Man of Steel: no matter how much people treat him badly or disdain him, he never reacts, he always saves. This is shown at the very beginning, in the school bus scene, when he saves the bully who was hostile toward him, even while silently suffering in Smallville. He even goes back to save the same bully who was drowning after the accident. He insists on saving.

This development is reinforced when Clark, still a child, vents saying he wanted to hit him, and his father teaches him a moral lesson: he can want to, but what would that transform him into? Nothing. Jonathan makes it clear that Clark, as someone special, needs to decide who he will become, because whoever that person is, they will change the world. Thus, the future is grounded even in the smallest actions of the past.

Tenth, character development is constant. The film moves back and forth between Clark Kent’s present and past, creating parallels that deepen the character throughout.

11th, this Superman is not depressive; he is introspective, moral, and reflective. He is trying to search for his own self, traveling the world, just like Christopher Reeve’s Superman in Superman II, when he abandons the mantle to better understand who Clark Kent is — which indicates the Tower of Solitude/reclusion environment.

12th, remember when I said that the title Man of Steel has to do with him enduring everything since childhood, even in hostile environments, because he was built that way? So, at the end of the film, when he screams, he finally reacts. Why? Because he reacted to extreme moral duality, even though it was not his fault.

13th, the film’s sci-fi is very good and brings a different approach. When Superman leaves Earth’s atmosphere and enters a Kryptonian environment, he is still in an adaptation stage and suffers extreme difficulty, reinventing the visual and physical elements of science fiction.

>!<

14th, the cinematography of this film is very good, featuring an explicitly three-dimensional plan.

15th, the action scenes are a reference point for Hollywood on how they should be done, I don’t even need to say.

16th, without going on, Jonathan Kent’s advice, even the most questionable at first glance, is extremely wise, very wise in real logical implications, countering Clark’s intentions.

As I said: there is maturity in this film to perceive certain things. Jonathan and Martha Kent are still kind, but there is an additional element that brings more depth to the film — the moral element of never reacting, not reacting because of the chains of logical implications that would follow. As I said: this film is not only about intention, it has the logical capacity to be sensible.

I ask you: what would happen if Clark Kent reacted throughout the period of his childhood, adolescence, and youth depicted in the film, which does not happen, again, in this new Superman?

I answer you: what happened in Superman’s first public revelation? He was arrested and taken for interrogation in an opaque room without even seeing daylight. And the Kent farm was investigated by Washington. And, in the end, Superman had to leave Earth, didn’t he?

So, if Superman did not respect Jonathan’s advice, I ask you: what would happen? The Kent farm would be inspected, restricted, the parents tracked at all times wherever they went, the son would be taken from the parents, researched, tampered with… and Clark’s immaturity as a child, in the smallest actions, would shape an eternal negative perception of Superman, of Smallville, etc., influenced by the media.

Kal-El could even be expelled from Earth.

It might even be possible for Martha and Jonathan Kent to be arrested for withholding information from the U.S. government and disappear from the radar. There are so many negative implications, really many… these are not even a fraction of all possible scenarios.

It is the moral duality of the reason not to act versus the superficial intention to act, and you know they do not go together.

Man of Steel required a lot of reflection and world-traveling in its film to develop the character to act. Acting earlier would be unwise, just as Jonathan taught him.

Superman feels this in his own skin when he finally acts and kills Zod to save people, in an inevitable duality, even doing good for humanity, even saving the Earthlings, he feels the weight of the consequences of positive intentions, lamenting deeply immediately afterward for having to remove from life the only vestige of his Kryptonian people.

That is why, again, the film’s title: Man of Steel.

Does it not reference Superman? He starts by making super jumps, in reference to the classic, and then flying, just like the character’s evolution. And, in space, flying around planet Earth like Christopher Reeve’s Superman.

Questions — Destruction of Metropolises and Death of Zod

"Superman should have taken Zod away"

In Batman v Superman, Superman does exactly that: he takes Apocalypse away, but Apocalypse pulls Superman back to Earth.
In other words, Snyder himself showed that this wouldn’t work — and this is with Apocalypse, who didn’t even have much awareness.

"Superman should have evacuated the city, not destroyed the metropolis during the fight"

Okay, the case with Apocalypse is already justified. Now imagine Zod, who OPENLY STATED that he would destroy all those people just to affect Superman, since he had lost his entire team and the last remnant of saving his home planet and his civilization, Krypton.

