BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[DA_Champion]

Jonathan doesn't tell Clark not to be a hero because he wants an easier life (or anything like that), he does it solely to protect Clark. Therefor not saving his father means that Clark allows his father to sacrifice himself for his (Clark's) sake. And again it's for a cause that the movie showed us didn't matter.


I'm referring to the school bus incident. He is seen doing something inhuman and nothing comes out of it because people see weird things under stress and really, who believes some nut job that claims that he saw a man lift a bus or something like that? Would you believe me if I said that I saw my neighbor fly last night?

My point is that it doesn't matter if there were a few witnesses at the bridge. The movie already showed us the realistic outcome of that, which is that the witnesses would cause a fuss and no one would believe them to be anything than nut jobs. At worst they would have to move. A small price to pay for your father's life.


I think that because we see how his raising is consistently telling him not to be a hero now. They raise him to be a good person, but with the limit that he should think about his situation over others, no matter what danger they are in. He has immense abilities that could do a lot of good but Jonathan's message is mainly about how dangerous it is. That's of course true in itself and the concern is logical, but his advice is one-sided. Parents can't just preach one side and leave the other open, you also need to encourage your child when you see what they want to do.

Then he talks to his real father, who says that he should be a hero and that he's supposed to guide the entire Human race. It's through that encouragement that Superman is born and nothing in the movie shows that he wanted to take that step before, which is natural with what we saw of his upbringing.

We don't know what powers Clark has at the time of the tornado scene, nor how they work, so we can't know if Clark could have saved Jonathan without being caught. It could be that he did have superspeed, but if he carries someone else superspeeding the wind tears apart their body (which makes sense). We just don't know.

All we know is that Goyer wants us to believe that Clark could not have saved Jonathan without revealing himself, that Jonathan thought preserving the secret was worth dying for, and that Clark was sufficiently obedient to his father that he chose not to save him.

Ultimately, the scene didn't work. As you say it's not supported by the rest of the plot, because Clark reveals himself when he is compelled to do so, not when he chooses to do so independent of the crisis at hand, and thus Jonathan's sacrifice was in vain. Further, the scene lacks emotional gravity because Jonathan was not a well-developed character up to that point... Mufasa dying in the Lion King was a lot more compelling, because that movie made us care about Mufasa. The consequences also carry on through to the rest of the plot.

I guess that since Jonathan Kent is dead, Goyer doesn't have to worry about writing him in future films, and he can thus devote more screen time to developing Batman and his his villains. It's pretty lame, but that might be what motivated Goyer in a lot of writing for MoS. Similarly with the Clois romance, I suspect, with great dismay, that Goyer is satisfied that he no longer needs to "waste time" developing the Clois romance and courtship, and now he can focus on battles.

 

[DA_Champion]

To me it has to do with the tone of the movie. It never once gave me the impression that I should just take things lightly so that's why I feel that it's jarring to go from murder and devastation to something so lighthearted. My other issue is that the actual killing of Zod was set up poorly. Superman isn't strong enough to stop Zod from turning his head towards the family, but he's strong enough to break his neck. It's just one example of that I think Goyer can come up with good ideas but it doesn't always translate to good scenes in my view.

Indeed, that scene is not integrated within the movie. Zach Snyder decided to add it in later on, because he felt the original ending was unsatisfactory. That scene is what it feels like, a loose appendage.

I interpreet Clark's ability to snap Zod's neck as being due to Zod wanting to due. He is committing suicide, and allows Clark to kill him.

 

[DvilDog]

We don't know what powers Clark has at the time of the tornado scene, nor how they work, so we can't know if Clark could have saved Jonathan without being caught. It could be that he did have superspeed, but if he carries someone else superspeeding the wind tears apart their body (which makes sense). We just don't know.

All we know is that Goyer wants us to believe that Clark could not have saved Jonathan without revealing himself, that Jonathan thought preserving the secret was worth dying for, and that Clark was sufficiently obedient to his father that he chose not to save him.

Ultimately, the scene didn't work. As you say it's not supported by the rest of the plot, because Clark reveals himself when he is compelled to do so, not when he chooses to do so independent of the crisis at hand, and thus Jonathan's sacrifice was in vain. Further, the scene lacks emotional gravity because Jonathan was not a well-developed character up to that point... Mufasa dying in the Lion King was a lot more compelling, because that movie made us care about Mufasa. The consequences also carry on through to the rest of the plot.

I guess that since Jonathan Kent is dead, Goyer doesn't have to worry about writing him in future films, and he can thus devote more screen time to developing Batman and his his villains. It's pretty lame, but that might be what motivated Goyer in a lot of writing for MoS. Similarly with the Clois romance, I suspect, with great dismay, that Goyer is satisfied that he no longer needs to "waste time" developing the Clois romance and courtship, and now he can focus on battles.

While I don't agree with most of your post. I will agree that to this day I still love the Lion King and Mufasa! Mufasa! Mufasa! Mufasa! I might actually have to watch that movie again soon.

"Everything the light touches is our kingdom." If I were Simba I would have been like "so everyone in the kingdom is my B****!" "Thats pretty sweet dad."

 

[weezerspider]

I agree a lot of people need to realize 'your Superman' isn't the only accurate interpretation of the character. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that Goyer can't write consistent dialogue, give us real character developement or develope a consistent plot. All, literally all, of my problems with MoS are problems I have as a film fan. From a comic book fan perspective, I loved their interpretation of the characters, but they weren't able to fully manifest that interpretation into a great film.

 

[Marvin]

Was it established in the tornado scene that any of those people under stand bridge knew who Clark was or his past? If they did know then there is yet another reason not to let his dad die because he isn't keeping a secret it is already out. Even if he can't save his father faster then those people can see he still should have tried. It is not a sacrifice it is a stupid decision especially considering he kept saving people after the fact. Clark is around 18 when his dad dies, in what was is it impossible for him not to disappear after tr tornado. He could have saved his dad and disappeared making eveyone in Smallville think he died, thereby closing the chapter on superhuman Clark Kent. If Clark had just saved his dad things would have progressed the same way, people would have talked about it then apparently forgotten it ever happened. Clark would have traveled the world saving random people showing them his face and abilities and when he puts on the costume and one of those random people he save recognizes him and goes to the media and talks to them about then more and more people come forward about some random guy who went by the name Joe and looked remarkably like this Superman character.

Not sure what you are quite getting at here but it seemed you suggested he fake his death. As interesting as that does indeed sound, I'm not so sure how well his Daily Planet career would go if he did so.

To answer your question I assume smallville is a small midwestern community where everyone is pretty much on a first name basis with each other. And no I don't think anyone knows clarks secret. I think there are alot of questions about him and the kids he grew up with think he's a spazz of sorts.

And seriously? You did not just say that a man ripping off a door walking through fire and holding up an oil rig with his bare hands could be explained away logically? Well then to follow such logic so could Clark Savin those kids and saving his father.

Technically:
-The door he ripped off (from the outside) may have been loosened by the current environment(the place was falling apart)
-The cross beam structure he help up, came down, seemingly under it's own weight, from the spectators point of view, clark may not have actually done much at all.
-The fire is a harder to explain I'll admit but then again depending on what sort of liquid he had on his body at the time, the flames might not oxidize his flesh immediately.
-Clark didn't look like he survived.

point being, it's very possible for someone to rationally explain what they saw there without coming to the conclusion that this is an godman alien.

