Henry Cavill IS Clark Kent/Superman - Part 10

[misslane38]

Too bad J. Kent totally undermines that by chastising him for saving a school bus of kids and having such a lack of faith in humanity that he thinks it's better to die in a tornado than let people see his son for who he is.

He doesn't chastise him. He answers "Maybe" to the question about whether to let them die, as opposed to a hard "No," and he explains his reasoning as concern for his son and for the world as a whole. His son is a teenager when he saves the school bus and experiences the tornado. Teenagers under 17 aren't even allowed to vote or join the army, yet Clark is supposed to take on the onslaught of what the public could do to him and to each other if they found out they weren't alone in the universe, which is basically telling them that their religions are wrong and that they no longer are the center of the universe and they are powerless to control an independent power like Superman?

This type of behavior isn't foreign to Jonathan Kent either. He shares a similar point of view in most versions of the Superman story, including Golden Age comics, Superman (1978) Smallville, and Lois & Clark.

Jonathan Kent is a good father, but he's also a complicated man in a difficult position. He ultimately seems open to the idea of Clark going public, but he seems most comfortable with it when he is older (and wiser) and so is his son. As Man of Steel demonstrates, it's about readiness and not an issue of if, but when.

 

[Lighthouse]

He chooses to die because he knows how important Clark is to the world, and he knows Clark isn't ready to be what he should be yet. He doesn't want to waste Clark's potential before he's ready.

Clark's potential impact on the world is more important than the life of one man.

And given the reaction to Superman's existence seen in BVS, Jonathan wasn't exactly wrong to be concerned.

Yeah, cause telling your son to not save a school bus of kids and traumatizing him into being self-conscious about his power is helping prepare him.

 

[misslane38]

He chooses to die because he knows how important Clark is to the world, and he knows Clark isn't ready to be what he should be yet. He doesn't want to waste Clark's potential before he's ready.

Clark's potential impact on the world is more important than the life of one man.

And given the reaction to Superman's existence seen in BVS, Jonathan wasn't exactly wrong to be concerned.

This. Well said.

 

[The Guard]

Yeah, cause telling your son to not save a school bus of kids and traumatizing him into being self-conscious about his power is helping prepare him.

You obviously aren't interested in what the movie actually depicts.

More fingers in ears nonsense.

Enjoy your misinterpretation of it.

 

[misslane38]

Yeah, cause telling your son to not save a school bus of kids and traumatizing him into being self-conscious about his power is helping prepare him.

He didn't tell his son anything of the sort. MoS is a film about free will and society. Kal-El (Clark) was born to be more than society intended: free to make his own choices. Clark's question about saving the kids on the bus seeks a "Yes" or "No" answer that Jonathan refuses to give. Jonathan says "Maybe" because he doesn't know the answer and doesn't want to give his son the answers. He goes on to give his son information he may need to make good decisions. Jonathan asks Clark to consider what would happen if Mrs. Ross's reaction was replicated exponentially; he shares his son's alien origins with him. Clark is not traumatized. Far from it. When we meet him again, he is arguing with his father about wanting to do something useful with his life. And, from there, we see the beginnings of over a decade of Clark helping people when he can. Jonathan's "Maybe" and his death did not put Clark off helping people and a desire to make a difference. That is simply not the story MoS tells.

 

[BH/HHH]

You obviously aren't interested in what the movie actually depicts.

More fingers in ears nonsense.

Enjoy your misinterpretation of it.

 

[Lighthouse]

You obviously aren't interested in what the movie actually depicts.

More fingers in ears nonsense.

Enjoy your misinterpretation of it.

Gladly.

 

[BH/HHH]

Ive been thinking about the solo Superman again and I had a thought, if they were to do Brainiac for obe sequel and War World for another that would in with the Sci Fi element of Man of Steel. One of things I loved about MOS was how it embraced the Sci Fi aspects so revisiting that for a sequel or two would be fantastic.

 

[B]

Yeah, cause telling your son to not save a school bus of kids and traumatizing him into being self-conscious about his power is helping prepare him.

He didn't tell him that though.

 

[odilonredon]

He chooses to die because he knows how important Clark is to the world, and he knows Clark isn't ready to be what he should be yet. He doesn't want to waste Clark's potential before he's ready.

Clark's potential impact on the world is more important than the life of one man.

And given the reaction to Superman's existence seen in BVS, Jonathan wasn't exactly wrong to be concerned.

so jonathan kent just didn't consider the impact the loss of a father in such a way would have on clark and "his potential for the world" then? seems like a pretty poorly thought out decision that could have a potentially very negative effect on his son and his ability to help mankind.

 

[misslane38]

so jonathan kent just didn't consider the impact the loss of a father in such a way would have on clark and "his potential for the world" then? seems like a pretty poorly thought out decision that could have a potentially very negative effect on his son and his ability to help mankind.

