Justice League Henry Cavill IS Clark Kent/Superman - - - - - Part 14

[Herolee10]

I thought the shots of him straining himself as he separated the mother boxes and him jokingly saying that he wanted to die while lying on the ground were pretty flawless when it came to the authenticity of his CGI cover up.

 

[Nemeres]

Jonathan Kent never pushed his son to hide in the darkness. He encouraged his son to be patient and choose the right time to reveal himself to the world.

The "right time" could very well never have come, given that it insists on being represented as an alien invasion. There's, imo, a disconnect there with the reality that they're reaching for, where the right time can be anytime; where helping never stops being a matter of now-or-never; and the dilemma at hand could have always, and forever more, remained as "Do I help right now or don't I? Do I keep waiting or don't I? Is the need big enough or isn't it?" -- without an eventual alien attack serving as an obvious tailor-made opportunity. MOS Jonathan's worldview would've had Clark forever stuck as an occasional life-saver who only acts when the crisis occurs while he happens to be present. And never incentivized, if not for Jor-El, to be as available or present as the full-fledged Superman needs to be.

 

[misslane38]

The "right time" could very well never have come, given that it insists on being represented as an alien invasion. There's, imo, a disconnect there with the reality that they're reaching for, where the right time can be anytime; where helping never stops being a matter of now-or-never; and the dilemma at hand could have always, and forever more, remained as "Do I help right now or don't I? Do I keep waiting or don't I? Is the need big enough or isn't it?" -- without an eventual alien attack serving as an obvious tailor-made opportunity. MOS Jonathan's worldview would've had Clark forever stuck as an occasional life-saver who only acts when the crisis occurs while he happens to be present. And never incentivized, if not for Jor-El, to be as available or present as the full-fledged Superman needs to be.

Well, obviously Clark helped people and stood proud in front of humans before the alien invasion. Clark saving the life of famous reporter, Lois Lane, comes to mind. It was the same reporter who learned of his story and chose to risk her life and career to protect him that signalled it was the right time to come forward. According to Clark, Lois believing in him made a difference to him. And, of course, you must recall Jonathan Kent neither made any conditional remarks nor did he ever suggest to Clark that saving people in the shadows was an option to avoid using his gifts and standing proud in front of the human race. He always clarified his call for patience with a "When" rather than an "If." He also told his son he didn't have all the answers right before he died. Jonathan's guidance wasn't a hard line; it wasn't codified.

Jonathan didn't give his son all the answers, and Clark didn't follow his father's ideas to the letter. Just because it was an alien invasion that marked the right time for Superman to debut doesn't mean it was the only way Jonathan's vision for his son could have played out. Clark clearly decided to come forward after seeking the advice of ordinary human beings like Lois and Father Leone. Jonathan only ever encouraged his son to trust his gut and come forward when the time was right. That's it. To suggest that because the right time was an alien invasion that it could only ever have been an alien invasion is illogical. Jonathan Kent did not raise his son to believe that he should never proudly share his blessings with the world. He taught him to be patient and strategic.

 

[Limonade]

Well, obviously Clark helped people and stood proud in front of humans before the alien invasion. Clark saving the life of famous reporter, Lois Lane, comes to mind. It was the same reporter who learned of his story and chose to risk her life and career to protect him that signalled it was the right time to come forward. According to Clark, Lois believing in him made a difference to him. And, of course, you must recall Jonathan Kent neither made any conditional remarks nor did he ever suggest to Clark that saving people in the shadows was an option to avoid using his gifts and standing proud in front of the human race. He always clarified his call for patience with a "When" rather than an "If." He also told his son he didn't have all the answers right before he died. Jonathan's guidance wasn't a hard line; it wasn't codified.

Jonathan didn't give his son all the answers, and Clark didn't follow his father's ideas to the letter. Just because it was an alien invasion that marked the right time for Superman to debut doesn't mean it was the only way Jonathan's vision for his son could have played out. Clark clearly decided to come forward after seeking the advice of ordinary human beings like Lois and Father Leone. Jonathan only ever encouraged his son to trust his gut and come forward when the time was right. That's it. To suggest that because the right time was an alien invasion that it could only ever have been an alien invasion is illogical. Jonathan Kent did not raise his son to believe that he should never proudly share his blessings with the world. He taught him to be patient and strategic.