 

[DA_Champion]

I agree a lot of people need to realize 'your Superman' isn't the only accurate interpretation of the character. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that Goyer can't write consistent dialogue, give us real character developement or develope a consistent plot. All, literally all, of my problems with MoS are problems I have as a film fan. From a comic book fan perspective, I loved their interpretation of the characters, but they weren't able to fully manifest that interpretation into a great film.

People want to see Superman, not Hancock, not Batman, not Spider Man, but Superman, it still has to be the character. The poster for the movie advertises Superman, the title is "Man of Steel", and the main character is called "Clark Kent". If they're selling a Superman movie, then they have a moral responsibility to produce a Superman movie. I made time on opening weekend, I paid $18 for a ticket (they're expensive in Australia) to see a Superman movie, which is what the previews promised me.

Goyer is allowed to make changes, of course. However, if those changes are inferior to what they replaced, and indeed they often were, then people will complain, and indeed they have. This is a Superman with no demonstrated background in journalism prior to working at the DP, one who let his father die with meek justification, one who revealed himself to the world when the situation demanded it rather than on his own terms, and one who has no entertaining and extended courtship with Lois. Can you honestly argue that these changes are improvements to the story?

 

[Marvin]

Jonathan doesn't tell Clark not to be a hero because he wants an easier life (or anything like that), he does it solely to protect Clark. Therefor not saving his father means that Clark allows his father to sacrifice himself for his (Clark's) sake. And again it's for a cause that the movie showed us didn't matter.

He does it to protect clark and to protect the world from a drastic and unforseeable change. In his mind, the world isn't read and neither is his son. Point being, it's not "solely to protect clark".
-If I could disprove religion tmr that might not be an act I would make easily. Jon kents son is just such a thing.

Clark allows his father to be the non self serving hero that puts the greater good before his own, which then affirms the hero Superman will one day be. Greater good before his own.

Keeping clarks secret until he found his origins and destiny was proven to be sound rhetoric...by the movie's logic.

I'm referring to the school bus incident. He is seen doing something inhuman and nothing comes out of it because people see weird things under stress and really, who believes some nut job that claims that he saw a man lift a bus or something like that? Would you believe me if I said that I saw my neighbor fly last night?

My point is that it doesn't matter if there were a few witnesses at the bridge. The movie already showed us the realistic outcome of that, which is that the witnesses would cause a fuss and no one would believe them to be anything than nut jobs. At worst they would have to move. A small price to pay for your father's life.

First of all, what came out of clarks first exposure to the world wasn't some lady soundly rejoicing his presence, the opposite happened. And that's the point. From Clark's perspective this lady brought forth a negative response.

What's more, she is a singular individual with second hand information. There was a great deal of people under that bridge. Let's be generous and say 36 people. If 36 people all showed up to town hall and recounted the same exact story verbatim, it will be alot harder to pass off as an upset lady claiming her delinquent son(11 years old?) saw something impossible. It might even yield..an investigation. Depending on how easy that goes, they might not even find the alien space craft in the barn.

Jon believed people weren't ready. The school bus adventure did nothing but prove that to him.

I think that because we see how his raising is consistently telling him not to be a hero now. They raise him to be a good person, but with the limit that he should think about his situation over others, no matter what danger they are in. He has immense abilities that could do a lot of good but Jonathan's message is mainly about how dangerous it is. That's of course true in itself and the concern is logical, but his advice is one-sided. Parents can't just preach one side and leave the other open, you also need to encourage your child when you see what they want to do.

Never once did he say don't do it. He did however say keep that other part of yourself a secret. I mean I'm not a fan of the show but if you watch "Smallville", I'm pretty sure this EXACT same and precise rhetoric is expressed by Jon to his young son. Keep your self a secret.

I'm also pretty sure superman thinks about keeping his secret before saving individuals on a daily basis. His secret ID that is. I can only imagine how much more efficient a job he would do if he didn't waste time with the costume changing and excuses and what not. I don't ever think he would choose to save his adult secret over an innocent life, but he does technically put more people at risk by indulging in the act.

All that aside: Pretty sure Jon answered clarks question about letting people die with a pensive "Maybe."
I think if he shouted yes, than you would have far more solid ground to stand on. The real juice and payoff of Jon's answer is that he puts it to the test on himself.

Then he talks to his real father, who says that he should be a hero and that he's supposed to guide the entire Human race. It's through that encouragement that Superman is born and nothing in the movie shows that he wanted to take that step before, which is natural with what we saw of his upbringing.

After JorEl confirmed his true destiny(and he found out he wasn't some arbiter of doom), Jon kent's hero clause was met. As partially stated here
[YT]s2PQMoYmhDs[/YT]

I see it this way, clark was raised by the kents to not be a bully but rather to be a kid that can't help but save people. He didn't get that from watching care bares he got that from being raised by a guy like jon. The guy that goes back for the dog in a tornado.
What he got from Jor was his legacy, significance, a purpose and a costume.
But that's me, I'm the same guy that thinks Peter Parker is a product of Ben Parkers household.

Again, compare this to the donner films where clark doesn't save a single sole till LONG after he meets and is tutored by JorEl.

 

[Marvin]

Ultimately, the scene didn't work. As you say it's not supported by the rest of the plot, because Clark reveals himself when he is compelled to do so, not when he chooses to do so independent of the crisis at hand, and thus Jonathan's sacrifice was in vain.

Pretty sure Jon said clark needed to wait till the world was ready and that clark knew who he was and why he was sent here before revealing himself. Also pretty sure clark made the choice to step forward himself inspite of being "compelled"
..most heroes are compelled.
It's not too different from bruce wayne being compelled by a city in need of him and making a "choice"
-then again goyer wrote that one too.

I guess that since Jonathan Kent is dead, Goyer doesn't have to worry about writing him in future films, and he can thus devote more screen time to developing Batman and his his villains. It's pretty lame, but that might be what motivated Goyer in a lot of writing for MoS. Similarly with the Clois romance, I suspect, with great dismay, that Goyer is satisfied that he no longer needs to "waste time" developing the Clois romance and courtship, and now he can focus on battles.

That's a lot of suspicions you have there. All of them seem groundless, but enough to justify your disdain nonetheless.

I'm curious if Costner got more character work than Glenn Ford in the role of Pa Kent.
-I do think the barn scene itself surpasses anything we saw in the original film. But that's me.

 

[DA_Champion]

Pretty sure Jon said clark needed to wait till the world was ready and that clark knew who he was and why he was sent here before revealing himself. Also pretty sure clark made the choice to step forward himself inspite of being "compelled"
..most heroes are compelled.
It's not too different from bruce wayne being compelled by a city in need of him and making a "choice"
-then again goyer wrote that one too.

"The world is ready" could imply that Clark reveal himself on his own terms (say in an interview with a DP reporter), ten years down the line, when he notices a craving for a hero. Here, Clark never revealed himself. It's Zod who revealed him to the world. This is why Jonathan had to die, so that the first time the world heard of Clark/Superman, it would be from a hostile alien about to kill 100,000 people.

