BvS Goyer Admits They Didn't Plan How 'Reporter Clark Kent' Could Make Sense

[Marvin]

I thought it quaint that he turned himself over to human authorities and let them make the choice on behalf of themselves.

Of course, they did what humans do after that.

 

[Lencho01]

I think we can all agree that with what was shown, it would've sucked to have grown up as this version of Clark Kent.

 

[MrsKent26]

What I took from the scene was that he was unsure if he should turn himself over even if it meant that doing so would (as far he knew) save seven billion people. I assume that uncertainty came (primarily) from his experiences with people growing up. The leap of faith he took was in reference to assuming the human race actually deserved to be saved.

I think there were other things he was mulling as well. I made a post just above this about that.

I never said it didn't. My point was that he came across to me as generally not happy (though I don't think I'd call him unhappy).

Fair enough.

I know. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just saying that the perception of him as a loner was justified, as were his reasons for being a loner in the first place.

Fair enough.

He clearly needed convincing.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think one sentence from a priest qualifies as much convincing. I mean, did he think the priest would tell him to just forget the humans and run? He already knew what he would do and just wanted to talk to someone about the decision of his life, IMO.

He trusted Lois because she pretty much backed him into a corner. What choice did he have? He isn't a murderer and he probably figured threatening her wouldn't have worked, since she never once appeared to be afraid of him.

At first, perhaps. But he grew to be quite appreciative of her efforts and her faith in him.

At that point, he was committed to saving the planet, so what choice did he have?

He could have been reluctant to include treacherous humans, but he wasn't. He knew they had to work together.

Like I said: the good was overshadowed by the bad.

I suppose so. The good was subtle as well. With the exception of Lois.

They could have balanced it better, yeah.

Sure.

I'd prefer a Superman who isn't traumatized, but all things considered, yeah, he seems fine now.

I think he will overcome what has happened to him and it will be compelling to see him fully formed.

 

[Marvin]

I think we can all agree that with what was shown, it would've sucked to have grown up as this version of Clark Kent.

I give Goyer/Nolan/Snyder credit for going a different route with this element(i mean 10 seasons of smallville on top of the rest of it), the problem is they also decided to go with an unconventional short hand way of telling it(makes sense given 10 seasons of smallville on top of the rest of it).

To do both at the same time asks alot of an audience with preconceptions. I would have shortened and repositioned the krypton stuff and had a bit more youthful stuff. Including the dinner table scene.

 

[Lencho01]

I give Goyer/Nolan/Snyder credit for going a different route with this element(i mean 10 seasons of smallville on top of the rest of it), the problem is they also decided to go with an unconventional short hand way of telling it(makes sense given 10 seasons of smallville on top of the rest of it).

To do both at the same time asks alot of an audience with preconceptions. I would have shortened and repositioned the krypton stuff and had a bit more youthful stuff. Including the dinner table scene.

I was hoping they'd just show Clark with a normal childhood after watching Smallville do their lame Peter Parker-lite version. But, outside the moments with his mom and dad, it just was all crap.

 

[MrsKent26]

I was hoping they'd just show Clark with a normal childhood after watching Smallville do their lame Peter Parker-lite version. But, outside the moments with his mom and dad, it just was all crap.

Why would the childhood of a super-powered alien who has no idea where he came from be "normal"?

 

[Afrobean]

Yet again. If you proposing such a theory, you should offer a reason too.

WHY would the government cover this up????

Maybe because Amanda Waller thinks she'll be able to reign him in to work for the government? If people are ******** about it enough, they can have Amanda Waller pop up and say something like "We helped keep your secret identity, Clark, you need to help us with this problem now." Maybe she's trying to recruit Clark to catch the Batman.

This would be like hiding 9/11 or Tiananmen Square. The U.S. isn't China to try to cover up an entire alien invasion for no rational reason of any kind.

