Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?

[Superchan]

Really? I've watched the scene on several separate occasions with friends and family, and I can't recall a single time that Jonathan's sacrifice instigated any other reaction other than interest or empathy.

I'm not talking about your family I'm talking about MY own experiences watching the film, not everything is about you!

Clark is a "tool" and "pathetic" because he chose to respect his father's wishes? I would agree with you if Clark had shown no interest in saving his father and no anguish about respecting his father's sacrifice, but that didn't happen. Snyder, Cavill, and Goyer all worked together to craft a scene that makes it clear that Clark's instinct was to save his father and it tore him up to hold back, but he did what his father wanted because he chose to trust him.

Yup exactly! A tool and a pathetic excuse for a character who is supposed to be a representation of one of the most iconic symbols in pop culture.
For me the whole idea of 'clark lets his father die inorder to respect his wishes' is so silly that I can truly understand why people in my theater were groaning out loud.
All Snyder and Goyer were able to show was that Clark is a massive b***h who would rather ask permission than forgiveness in a situation where asking forgiveness was the only recourse.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I started laughing out loud during the tornado scene in MoS. It was just so stupid it was like something out of a comedy.

 

[C. Lee]

I started laughing out loud during the tornado scene in MoS. It was just so stupid it was like something out of a comedy.

It made me angry that someone would write such a terrible scene for a major motion picture about Superman. It was more like something you would see in some teenager's fan film.

 

[Flint Marko]

There's no reason Jonathan should have saved the dog instead of Clark. He might as well have ran into the tornado with open arms, ready to be whisked away. So contrived.

 

[Superchan]

There's no reason Jonathan should have saved the dog instead of Clark. He might as well have ran into the tornado with open arms, ready to be whisked away. So contrived.

It made me angry that someone would write such a terrible scene for a major motion picture about Superman. It was more like something you would see in some teenager's fan film.

Exactly, to me the whole scene was like a prolonged joke and it saddens me that some fans actually think it's poignant. Clark looked like a compete joke at that point and I really felt bad for Cavill who was doing his very best with the material that he got given.

 

[Flint Marko]

As odd as this may sound, that scene might've been improved ever so slightly had we any sort of prior connection to the dog.

 

[Boy Scout]

Yeah, it was a dumb scene. And considering Jonathan's characterization, I wasn't even sad to see him go.

 

[ManWithNoName18]

I do think to an extant DC views itself as a "higher standard", at least till the BVS reception kicked in. Nolan made some damn fine Batman movies, that were a cut above from anyone had ever seen prior. And some might argue since.

I've felt that both MOS and BVS tried to present themselves as the successors to the Dark Knight trilogy. The director, writers, producers kept going on and on about how realistic and philosophical etc those movies where going to be. That they would have dark and mature themes.

It's a tall order to make consistent movies on that level. And I also think Snyder wasn't the guy to do it. Everything felt very forced, and in your face. So focused on making every movie next Dark Knight they didn't focus on just making a good movie in general.

 

[Superchan]

I do think to an extant DC views itself as a "higher standard", at least till the BVS reception kicked in. Nolan made some damn fine Batman movies, that were a cut above from anyone had ever seen prior. And some might argue since.

I've felt that both MOS and BVS tried to present themselves as the successors to the Dark Knight trilogy. The director, writers, producers kept going on and on about how realistic and philosophical etc those movies where going to be. That they would have dark and mature themes.

It's a tall order to make consistent movies on that level. And I also think Snyder wasn't the guy to do it. Everything felt very forced, and in your face. So focused on making every movie next Dark Knight they didn't focus on just making a good movie in general.

Beautifully said, if snyder and co weren't so busy trying to 'deconstruct' the DCEU heroes their films might've been more universally received. Hopefully they'll learn to construct their characters first (in JL and all the following films)

 

[Nemeres]

Clark is a "tool" and "pathetic" because he chose to respect his father's wishes?

But why, why is that a moment to be "respecting wishes"? As if Jonathan had asked him to stay out of his office or to not borrow the family truck unauthorized. Why wouldn't the the life of a loved one, or the sheer urgency of the situation, outweigh everything else.