Jonathan died so that Zod could be the one to reveal Clark to the world.

That's a lot of suspicions you have there. All of them seem groundless, but enough to justify your disdain nonetheless.

I'm curious if Costner got more character work than Glenn Ford in the role of Pa Kent.
-I do think the barn scene itself surpasses anything we saw in the original film. But that's me.

It's not really groundless to say that Goyer was uninterested in writing the Clois courtship, as he deliberately chose not to do so. Similarly, he deliberately chose to write a death scene for Jonathan Kent that was not integrated into the broader plot.

I don't care about Glenn Ford, why do you keep making comparisons to Superman 1978? Why would one flawed movie excuse another?

I liked the barn scene with Pa Kent. I walked out of the theatre wanting to see more of Costner, Lane, Adams, and Fishburne... even Ayelet Zurer. I did not walk out wanting to see another action set piece. Judging from the multitude of reviews I read, I think this was a common sentiment, which strongly argues that Goyer/Snyder misbalanced their construction of the movie.

 

[Herolee10]

It's not really groundless to say that Goyer was uninterested in writing the Clois courtship, as he deliberately chose not to do so.

I don't know what your definition of "courtship" is but I think there are many that would agree that they got that in "Man of Steel". Just because Lois knows the secret, doesn't mean that there won't be any courtship. Now, if the film ended with them married and living happily ever after, then I'd agree with you, but Lois knowing Clark's secret, let alone them sharing two passionate kisses doesn't mean that there wasn't any courtship. The fact that Goyer thought it was better to have Lois know and be so involved in the plot and not allow her to be tarnished for not being able to see through the disguise...that shows that he has some form of respect for the relationship.

 

[Tempest]

Jonathan doesn't tell Clark not to be a hero because he wants an easier life (or anything like that), he does it solely to protect Clark. Therefor not saving his father means that Clark allows his father to sacrifice himself for his (Clark's) sake. And again it's for a cause that the movie showed us didn't matter.

How did the movie show us that it didn't matter? By not exposing himself too soon, Clark was able to continue to grow and mature in abilities, maturity, and to discover what he wanted to do.

I'm referring to the school bus incident. He is seen doing something inhuman and nothing comes out of it because people see weird things under stress and really, who believes some nut job that claims that he saw a man lift a bus or something like that? Would you believe me if I said that I saw my neighbor fly last night?

Yeah, but how many times could Clark get away with being connected to unusual instances before someone -- possibly the wrong kind of people -- would figure things out? Clark wasn't ready to deal with the world and all the pressures that come with being so powerful. Jonathan knew this, which is why he did not want Clark to come save him.

My point is that it doesn't matter if there were a few witnesses at the bridge. The movie already showed us the realistic outcome of that, which is that the witnesses would cause a fuss and no one would believe them to be anything than nut jobs. At worst they would have to move. A small price to pay for your father's life.

Again, how often could he be involved in freaky instances before people started figuring things out? And really, you think they could just up and move?

I think that because we see how his raising is consistently telling him not to be a hero now. They raise him to be a good person, but with the limit that he should think about his situation over others, no matter what danger they are in. He has immense abilities that could do a lot of good but Jonathan's message is mainly about how dangerous it is. That's of course true in itself and the concern is logical, but his advice is one-sided. Parents can't just preach one side and leave the other open, you also need to encourage your child when you see what they want to do.

No, Jonathan's main message was that Clark had to figure out who he was first. Jonathan taught him to hold back, taught him to balance his powers with the knowledge of what the consequences were for using them. There are so many things that Jonathan taught Clark in this film, and you missed all of them, which is so sad.

Then he talks to his real father, who says that he should be a hero and that he's supposed to guide the entire Human race. It's through that encouragement that Superman is born and nothing in the movie shows that he wanted to take that step before, which is natural with what we saw of his upbringing.

Nope. Clark didn't get the message from his biological father to be this huge savior of the world, and run off and do it.

Clark practiced flying. Then he went home to his mom. He washed dishes, drank a beer, and watched a game of football.

Then, at the end of the film, Clark made it clear that he wasn't interested in usurping the powers of Washington, but he also made it clear that he wasn't going to be their puppet. He does not choose to be a leader, like Jor-El seemed to expect. Instead, Clark becomes a reporter.

Both of his fathers' sacrifices were realized in the last seven or eight minutes of the movie, when Clark chooses what he's going to do.

To me it has to do with the tone of the movie. It never once gave me the impression that I should just take things lightly so that's why I feel that it's jarring to go from murder and devastation to something so lighthearted. My other issue is that the actual killing of Zod was set up poorly. Superman isn't strong enough to stop Zod from turning his head towards the family, but he's strong enough to break his neck. It's just one example of that I think Goyer can come up with good ideas but it doesn't always translate to good scenes in my view.

If the ending scene had been side-splittingly hilarious, I might agree with you. But that's not the case at all. We had a film that had some grim moments, and it ended with what is truly a beginning, filled with possibility and hope. Like the rest of the film, the humor was subdued, although a little more obvious in that final moment. But I don't think it was all that inappropriate.

As for Superman killing Zod, I don't think that it was a matter of Superman not being strong enough to stop Zod. I think he was really begging for the rest of humanity. Zod had just said that he was going to make the world suffer, that he was going to kill everyone on the planet. Clark was running out of options -- the family was going to die, and other people would die too. So he begged one more time for Zod to stop, and when Zod would not reason with him, Superman did the only thing that he could do. Not just to save that one family, but to save EVERYONE.

I think he's really disciplined in that scene. The logical inexperienced reaction would be to follow your emotions.

You've never actually been in life or death situations, have you? You have an over-blown estimation on how selfless humans are. To put it in perspective, Jonathan stayed behind to guide people to safety. He saved a little girl. He saved the dog. NO ONE WENT TO HELP HIM.

Clark was little more than a child, who was surrounded by adults. Surely, by your standards, one of them should have run out there to go help Jonathan. But none of them did.

In RL, people don't always act heroically. There have been cases where people have been shot or stabbed, and are laying in a public place, begging people to help them, and yet no one does. And there are instances where people hesitate, certain that someone else will step in.

It's just not fair to say that Clark unequivocally did the wrong thing in that situation, because humanity itself has a long list of behavior that is far uglier than the fear and indecision of a terrified young man.

And I think you misread my statement about Superman. I just said it gets worse through that (and my description is what I usually hear from Superman fans) but that the core issue isn't about him at all. The core issue is that I don't see any good person allowing his parent to die to basically save themselves, and not from dying but from something that we saw didn't really matter much. I just think it's a very non-human choice that alienates me from the character, especially with so little time being spent on his past.

Read the above comment. Jonathan's death did matter, in so many ways. And you are doing the entitlement thing again; making judgements on how 'good' Superman should be, and defining it in such a strict way that there is no way that MOS Clark could measure up to your expectations of what a good person does.

And of course Superman can't save everyone. That's how you have to write a character with so many powers. He definitely could have saved his father though. Easily. That's why it's a poorly written scene as it has Clark choose not to save his father rather than having him be unable to.

The only thing I know in the tornado scene is that Clark is strong and doesn't take physical damage. I don't know if Clark actually COULD have saved his father. It's possible that in the process of rescue, his dad would have been shredded to pieces by shrapnel, torn apart by the wind, or struck in the head by an object.