Uh, 9/11 was witnessed by all of New York City and was captured and broadcast instantly around the country. Smallville being decimated by aliens WAS NOT. Metropolis being destroyed would have, but that has nothing to do with the argument that some are making that since the aliens went to Smallville EVERYONE would somehow know that Clark Kent was involved. And do you forget how it was when 9/11 was still fresh? There weren't clear answers or explanations until later. And cover ups aren't possible? The US government "covered up" who was behind the attack to a degree and used that as justification to invade two foreign nations who were not actually responsible. There are STILL people who think that Iraq was involved and I'm sure that most people still don't know that the nation of Afghanistan wasn't behind the attack either (hint: the attack was carried out by an inter-national organization of militant Islamic extremists headed by a Saudi Arabian).

And yeah, some did clearly know Clark was involved (Pete Ross?), but the movie suggests that anyone who knew can be trusted and we have no reason to believe otherwise. It's the same thing that happened in The Dark Knight. We see someone discover Batman's identity, but the issue is dismissed quickly and we are to believe that the secret is still safe. Since we don't see it come up again, we have no reason to believe otherwise.

In reality, sure, Pete Ross probably WOULDN'T be trusted. He'd probably expose Clark to cash in on his knowledge. And Coleman Reese probably would have exposed Batman for the media. But that's not what the movie told us about him.

The disguise works for that. It doesn't know work for people who constantly print out pictures of Superman and then walk up to Superman and say "Hey Clark, how's that Superman story coming?"

There are no photos of Superman.

As of now, no one knows what Superman looks like except a few military folk and Lois. By the end of the next film, only Batman and Luthor might be added to that list of people who know what his face looks like. You are assuming that this Superman will be a public figure who appears for photo ops where the mayor gives him a key to the city. But we haven't seen that yet and we likely WON'T. All we need to maintain this would be to have a scene where Superman actively destroys a camera so that he won't be photographed. We already had him destroying an expensive government drone so that he wouldn't be discovered, so why wouldn't he similarly destroy a camera? And look at Spider-man. We accept the conceit that no one can capture a good photo of Spider-man, leading Peter to get the job, and Spidey wasn't even actively trying to stop them from photographing him.

 

[Lencho01]

Why would the childhood of a super-powered alien who has no idea where he came from be "normal"?

 

[Tempest]

The thing is, he blatantly said to the priest that he wasn't sure mankind deserves saving. When he says that, it's definitely isn't because of he wants to say "**** em," but rather a reflection of an internal struggle. The struggle is one where his innate desire to save conflicts with the internalized belief that if he reveals himself to humankind, he will be rejected. He takes a leap of faith despite the growing fear that an alien exists. In fact, he even gets paid off on that trust, General Hardy and Swanwick recognizes him as an ally. Eventually, that will grow so much so that the world will recognize him as an ally. (Very interesting though, because that conflict will also grow: Serving America vs. the World's interests).

No, he never once said that mankind didn't deserve to be saved.

Father Leone: What's on your mind?
Clark: I don't know where to start.
Father Leone: Wherever you want.
Clark: That ship that appeared last night, I'm the one they're looking for.
Father Leone: Do you know why they want you?
Clark: No. But this General Zod, even if I surrender, there's no guarantee he'll keep his word. But, if there's a chance I can save earth by turning myself in, shouldn't I take it?
Father Leone: What does your gut tell you?
Clark: Zod can't be trusted. The problem is, I'm not sure the people of earth can be either.
Father Leone: Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith first, the trust part comes later.

The conversation isn't about whether or not humans are worthy of being saved. What Clark is saying is that he wants to turn himself in, but that he thinks Zod might break his promise to leave Earth alone. He's asking if he should risk turning himself in, and hope for the best.

Yes, Clark says that he doesn't know if humans can be trusted. But that doesn't remotely suggest that he's planning to abandon them. Just that he's not so sure that humans won't turn on him.

 

[jaymes_e06]

The can make it like a the glasses are tech from Krypton that make a "veil" making it impossible to recognize him.

 

[MrsKent26]

Yeah? That's supposed to mean what? What is a "normal" childhood and why would Clark, who isn't normal, have one? It's a valid question. I think it's reasonable that such a child would have some hardships and his parents would as well.

 

[Lencho01]

If you couldn't see what I meant or where I was going with my past comments, then whatever.

 

[MrsKent26]

If you couldn't see what I meant or where I was going with my past comments, then whatever.

Your point seemed to be that his childhood should be normal and I was hoping you'd elaborate. But you didn't. So, whatever indeed.