But it didn't have a negative effect on Clark's interest in helping mankind. After his father's death, Clark did start out looking for ways to be useful. He did save people. There was no negative effect to speak of. Jonathan always told Clark that one day his son would see his powers as blessings and would be able to stand proud in front of the human race. He died in 1997 when Clark was 17 years-old because he didn't believe the world or his son were ready YET. He did not die because he believed his son shouldn't share his blessings with the world or that the world would never be ready. To put things in perspective, after Jonathan Kent dies in Superman (1978), Clark also seeks out his origins, but doesn't begin helping people until his AI father downloads him with his destiny in a crystal fortress for over a decade.

 

[odilonredon]

But it didn't have a negative effect on Clark's interest in helping mankind. After his father's death, Clark did start out looking for ways to be useful. He did save people. There was no negative effect to speak of. Jonathan always told Clark that one day his son would see his powers as blessings and would be able to stand proud in front of the human race. He died in 1997 when Clark was 17 years-old because he didn't believe the world or his son were ready YET. He did not die because he believed his son shouldn't share his blessings with the world or that the world would never be ready. To put things in perspective, after Jonathan Kent dies in Superman (1978), Clark also seeks out his origins, but doesn't begin helping people until his AI father downloads him with his destiny in a crystal fortress for over a decade.

jonathan had no way of knowing how his death, especially in such a circumstance, would effect his son. it would not be a leap at all to think that a trauma like that would have some kind of lasting effect on clarks well-being, keeping him from realizing his full potential and compromising his ability to be a benevolent force toward humankind.

just because that's not what ultimately happened in the events of the films does not make jonathans decision any less stupid if his motivation was really to make sure that clark realized his full potential for the benefit of the world.

 

[misslane38]

jonathan had no idea of knowing how his death, especially in such a circumstance, would effect his son. it would not be a leap at all to think that a trauma like that would have some kind of lasting effect on clarks well-being, keeping him from realizing his full potential and compromising his ability to be a benevolent force toward humankind.

He also had no idea what being exposed at 17 years-old would do to his son and the world. Jonathan took a risk and made the best choice he could make. He even admitted before he died that maybe his best wasn't good enough anymore. He was making it up as he went along. But he still did what he thought was best, and I don't think it makes any sense to nitpick or criticize his sacrifice when either option could have had a negative effect on his son.

just because that's not what ultimately happened in the events of the films does not make jonathans decision any less stupid if his motivation was really to make sure that clark realized his full potential for the benefit of the world.

But Jonathan also couldn't be sure that being exposed at 17 years-old wouldn't have negatively affected his son's potential to benefit the world.

 

[odilonredon]

He also had no idea what being exposed at 17 years-old would do to his son and the world. Jonathan took a risk and made the best choice he could make. He even admitted before he died that maybe his best wasn't good enough anymore. He was making it up as he went along. But he still did what he thought was best, and I don't think it makes any sense to nitpick or criticize his sacrifice when either option could have had a negative effect on his son.



But Jonathan also couldn't be sure that being exposed to the world at 17 years-old wouldn't have negatively affected his son's potential to benefit the world.

this isn't nitpicking, it's a pivotal scene.

and designing it in such a problematic way is a fault of the filmmakers.

 

[misslane38]

this isn't nitpicking, it's a pivotal scene.

It's a pivotal scene that has been nitpicked to death.

and designing it in such a problematic way is a fault of the filmmakers.

I disagree. You haven't convinced me the scene has a problematic design. The scene is set up, shown, and deconstructed within the film. Jonathan's views about his son's readiness to cope with the demands of being a public alien superhero and the world's readiness to accept godlike alien beings are made clear.

The choice in front of Jonathan and Clark when the tornado hits is also clear: Jonathan can sacrifice his life to give his son a chance to come forward when he believes he's ready and the world is ready or he can be the reason his son's secret is exposed to the world before either his son or the world are ready to take on such a profound paradigm shift.

A father sacrificed his life to protect his teenaged son. It's that simple.

 

[odilonredon]

It's a pivotal scene that has been nitpicked to death.



I disagree. You haven't convinced me the scene has a problematic design. The scene is set up, shown, and deconstructed within the film. Jonathan's views about his son's readiness to cope with the demands of being a public alien superhero and the world's readiness to accept godlike alien beings are made clear.

The choice in front of Jonathan and Clark when the tornado hits is also clear: Jonathan can sacrifice his life to give his son a chance to come forward when he believes he's ready and the world is ready or he can be the reason his son's secret is exposed to the world before either his son or the world are ready to take on such a profound paradigm shift.

A father sacrificed his life to protect his teenaged son. It's that simple.

there's a reason why that particular scene has been criticized to the degree that it has. and it's not because people have it out for zack snyder and the dceu. it's because it has a lot of problems. including the one i just brought up that you won't acknowledge as a problem. jonathan is ostensibly meant to be seen as a sage figure and the fact that that scene is set up in such a way that forces him to make such a problematic, unwise decision is an issue in characterization and screenwriting. that character in general is a real weak spot in these movies.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

You obviously aren't interested in what the movie actually depicts.

More fingers in ears nonsense.

Enjoy your misinterpretation of it.

