Thread: "Joyless" ?
View Single Post
Old 10-21-2013, 07:38 AM   #40
Senator Pleasury
Banned User
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,844
Default Re: "Joyless" ?

Originally Posted by KRYPTON INC. View Post
Jon Kent was trying to make his son understand that by his very existence, Clark would change the world. This was a Jon Kent not immune to the fact that his son would have the burden of his power and his alen nature with him always. Who knows what sort of reaction the world would have to his son? Would people worship him? Try to destroy him? Exploit him? Who knows? As a parent Pa Kent loved his son and was teaching him a lesson in morality but he was also trying to balance out his own obligation to the wider world with his obligation to his son. This IS a morality. Maybe not one you would agree with, but it was a moral outlook. If you are to take the story seriously, then you should understand that Pa Kent was dealing with a burden none of us could ever know. And it was obviously something he was willing to sacrifice his life for. When that twister took him that burden and the lesson of responsibility of power that went with it was transferred to Clark's shoulders. I know that the presentation of Pa Kent in MOS was not the usual down home, "awe shucks", small town values kind. This was a Jon Kent of the 21st Century. It was a different kind of moral lesson, but it was a lesson none the less, and I appreciated it immensely.
Nothing in your post comes close to explain the logic behind Pa Kent's suicide. Even less the logic behind Clark Kent letting him die. And even less the logic behind Clark Kent saving people in spite of Pa Kent's suicide.

Lesson of morality? Care to explain so I can see if I agree with it or not?

Originally Posted by KRYPTON INC. View Post
By the by.... Seeing as it is a long established story element in comics that Superman does not get involved with the internal politics of the nations of planet Earth, he is, in fact, always making a conscious decision to allow people to die, all the time. Every day brutal and repressive regimes murder, or undertake even worse actions against their own people. The in story reasoning behind this is that Superman cannot allow himself to dictate his morality to the entire world. This would make him the de facto ruler of Earth, and so, for this ideological reasoning, he let's evil men maintain their power. For the sake of a larger moral point Superman, FOR DECADES in the comics, has been shown to be willing to stop himself from using his powers to help others in immediate danger. Yet I hear no howls of displeasure from the fan community.
You mean that if some Kryptonians were he to make the earth a new Krypton, Superman should remain respectful of another planet's decision?

But we digress, Superman have saved suicidal people all his career.


Originally Posted by Jaxon View Post
I think you're missing the point of JK. He was a country father who had an alien boy with ridiculous powers crash into his farm and he raised him. He just didn't know when the right time would be to let his secret go, probably fearing like any father that he would lose his boy (the same way an adoptive parent really doesn't want their boy to go looking for their real parents because of the potential rejection and diminishing of their relationship).
Again, understandable but doesn't explain his suicide (nor Clark's unresponsiveness before it).

Originally Posted by Jaxon View Post
He was scared, but he did raise him with strong values, values that people were worth standing by. I think Costner's performance was spot on. That look he gave just before his death, he acted the s*** out of that.
Oh, this is nothing against Costner's acting. He was great. It was the script that made him do a stupid pointless suicide.

Senator Pleasury is offline   Reply With Quote