 

[Lencho01]

Alright.

 

[InJustice]

No, he never once said that mankind didn't deserve to be saved.

Father Leone: What's on your mind?
Clark: I don't know where to start.
Father Leone: Wherever you want.
Clark: That ship that appeared last night, I'm the one they're looking for.
Father Leone: Do you know why they want you?
Clark: No. But this General Zod, even if I surrender, there's no guarantee he'll keep his word. But, if there's a chance I can save earth by turning myself in, shouldn't I take it?
Father Leone: What does your gut tell you?
Clark: Zod can't be trusted. The problem is, I'm not sure the people of earth can be either.
Father Leone: Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith first, the trust part comes later.

The conversation isn't about whether or not humans are worthy of being saved. What Clark is saying is that he wants to turn himself in, but that he thinks Zod might break his promise to leave Earth alone. He's asking if he should risk turning himself in, and hope for the best.

Yes, Clark says that he doesn't know if humans can be trusted. But that doesn't remotely suggest that he's planning to abandon them. Just that he's not so sure that humans won't turn on him.

My mistake, I confused trust for saving. That changes the dynamics entirely.

 

[godisawesome]

Like I said, it kind of makes the Gethsemane theme from the stain glass window and its blatant hit you over the head symbolism actually kind of clever. The hero wants to save people regardless of their worthiness of that option, but has doubts about the wisdom of allowing humanity to do the dirty work.

In MOS at least, humanity does prove at least worth the trust of helping to take down Zod once Clark proves himself worthy of their trust.

 

[Boy Scout]

You also have to consider there's a huge amount of ambiguity in Zod's initial demands. Clark knows that Zod tried to take over Krypton, but that's it. He's being asked to surrender his liberty and freedom, possibly his life, into the hands of complete strangers. Zod's use of the word "custody" also implies some kind of legalistic control, possibly imprisonment.

Clark having second thoughts about turning himself in was a perfectly natural reaction. It was his justification for being so hesitant that bothered me.

And let's be honest, Cavill's line delivery can be interpreted several ways. I took it as him trying to get a little bit of encouragement to continue being selfless and needing some help with that, but letting some of his doubt and bitterness actually escape. It actually works really well with a Gethsemane reference. His heart says to go ahead and surrender, but his brain wants to argue against it.

That's a fine way to interpret it. I'm just explaining what I took from the scene.

I'm sure you'd turn yourself in your own terms and completely disregard that there are people afraid of you.

I hope I would.

The difference is that Smallville accepts him because of these acts of providence that he's done.

Um...am I missing something? When did that happen?

You can't really say the same for the whole world, especially in the context of socio-politics.

None of this is really relevant to what I was saying.

Why not? I'd say he became happy at the point where he finally learned about his origins.

Just because he is capable of being happy doesn't mean he was a happy person in general. There wasn't a lot he had to be happy about.

The whole point of the Superman mythos is that he's a loner no matter how well he assimilates with humanity. STM, SR, and MOS all demonstrate this, even in the comics.

If that's how you interpret the mythology, fine.

It's not his experiences with the few.

Except it is.

The Smallville flashbacks are the only experiences where one can argue that it's pleasant.

Not...really.

Namely because people didn't reject him in spite of his gifts.

Even if that was true, he was bullied and harassed on a regular basis. That's hardly "pleasant".

How can one place effort to show how kind and accepting humans could be when it isn't really in our character?

I don't want to turn this into a philosophical discussion, so I'm just going to say I disagree with you and leave it at that. Also: demonstrations of humanity's capacity to be loving and accepting don't have to specifically involve Clark or his secret.

Therefore, Superman has to prove himself to humanity (which he does in MOS).

Again, there's no evidence of that.

Messed up in what way?

I think he is (or at least was) traumatized.

 

[Tempest]

My mistake, I confused trust for saving. That changes the dynamics entirely.

Was that sarcasm? I just don't think Clark ever indicated he wouldn't save mankind. Just that he was afraid of how they'd respond to him if he sought them out.