Clark didn't realize he could jump so high or fly until he was nearly 33. It's very possible he didn't know he had super-speed.You're judging a 17-year-old Clark based on the expectations of what a grown Superman who is fully aware of his powers would do. And that is fannish entitlement.

I think the scene, and character arc, would have made more sense if he instead failed to save his father (perhaps due to having to save his mother at the same time, or any other option) and the reason he is wandering around in the state he is at the beginning of the movie is because he's haunted by that and sees himself as a failure. As someone that can't be a hero. That way they could have had his parents both warning and encouraging around the hero issue, and his real father could be the catalyst that makes him overcome blaming himself but not be the entire encouragement to be a hero in his life. Not exactly script quality but just my own opinion written off the top of my head.

Er...maybe. I like MOS's version better. Clark haunted by his failure to save his father, unsure of himself, wanders the world in search of a solid identity. When he comes across trouble, he saves people, to make up for what he views as a failure to save his dad. It's all very poetic and lovely.

Note that I said "Superman". I.e. the hero that actually sets out to help others rather than doing it when he accidentally "has to" (as he is a good person) in the remote places he frequents. He doesn't necessarily want to help people, but he feels obligated to at times.

I don't know what you mean, no. In MOS, we have Clark Kent who becomes Superman. Not the other way around. You're trying to squeez MOS into your box of who you think Superman is -- which is fan entitlement. I know you don't like to hear that, but that's what it is.

Jonathan himself is a good character. The problem I have with him isn't really with him but what role he gets in Superman's creation. I would have preferred him to be a more important person to focus more on that the hero is Kryptonian in body but human in mind.

But that's exactly what we got in the film. Clark has searched his whole life to discover what it means to be human. Jonathan taught him to be compassionate. All Jor-El did was give Clark a nudge to figure out what his limits were with his powers. Clark chooses a very human profession, and shies away from the opportunity he has to wield his power to rule and lead people.

When he talks to Jor-El I get the impression that he becomes a hero because he's told that his life has a meaning. Something it seemingly never had before. He basically finds out who he is not just in heritage but who he's supposed to be as a person. I don't see it as a slight nudge, I see it as a completely life-changing point.

No, what he gets is the courage to search for his limits, and to discover what he can truly do. Being a hero is already an integral part of who Clark is. Like I said before, Clark finds out who he is, then the first thing he does is go home to his mom.

If you want to see humanity in Clark, you don't have to look any farther than that.

Well, whatever my opinions are it's not that. I stopped reading the Superman comics over 20 years ago and some changes to the character wouldn't hurt at all in my opinion.

I understand, but I do think you are still suffering from fan entitlement. I am not trying to be mean. Just being honest.

People want to see Superman, not Hancock, not Batman, not Spider Man, but Superman, it still has to be the character. The poster for the movie advertises Superman, the title is "Man of Steel", and the main character is called "Clark Kent". If they're selling a Superman movie, then they have a moral responsibility to produce a Superman movie. I made time on opening weekend, I paid $18 for a ticket (they're expensive in Australia) to see a Superman movie, which is what the previews promised me.

They did make a Superman movie. You paying money for the film and not liking their vision of Superman is fine. But your money entitles you to nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Goyer is allowed to make changes, of course. However, if those changes are inferior to what they replaced, and indeed they often were, then people will complain, and indeed they have. This is a Superman with no demonstrated background in journalism prior to working at the DP, one who let his father die with meek justification, one who revealed himself to the world when the situation demanded it rather than on his own terms, and one who has no entertaining and extended courtship with Lois. Can you honestly argue that these changes are improvements to the story?

YES. I absolutely argue in favor of all these changes. I disagree that Clark "let" his father die for no reason, but I love every change in this film.

A Clark who is talented enough to get hired onto a newspaper with no known background in journalism? Awesome. I love intelligent! well-written! Superman.

A young Clark who made a mistake that still haunts him to this day? YES YES YES. I need that in my life more than another time of Jonathan clutching his chest and dying from heart failure (again).

A hero who is shy about stepping out into the world and taking on all the risks and loneliness being a superhero involves? ABSOLUTELY. It's deliciously angsty, and gives us more meat to Clark than the idea that he just shows up one day and basically forces himself on the public.

And finally, the one that gets me the most. A relationship between Lois and Clark that is built on honesty instead of lies, where they have equal emotional footing? A relationship that starts off in a mature manner, where Lois is treated like a person, rather than just that object Superman wants to have? The relationship where Lois likes Clark for who he is -- all of him -- instead of her parceling out her love and acting like a confused ninny?

Hell. Yes. I will take all of it. Lois and Clark still have to figure out how to work together. They kissed, it's true, but can their relationship survive a competitive line of work? Will Superman's hero-business get in the way of things? Maybe he'll get over-protective and smothering, maybe he'll grow distant. Maybe she'll worry too much and he'll get irritated.

Or maybe they just cozy up together, work well together, and Superman has someone in his life besides his mother to hold him when the battles get too draining, or when he can't save everyone.

I just like that in this respect, he doesn't have to compartmentalize everything. He has someone to share his life with (at least until they jack it all up in the sequel for the sake of causing romantic tension, ~sigh~).

So all these changes? Yeah. They're good. We still have Superman from Krypton, we still have the "S" and the cape, he's still a good guy who grew up on a farm, who tries to do the right thing.

I'll take him.

 

[D.P.]

I feel like a good 80% of people here need exposition in order for a story to make sense to them. Anything subtle or left up to interpretation by the filmmaker seems to have gone completely over the majority of people's heads.

 

[Tempest]

I feel like a good 80% of people here need exposition in order for a story to make sense to them. Anything subtle or left up to interpretation by the filmmaker seems to have gone completely over the majority of people's heads.

Except that they get angry when there's exposition.

 

[Marvin]

"The world is ready" could imply that Clark reveal himself on his own terms (say in an interview with a DP reporter), ten years down the line, when he notices a craving for a hero. Here, Clark never revealed himself. It's Zod who revealed him to the world. This is why Jonathan had to die, so that the first time the world heard of Clark/Superman, it would be from a hostile alien about to kill 100,000 people.

Jonathan died so that Zod could be the one to reveal Clark to the world.

Jon died for a few reasons. None of which were so that "Zod could be the..." That was just circumstance. However if you want an idea of what jon's decision possibly did avert, here's on example.

Spoiler

The old gov't experiment, gov't lab scenario. Seems like a reasonable protocol for first contact.

At least if Jon has his way, superman has a shot of finding his true destiny and making that choice his own man forged of his own experiences.

However zod did arrive and declare that the most significant moment in history was upon us. He later declared that our existence was at an end. I think the first time our entire populace hears of superman being in the very same hour of our greatest need is a bold choice.
Good for them.

Compare when the many individuals of the world of spiderman heard about him the web slinger? Compare that to the moment when Steven read lois lane's interview with Chris Reeve while he was driving his dump truck....seems a little less significant and synonymous with hope.

I say compare it because superman's arrival in MOS in fact comes as a moment of salvation. Curious how the other approach is "better".