The situation with Jonathan is unique in that, unlike the strangers Clark saves, Jonathan felt an obligation to protect his son and he used his own agency to make the choice not to be saved in order to protect Clark's secret. In Clark's own recollection, his reason for what happened to his father wasn't because he learned to preserve his secret always. Rather, he says "I let my father die because I trusted him. Because he was convinced that I had to wait. That the world was not ready." Clark not only emphasizes how his decision to let his father die was rooted in his trust and respect of his father's agency, but also emphasizes the idea of waiting and implies that both he and his father understood that there would come a day when he could go public and not that he never should.

"The idea of waiting". The right moment to reveal himself, as presented by the film, comes when Zod invades. Never before. Although he would have even without it, right after Jor-El presents him with his life mission. Ok.

But Jonathan doesn't know for a fact that either event will come. That's the catch. For all he knows, it could always, for the rest of his life, be as simple as that decision with the school bus, or the tornado. "Do I do good or don't I?" Consequences included. Moral choices as they're usually presented in real life. The idea of having to "wait" has little emotional truth when the alternative presented by the film is to: let your father die; leave your mom a lonely widow; and suffer life paralysis for 10-plus years. That only ends when the other father comes along to present him with ideals/world views that not-alien-dad-havers develop on their own every day.

The result is the full-bodied Superman as a product of Jor-El's alien philosophy rather than Jonathan's, or Earth's. As a whole, it's a plot element that springs from the film's very valid need for differently developed motivations, and yet it could've done that without inviting repeated questioning about its very leaky logic, which renders it ineffective. Indication of how confused MOS is about its own themes.

 

[Rorschach2012]

There's genuinely no defending that horrible tornado scene in MOS. it was unbelievably stupid. I love MOS but Jesus.....

 

[Micromind]

It made me angry that someone would write such a terrible scene for a major motion picture about Superman. It was more like something you would see in some teenager's fan film.

The whole scene would have made lot more sense if Jonathan had died saving some human instead of a dog and Clark was shown busy saving some other people just before that (which distracted him for a while.)

 

[Predator jp]

i like MOS the best out of DCEU movies but they really missed the mark on two most pivotal moments of the movie and Pa's death scene is one of them.
such a missed opportunity.

 

[Micromind]

The result is the full-bodied Superman as a product of Jor-El's alien philosophy rather than Jonathan's, or Earth's. As a whole, it's a plot element that springs from the film's very valid need for differently developed motivations, and yet it could've done that without inviting repeated questioning about its very leaky logic, which renders it ineffective. Indication of how confused MOS is about its own themes.

Eh, not really. Jonathan is shown to actively help people (see tornado scene) whereas Jor El only gives speeches, so Jonathan is setting an example before Clark by actually helping others who need help, even a dog.

Plus, Jonathan is the one who helps raise Clark as a "normal' son, which is why Clark continues to help people even before meeting Jor El.

Jor El just gives him philosophical guidance and a suit.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The whole scene would have made lot more sense if Jonathan had died saving some human instead of a dog and Clark was shown busy saving some other people just before that (which distracted him for a while.)

Just the whole image of him with his palm outstretched as he slowly disappears into a CGI cloud looked incredibly fake and cheesy. I'm sure there is a way in which killing him in a tornado would have been fine, but the execution of that scene was laughably bad.

Twister looked a lot better and that came out 20 years ago.

 

[BH/HHH]

People who say Jonathan shouldn't have gone back for a dog can't be people who have digs. I love my dog as much as any human and I'd go back for him a heartbeat.

 

[Predator jp]

well if he loved the dog as much as any human he wouldn't have forgotten about the dog in the first place.

 

[Boy Scout]

People who say Jonathan shouldn't have gone back for a dog can't be people who have digs. I love my dog as much as any human and I'd go back for him a heartbeat.

The issue is that he went back for the dog instead of his invulnerable son, who, if I remember correctly, wasn't tremendously busy helping other people at the time.