Hahaha. Lots of glossy adjectives in your depiction of the events occurring in MoS--in just the first couple of sentences. Also, I didn't know winning the Pulitzer Prizes for reporting made one famous.

Also, what type of strategy did Superman employ that harkens back to this teaching of patience and strategy. Is it when he pummeled Zod for touching his mother? Or Killing Zod?

 

[misslane38]

Hahaha. Lots of glossy adjectives in your depiction of the events occurring in MoS--in just the first couple of sentences.

Glossy adjectives? I'm using language from the actual film. Jonathan Kent used the words "stand proud" and Lois Lane referred to herself as an award-winning reporter. A style over substance argument is rhetorically shallow.

The events of MoS are as follows: Jonathan encourages his son to believe one day he will see his powers as blessings he can share proudly with the world; Clark argues with his father about wanting to find a purpose for his life; Jonathan admits he doesn't have all the answers; Jonathan sacrifices his life so his adolescent son can choose the right time to reveal himself to the world; Clark travels the world to find his purpose; Clark saves people; Clark saves a journalist who could expose him; the journalist he saves risks her life for him; the world needs Superman, and Clark debuts as Superman.

At no point in the events of MoS does Jonathan Kent raise his son to believe he should never be humanity's hero. He told his son that his powers were a blessing. He told his son that there would be a day when he would stand proudly in front of the human race. Jonathan told his son one day he would change the world. He didn't tell him the hour, the day, the conditions, or anything else that would give Clark all of the answers. He left the how and the when up to Clark. And, in doing so, Clark tested himself, sought counsel from human beings, and stood proud in front of the human race when he and the world were ready.

Also, what type of strategy did Superman employ that harkens back to this teaching of patience and strategy. Is it when he pummeled Zod for touching his mother? Or Killing Zod?

The patience and strategy approach was applied only to the question of when to stand proud in front of the human race. You must have understood that, right? We are having a discussion about Jonathan Kent's approach to helping to shape his son's decision-making process with regards to his debut as Superman.

Killing Zod was necessary. There are no alternatives presented in the film. Superman has killed Zod in film and comics before and in much less acceptable conditions. Superman killed Zod in Superman II, for instance, even though Zod was depowered. The same Superman gave up being Superman because a computer told him heroes can't have girlfriends. The same Superman punched and injured a defenseless man in a diner for petty reasons. I guess the Kents who raise Reeve's version of Superman were exponentially worse parents according to your logic, correct?

 

[Limonade]

Glossy adjectives? I'm using language from the actual film. Jonathan Kent used the words "stand proud" and Lois Lane referred to herself as an award-winning reporter. A style over substance argument is rhetorically shallow.

The events of MoS are as follows: Jonathan encourages his son to believe one day he will see his powers as blessings he can share proudly with the world, Clark argues with his father about wanting to find a purpose for his life, Jonathan admits he doesn't have all the answers, Jonathan sacrifices his life so his adolescent son can choose the right time to reveal himself to the world, Clark travels the world to find his purpose, Clark saves people, Clark saves a journalist who could expose him, the journalist he saves risks her life for him, the world needs Superman, and Clark debuts as Superman.

At no point in the events of MoS does Jonathan Kent raise his son to believe he should never be humanity's hero. He told his son that his powers were a blessing. He told his son that there would be a day when he would stand proudly in front of the human race. Jonathan told his son one day he would change the world. He didn't tell him the hour, the day, the conditions, or anything else that would give Clark all of the answers. He left the how and the when up to Clark. And, in doing so, Clark tested himself, sought counsel from human beings, and stood proud in front of the human race when he and the world were ready.

This all seems a good explanation and all. But isn't that why there's the duality of the two fathers speaking in terms of Jor-El and Jonathan. You telling me they both were telling him the same thing?

The way I interpreted the movie was one father being protective over his sons telling him to hide his powers while the other seemingly telling him to be himself. Having them both relate the same messages seems to dilute the dilemma that Superman should have been having, doesn't it?

There was obviously one father-figure more encouraging to be the person he should be than the other. And on that fact alone, I say Jor-El made the better argument than Jonathan.

 

[misslane38]

This all seems a good explanation and all. But isn't that why there's the duality of the two fathers speaking in terms of Jor-El and Jonathan. You telling me they both were telling him the same thing?

Yes. The only difference is that one spoke to Clark when he was a child and the other when he was an adult. Jor-El spoke to Kal when he was ready, and he was ready, in part, because of how the Kents raised him.