It's not really groundless to say that Goyer was uninterested in writing the Clois courtship, as he deliberately chose not to do so. Similarly, he deliberately chose to write a death scene for Jonathan Kent that was not integrated into the broader plot.

Yes, it's safe to say everything that landed on the script page was deliberate and not an accident. Still not sure what grounds you are making all those accusations on:
More interested in batman and his villains and battles..etc.

Pretty sure Jon's death was pivotal to clark and his secret...pretty sure clarks secret and when it came out was integral to the broader plot.

I don't care about Glenn Ford, why do you keep making comparisons to Superman 1978? Why would one flawed movie excuse another?

Firstly because of this
Not sure how many heavily flawed films end up doing that.

Secondly because there seems to be a selective criticism/outrage taking place here. For all these unforgivable falws and complaints, I for the life of me, only started hearing about them now. After 30 years of "these same supposed issues" being present.
That's why.

 

[D.P.]

Except that they get angry when there's exposition.

That's the catch-22, and it's funny that you had to explain everything that you did.

 

[DA_Champion]

I feel like a good 80% of people here need exposition in order for a story to make sense to them. Anything subtle or left up to interpretation by the filmmaker seems to have gone completely over the majority of people's heads.

Why make a movie at all if we are to fill in the blanks, ignore exposition, and leave it to interpretation?

Why do they bother showing Clark defeat Zod? Perhaps they should make it subtle and leave it to interpretation, have one scene where Clark is fighting Zod, and another scene immediately after where he is celebrating his victory over Zod.

Maybe go straight from the argument when Clark is dreaming on Zod's ship, to the end of the movie where Lois says "welcome to the planet!"

 

[Tempest]

Jon died for a few reasons. None of which were so that "Zod could be the..." That was just circumstance. However if you want an idea of what jon's decision possibly did avert, here's on example.

Spoiler

The old gov't experiment, gov't lab scenario. Seems like a reasonable protocol for first contact.

At least if Jon has his way, superman has a shot of finding his true destiny and making that choice his own man forged of his own experiences.

However zod did arrive and declare that the most significant moment in history was upon us. He later declared that our existence was at an end. I think the first time our entire populace hears of superman being in the very same hour of our greatest need is a bold choice.
Good for them.

Compare when the many individuals of the world of spiderman heard about him the web slinger? Compare that to the moment when Steven read lois lane's interview with Chris Reeve while he was driving his dump truck....seems a little less significant and synonymous with hope.

I say compare it because superman's arrival in MOS in fact comes as a moment of salvation. Curious how the other approach is "better".

Yes, it's safe to say everything that landed on the script page was deliberate and not an accident. Still not sure what grounds you are making all those accusations on:
More interested in batman and his villains and battles..etc.

Pretty sure Jon's death was pivotal to clark and his secret...pretty sure clarks secret and when it came out was integral to the broader plot.


Firstly because of this
Not sure how many heavily flawed films end up doing that.

Secondly because there seems to be a selective criticism/outrage taking place here. For all these unforgivable falws and complaints, I for the life of me, only started hearing about them now. After 30 years of "these same supposed issues" being present.
That's why.

That's the catch-22, and it's funny that you had to explain everything that you did.

Right? I think we all deserve a treat.

Have a cupcake or muffin.

 

[DA_Champion]

Jon died for a few reasons. None of which were so that "Zod could be the..." That was just circumstance. However if you want an idea of what jon's decision possibly did avert, here's on example.

Spoiler

The old gov't experiment, gov't lab scenario. Seems like a reasonable protocol for first contact.

At least if Jon has his way, superman has a shot of finding his true destiny and making that choice his own man forged of his own experiences.

There are several arguments going on, and sometimes they go on simultaneously and we get confused. We may be inadverdantly talking past each other.

Like I wrote previously, I don't know what powers Clark had at the time of the tornado, so I don't know if he could have saved Jon, and at what cost, so I'll let that go. I'm accepting that Goyer wants us to believe that Jon sacrificed his life to protect Clark's secret.

What I'm critiquing, is Goyer's decision in his storytelling to try and come up with a way where Jon died. Goyer created the world, there could have simply not been a tornado that day. Goyer wanted to create a situation where Jon died -- what for? What does it contribute to the plot? Not much, because ultimately Clark does not reveal himself "when the world is ready" but "when Zod demands it". So Jonathan's death is not even an organic component to the plot, it's like Goyer was just trying to come up with a way for Jonathan to die.

Does Jonathan dying really contribute more to the continuity than having Jonathan stay alive and be around for other father-son moments?

So far, it really hasn't contributed that much. We learn that Jonathan really valued Clark's privacy, but that could have been shown in myriad ways. The cost is no more father-son moments.

Further, you know who else lost their father when young?
- film continuity bruce banner (Hulk)
- film continuity bruce wayne (batman)
- peter parker lost his uncle, his effective father (spider man)
- captain america, as far as we know, never had parents (captain america)
- Hal Jordan lost his dad to a plane crash, in one of the worst directed scenes I've ever seen (green lantern)
- Tony Stark's father is dead (Iron Man)

You really can't become a male hero without your father dying first, I think that Thor is the only current exception. It's cliche writing, I say.

Compare when the many individuals of the world of spiderman heard about him the web slinger? Compare that to the moment when Steven read lois lane's interview with Chris Reeve while he was driving his dump truck....seems a little less significant and synonymous with hope.

If it's been done weakly before... so what?

I'm not arguing that MoS is the worst superhero movie. It's certainly not. It rises above most of the garbage Hollywood has been selling us. However, I think with small changes it could have been substantially better.

Yes, it's safe to say everything that landed on the script page was deliberate and not an accident. Still not sure what grounds you are making all those accusations on:
More interested in batman and his villains and battles..etc.

Because MoS had the same problem as two other movies I saw this summer: endless action scenes. Star Trek Into Darkness and Elysium both got off to good starts, they set up themes and villains that had the potential to be very interesting... and then boom: a 1 hour fight scene.

I'm a 29 year old male. I like action scenes, I own several action movies including both Terminators (they've only made two Terminator movies), the Nolan Batman films, the first Star Trek, John Carter, the first Transformers, etc... and I was simply exhausted by each of STID, Elysium, and MoS.

Each of these three movies, don't get me wrong, had extremely well-delivered, extremely technically impressive action set pieces. But... it was too much man. They all underwhelmed me on delivering on what were promising characters and themes.

MoS, in the last hour, had:
- Battle on the spaceship, with Clark and Lois escaping
- Battle of Smallville
- Battle of Metropolis, helicopters versus Faora
- Battle in the Indian Ocean against the giant metallic spider
- Superman vs Zod, with Superman first crashing the fortress of solitude, then smashing some skyscrapers, then killing Zod.

This, following a movie, that already had the unarticulated civil war on Krypton, the interesting oil rig scene in the arctic, Clark saving Lois from a sentinel, and the FBI agents chasing after Lois.

Each of these was implemented masterfully by Snyder... but was all that really necessary? Clearly, from the perspective of Goyer and Snyder, it was, because this was their choice. Action set pieces were their top priority as delineated by the screen time allotment. The only scene they cut from the movie was a flashback, according to Deborah Snyder, that was what they considered least necessary, a flashback, presumably involving Clark's parents, this was what they deemedleast necessary. When everything was filmed, what did Snyder choose to add to the movie? He had the option to add in anything he wanted. What did he add? He added an action sequence of Superman killing Zod, because he thought that this was the missing piece.

