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

[heatvision38]

And Superman (Snyder) makes the wrong choice to have Superman murder Zod in cold blood, instead of finding another way. I gave you one other choice Superman could have made to change the situation. There are many others.

Simple as that.

And you’ll all argue for paragraphs that this isn’t the case, because you like Snyder and his neck snapping ways, so won’t accept the idea that it could have been written differently, and still stayed true to the movie that preceded it. But it could have. By a better filmmaker.

Cold blood? Really? Explain to me how he killed Zod in cold blood.

In case you wanted to know what "cold blood" really means:
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+cold+blood

 

[Patchwork Man]

I do find it ironic that most of the folks who do start that convo are all haters of said film tho. It has gotten better, but it used to be right out of the blue. Mos this and mos that. No smiling superman, killer superman, and i'm like yo, there are kids with flies on their faces dying of hunger and this is what you want to debate about? Life is cruel, mang.

It'll never end.

"Underperformed"..."polarizing"..."divisive"..."didn't hit a billion"..."bombed!" (The last one will be used exclusively for Justice League.)

 

[misslane38]

Read my previous post to understand my point.

 

[heatvision38]

Thank you, my man. That's how I always saw these movies and that's always what they intended to be: alternate/different take(s) on the character. Just like Superman Red Son, Earth One, Kingdom Come etc. This was Zack Snyder's twist on the character. Which is what attracted me to this version, its something we hadn't seen before.

But, I guess, as we just saw with Star Wars, deviating from the classic interpretations can be an arduous uphill battle with the fans.

True, especially when there is a more inflexible view of a character, specifically Superman and Batman.

The difference with the recent Star Wars movies is that there is only one version of these characters. There is only one Mark Hamill's Luke, one version of Ford's Han, and one version of Fisher's Leia. We only have one cannon. There is an expanded universe out there, but that's not considered cannon. The newer movies, especially TLJ (but even TFA, imso), do a disservice to the previously established cannon.

 

[kguillou]

Ultimately, though, I think the passionate debates stemming from MoS and BvS were both healthy for the CBM community and a long time coming. I think a lot of taboo topics were finally opened up for discussion, things that the comic books maybe brushed upon but never fully explored or engaged in. Whatever your feelings on the execution of the Snyder movies, it was nice to have a film that had the balls to take a character out of their traditional comfort zone and implement a different tone and story that fans are not used to and see how they respond. Its nice to try something different.

As a side note: I may be alone in this but i would one day, in the dystopian future, welcome Marvel to make a dark Spider-man movie that puts the character in a much more serious tone and setting where the character has to make some hard choices, because some of the best Spider-man books I've ever read where the bleak ones where the character was put through the ringer.

 

[heatvision38]

Exactly the point I made a page ago.

Yeah. I reply as I go along.

 

[Nemeres]

No, it doesn't imply that only an alien invasion would have been only thing sufficient to draw Clark out as Superman. It doesn't imply anything. What you're basically doing is engaging in fallacious thinking that most closely resembles this fallacy.

HYPOTHESIS CONTRARY TO FACT: This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact.

Clark's saves here and there indicate that he's doing what Jor-El spoke of in regards to flying: pushing his limits. With Lois, he pushed hardest because she knew who he was on the base and saw his face all while being a world famous reporter. Notice how before Zod even invaded, Lois was on the cusp of publishing his story, even coming to his home and asking him to let her do so.

Jonathan's attitude was only ever about readiness. He repeatedly said, and I've repeatedly quoted to you, he could envision Clark standing proud in front of the human race someday in a way that would change the world. He just urged caution to his son when he was a child, and as soon as Clark wasn't a child anymore Jonathan was more open to Clark finding his own way. Before he died he admitted to a teenage Clark who was just declaring how he wanted to "do something useful with [his] life" that he may have reached his limits, saying "Clark has a point. We're not [his] parents. But we've been doing the best we can. And we've been making this up as we go along, so maybe...Maybe our best isn't good enough anymore."

It's not fair or accurate to claim that Jonathan didn't want his son to be a hero or become someone like Superman one day, and it's illogical and pointless to suggest that Clark would have remained forever hidden had Zod not invaded; there are too many possible variables and permutations to claim that as fact.