The way I interpreted the movie was one father being protective over his sons telling him to hide his powers while the other seemingly telling him to be himself. Having them both relate the same messages seems to dilute the dilemma that Superman should have been having, doesn't it?

That's not the message of the film at all. It doesn't dilute the message. The message of the film is about free will and choice. The dilemma in front of Clark is the question of when and how rather than if. Both Jonathan and Jor-El believe Clark will one day be a hero and a symbol who will change the world. What the film is about is showing how in giving up Kal to Earth and the Kents, Jor-El frees his son from the lack of choice on Krypton. Jor-El and Lara gave birth to Kal and sent him to Earth so he would be free. Jonathan's nurturing advice that encourages his son to debut when he feels it is the right time is aligned with that goal.

There was obviously one father-figure more encouraging to be the person he should be than the other. And on that fact alone, I say Jor-El made the right argument than Jonathan.

There was no difference between Jonathan and Jor-El. The only difference was when each father was giving his advice. Jonathan was raising a child; Jor-El was meeting an adult. Both fathers provided Clark with a vision for the future that involved sharing his blessings with the world as a public symbol. The only difference is that Jonathan wanted Clark to be careful when he was a child because he was a child. He wanted his son and the world to be ready. Jor-El told his son: "We wanted you to learn what it meant to be human first, so that one day, when the time was right, you could be the bridge between two peoples." Both Jonathan and Jor-El present Superman as someone Clark/Kal should become when the world is "ready" and the time was "right." Clark's fathers complement rather than contradict each other.

 

[Limonade]

Yes. The only difference is that one spoke to Clark when he was a child and the other when he was an adult. Jor-El spoke to Kal when he was ready, and he was ready, in part, because of how the Kents raised him.



That's not the message of the film at all. It doesn't dilute the message. The message of the film is about free will and choice. The dilemma in front of Clark is the question of when and how rather than if. Both Jonathan and Jor-El believe Clark will one day be a hero and a symbol who will change the world. What the film is about is showing how in giving up Kal to Earth and the Kents, Jor-El frees his son from the lack of choice on Krypton. Jor-El and Lara gave birth to Kal and sent him to Earth so he would be free. Jonathan's nurturing advice that encourages his son to debut when he feels it is the right time is aligned with that goal.



There was no difference between Jonathan and Jor-El. The only difference was when each father was giving his advice. Jonathan was raising a child; Jor-El was meeting an adult. Both fathers provided Clark with a vision for the future that involved sharing his blessings with the world as a public symbol. The only difference is that Jonathan wanted Clark to be careful when he was a child because he was a child. He wanted his son and the world to be ready. Jor-El told his son: "We wanted you to learn what it meant to be human first, so that one day, when the time was right, you could be the bridge between two peoples." Both Jonathan and Jor-El present Superman as someone Clark/Kal should become when the world is "ready" and the time was "right." Clark's fathers complement rather than contradict each other.

So what--Superman had no real internal struggles from two father-figures? Superman was just mopey because... of angst?

I mean he was on a journey for something. If both fathers complemented each other would he be less confused or unsure. I never got the feeling that Superman was completely supported by anyone. His reluctance to act when necessary felt that it came from Jonathan. After all, it's one of the more memorable scenes when Jonathan said, "Maybe" in regards to letting those children die.

I mean, the audience members can't simply shake that scenes or the tornado scene and reach a conclusion similar to yours. Especially if the context is as subtle as you're making it out to be.

(And look... this is all coming from memory... I'm not reaching for any conclusion through any formal studies of the human psyche with these... because, frankly, these stories are rather 2 dimensional and pretty generic at the time of the films release.)

 

[misslane38]

So what--Superman had no real internal struggles from two father-figures? Superman was just mopey because... of angst?

He was mopey because it was hard to grow up so different with so many responsibilities. The choices he makes have bigger consequences. People like his peers and Pete's mom respond to him differently than they would to normal humans. His internal struggle is about identity and trust. He struggles with figuring out who he wants to be and who he is going to trust.

I mean he was on a journey for something. If both fathers complemented each other would he be less confused or unsure. I never got the feeling that Superman was completely supported by anyone. His reluctance to act when necessary felt that it came from Jonathan. After all, it's one of the more memorable scenes when Jonathan said, "Maybe" in regards to letting those children die.