And even so, there are those who demand that Superman defeat Zod without causing destruction — even though he was on the same level as Superman and intentionally wanted to destroy people, within the existential duality presented: either one chooses the people of Earth or, by negation, one chooses the people of Krypton, which, in turn, depends on the absence of Earthlings to exist, through altering planetary conditions.

Within his plan, Zod wanted to use Kryptonian machines called World Engines to:

alter the Earth’s atmosphere
increase gravity
transform the planet into an environment identical to Krypton

When Kal-El refuses to prioritize Kryptonian life over human life — arguing that Krypton is already dead and that its destruction cannot be undone at the cost of another people’s extinction — he denies that other side of the duality.

In the fight, Superman takes Zod into space, and Zod returns throwing a satellite at Superman. It would accomplish nothing to take him away or avoid the consequences of his intentions — the destruction of part of Metropolis — because that fight had to end exactly the way Zod said: “either you die, or I die,” with both representing dual sides of distinct peoples in distinct ways.

So, at that moment, with a being moving at the same speed, it was consequently impossible to evacuate or avoid collateral damage from the result of his dual choice — Zod was determined to destroy in order to rebuild. And, in the end, the last alternative was to prophesize Zod’s words, even while avoiding, abstaining, inevitably, through another duality: not killing Zod and, consequently, by letting him kill, indirectly killing the people of Earth, or, by saving the people of Earth, killing Zod — there is no other alternative. The absence of existence of the last remnant of his home people was the cost for others to exist. This was the final consequence within a logical and moral system that offered no other way. And so, Superman cried deeply.

And even if, in fact, this system was not absolutely inevitable, wasn’t it inevitable considering the condition of an inexperienced Superman? So… these are reflections the film gives us.

I really don’t understand how this was not noticed: Snyder made Zod say this, showed that he was on the same level as Superman (even evolving), made it clear that Superman was still inexperienced, and, in the second film, reinforced that this strategy wouldn’t work — avoiding destroying the city or evacuating the remaining people. And yet, many people still didn’t understand.

>!<

Analysis BvS: Batman vs Superman – The Director’s Cut

Gaps and intentional openings to create narratives and indicate how the system is flawed (Africa attack)

Context

An armed conflict in an African village culminates in rebels attacking civilians and a local militia/government entering the operation. During the operation, an unexpected massacre occurs within the structure of the crisis.

The film suggests that:

Superman intervenes after the conflict gets out of control → deaths occur on-site, and this generates an ambiguous public narrative.

But importantly:

The film DOES NOT show Superman causing the massacre → he only appears afterwards as a figure of intervention.

The U.S. government (and international institutions) reacts strategically to a larger problem, which already existed before and which, in fact, is at the beginning of the film with the wreckage from the fight with Zod, the consequences of intentions — even if it was Zod who wanted revenge for, in his view, discarding the last remnant of reviving his people, wanting, in his view, to eliminate the life of the people of Earth because, in his view, Superman had killed his own people:

global fear of Superman after Man of Steel
destruction of Metropolises
lack of institutional control over meta-humans

What the Africa incident does

A new “concrete case” to reinforce the thesis that Superman is unpredictable, and thus public opinion does NOT arise solely from the isolated event.
It arises from a chain of interpretation mediated by media and politics.
He is not judged by objective truth, but by an incomplete public reading of events, with the film intentionally arguing that the world has no pure narratives, when Lois Lane says that the government attacking the rebels and defending the local government was a staged act. In reality, according to her, the government wanted to use the rebels to overthrow the local government.

In BvS, the film addresses:

wars are not morally simple
governments are not entirely legitimate or illegitimate
rebels are not automatically “good” or “bad”
external interventions (like Superman) enter this interpretive chaos

This intentionally creates ambiguity, as she, as part of the film, critiques how the world has no pure narratives, and this type of ambiguity serves a larger narrative goal:

👉 to create a world where any intervention can be interpreted as a mistake, and that is where Lex comes in to manipulate entire systems and failed institutions to his advantage.

>!<

1. Moral foundation and the system of the film

BvS: The Director’s Cut is very good and mature, where there are conflicts about how to deal with the consequences of intentions.

Superman represents morality that balances intentions with consequentialism.
Batman represents pure consequentialism.

What I am seeing in Batman vs Superman is a pure consequentialist who, by being too consequentialist, ends up eliminating the consequences of intentions, and Superman, who is still consequentialist, but less so, still defends intentions as a consequence. These are totally different pragmatisms, although both consequentialist.