Quoting that specific fallacy seems ironic to me, because I see it favoring my argument more. Chronology and events depicted is exactly what I'm basing my argument on, yours seems to come down to “there's no reason things couldn't have been different... if they had been”. I wouldn't call my take a hypothesis… just the story as it presents itself. Clark could've chosen to reveal himself at some point before Zod, but he didn't. He might have in the future, but we don't see that. Jonathan's philosophy didn't compel him enough to become a public figure by the time we meet him as an adult, and he only did after a succession of events that were foreign to his history with Pa and that worked independently as motivators. What part of that isn't demonstrable? The “many possible variables and permutations” could, yes, have motivated Clark at some point in the future. But it's not the movie we see. Referencing that hypothetical and framing it as an essential consideration seems much more aligned with the idea of “seeing circumstances and conditions other than how they actually are”. The whole paragraph.

I don't think Jonathan wanted to keep Clark from being a hero. I think I see what they were going for. It's just the mechanics of it feel confused to me and trip on their own feet in pursuit of a novel take on the philosophy of the protective father who's savvy about the real world, to the point where it inadvertently robs him of the credit for the hero the son becomes. It's the impression that's lingered with me, anyway.

 

[heatvision38]

Quoting that specific fallacy seems ironic to me, because I see it favoring my argument more. Chronology and events depicted is exactly what I'm basing my argument on, yours seems to come down to “there's no reason things couldn't have been different... if they had been”. I wouldn't call my take a hypothesis… just the story as it presents itself. Clark could've chosen to reveal himself at some point before Zod, but he didn't. He might have in the future, but we don't see that. Jonathan's philosophy didn't compel him enough to become a public figure by the time we meet him as an adult, and he only did after a succession of events that were foreign to his history with Pa and that worked independently as motivators. What part of that isn't demonstrable? The “many possible variables and permutations” could, yes, have motivated Clark at some point in the future. But it's not the movie we see. Referencing that hypothetical and framing it as an essential consideration seems much more aligned with the idea of “seeing circumstances and conditions other than how they actually are”. The whole paragraph.

I don't think Jonathan wanted to keep Clark from being a hero. I think I see what they were going for. It's just the mechanics of it feel confused to me and trip on their own feet in pursuit of a novel take on the philosophy of the protective father who's savvy about the real world, to the point where it inadvertently robs him of the credit for the hero the son becomes. It's the impression that's lingered with me, anyway.

The idea is, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The creative team chose to have the alien invasion when it did. That does not mean that, in hypothetical terms, had the alien invasion never happened that this world would never have gotten a Superman. This was just the impetus for him to show up at this moment. He already had the suit and the pep talk from his father anyway, no different than Christopher Reeve's Clark not showing up as Superman until he trains with Jor-El. It can be a part of the heroes journey that he needs to learn about who he is, where he comes from, before he takes the final step.

 

[FunkMiller]

Cold blood? Really? Explain to me how he killed Zod in cold blood.

In case you wanted to know what "cold blood" really means:
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+cold+blood

Poor choice of words.

He didn’t kill him in cold blood, but he did murder him, in hot blood t:

 

[BH/HHH]

Poor choice of words.

He didn’t kill him in cold blood, but he did murder him, in hot blood t:

Sounds kinky

 

[FunkMiller]

"Underperformed"..."polarizing"..."divisive"..."didn't hit a billion"..."bombed!" (The last one will be used exclusively for Justice League.)

In the context of its cost, release, and importance to WB... JL did bomb and those terms are perfectly acceptable ones to describe Snyder’s DCEU output.

 

[FunkMiller]

Sounds kinky

Ew. Now I have mental images I really wish it didn’t... t:

 

[Arachnerd]

Poor choice of words.

He didn’t kill him in cold blood, but he did murder him, in hot blood t:

But was it hyper realistic blood?

 

[misslane38]

Poor choice of words.

He didn’t kill him in cold blood, but he did murder him, in hot blood t:

Even the Old Testament "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13) does not deem justifiable homicide in the defense of others as an immoral sin.

 

[FunkMiller]

Even the Old Testament "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13) does not deem justifiable homicide in the defense of others as an immoral sin.

Atheist here, so that means nothing to me I’m afraid!

 

[Patchwork Man]

m1ll3r answers to a higher counsel... His Holiness, FEIGE!!