And really, if instead of the world engine splitting into two, it had been one piece, and we had not seen the giant spider in the indian ocean, and instead had another five minutes of Clark growing up or Clark with his parents, would the movie actually be worse?

It was a choice, whether conscious or unconscious, to reduce the screen time of Adams, Lane, Costner, Fishburne in order to cram as much action into the movie as possible, which necessarily implies less time for character development and interaction. Elysium and Star Trek Into Darkness made the same choice.

I don't know what's responsible for this trend.

Secondly because there seems to be a selective criticism/outrage taking place here. For all these unforgivable falws and complaints, I for the life of me, only started hearing about them now. After 30 years of "these same supposed issues" being present.
That's why.

More people are discussing things now because MoS has raised Superman as a discussion topic. People really wanted to see a superman movie, 150 million dollars made on opening weekend independent of negative reviews.

But honestly, I remember discussing a lot of these points elsewhere in the smallville era.

 

[Mjölnir]

He does it to protect clark and to protect the world from a drastic and unforseeable change. In his mind, the world isn't read and neither is his son. Point being, it's not "solely to protect clark".
-If I could disprove religion tmr that might not be an act I would make easily. Jon kents son is just such a thing.

Clark allows his father to be the non self serving hero that puts the greater good before his own, which then affirms the hero Superman will one day be. Greater good before his own.

Keeping clarks secret until he found his origins and destiny was proven to be sound rhetoric...by the movie's logic.

From what the movie tells us he does it to prevent having to sit down with people and tell them that they were under press and think they saw something that's impossible. We were directly shown that when he was caught the first time it didn't even make Smallville people believe it.

And this is by no means a stretch because it's directly what the movie tells us. I'm very willing to look past the fact that a super strong and invulnerable kid would have been exposed very early in his life when he went to the doctor. That it's 100% impossible that he could have remained a secret is the kind of thing you have to look past, even though they are trying to make this more realistic by mentioning irrelevant science facts, as the movie won't work otherwise. But on the exposing bit the movie tells me something different than I should be led to believe. Here I would just be apologetic if I assumed differently.

First of all, what came out of clarks first exposure to the world wasn't some lady soundly rejoicing his presence, the opposite happened. And that's the point. From Clark's perspective this lady brought forth a negative response.

What's more, she is a singular individual with second hand information. There was a great deal of people under that bridge. Let's be generous and say 36 people. If 36 people all showed up to town hall and recounted the same exact story verbatim, it will be alot harder to pass off as an upset lady claiming her delinquent son(11 years old?) saw something impossible. It might even yield..an investigation. Depending on how easy that goes, they might not even find the alien space craft in the barn.

Jon believed people weren't ready. The school bus adventure did nothing but prove that to him.

The lady says that it's an act of God, that it's providence. Are you trying to tell me that she thinks an act of God that saved her child is a negative thing? Come on. The reason she's not happy in the scene is because the Kents are denying it and she's arguing with them.

More than that, she also says that it's not the first time Clark has done something like this. That means that it's happened over and over and still not a thing comes out of it. That's despite that they are in a fairly religious country, which means people are more willing to take to things without facts.

Never once did he say don't do it. He did however say keep that other part of yourself a secret. I mean I'm not a fan of the show but if you watch "Smallville", I'm pretty sure this EXACT same and precise rhetoric is expressed by Jon to his young son. Keep your self a secret.

I'm also pretty sure superman thinks about keeping his secret before saving individuals on a daily basis. His secret ID that is. I can only imagine how much more efficient a job he would do if he didn't waste time with the costume changing and excuses and what not. I don't ever think he would choose to save his adult secret over an innocent life, but he does technically put more people at risk by indulging in the act.

All that aside: Pretty sure Jon answered clarks question about letting people die with a pensive "Maybe."
I think if he shouted yes, than you would have far more solid ground to stand on. The real juice and payoff of Jon's answer is that he puts it to the test on himself.

Except for the time where he did. He tells Clark that he shouldn't have done it (saved the kids on the bus) and when Clark asks if he should just have let them die his father answers "maybe". That's a messed up thing to tell your child. No wonder he has issues.

It's funny how you're referencing other movies and shows in this discussion, when I started this by saying that I'm not taking other versions into account of why I don't like it.

After JorEl confirmed his true destiny(and he found out he wasn't some arbiter of doom), Jon kent's hero clause was met. As partially stated here
[YT]s2PQMoYmhDs[/YT]

I see it this way, clark was raised by the kents to not be a bully but rather to be a kid that can't help but save people. He didn't get that from watching care bares he got that from being raised by a guy like jon. The guy that goes back for the dog in a tornado.
What he got from Jor was his legacy, significance, a purpose and a costume.
But that's me, I'm the same guy that thinks Peter Parker is a product of Ben Parkers household.

Again, compare this to the donner films where clark doesn't save a single sole till LONG after he meets and is tutored by JorEl.

We disagree here. I think the Kents made him into a good and humble person and I think Jor-El made him into a hero. He never actively sought to help people until Jor-El told him to, and that is what Superman is.

On the Peter Parker issue he's told that he has a responsibility to help people if he can. Very different from what Clark is told here.

Again I'm not interested in comparing it to other Superman movies as that's the thing I specifically said I wasn't doing.

 

[Tempest]

There are several arguments going on, and sometimes they go on simultaneously and we get confused. We may be inadverdantly talking past each other.

Like I wrote previously, I don't know what powers Clark had at the time of the tornado, so I don't know if he could have saved Jon, and at what cost, so I'll let that go. I'm accepting that Goyer wants us to believe that Jon sacrificed his life to protect Clark's secret.

What I'm critiquing, is Goyer's decision in his storytelling to try and come up with a way where Jon died. Goyer created the world, there could have simply not been a tornado that day. Goyer wanted to create a situation where Jon died -- what for? What does it contribute to the plot? Not much, because ultimately Clark does not reveal himself "when the world is ready" but "when Zod demands it". So Jonathan's death is not even an organic component to the plot, it's like Goyer was just trying to come up with a way for Jonathan to die.

Nah. That's not what Jonathan's death was really about. Not all of it. For one thing, as noted previously, Jonathan reluctantly suggested that Clark maybe should have allowed the children on the bus to die in order to maintain the secret. Jonathan wasn't just being heartless; he felt it was that important to keep the secret that he allowed his own life to end to protect it.

Secondly, we also know that Jonathan was driven not just by fear for his son. He was certain that Clark needed time to grow, to not have the burdens of the world settle on him until he was ready. This is not me making this up. Jonathan says so at least twice in the film, and Martha confirms this at the end of the film. "He always believed that you were meant for great things, and that when the time came, you'd be ready to shoulder that weight." (or something close to that). In other words, Jonathan died so that his son would have time to grow in maturity, in relative peace.

Thirdly, it was a lesson in sacrifice. Jonathan stayed behind to help others get to safety, at great personal risk to himself. He could have stayed with Martha and Clark, but he chose to help others above helping himself.