The fact that he also stopped Clark from saving his life, which he easily could have done without arousing suspicion, was also (in my opinion) ridiculous.

 

[BH/HHH]

The issue is that he went back for the dog instead of his invulnerable son, who, if I remember correctly, wasn't tremendously busy helping other people at the time.

The fact that he also stopped Clark from saving his life, which he easily could have done without arousing suspicion, was also (in my opinion) ridiculous.

Clark was going for the dog and he stopped him though, whether his sons invulnerable or not is irrelevant because he thinks he can get the dog back. If things went bad then Clark would have to reveal himself which he doesn't want.

The thing is we don't know what Clark could have done at that moment because sure he's strong, has X-Ray vision and heat vision but there's been nothing to suggest he had super speed at that age in the film.

It's all opinions at the end of the day, I think the scene is great but I would have preferred a little tighter editing.

 

[Nemeres]

Eh, not really. Jonathan is shown to actively help people (see tornado scene) whereas Jor El only gives speeches, so Jonathan is setting an example before Clark by actually helping others who need help, even a dog.

Plus, Jonathan is the one who helps raise Clark as a "normal' son, which is why Clark continues to help people even before meeting Jor El.

Jor El just gives him philosophical guidance and a suit.

We see what the Jonathan-influenced Clark amounted to, the occasional life-saving bartender/hobo. One talk with God/Jor-El and whoop, he's glorious cape-wearing Superman. It's as anti-humanistic a statement as you could make here. Sorry, the interpretation's fairly easy.

 

[The Batman]

Jor El only gives speeches....golly, why couldn't a hologram of a dead man be more active.

In any event, Nemeres is right. Before Jor El, Clark was aimlessly wandering and helping out people in isolated incidents.

After Jor El talks to him, he becomes Superman and ends up saving the world.

 

[misslane38]

We see what the Jonathan-influenced Clark amounted to, the occasional life-saving bartender/hobo. One talk with God/Jor-El and whoop, he's glorious cape-wearing Superman. It's as anti-humanistic a statement as you could make here. Sorry, the interpretation's fairly easy.

Jor-El didn't have anything to do with Clark coming forward as Superman. He came forward because while Jonathan was convinced the world wasn't ready for a Superman, it was Lois who showed Clark that the world was ready now. It was Lois who discovered him, discovered his story, trusted him, and took a leap of faith with him that gave him hope that the time was right. What could be more pro-human than a human being the reason that Clark was able to finally embrace everything about himself and share it with the world?

ETA: The plot you are describing, the one where Clark meets Jor-El for the first time and "whoop" he's Superman, that's the plot of the first Reeve/Donner film, SUPERMAN I. Clark walked into his new Fortress of Solitude as a young man, and then years later, he flew out of there wearing a new suit and displaying new powers. So, what I'm getting at, is that it seems like you confused which film to which you were referring.

 

[Predator jp]

Clark decided to reveal himself when Zod showed up and a priest told him to "take a leap of faith first".

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

ETA: The plot you are describing, the one where Clark meets Jor-El for the first time and "whoop" he's Superman, that's the plot of the first Reeve/Donner film, SUPERMAN I. Clark walked into his new Fortress of Solitude as a young man, and then years later, he flew out of there wearing a new suit and displaying new powers. So, what I'm getting at, is that it seems like you confused which film to which you were referring.

Except you answered it yourself. In STM, unlike MoS, he doesn't have one conversation with Jor-El and is suddenly Superman. He is with Jor-El for TWELVE YEARS, training to become Superman. That's a big difference.

 

[Superchan]

ETA: The plot you are describing, the one where Clark meets Jor-El for the first time and "whoop" he's Superman, that's the plot of the first Reeve/Donner film, SUPERMAN I. Clark walked into his new Fortress of Solitude as a young man, and then years later, he flew out of there wearing a new suit and displaying new powers. So, what I'm getting at, is that it seems like you confused which film to which you were referring.

Wrong, Clark learns about his purpose and puts on the suit after 12 years of training (unlike MOS where he does so in maybe a day) but he becomes superman when humans (lois and the pilot) are in trouble.