Clark was never reluctant to act. Whenever it was necessary to act, he acted. The only time he held back was to let his father sacrifice his life for his future. Superman was completely supported by Martha, Jonathan, Jor-El, Lois, and Father Leone. Clark was confused and unsure because he was a young person trying to figure out how to share his blessings with the world and when it would be the best time to become a public superhero. Those pressures were pressures placed on Clark from the nature of life itself. These are the same pressures we all struggle with in our lives but on a much larger scale.

Jonathan's "Maybe" was a not a "No." He did not teach his son not to help people or save kids on flooding buses. Jonathan taught his son to think about a crisis and think about the consequences of the choices he makes. He wanted him to know that sometimes you think you are doing the right thing when, for example, you dam up a river to save your farm, but there could be unforeseen consequences like flooding the Lang farm, or as it was with saving the kids on the bus, religious fanaticism from Mrs. Ross. Jonathan followed up his "Maybe" with this:

There's more at stake here than just our lives, Clark, or the lives of those around us. When the world...When the world finds out what you can do it's going to change everything. Our...Our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human. Everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right?

Jonathan is teaching his son to think big picture. He's not telling his son he should not help people no matter what the circumstances. He's telling his son that there is no way he can give him all the answers. He reiterates the same idea right before the tornado hits. Jonathan repeatedly tells Clark that he doesn't have the answers. All he knows is that Clark is so different and so special that the choices he makes will change the world, so Clark's tentative approach to life is born out of his need to use his powers humbly, judiciously, and carefully.

I mean, the audience members can't simply shake that scenes or the tornado scene and reach a conclusion similar to yours. Especially if the context is as subtle as you're making it out to be.

I'm not making out anything. These are the facts of the film. This is the verbatim dialogue from the film. I'm not reaching conclusions. I'm citing facts. If audiences see red when the color is blue, I don't know how to help them. Jonathan literally tells Clark the exact same things Jor-El tells him and yet the audience comes to completely different conclusions about each of these men as fathers.

Jonathan Kent: But you're not just anyone, Clark, and I have to believe that you were...That you were sent here for a reason. All these changes that you're going through, one day...One day you're going think of them as a blessing. When that day comes...you have to make a choice. A choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not.

Jor-El: You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They'll race behind you. They will stumble. They will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders. [...] We wanted you to learn what it meant to be human first, so that one day, when the time was right, you could be the bridge between two peoples.

The tornado scene is a scene about Jonathan wanting his 17 year-old son to have the freedom to choose for himself when it's the right time to debut as Superman. It's about Jonathan admitting he doesn't have all the answers. He's making it up as he goes along. It's about Jonathan recognizing "Maybe our best isn't good enough anymore." This isn't the "context" I am "making out." It is the context. It's not subtle. Word for word dialogue isn't subtle.

(And look... this is all coming from memory... I'm not reaching for any conclusion through any formal studies of the human psyche with these... because, frankly, these stories are rather 2 dimensional and pretty generic at the time of the films release.)

These aren't conclusions that must be reached through formal studies of the human psyche. It's just the dialogue in the film. It's really simple.

 

[Limonade]

He was mopey because it was hard to grow up so different with so many responsibilities. The choices he makes have bigger consequences. People like his peers and Pete's mom respond to him differently than they would to normal humans. His internal struggle is about identity and trust. He struggles with figuring out who he wants to be and who he is going to trust.



Clark was never reluctant to act. Whenever it was necessary to act, he acted. The only time he held back was to let his father sacrifice his life for his future. Superman was completely supported by Martha, Jonathan, Jor-El, Lois, and Father Leone. Clark was confused and unsure because he was a young person trying to figure out how to share his blessings with the world and when it would be the best time to become a public superhero. Those pressures were pressures placed on Clark from the nature of life itself. These are the same pressures we all struggle with in our lives but on a much larger scale.

Jonathan's "Maybe" was a not a "No." He did not teach his son not to help people or save kids on flooding buses. Jonathan taught his son to think about a crisis and think about the consequences of the choices he makes. He wanted him to know that sometimes you think you are doing the right thing when, for example, you dam up a river to save your farm, but there could be unforeseen consequences like flooding the Lang farm, or as it was with saving the kids on the bus, religious fanaticism from Mrs. Ross. Jonathan followed up his "Maybe" with this:



Jonathan is teaching his son to think big picture. He's not telling his son he should not help people no matter what the circumstances. He's telling his son that there is no way he can give him all the answers. He reiterates the same idea right before the tornado hits. Jonathan repeatedly tells Clark that he doesn't have the answers. All he knows is that Clark is so different and so special that the choices he makes will change the world, so Clark's tentative approach to life is born out of his need to use his powers humbly, judiciously, and carefully.