Now you're starting to get it

 

[Herolee10]

You know, I'm hoping that if Whedon really did right a few dialogue scenes for Henry's Clark, that we'll finally get a chance to see Clark have a decent conversation/interaction with the league members.

Even though he technically met both Bruce and Diana in BvS, due to how little he spoke to either of them, it doesn't really feel like he did at times.

I think one thing that most people can agree on is that we want to see more interactions and conversations that involves Henry's Clark with other people.

Why it's taken possibly three films to get to this point is beyond me, but please JL, don't make us wait until Henry's next solo film.

 

[misslane38]

there's a reason why that particular scene has been criticized to the degree that it has. and it's not because people have it out for zack snyder and the dceu. it's because it has a lot of problems. including the one i just brought up that you won't acknowledge as a problem. jonathan is ostensibly meant to be seen as a sage figure and the fact that that scene is set up in such a way that forces him to make such a problematic, unwise decision is an issue in characterization and screenwriting. that character in general is a real weak spot in these movies.

You have not addressed any of the points I have made. You have not offered any support for your claim that Jonathan was unwise. You argued Jonathan was unwise to sacrifice himself because he couldn't know if his death would negatively affect his son's potential to be a hero. I countered that it could have been just as unwise to risk exposing his son's secret before he and the world were ready. It is set up as a difficult decision with two potentially negative outcomes. He chose the one that put himself on the line for the sake of his teenaged son. He did his best, and that is literally all that matters.

 

[matt47]

You obviously aren't interested in what the movie actually depicts.

More fingers in ears nonsense.

Enjoy your misinterpretation of it.

Damn.Straight.

 

[odilonredon]

You have not addressed any of the points I have made. You have not offered any support for your claim that Jonathan was unwise. You argued Jonathan was unwise to sacrifice himself because he couldn't know if his death would negatively affect his son's potential to be a hero. I countered that it could have been just as unwise to risk exposing his son's secret before he and the world were ready. It is set up as a difficult decision with two potentially negative outcomes. He chose the one that put himself on the line for the sake of his teenaged son. He did his best, and that is literally all that matters.

it's a lot easier and more logical to predict that the trauma of a father killing himself in front of his son would have a negative impact on that son's capacity to be the defender of all mankind than that anecdotal evidence would convince the world at large of the existence of super powered teenage aliens.

it was an unwise (to say the least) decision on jonathan's part to let himself get swallowed up by that tornado. bad characterization.

 

[odilonredon]

it is very ironic for some of you avid snyderman fans to accuse others of sticking their fingers in their ears.

 

[misslane38]

it's a lot easier and more logical to predict that the trauma of a father killing himself in front of his son would have a negative impact on that son's capacity to be the defender of all mankind than that anecdotal evidence would convince the world at large of the existence of super powered teenage aliens.

it was an unwise (to say the least) decision on jonathan's part to let himself get swallowed up by that tornado. bad characterization.

it is very ironic for some of you avid snyderman fans to accuse others of sticking their fingers in their ears.

No one is sticking their fingers in their ears, because what you're presenting aren't facts. They're opinions, and this is simply a difference of opinion. Me? I think it's a lot easier for a father to have faith in his son and his ability to privately overcome personal grief with the help of a mother who cares for him than to deal with a whole world crowding in on him as a teenager trying to figure out who he is before he even knows the answer to that question. He doesn't know where he comes from, all of the powers he has, and even how to use all of his powers effectively. Plus, if he had been exposed, he wouldn't have a secret identity, so his entire home and his parents would be subject to an invasion of privacy while the world turned upside down trying to grapple with his existence.

Jonathan had faith in his son's ability to handle the emotional weight of losing a parent, and he did what most parents would do when they consider their lives as less important than those of their children. If Otto Frank, Anne Frank's father, had been discovered by the Nazis in their hideout and Anne could have saved him, but not without exposing herself and the others in hiding to the Nazis, wouldn't it make sense for Anne to respect her father's wishes and stay hidden? Isn't it admirable that Otto would do that to protect his child and the others?

Now this isn't what happened with the Franks, but I hope the hypothetical scenario helps you understand the weight of the decision being made, and how Jonathan and Clark did the best they could in a no-win situation. If you still find yourself disagreeing, then perhaps it's best to agree to disagree.

 

[The Guard]

so jonathan kent just didn't consider the impact the loss of a father in such a way would have on clark and "his potential for the world" then? seems like a pretty poorly thought out decision that could have a potentially very negative effect on his son and his ability to help mankind.

Let me repeat myself: Clark's potential impact on the world is more important than the life of one man.

More important than the potential negative effects you mention.

 

[misslane38]

Let me repeat myself: Clark's potential impact on the world is more important than the life of one man.

More important than the potential negative effects you mention.

I'm reminded of Jor-El's quote from Superman IV, I believe. He tells Superman, "Never set one of them above the rest." In the DCEU, Jonathan's story about the Lang farm that we see Clark remembering in Batman v Superman also speaks to how Jonathan learned from a young age to think beyond his own personal well-being or his own family unit to consider the greater good. By sacrificing himself, he impresses upon us and Clark this key heroic trait: to put others first.