Finally, I think that Jonathan's death served as a catalyst to push Clark into actually saving more people. His father's death clearly still haunts him. When he comes across a situation that perhaps no one else can assist in, he steps in, even if it means that he has to give up whatever sort of life he's started to build for himself? The desire to protect others, even at the cost to himself, was created in large part due to Jonathan's death.

What's so interesting to me is that both Jonathan and Jor-El had rather specific ideals for Clark, and in many ways, he rejected both sets of ideals. He didn't quite maintain secrecy, even with his father's death. He did not 'step into the light' to lead humanity.

Instead, he forged his own path. Save lives instead of protecting his secret. Serving humanity instead of being a true leader. He chose the type of man he was going to be. He chose the kind of hero he wanted to be. He chose the type of life he wanted to have while being a hero, and the biggest thing, he chose to do all this with an outsider invited into his life.

The act of choosing -- freewill -- was a major theme in this film, and Clark fulfilled the promise that the film gave us.

Further, you know who else lost their father when young?
- film continuity bruce banner (Hulk)
- film continuity bruce wayne (batman)
- peter parker lost his uncle, his effective father (spider man)
- captain america, as far as we know, never had parents (captain america)
- Hal Jordan lost his dad to a plane crash, in one of the worst directed scenes I've ever seen (green lantern)
- Tony Stark's father is dead (Iron Man)

Just like few female characters have a living mother. It's an old trope, used most commonly in fairy tales. It's not my favorite trope, but it doesn't bother me too much.

I'm not arguing that MoS is the worst superhero movie. It's certainly not. It rises above most of the garbage Hollywood has been selling us. However, I think with small changes it could have been substantially better.

Most films can be. I just think you missed the theme of the film, which was not "Keeping Clark's secret", but the fight for freewill.

Each of these was implemented masterfully by Snyder... but was all that really necessary? Clearly, from the perspective of Goyer and Snyder, it was, because this was their choice. Action set pieces were their top priority as delineated by the screen time allotment. The only scene they cut from the movie was a flashback, according to Deborah Snyder, that was what they considered least necessary, a flashback, presumably involving Clark's parents, this was what they deemedleast necessary. When everything was filmed, what did Snyder choose to add to the movie? He had the option to add in anything he wanted. What did he add? He added an action sequence of Superman killing Zod, because he thought that this was the missing piece.

The missing scene was not one that I think we needed to see, if it's what was in the novelization. It may have been sort of funny, although it may have reiterated for some people how difficult it was to keep Clark's secret, and why keeping that secret in the first place was so important.

But see, I like Zod's death, and I like the aftermath of it. So for me, the trade-off was better.

And really, if instead of the world engine splitting into two, it had been one piece, and we had not seen the giant spider in the indian ocean, and instead had another five minutes of Clark growing up or Clark with his parents, would the movie actually be worse?

Dunno. What kind of childhood scene would you have wanted? I see a lot of "This is what I would cut", but nothing concrete on what you would have added to the film.

It was a choice, whether conscious or unconscious, to reduce the screen time of Adams, Lane, Costner, Fishburne in order to cram as much action into the movie as possible, which necessarily implies less time for character development and interaction. Elysium and Star Trek Into Darkness made the same choice.

I agree there was just a tad too much action, but I felt that the characters were developed just fine for the roles they had in the film.

 

[Mjölnir]

How did the movie show us that it didn't matter? By not exposing himself too soon, Clark was able to continue to grow and mature in abilities, maturity, and to discover what he wanted to do.

It showed us that because Jonathan's fear came to pass and nothing came out of it. At all. We're even told that it's happened before that point and still, nothing.

Yeah, but how many times could Clark get away with being connected to unusual instances before someone -- possibly the wrong kind of people -- would figure things out? Clark wasn't ready to deal with the world and all the pressures that come with being so powerful. Jonathan knew this, which is why he did not want Clark to come save him.

This is the kind of movie where you have to go by what's shown and dismiss other things. If we bring logic to it Clark would have been exposed at an early age in doctor's appointments and the movie does nothing to explain how that came to pass.

It's important to take a consistent view on things, which is what I'm doing.

Again, how often could he be involved in freaky instances before people started figuring things out? And really, you think they could just up and move?

I don't know. It's happened more than once before according to the movie. Kind of small to risk one more thing to save your father. Especially in a situation where a normal person would react emotionally rather than logically.

Why wouldn't they be able to move? People do it all the time. Say that the people of Smallville are religious nuts (the woman who came to the Kents talked about that it was an act of God, so it would be partially true) and that you wanted to leave.

No, Jonathan's main message was that Clark had to figure out who he was first. Jonathan taught him to hold back, taught him to balance his powers with the knowledge of what the consequences were for using them. There are so many things that Jonathan taught Clark in this film, and you missed all of them, which is so sad.

What are you talking about? I wrote that the Kents don't encourage him to be a hero and you talk about that they actually taught him things, which I never said they didn't (I said the contrary).

I won't go to the level of calling that sad though.

Nope. Clark didn't get the message from his biological father to be this huge savior of the world, and run off and do it.

Clark practiced flying. Then he went home to his mom. He washed dishes, drank a beer, and watched a game of football.

Then, at the end of the film, Clark made it clear that he wasn't interested in usurping the powers of Washington, but he also made it clear that he wasn't going to be their puppet. He does not choose to be a leader, like Jor-El seemed to expect. Instead, Clark becomes a reporter.

Both of his fathers' sacrifices were realized in the last seven or eight minutes of the movie, when Clark chooses what he's going to do.

It's irrelevant that he didn't do it right away. In the many years living with Jonathan's influence he does nothing with his life and does not actively seek to help others. Jor-El shows him that he can be greater than that.

And Jor-El never told him to usurp any leadership and nothing in what he said suggested that. He told Kal-El to bring Earth hope and to be a force for good. Since Jor-El speaks nothing about his son having any special leadership skills but how he will have these immense physical capabilities the logical interpretation is that he's supposed to be Superman (which is obvious in a meta analysis as well).

If the ending scene had been side-splittingly hilarious, I might agree with you. But that's not the case at all. We had a film that had some grim moments, and it ended with what is truly a beginning, filled with possibility and hope. Like the rest of the film, the humor was subdued, although a little more obvious in that final moment. But I don't think it was all that inappropriate.

As for Superman killing Zod, I don't think that it was a matter of Superman not being strong enough to stop Zod. I think he was really begging for the rest of humanity. Zod had just said that he was going to make the world suffer, that he was going to kill everyone on the planet. Clark was running out of options -- the family was going to die, and other people would die too. So he begged one more time for Zod to stop, and when Zod would not reason with him, Superman did the only thing that he could do. Not just to save that one family, but to save EVERYONE.

I didn't think it fit the tone of the movie and especially not at that moment when we've had the utter devastation of a large part of the largest city on the planet. It made sense when DA_Champion told me that this scene was a late addition to change the tone of the original ending. I personally don't think it's necessary to have a dark ending (I don't even want that), but I think they should have taken the time to show at least something of the aftermath.

There was clearly a physical struggle going on. Zod inching closer and closer to the people and Supes not being able to do anything about it but shout "nooo" and then suddenly break Zod's neck. As I said I don't have a problem with the killing, it works well as an idea, but the scene is clumsily written to show this. Just as I think is the case with Jonathan's death scene (unfortunately not just with Clark's choice but that scene also makes no sense physically).