 

[Nemeres]

The idea is, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The creative team chose to have the alien invasion when it did. That does not mean that, in hypothetical terms, had the alien invasion never happened that this world would never have gotten a Superman. This was just the impetus for him to show up at this moment. He already had the suit and the pep talk from his father anyway, no different than Christopher Reeve's Clark not showing up as Superman until he trains with Jor-El. It can be a part of the heroes journey that he needs to learn about who he is, where he comes from, before he takes the final step.

It's not, but there's a theme of trauma and aimlessness in Clark's drifter years that can reasonably be traced to Jonathan. Jonathan's words and Jonathan's death, which the film insists on proving as justifiable. Clark acquires from Jor-El purpose and direction that Pa Kent's upbringing, we're explicitly shown, just hadn't created. Jor-El gives him backstory and a suit, but there's nothing there that needed to be depicted as alien-exclusive wisdom, or that couldn't have stemmed from Earthling ideals. Basically just "do good with your powers". Did he need 10-plus years and to be told that in so many words to snap out of his funk? If he did, it's because Pa's version of it wasn't enough.

That he was ready to be Superman before Zod came is also made questionable, because even then he still needs extra nudging from a priest and Lois. "Zod can't be trusted. But maybe people shouldn't be either." If those words are anybody's, they're Pa's. He requires nudging and direction from every available source, made necessary by a vacuum of confidence and an acquired instinct towards inaction. Left, or at the very least not foreseen nor counteracted, by Pa.

 

[misslane38]

Poor choice of words.

He didn’t kill him in cold blood, but he did murder him, in hot blood t:

Atheist here, so that means nothing to me I’m afraid!

Let me be clearer, then. It is not murder. Murder is defined as "The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse." Even cops are allowed to shoot violent criminals who are a threat to others if necessary, and it's not deemed murder. Killing is the more appropriate term. In using that term, though, some might refer to the moral code of the Ten Commandments that forbids killing. However, scholars would point out that it doesn't even break that code when it is done in the defense of oneself or others.

If you don't take issue with killing someone who is not an innocent and is an imminent threat on moral or ethical grounds, then why do you object to showing Superman engaging in such an act?

 

[FunkMiller]

m1ll3r answers to a higher counsel... His Holiness, FEIGE!!

Of course, you mean Nolan. Or does the avvy and sig not give that away enough?

 

[FunkMiller]

If you don't take issue with killing someone who is not an innocent and is an imminent threat on moral or ethical grounds, then why do you object to showing Superman engaging in such an act?

Because that isn’t Superman to me. And it never will be.

 

[heatvision38]

Poor choice of words.

He didn’t kill him in cold blood, but he did murder him, in hot blood t:

He killed him or took his life, he did not murder him. There is a big difference both ethically, and in many systems, legally.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

He took a life, one that was capable of not just destroying the family that was in immediate danger, but the world at large.

 

[Patchwork Man]

Of course, you mean Nolan. Or does the avvy and sig not give that away enough?

It means you like the movie. It doesn't necessarily mean he's your favorite director/movie guy. The guy in my av ain't the Patchwork Man.

 

[FunkMiller]

He killed him or took his life, he did not murder him. There is a big difference both ethically, and in many systems, legally.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

He took a life, one that was capable of not just destroying the family that was in immediate danger, but the world at large.

And if they had wanted to, the writers of that scene could have done things very differently, but they chose to have Superman snap a neck, instead of finding a more ‘heroic’ solution. But we’re going in circles. You’ll never agree with me. I’ll never agree with you.

Still, it’s not like they just dropped the ramifications and fallout of Superman killing Zod, in the next movie without mentioning it again, or anything...

 

[misslane38]

Quoting that specific fallacy seems ironic to me, because I see it favoring my argument more. Chronology and events depicted is exactly what I'm basing my argument on, yours seems to come down to “there's no reason things couldn't have been different... if they had been”.

Nope, because I'm not claiming anything as certain. I'm saying all permutations are valid. You're saying only one is. Maybe he would have become Superman another way, maybe he wouldn't. The truth is we can't know, so saying that without Zod Clark wouldn't have become Superman doesn't work for me. We can't prove hypotheticals, and the bottom line is that this story showed that Clark did choose to become Superman when he thought he and the world were ready.

I wouldn't call my take a hypothesis… just the story as it presents itself. Clark could've chosen to reveal himself at some point before Zod, but he didn't. He might have in the future, but we don't see that.

