It presented a typical question and responded with a complex and layered answer. If I was to ask a similar question in 1939's wizard of Oz kansas I'd probably get a simple straight forward answer. If I were to ask the question in a modern and consequence ridden world such as ours, I'd probably get a non answer such as was given in this film.
If Clark had the power to bring people back from the dead and he then asked Martha, should I bring daddy back to life? what do you think the simple righteous answer would be in a film like the wizard of oz? Now what do you think the realistic complex answer would be in our world? Sorry but this doesn't need to be that 2001 thing to be considered a more complex take on the material. It's already achieved that. Could it have been a more complex film, hard to find a film that couldn't.
Just because there can be complex questions brought up doesn't mean that the movie is complex. Many movies treat complex issues in a simple manner. To take another example, the X-Men movies center around questions about being different, the treatment of minorities etc. Those are extremely hard questions to solve since we haven't done it in reality, but it certainly doesn't mean that the movies are complex in my view. They don't completely lack complexity but when you call a movie complex as a general statement you have to compare it to all movies. Complex movies rarely make much money since the average person can't get into them.
Superhero movies are for me fun movies that usually have some substance to them, but it's not something I watch when I feel to be intellectually challenged.
To be honest with you, I personally don't need to see a film where the hero has to be encouraged to be anything. I'd rather he himself do it, cheerleading squad behind him or not. The more difficult the circumstances the more heroic.
I don't need that either but this is a case of a movie where the protagonist doesn't become the superhero until he gets that. In that light I'd prefer if he had gotten a bigger portion of it from his human parents. I feel that was better to argue to change what was there instead of ripping something out completely and replacing it.
That seems like a set of personal standards. Again, fine.
It's my analysis of how things tend to be, especially in the case of someone similar to Superman, but everything I write is personal opinion.
The fishing job is no different than the newsroom job. Only that it's out of the way, however no more out of the way than smallville. Given he was on a journey of self discovery it actually makes sense(character wise), he my not have been climbing mountains in tibet like bruce wayne but....
He hears about danger he races off to help. I personally don't see how this is all that removed than what he does in costume outside of the fact that he does it undercover. For all intents and purposes Batman isn't actually a public hero in most stories, just a myth. No different and no less heroic imo.
It's extremely unlikely to find people to help on a fishing boat. He was the one being helped there because he didn't know the job good enough to stay safe. An oil rig exploding isn't exactly commonplace. That's why I don't think he had any intentions of going around to help people, he just couldn't ignore it when he stumbled upon it. I agree that the journey makes sense as a person that has no idea who he is or what he should do, but my point is that a different upbringing could have stilled some of that anxiousness and, more importantly, given more importance to the Kents. They aren't irrelevant but I think the mix could be made more interesting.
Interesting comparison however Banner is clearly trying to hide seeing as he is the equivalent to a fission bomb and he knows it, where as clark is trying to find his purpose/place in the world. The fishing boat is a great touch too because it's just another sort of farming and feeding of the community(as jon mentioned).
That's kind of my point though. Banner should be the one that really seeks out as much solitude as possible since he is dangerous, but he just can't stop himself from trying to actively help people. I would have liked to see a little more of that in Clark. He can wander around not knowing where his place truly is but instead of helping when an accident or something occurs he could arrive to a place and think "what good can I do here?". It's not a huge difference but for me it's an important one.
It all gets a bit tangled though as I have one opinion how the current thing could be better and I have another about how the whole set up could be changed to be better.
Take the exact same scene. Replace jon's last moments with with Jon begging for his son's help. Have Clark then turn away
Bingo.
You seem to be ignoring the actual point of the scene. Clark hardly just stood there.
Moreover, the situational threat was very well built up imo.
-First you get a scene with the son questioning the patriarch on an issue of gumption no less. Clark doesn't seem all to interested in listening to his adoptive father.
-Then you get the shot of the dog being locked in the car for safety.
-Then you get the protect your mother order from Jon(foreshadowing)
-Then you get the injured leg
-Then you get the inability for jon to escape due to that injury(cause&effect)
-Then you get clark clue in to the situation, literally look back at the crowd, fully acknowledging the the decision he's about to make(otherwise it may have just been seen as an oversight).
-Then you get jon, knowing what he's good son is about to do(again bingo), stop him in an intimate short hand between the two. So now Clark will listen to his adoptive father? Must be important.
-Then you get the the scream
-Then you get the cry
The strength of the writing here is that clark and jon are clearly two people that butt heads, typical one when a family enters a dual man of the house dichotomy. Towards the end of the initial argument, clark means to apologize but is interrupted. In the end, Clark learns of his fathers love and gumption by way of action and sacrifice and Jon goes out knowing he has his sons trust by way of painful inaction.
I personally think this was well done, both subjectively and objectively. You wanna see a poorly crafted sequence go watch the Room. Specifically the scene where dude walks into the flower shop. It's classic.
I don't think I understand what you're getting at. With that scene he becomes a downright villain.
In practice that's all he does. He thinks about doing something but then allows his father to sacrifice his life to keep up the charade. My issue is that I can't identify at all with doing that if I could have helped. I of course couldn't have helped in that situation but Clark could.
On the scene:
-The arguing part I like. So far it's going good.
-Forgetting the dog in the car is a horrible move. Every pet owner I know sees the pet as a family member. And it's not locked in for safety, they just forget it.
-I think the protect your mother is iffy, since the bridge is really close and Clark can get the dog faster and safer. That's being protective to the point of stupidity, although people can be stupid with things so it's fine.
-The leg part ties into the weird physics. The wind is strong enough to lift cars and rip down trees juts be hind Jonathan. Even worse, it actually lifts the car that's on top of his car while he's in it, but somehow he can just stand there calmly and look at his family when he gets out (plenty of such inconsistencies in the movie though). Extremely exaggerated drama for the sake of drama.
-In that part when the car comes flying and lands on their car, Martha is the one wanting to go and help while Clark says "it's OK". His mother isn't an animal, you can tell her to stay put and that you'll fix it (in fact you can do that with a well trained dog). He probably had time at that point to do it at somewhat normal speed (I don't know if he has superspeed, but as strong as he he he should be able to run fast). But no, Jonathan goes back for the dog but Clark doesn't go back for his father when there's an accident.
-Cavil's acting in the end is very good, but it doesn't sink in because most things leading up to it is either illogical, dumb or unsympathetic.
The argument before the disaster doesn't really play into it that much since it comes across as Clark saying more hurtful things than he really means. It's not a huge argument and it's obvious that it would be discarded completely in the face of life-threatening danger. If you want to polarize that to actions I'd say that letting his father sacrifice himself is less of a polar opposite than Clark risking everything to save the man that he really considers his dad. Jonathan already said that he's doing everything he can for Clark.
I haven't seen The Room but if I recall correctly it's the movie with the "oh, hi Mark" scene? If so, being better than that isn't something I'd call an achievement in any way. I prefer to talk about MoS with some standards since that's both what I expected and what the makers aimed to have.