You've never actually been in life or death situations, have you? You have an over-blown estimation on how selfless humans are. To put it in perspective, Jonathan stayed behind to guide people to safety. He saved a little girl. He saved the dog. NO ONE WENT TO HELP HIM.

Clark was little more than a child, who was surrounded by adults. Surely, by your standards, one of them should have run out there to go help Jonathan. But none of them did.

In RL, people don't always act heroically. There have been cases where people have been shot or stabbed, and are laying in a public place, begging people to help them, and yet no one does. And there are instances where people hesitate, certain that someone else will step in.

It's just not fair to say that Clark unequivocally did the wrong thing in that situation, because humanity itself has a long list of behavior that is far uglier than the fear and indecision of a terrified young man.

Yes I actually have, but that's not very relevant to this. We can analyze behavior without having experienced every situation in life ourselves. Our own experiences will always differ from others anyway.

But of course no one else went to help him, they aren't indestructible people that were strong enough to lift buses when they were kids so they would be risking their own lives. The thing is that the situation was completely different for Clark than for every other person there and he had no reason to fear for his life like they did.

Clark also didn't show any fear for anything other than the life of his father.

Read the above comment. Jonathan's death did matter, in so many ways. And you are doing the entitlement thing again; making judgements on how 'good' Superman should be, and defining it in such a strict way that there is no way that MOS Clark could measure up to your expectations of what a good person does.

Now I've clearly stated right out that the Superman issue isn't the point, twice. I just touched on that as a side thing because I was responding to a post that talked about making those connections. I've also said that I embrace change since I'm not much of a fan of the classical Superman.

It's not about entitlement, it's about your reading comprehension or that you deliberately try to misunderstand to help your arguments.

The only thing I know in the tornado scene is that Clark is strong and doesn't take physical damage. I don't know if Clark actually COULD have saved his father. It's possible that in the process of rescue, his dad would have been shredded to pieces by shrapnel, torn apart by the wind, or struck in the head by an object.

Clark didn't realize he could jump so high or fly until he was nearly 33. It's very possible he didn't know he had super-speed.You're judging a 17-year-old Clark based on the expectations of what a grown Superman who is fully aware of his powers would do. And that is fannish entitlement.

The point is of course not that he has to succeed in rescuing his father (he in fact shouldn't), it's that he doesn't even try. Two very different things.

Your second paragraph here is something you've purely made up yourself that has no base whatsoever in anything I've written, which is a very disrespectful way to argue. If I see anything like this further down (I'm just going part by part responding) I'm just going to stop responding and post what I've written this far.

Er...maybe. I like MOS's version better. Clark haunted by his failure to save his father, unsure of himself, wanders the world in search of a solid identity. When he comes across trouble, he saves people, to make up for what he views as a failure to save his dad. It's all very poetic and lovely.

Clark doesn't fail to save his father, he chooses not to try. Not the same thing.

I don't know what you mean, no. In MOS, we have Clark Kent who becomes Superman. Not the other way around. You're trying to squeez MOS into your box of who you think Superman is -- which is fan entitlement. I know you don't like to hear that, but that's what it is.

So you don't know what I mean but then you go on to tell me what my argument is? I've never said that Superman has to be something that I've read before (but I have said that I'd like him to be different from that), apart from one paragraph that specifically said it wasn't the reason I had problems with it. I'm done arguing with someone that just makes things up to further his own agenda.

 

[DA_Champion]

The act of choosing -- freewill -- was a major theme in this film, and Clark fulfilled the promise that the film gave us. ...

Most films can be. I just think you missed the theme of the film, which was not "Keeping Clark's secret", but the fight for freewill.

How as free will a theme of this movie?

Is it because ghost Jor-El told Clark it was his destiny to lead humanity into the light?

Is it because Clark chose to side with humanity against Zod rather than help Zod exterminate humanity, including his mom and his new love interest?

Is it because Clark killed Zod when Zod told him it was either that or the deaths of millions?

The missing scene was not one that I think we needed to see, if it's what was in the novelization. It may have been sort of funny, although it may have reiterated for some people how difficult it was to keep Clark's secret, and why keeping that secret in the first place was so important. ...

Dunno. What kind of childhood scene would you have wanted? I see a lot of "This is what I would cut", but nothing concrete on what you would have added to the film.

I would sooner take a scene of Kevin Costner and Diane Lane playing with a baby in a meaningless manner than adding another 60 seconds of Clark's fight with giant metal squid in the Indian Ocean, let alone more pontifications of the almighty codex.

Failing that, they could have shown us Ma and Pa Kent finding the spaceship in the field, and Martha Kent saying "we're naming him Clark". Or, they could have shown Ma and Pa Kent reacting to the development of another of his powers.

People loved the scene at the school where Martha tells little Clark to make the world small. Snyder loved it too: he put it in the preview. Why not make another scene like it, dealing with superspeed or superstrength of freeze breath? The reason they did not do so is that they wanted to focus as much screen time as possible on the action scenes.

I agree there was just a tad too much action, but I felt that the characters were developed just fine for the roles they had in the film.

I don't want "just fine", I want "spectacular", this is Superman, not some B-character like Captain America or Blade.

 

[BlueLantern]

Some of the debate supporting elements of this film are just ridiculous. There's not even any point in examining them bit by bit because they're so so stupid.

-The cross beam structure he help up, came down, seemingly under it's own weight, from the spectators point of view, clark may not have actually done much at all.

This one was golden though. Because the guy 'fake' holding it up but then not getting crushed or burned alive doesn't raise any questions at all...

Really, I get playing devil's advocate, if that's what the deal is. But if you're genuinely defending these things, it's not a very good case you've got going.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

MOS suffered from both Snyder's excess and Goyer's writing problems. And if you think I'm letting Nolan off the hook, you're wrong. The use of a lack of atmosphere to depower Superman is reminiscent of a Red Sun weakness. You can practically feel Goyer having meetings with Nolan on some of the more CB stuff, and Nolan saying "No, that doesn't make sense."

But all in all, I feel like MOS' greatness is debatable, while its missed opportunity storywise is pretty much undeniable.

 

[slumcat]

Technically:
-The door he ripped off (from the outside) may have been loosened by the current environment(the place was falling apart)
-The cross beam structure he help up, came down, seemingly under it's own weight, from the spectators point of view, clark may not have actually done much at all.
-The fire is a harder to explain I'll admit but then again depending on what sort of liquid he had on his body at the time, the flames might not oxidize his flesh immediately.
-Clark didn't look like he survived.

point being, it's very possible for someone to rationally explain what they saw there without coming to the conclusion that this is an godman alien.

Come on man, any and everything Clark did on the oil rig could not have been done by a human.

The door wasn't just ripped off, it was crushed from the sides as if it was paper.
He was absolutely holding up the beam, you could see his muscles bulging with the strain. And it was falling and he held it in place long enough for the helicopter to take off.
With his legs using as grip, the metal completely bended.
While getting to the beam, he jumped or half flew 12-15 feet.
And plus he was on fire with his hair not burning.

He was very obviously not human in that scene.