I'm not making out anything. These are the facts of the film. This is the verbatim dialogue from the film. I'm not reaching conclusions. I'm citing facts. If audiences see red when the color is blue, I don't know how to help them. Jonathan literally tells Clark the exact same things Jor-El tells him and yet the audience comes to completely different conclusions about each of these men as fathers.



The tornado scene is a scene about Jonathan wanting his 17 year-old son to have the freedom to choose for himself when it's the right time to debut as Superman. It's about Jonathan admitting he doesn't have all the answers. He's making it up as he goes along. It's about Jonathan recognizing "Maybe our best isn't good enough anymore." This isn't the "context" I am "making out." It is the context. It's not subtle. Word for word dialogue isn't subtle.



These aren't conclusions that must be reached through formal studies of the human psyche. It's just the dialogue in the film. It's really simple.

No. For example, where I draw the line from jumping to "he wants Clark to have freedom" to simply he stops Clark from saving him as a tornado approaches Jonathan, is the action that unfolds at the screen.

If the underlying message was postponing freedom of choice in those scenes. Obviously, some internal monologue or some other cinematic mechanism to clearly state this message--would be needed.

As it currently stands the scene can be taken in two ways. And either way looking at it isn't wrong. I can see your point. But with little information for the audience (myself included) to grasp in that moment, I feel that the scene disjointed Jonathan message... it simply reinforced the previous scenes where he just wanted to protect his son... and everything he may have said is nullified.

If he believes that there's a time for Clark to choose what path to take. Jonathan shouldn't have stopped Clark. It simply delays the known/unknown moment for the Hero. Superman had the Supernatural aid. The Threshold had been postponed because the decision was not made by the Superhero himself.

He simply obeyed.

 

[Limonade]

Double Post

 

[heatvision38]

The "right time" could very well never have come, given that it insists on being represented as an alien invasion. There's, imo, a disconnect there with the reality that they're reaching for, where the right time can be anytime; where helping never stops being a matter of now-or-never; and the dilemma at hand could have always, and forever more, remained as "Do I help right now or don't I? Do I keep waiting or don't I? Is the need big enough or isn't it?" -- without an eventual alien attack serving as an obvious tailor-made opportunity. MOS Jonathan's worldview would've had Clark forever stuck as an occasional life-saver who only acts when the crisis occurs while he happens to be present. And never incentivized, if not for Jor-El, to be as available or present as the full-fledged Superman needs to be.

But this Clark had already been looking for his heritage, had found it, had worn the uniform, had flown, had gotten the "In time they will join you in the sun" line from Jor-El. So it easily stands to reason that Clark was ready to show himself to the world, it was just a matter of how, similar to Christopher Reeve's version showing himself when Lois was in trouble. Either way, both had their costumes and the intention to use it.

Plus, we see that adult Clark had no qualms about saving people at the risk of them seeing him like with the oil rig or Lois, a reporter, on the scout ship.

 

[The Guard]

It's pretty clear that in the context of the events and structure of MAN OF STEEL, "the right time" is when Clark is ready, not the world. That's what Jonathan's interactions set up, that's what Clark's journey sets up and the nature of most of his conflict, that's the rhetoric that is used to develop Clark's character in the film.

The world isn't quite ready, and that's half the point of the exploration of the arrival and emergence of Superman in this franchise.

 

[heatvision38]

This all seems a good explanation and all. But isn't that why there's the duality of the two fathers speaking in terms of Jor-El and Jonathan. You telling me they both were telling him the same thing?

The way I interpreted the movie was one father being protective over his sons telling him to hide his powers while the other seemingly telling him to be himself. Having them both relate the same messages seems to dilute the dilemma that Superman should have been having, doesn't it?

There was obviously one father-figure more encouraging to be the person he should be than the other. And on that fact alone, I say Jor-El made the better argument than Jonathan.