He's never really trusted people, but that had never stopped him from helping people when he could. If he had never been involved in any sort of heroics, I could understand the viewpoint that he was considering letting all of earth perish. But based on the previous characterization in the film, we see quite clearly that Clark cares about people.

Like I said, it kind of makes the Gethsemane theme from the stain glass window and its blatant hit you over the head symbolism actually kind of clever. The hero wants to save people regardless of their worthiness of that option, but has doubts about the wisdom of allowing humanity to do the dirty work.

In MOS at least, humanity does prove at least worth the trust of helping to take down Zod once Clark proves himself worthy of their trust.

Right, and like Jesus, Clark already knew the answer to the question he was asking. He just needed some affirmation, and a little bolstering to see it through. It's perfectly reasonable for him to have doubts. There are people and places even in the US where he wouldn't have been welcomed. There are plenty of places in the world that I can think of that might not take kindly to a super-powered being. A happy childhood would not have negated the fact that there are people who might not like him simply because he's so different.

Think about famous people who are not heterosexual. Many of them work hard to keep that part of their lives private, simply because there are so many people out there who would give them **** for not being 'normal', or for being 'sinful'.

Clark is right to be concerned about the world's reaction to his presence. I think that his doubt, his fears, are the best part of the film, because they're so realistic.

I think that the problem people have with this aspect is that they don't like the mirror that MOS holds up to society. The rejection and bullying Clark faces in the film occur far too often in RL. It makes people squirm.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

You either have people around clark that value him and help him so they allow him to maintain that identity, or you have Jor-El give Kal-El a technological way of making people think he looks different while he is Clark. A cheat of sorts.

 

[MrsKent26]

I think that the problem people have with this aspect is that they don't like the mirror that MOS holds up to society. The rejection and bullying Clark faces in the film occur far too often in RL. It makes people squirm.

I agree. This is a great post. And I think it's especially relevant for a Superman story. People are used to seeing him live in a candy-coated world and MOS didn't go that route. I reckon it was a shock to some people.

 

[InJustice]

I hope I would.

The point is that it's not as simple a decision as you think. You may feel that way, but maybe another hypester is distrusting of humanity and needs some form of security before making his decision final. That being said, even if said hypester decides to trust, that doesn't make him/her any less of a hero.

Um...am I missing something? When did that happen?

The implication is that some of Smallville citizens could've easily exposed and rejected Clark and the Kents at some point. Yet, they were able to keep the secret. That tells me that they're either grateful, protective of Clark's secret or they've come to accept him.

Goyer's words: "In our minds there are people in Smallville who know Superman’s secret as well [as Lois], Pete Ross seems to know, there’s probably a couple dozen people who know and we thought it would be interesting if they’re protective of him."

None of this is really relevant to what I was saying.

It is relevant. The whole point is that Smallville may come to accept and possibly protect Clark, but you can't reasonably expect the whole world to react that way.

Just because he is capable of being happy doesn't mean he was a happy person in general. There wasn't a lot he had to be happy about.

His whole demeanour has changed after he went to the North Pole. He was tormented when he had no idea of his origins, but once he met Jor-El's consciousness and got a flashback of Krypton's downfall, he was relieved and genuinely happy. I'm not sure where people are coming from saying that he's tortured/sad/mopey/etc.

If that's how you interpret the mythology, fine.

I wouldn't necessarily say interpret. There are some quotes/panels/etc in which this idea is made blatant.

Except it is.

I should rephrase, it's not solely these experiences.

Not...really.

If you look at it from the perspective of Ross and his mom, they were grateful for what Clark did. In fact, so much so that Ross refrained from bullying him. The "unpleasantries" (if you can even call it that), seem to stem from Clark's inability to figure out where he's come from.

Even if that was true, he was bullied and harassed on a regular basis. That's hardly "pleasant".

That's hardly a reason to justify the other extreme though. I'm sure we've all been bullied at one point in our lives, it doesn't mean that the said person's life is unpleasant.

I don't want to turn this into a philosophical discussion, so I'm just going to say I disagree with you and leave it at that. Also: demonstrations of humanity's capacity to be loving and accepting don't have to specifically involve Clark or his secret.