>!<

2. The psychological and moral escalation

This was the only film I’ve seen in which Superman was so poked, not physically, but morally, emotionally, and psychologically from start to finish: subjugated, pre-judged, sabotaged, contested from start to finish, until reaching the level where the Man of Steel resists so much, as he did in the first film, but in this one he resisted so much — so much — he was poked from start to finish — reaching near the end to the point of crying and saying “no one stays good in this world,” lamenting deeply.

2.1 Existential ambiguity (mountains / possible suicide)

After Clark goes to the freezing mountains, there is a purposeful doubt whether he went seeking reclusion or if he came to commit suicide, as a man seeing him quiet and reclusive, post-judgment, insinuates that “he came to die”… until he reverses when he sees the image of his dead father, telling him his values and how he did everything, even adhering to consequentialism and disregarding his own intentions, so that Clark could live as his civilized son. This is strong… this is purposeful ambiguity.

> !<

He reaches this point reciting pure consequentialism and pragmatism that his father, Jonathan, said in the first film — where Jonathan represented the pure consequentialist of intentions and Jor-El represented the messianic intentions of Kryptonian traditions, where Kal-El chooses up to that point to be another person, one who balances the consequentialism of his biological parents with the symbol of Kryptonian hope tradition, bearing the existential weight of moral balance, yet being judged, contested, subjugated, accused, threatened in different spheres, with Lex Luthor manipulating everything — judgment, politicians, public opinion, expeditions, elite, etc. — pushing the Man of Steel, a name from the first film, to resist so much external pressure and never react; he was taken to the limit by the entire surrounding atmosphere, risking losing yet another of his parents, almost reaching the level of insanity and changing, at least in that millisecond, unable to resist any longer, to his way of seeing the world, to the point of leaning, unstably, toward his father’s pure consequentialism, contesting the very ideals he had built until then; very impressive how he was poked from start to finish.

3. The Initial Pressure on Superman (Rejection and Doubt)

When Superman sees the conflicts, public rejection, and threats, with the Earthlings not accepting him as part of them, he goes to Lois right after the Capitol explosion, and she reminds Superman of a line he recited in Man of Steel, when he, unstable, questioned whether Superman might just be a boy from Kansas’ dream. Lois says, touching his chest: “this is what it means, hope,” and he, in doubt, responds, resentfully: “In my world, but this is no longer my world” — indicating that he is being continuously inclined to believe he no longer belongs with them, believing he never shared the same equality with them, with the Earthlings stoning him and constantly questioning him. This doubt is grounded when Martha, before the trial against him, seeing her son hesitating and more unbalanced than before, says he no longer owes this world anything, seeing the vulnerability of his emotional and physical integrity wearing down under pressure.

>!<

3.5 Why Does This Ambiguity Work?

Makes Superman more human: a hero who questions himself, who can feel he no longer belongs to the world.
Gives the audience space to project their own emotions: some see a suicide attempt, others see emotional reclusion.
This ambiguity sets up the redemption arc: if he were confident in himself, there would be no drama or enough emotional tension for the return of hope that comes afterward…

>!<

5. Lex’s Board (A Dead-End)

Lex, on the other hand, creates a board where:

If Superman does not act → guilty
If he acts → also guilty
If he fights Batman → loses legitimacy
If he does not fight → loses his mother

In the end, after so much time balancing intention with consequence, he died. In the end, Lex Luthor manipulated almost everyone, or he was delegitimized fighting against a man, Batman, and becoming a pure consequentialist like him, or he died fighting a pure consequentialist man, Batman, and in the end he died, but, above all, remaining with his ideal — Lex won. From start to finish, Lex was interconnected, manipulating multiple systems. A great film.

>!<

6. The Collapse: “No One Stays Good in This World”

Not only because of that, but due to all the consequences of his intentions grounded since Man of Steel, being all this the precursor to near-total instability when the Man of Steel says, in tears, almost at the end, resentfully — when Lex manipulates the entire system against him: jury, politicians, public opinion, government, military, etc. — “no one stays good in this world” — a point of imbalance, when the pressure is so intimate that he can no longer endure and becomes unstable.