The movie is called MAN of STEEL. That's MAN and ALIEN. Jonathon represented the voice of man, and Jor-El represented the voice of the alien. Both wanted Clark to live his destiny, but each came from different perspectives. Jonathon raised Clark on Earth and knew how Earth would view Clark, so he raised Clark from the human angle, emphasizing that if he shows himself too early, he might not be ready to handle what comes of it. We had a whole show called Smallville that delved into how different things would be between a teenage Clark Kent being known to the world and an adult one. Smallville, as a show, essentially is all about what MOS' Jonathon Kent was talking about. With Smallville, we get to see the gap between Jonathon Kent and Jor-El get bridged over a ten year period until Clark is able to represent both.

Jor-El represents the idealized version of who Clark could be, but having not grown up on Earth, he didn't know the logistics of that. Both fathers knew that Clark would be something special, and neither wanted to deny him that destiny. They just came at it from different world paradigms, literally.

 

[matt47]

I thought the shots of him straining himself as he separated the mother boxes and him jokingly saying that he wanted to die while lying on the ground were pretty flawless when it came to the authenticity of his CGI cover up.

Yeah I have a feeling that scene could've been Snyders. At least the **** of him pulling them apart.

 

[heatvision38]

No. For example, where I draw the line from jumping to "he wants Clark to have freedom" to simply he stops Clark from saving him as a tornado approaches Jonathan, is the action that unfolds at the screen.

If the underlying message was postponing freedom of choice in those scenes. Obviously, some internal monologue or some other cinematic mechanism to clearly state this message--would be needed.

As it currently stands the scene can be taken in two ways. And either way looking at it isn't wrong. I can see your point. But with little information for the audience (myself included) to grasp in that moment, I feel that the scene disjointed Jonathan message... it simply reinforced the previous scenes where he just wanted to protect his son... and everything he may have said is nullified.

If he believes that there's a time for Clark to choose what path to take. Jonathan shouldn't have stopped Clark. It simply delays the known/unknown moment for the Hero. Superman had the Supernatural aid. The Threshold had been postponed because the decision was not made by the Superhero himself.

He simply obeyed.

There's a huge difference between showing himself to the world as a 17 year old and as a fully formed adult, at 33. Again, the show Smallville shows this evolution as he is 15-16 when the show starts and is in his mid twenties when he finally shows up as Superman. The show clearly shows us he would not have been ready or mature enough to handle the myriad of choices one of his abilities and origin would have to make had he come forward at 15 years old. He was still too immature as any 15 year old would be. It would be like asking a 15 year old to choose his career path and then to begin working in that field at 15, and there's no going back once you start. That's just too much to put on a 15 year old when identity is such a huge part of this point in one's life. Now scale that up to what Clark would have to experience.

Take the interrogation scene, how do you think a 17 y/o Clark would have handled that scene vs the 33 y/o Clark?

Also, Clark did not "obey" his father, he trusted him, which is very different as the latter implies free will. Clark even says as much during the grave scene with Lois, that he chose to trust his father.

 

[Limonade]

The movie is called MAN of STEEL. That's MAN and ALIEN. Jonathon represented the voice of man, and Jor-El represented the voice of the alien. Both wanted Clark to live his destiny, but each came from different perspectives. Jonathon raised Clark on Earth and knew how Earth would view Clark, so he raised Clark from the human angle, emphasizing that if he shows himself too early, he might not be ready to handle what comes of it. We had a whole show called Smallville that delved into how different things would be between a teenage Clark Kent being known to the world and an adult one. Smallville, as a show, essentially is all about what MOS' Jonathon Kent was talking about. With Smallville, we get to see the gap between Jonathon Kent and Jor-El get bridged over a ten year period until Clark is able to represent both.

Jor-El represents the idealized version of who Clark could be, but having not grown up on Earth, he didn't know the logistics of that. Both fathers knew that Clark would be something special, and neither wanted to deny him that destiny. They just came at it from different world paradigms, literally.

Is Jonathan not protecting his son by telling him to hide his powers?

Is Jor-El telling Clark how incredible his heritage is and the power his possess can bring good will to all?

They both want the best for Clark, I agree. But the two perspectives are what drives this internal conflict later on after donning the suit. I mean, as we go beyond Man of Steel... this type of conflict is later compounded and is then made worse by the visit of ghost dad Jonathan.

The perspective of Jonathan is a flawed one even if his intentions were of the best. In Man of Steel, the scenes didn't best represent Jonathan's point of view. It struck me as being selfish--being overprotective is selfish. To question selfless acts... is distasteful. A retrospective is okay. But Jonathan's tone was off by making it sound he's reprimanding the boy, in MoS. But that's me.