My intention wasn't to turn it into philosophical debate. My intention is to argue that real life would be no different from MOS if we ever found out about a super-powered god living amongst us. So to say that they went too far in the deep end isn't really fair considering what humans are capable of (yes, the capacity to be loving is also there, but not surprisingly, that's also overshadowed by our stupidity/hatred/etc).

In what ways would the capacity to be loving be shown otherwise?

Again, there's no evidence of that.

"I'm surrendering to mankind"/Prison scene (amidst the whole "let's surrender this alien, Kal-El to Zod" CNN interview)
Priest scene
Fighting against Zod when he could've easily gave in to his Kryptonian side.
Superman and the Army scene (and conversely, Hardy telling his men that Superman is not an enemy)

If that's not proof that Superman is trying to prove himself to humanity, I don't know what is.

I think he is (or at least was) traumatized.

Traumatized over what, and why? The only situations you could argue trauma is the scene when Clark suffers from sensory overload (more like fear), and Pa Kent's death. But even then, it's not like he's a tortured hero.

Was that sarcasm? I just don't think Clark ever indicated he wouldn't save mankind. Just that he was afraid of how they'd respond to him if he sought them out.

He's never really trusted people, but that had never stopped him from helping people when he could. If he had never been involved in any sort of heroics, I could understand the viewpoint that he was considering letting all of earth perish. But based on the previous characterization in the film, we see quite clearly that Clark cares about people.

Nah, not sarcasm t: , I honestly mistook trust for saving. Once you posted the dialogue, that clarified everything and changes the dynamics. So it's not about the internal struggle, but rather the need for affirmation. Godisawesome said that the best when he/she brought up the stained glass metaphor.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Yeah, Pa Kents messages of responding peacefully against Earth-bound bullies and having a purpose in life worth pursuing are drowned out by the suggestions that he should let kids die, getting the dog instead of Clark, etc.

If only someone could have said, "Goyer, I like this part, but you are trying way too hard to make Jon flawed and obsessed over his own ideas. Just let him be a nice guy and let him live for once. And make Lois more involved in the plot or not in it at all. Also, add more humor/levity."

And to Zack "You realized you motivated Goyer to write too much action scenes. Find a good editor who can make a slow-paced movie that flows well. And grade those colors properly!"

And to Chris Nolan "Immerse yourself in comics. Embrace the fantasy of it all. Not everything has to be explained or even fully logical."

And to WB, he should say "Just get the animation writers involved in the story/dialog of non-Goyer involved productions, and assign directors by genre influences. Peter Jackson for WW, Brad Bird for the Flash, some great sci-fi director for Green Lantern, etc."

"Know that you cannot beat Marvel in terms of quantity. Just focus on laying the groundwork for great movies, and make sure you have a "bulletproof" director for Justice League (in which solo films can be spun from). Affleck's a good start."

And he should vanish into the night

 

[DA_Champion]

I never interpreted Pa Kent as saying "let those kids die". His exact words were "maybe", which to me suggested Pa Kent was acknowledging a difficult situation, and that there were no easy answers, and "maybe" explicitly means that he doesn't know what the best course of action is.

It's actually quite mature, too mature for American audiences in my opinion who are always on the lookout for easy answers.

 

[charl_huntress]

I never interpreted Pa Kent as saying "let those kids die". His exact words were "maybe", which to me suggested Pa Kent was acknowledging a difficult situation, and that there were no easy answers, and "maybe" explicitly means that he doesn't know what the best course of action is.

It's actually quite mature, too mature for American audiences in my opinion who are always on the lookout for easy answers.

Pa Kent acknowledge that Kal/Clark could NEVER be God...not here on Earth.

I actually found fundamental differences between Pa Kent and Jor. They were opposed in my way of thinking, which makes Kal/Clark's journey much more appropriate to our times.

I don't get these arguments. Can we get back to the disguise?

 

[MrsKent26]

I never interpreted Pa Kent as saying "let those kids die". His exact words were "maybe", which to me suggested Pa Kent was acknowledging a difficult situation, and that there were no easy answers, and "maybe" explicitly means that he doesn't know what the best course of action is.

It's actually quite mature, too mature for American audiences in my opinion who are always on the lookout for easy answers.

Well, Sir. You posted almost exactly what I was thinking.