>!<

7. The Climax: Batman’s Breakdown and Contradiction

Superman, after leaning, in that millisecond, in tears, reciting “no one stays good in this world,” adhering to his father Jonathan’s pure consequentialism, goes to Batman, already understanding the system, trying to argue to Batman not to fall into Luthor’s logical manipulation system, but Batman hesitates. Why does he hesitate? Because he was built from the start to be pure consequentialism in response to the absence of life of those close to him, adopting the side of moral duality, believing, until convinced otherwise, that this is the only way to symbolically save his mother and the next generations of “Marthas,” until facing the harsh reality that his system is pushing him to symbolically kill his own mother, when Superman recites “Save Martha,” with him stepping back and the harsh reality impacting him profoundly… recognizing that, directly or indirectly, he is being the perpetrator who killed his own mother of the pearl necklace in that dark alley.

This is the climax: he realizes that, with this method, he was about to become the murderer of his own mother, even if symbolically, and this breaks his cycle of consequentialist morality.

He hesitates because his system breaks due to internal contradiction.

>!<

8. Superman’s Antithesis: The Origin of Batman (Why He Was Like This)

Before: this was how Batman reacted to loss, to trauma: Bruce Wayne learned that justice is a direct consequence of preventing personal tragedies. The death of his parents shaped him to believe that protecting those he loves justifies extreme measures, even if it eliminates good intentions as a consequence of eliminating “bad” intentions. If there is a 1% chance, I have to eliminate it. This is Bruce shaped by a closed system — trauma, trapped in his world.

>!<

9. Superman’s Legacy (After Death)

Superman died, Lex won? In part…
Superman ultimately managed to be Batman’s moral compass, changing his conception, finally placing him on the other side of the duality, recognizing that the other side finally made him save the next generation of Martha he lost, removing part of the guilt, which he could not do as a child, completely changing from that point, observing that consequences must indeed be open to intentions. He had understood that Superman’s side made him save his own “mother,” not feeling powerless and no longer resorting to pure consequentialism. Superman induced morality, even absent of life. He was stoned and yet his legacy was permeated; a moral myth, a superhero.

10. The Complete Cycle (Man of Steel → BvS)

In the end, in Man of Steel, he lost everything, his last remnant of Kryptonian origin (Zod), in an inevitable duality, feeling the deep pains of the consequences of intentions himself, inevitably preferring the people of Earth over the Kryptonian people, even if, despite everything, they do not accept him as part of them.

And in the end, in BvS, impressively, even after being ten times more pressured, he does it again, preferring the people of Earth over the last remnant of his existence. Preferring, thus, even stoned, sabotaged, pre-judged, criticized, threatened, to absent himself from his own existence so that others could exist.

Always preferring the people of Earth to his own integrity, always balancing, and thus influencing the entire world around him in his values.

We can see the character’s evolution when, at the beginning, when public opinion was starting to be manipulated against him, he, looking at the television, said he “didn’t care” — it’s not that he didn’t care about public opinion — public opinion destabilized him — in fact, he was used to being stoned by public opinion and, therefore, resisting the pressure so that, despite the consequences, there would be the intentions of existence. But in the end, what happened? He was pushed to the limit, destabilized, reduced to a human on his knees, Lex, and had to yield, indicating character development.

Snyder’s Superman feels the pressure, feels the criticism, the rejection, the judgment — he is hit by all of it.

The difference is that he learned not to yield emotionally, keeping his intentions intact despite external psychological impact — which carries through the film purely due to pressure.

>!<

11. Closure (Lex’s Gear)

And another thing, when both were leaning toward pure consequentialism as a response, throughout the film, they were not forming their own identity; in fact, they were leaning as pragmatic pieces on Lex’s board. Certainly the smartest Lex in cinema.

Questions — Does Superman Not Care About Humanity?

How can he not care about humanity? How can someone continuously stoned until unstable, despite everything, sacrifice himself for humanity, absent himself from existence so that others may exist? What… how can someone not care, if, when he saves the falling soldier, he asks if he’s okay? If, when he saves the girl from the fire in his arms, the world venerates his act of humanity? If, when the tribunal explodes, judging public opinion against him, he goes to save the few who remained alive, checking, despite everything, if they are okay, even if he is not?

>!<

How can he not care about humanity if he sacrificed the last Kryptonian remnant and his past to save humanity itself, which often didn’t even believe he was part of them? How? Explain to me… how can he save the boy who bullied him for years quietly, saving him from drowning… saving the vessel by intention, even without knowing them beforehand… How can he suffer so much to save humanity itself, and you say he doesn’t care??

He even saved Luthor himself, the one responsible for trying to kill him, both symbolically and physically, but, although yielding, he resisted — again absenting himself from his own existence so others could exist. And that’s why he is the Man of Steel.