He didn't because he was either a child or he was an young adult who was developing an understanding of himself and of the world so that he could feel more prepared to take on the challenges of what it means to be a planet's savior. The events of the movie show that this personal development aligned with a debut. Remember that Zod wouldn't have come to Earth had Kal not used his key in the ship. The invasion is predicated on Clark's journey to understanding. Also recall that Clark had already revealed himself to a reporter and had chosen to embrace his heritage by wearing the suit Jor-El presented to him.

Jonathan's philosophy didn't compel him enough to become a public figure by the time we meet him as an adult, and he only did after a succession of events that were foreign to his history with Pa and that worked independently as motivators. What part of that isn't demonstrable? The “many possible variables and permutations” could, yes, have motivated Clark at some point in the future. But it's not the movie we see. Referencing that hypothetical and framing it as an essential consideration seems much more aligned with the idea of “seeing circumstances and conditions other than how they actually are”. The whole paragraph.

Jonathan's philosophy was about being ready for a time WHEN not IF he could be a public superhero. Clark wasn't compelled before because he wasn't ready, and he wasn't ready because he didn't feel he understood himself well enough to be able to help the world understand him. People aren't even allowed to be President of the United States until they are 35, so Clark taking a similar amount of time to develop himself as a person is perfectly understandable, and the fact that he chooses to save people in increasingly public ways shows that he is pushing boundaries even before Zod shows up. He could have been exposed had Lois chosen to run her story. And, again, Zod only shows up because Clark used the command key on the old Kryptonian ship precisely because he was developing his identity.

I don't think Jonathan wanted to keep Clark from being a hero. I think I see what they were going for. It's just the mechanics of it feel confused to me and trip on their own feet in pursuit of a novel take on the philosophy of the protective father who's savvy about the real world, to the point where it inadvertently robs him of the credit for the hero the son becomes. It's the impression that's lingered with me, anyway.

Why does Jonathan need such credit for the hero Clark becomes? He leads by example by being a heroic man himself, rescuing a strange baby in a spaceship and saving people in a tornado. He teaches his son about the complex decision making being a hero entails, especially when your choices as a powerful person can change the world. Superman is meant to be the product of Earth and Krypton, and of many people and experiences. All Jonathan does in other incarnations is say he thinks Clark was sent to Earth for a reason that probably doesn't involve touchdowns and the like. DCEU Jonathan does that and more for his son. I don't see the problem.

 

[heatvision38]

It's not, but there's a theme of trauma and aimlessness in Clark's drifter years that can reasonably be traced to Jonathan. Jonathan's words and Jonathan's death, which the film insists on proving as justifiable. Clark acquires from Jor-El purpose and direction that Pa Kent's upbringing, we're explicitly shown, just hadn't created. Jor-El gives him backstory and a suit, but there's nothing there that needed to be depicted as alien-exclusive wisdom, or that couldn't have stemmed from Earthling ideals. Basically just "do good with your powers". Did he need 10-plus years and to be told that in so many words to snap out of his funk? If he did, it's because Pa's version of it wasn't enough.

That he was ready to be Superman before Zod came is also made questionable, because even then he still needs extra nudging from a priest and Lois. "Zod can't be trusted. But maybe people shouldn't be either." If those words are anybody's, they're Pa's. He requires nudging and direction from every available source, made necessary by a vacuum of confidence and an acquired instinct towards inaction. Left, or at the very least not foreseen nor counteracted, by Pa.

What Jonathon Kent taught Clark was patience and waiting until he was ready. That aimlessness you describe was Clark searching for who he is, where he comes from, which, as I said, is often a part of a heroes journey, especially if they were raised by someone other than their biological parents. But Jonathon is very clear (during the scene when he shows Clark the rocket and after Clark was bullied) that he believes Clark will change the world. So Jonathon does not instill a message of fear or keep yourself hidden permanently, but that of patience and informed decision making. And he was right to do so. A 20 year old Clark would have struggled greatly with the weight of being Superman. Hec, even the 33-35 y/o Clark (as shown in both MoS and BvS) shows how hard the decisions of a super powerful alien being who was raised on Earth can be.

As for going to the priest, he asks for advice about giving himself over to humans, as in, letting them make the decision for Clark whether to hand him over or not. That's not the same thing as asking the priest whether he should be Superman in general.