 

[heatvision38]

Is Jonathan not protecting his son by telling him to hide his powers?

Is Jor-El telling Clark how incredible his heritage is and the power his possess can bring good will to all?

They both want the best for Clark, I agree. But the two perspectives are what drives this internal conflict later on after donning the suit. I mean, as we go beyond Man of Steel... this type of conflict is later compounded and is then made worse by the visit of ghost dad Jonathan.

The perspective of Jonathan is a flawed one even if his intentions were of the best. In Man of Steel, the scenes didn't best represent Jonathan's point of view. It struck me as being selfish--being overprotective is selfish. To question selfless acts... is distasteful. A retrospective is okay. But Jonathan's tone was off by making it sound he's reprimanding the boy, in MoS. But that's me.

He's no more selfish than a parent holding back his kid from playing in the street because it's too dangerous. Again, I refer you to the show Smallville which was about how inexperienced Clark was in relation to the person he would become. Clark was simply too young to handle all the ramifications that come with the world knowing you are a super powerful alien at 17 years old. He wanted Clark to know that stepping into the light should not be a decision to be made lightly. Being Superman is a very complicated undertaking. There are far more complications that come with donning this role than just about any other Earth-based superhero.

 

[Limonade]

He's no more selfish than a parent holding back his kid from playing in the street because it's too dangerous. Again, I refer you to the show Smallville which was about how inexperienced Clark was in relation to the person he would become. Clark was simply too young to handle all the ramifications that come with the world knowing you are a super powerful alien at 17 years old. He wanted Clark to know that stepping into the light should not be a decision to be made lightly. Being Superman is a very complicated undertaking. There are far more complications that come with donning this role than just about any other Earth-based superhero.

Yeah. I've seen the show. I don't want to complicate the conversation by adding the tv show in the mix. Different Universe. Sort of wanting to keep it on the cinematic front if possible. But I understand your point.

That said, the depiction that Jonathan had was not my ideal of Jonathan Kent in terms of philosophy and teaching this young child. It's as honest as we can get with the character, I'll give you that.

But having a child with that much power, requires a great responsibility as a father. Also children that have unusual strength is not uncommon. But Snyder went overboard with the depiction and reaction of young Clark's strength.

And obviously they assumed him alien rather than some freak experiment or something along those line. Like the supporting characters knows he's Superman before kid Clark does. Shouldn't that be in reverse?

 

[misslane38]

It's pretty clear that in the context of the events and structure of MAN OF STEEL, "the right time" is when Clark is ready, not the world. That's what Jonathan's interactions set up, that's what Clark's journey sets up and the nature of most of his conflict, that's the rhetoric that is used to develop Clark's character in the film.

The world isn't quite ready, and that's half the point of the exploration of the arrival and emergence of Superman in this franchise.

The world is never going to perfectly ready for superheroes or aliens. Jor-El acknowledges that as well: we will stumble and fall. The point MoS makes clearly, I believe, is that Lois Lane is all the proof Clark needs to take a leap of faith that will start humanity on the path towards coexistence and acceptance. The heart of Clark's conversation with Father Leone rests on Clark's faith in humanity, and it is Lois Lane who has given Clark the encouragement he needs to take the next step. Humanity is a partner in facilitating the resolution of Clark's internal conflict. He does not make the decision to stand proud in front of the human race in isolation.

 

[RomanticPenguin]

 

[idiot09]

Well done Heatvision and MissLane. Brilliant analysis, and the right one if I may say.

 

[Superchan]

Wish superman could just reverse time and erase everything snyder did from existence.

 

[B]

This?

I agree the cell phone footage at the start is horrendous but this isn't far off. His face is huge!! the race against the Flash and the Steppenwolf fight is better than this.

I've seen an HD screenshot comparison with that picture somewhere & it doesn't look anywhere near as bad as that picture. It's obviously CG, but the angle at which that picture was taken in the theatre makes it look far worse than it actually was IMO.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

And obviously they assumed him alien rather than some freak experiment or something along those line. Like the supporting characters knows he's Superman before kid Clark does. Shouldn't that be in reverse?

I will always say that the scene at the end with young Clark in a red cape made no sense. I've always thought it would have been more impressive to have Clark who can crush a semi holding a baby animal...chicken in his hands and focusing hard on being gentle to not hurt it.