Final Synthesis

12.0 Questions — Is Superman Then an Ideal Balancer Between Consequences and Intentions?

No, he’s not… and that is Snyder’s vision. He proposes a system where it is unfeasible for Superman to be 100% ideal. He stumbles, he doesn’t see the bomb at the Capitol, he becomes emotionally unstable, he bows to Lex, he, at a given millisecond, decays emotionally and quickly leans to the other side, contradicting, in a short interval of time, the very ideal he had built up to that point… He errs, and the consequences of his mistakes are abyssal, and there comes a moment when the Man of Steel, even being made of steel, cannot endure everything alone.

12.0 Questions — Isn’t Batman a Pure Consequentialist?

Subtleties: yes, yes… being purely consequentialist does not make Batman 100% logical; he is not purely logical, he only tries to avoid consequences that affect him. That’s why I said pure consequentialist in relation to his antithesis, Superman. It’s a relational logic.

If I Condense My View:

Man of Steel = ethics under physical and moral collapse
BvS = ethics under social and symbolic collapse
Lex = amplifier of sociocultural influence and manipulation
Superman = resistance up to the breaking point
Batman = emotional consequence of trauma applied to justice

12.1 Interconnections

When Lex makes his blood spill in order to fall onto the dead Zod, he says “Blood of my blood,” with Superman facing that creation. A clear reference to when Jor-El records the codex onto Kal-El, saying “blood of my blood, as tradition,” with Zod facing that creation. This is interconnection of inheritance with the previous film.

12.2 Additional Questions — What Does Classic Superman Have That Man of Steel’s Superman Does Not?

All the base lore is present in Man of Steel. In fact, the one who subverts and perverts Superman’s father, Jor-El, giving almost messianic advice to Kal-El, his son, is the new Superman film. By the way, instead of historical, almost messianic advice, sending and advising the son to be a kind of Zod and rule planet Earth and do what? Have a harem and as many wives as he… what?? He wants.

Everything mentioned is present: including Man of Steel having the longest duration on Krypton and the deepest exploration of Kal-El’s relationship with Jor-El, with Man of Steel alternating between the two, a film dialoguing between father and son. The Daily Planet is excellent, with the duality of what should or should not be investigated or reported, considering costs of travel, etc. — bringing an ideal to journalism. It’s still there: Superman falls in Smallville, even in Man of Steel, he retraces the past and moves through life in the small town of Smallville, exploring his classmates, the school trip, the Kent farm, Smallville itself, the highways, and much of him as an adult, in the present, in Smallville.

He still wears the red and blue uniform, detailed, including the carefully studied language of his home planet, Krypton, displayed on his uniform — with its alien alphabet.

The historical factor of the character is what I said: he has a history of diversification and exploration of multiple sources in the comics, exploring multiple approaches. Superman has appeared with or without briefs, with more moral or immoral themes, with serious or silly humor, etc. Man of Steel remains Superman.

As I said, the briefs or saturated color do not define, strictly speaking, the character; so much so that all cited lore, found in encyclopedias, exists in Man of Steel. And the lore, in a more philosophical way, does not strictly identify the character, but the universe around the character, and even that it has. So how exactly does Henry Cavill’s Superman subvert the character, tell me?

13.0 — Opinion

When I was a child, I also did not understand or see value in Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, I only saw punching, so I always went with what others said… but today, older, I watch the films with different eyes, understand, and connect deeply. I no longer see just good deeds and men hitting each other… I see more, and it is beautiful to me.

Two incredible films I connected with profoundly. Sorry, but for me, Henry Cavill’s Superman is the best Superman, the one with the most moral drama weight — one that best captures an introspective, existential, reflective, alien, dual, moral, intentional, and consequentialist atmosphere. 🙂🙂 The Superman who suffered the most and rose the most. Who sacrificed when deeply unstable, after losing the last remnant of his Kryptonian origin, to save Earth, preferring humanity, opposing Zod, Faora, and everything that remained… lost his father due to the consequentialist morality his father taught him and was about to lose the only origin of his existence. He sacrificed himself when deeply unstable. He, once again, after so much judgment, chose, even after everything, the people of Earth over the last remnant of his Kryptonian origin, Apocalypse. That is the Man of Steel.

Snyder’s Superman is a character under continuous moral pressure until he turns action into an inevitable ethical dilemma, while the world around distorts his intentions.

video

u/jk-9k

Scott Robertson rejects NRL coaching role after pressure from rugby union | Daily Telegraph

Woman dies, comes back to life, gets parking ticket

Cocos (Keeling) Islands

Aotearoa Alternate