BvS Is anyone else not excited about Superman and Batman? I feel nothing but dread. - Part 2

[Jekecy]

Has to do with both.

What do you think is going to negatively affect your perception of the character, going into the next one?

 

[Reiter]

I heard the "maybe" line in one of the previews and I immediately knew that I would like the movie. It symbolised that the movie would take a realistic approach where the character is being challenged rather than being granted automatic victories.

I think it's how a loving father would handle it in the real world. People are selfish when it comes to their kids and don't always know all the answers.

Isn't that what one sect of the American population is trying to instill (fear and mistrust of our government)? The grounded truth of the matter is that if the world knew who the young Clark really was, they would thave taken him away for experimentation, and probably put thw Kents in jail for harboring an alien that might have posed a threat to society. All I can think of right now is this scene form a popular film in the 1980's:
[Yt]ACVup4Bqhfw[/MEDIA]

Why wouldn't they impose their fear on young Clark to suppress his abilities?

There are ways to work around that, it's a story which someone writes. It's the writers fault if he places the character in a bad corner, which he can only escape from if he loses one of his cores. They stupidly placed Superman in a situation where he had to kill. They stupidly went too aggressive with the government thing and lost the entire point of the Kents and Clark's childhood.

I mean i'm sure in real life it would play like that, but this isnt real life. Every other kid Clark could hide from the government just fine and still be a saviour without his father going "maybe" on whether he should let a bus full of children sink in a river.

(right click and open in new tag to see it in full size)

 

[Boy Scout]

It's because he had no clue what he was doing...

Which is hardly an excuse for suggesting that Clark should have allowed a busload of children to drown. It doesn't excuse any of his other actions either. Suggesting caution and wanting to protect your adopted son from harm is one thing; constant preaching about the (apparently inherent) ugliness of the human race is another.

I think in that "maybe'' scene he was just thinking about Clarks safety.

Yes, at the expense of his classmates. Seeing as how Smallville is a small town, he probably knew most of those kids, if not their parents, so it's even more unbelievable that he would suggest such a thing.

and of course he told Clark that people would fear him! It was the truth!

That isn't the point. Like I said: preaching caution is fine. Wise, even. However, everything that came out of Jonathan's mouth was negative and fueled by fear and mistrust. He spoke nothing of humanity's capacity for good (don't let the quote distract you; I've no attachment to the Donner films), of our ability to offer love and acceptance even to those who are hopelessly different. Jonathan had a remarkably pessimistic view of mankind, one that was never directly challenged in any significant way. I wish we could have seen Martha offer a more idealistic view, to balance out Jonathan's pessimism and allow the audience to better understand why Superman would feel inclined to help humanity for any reason at all after his (rather crappy) upbringing/childhood. It also would've allowed for the mother to finally play an important part in one of these films.

Look at how MoS played out, the world found out about him then everyone wants him to get the F off their planet.

We never saw "the world" react to Superman.

I think Clark became Superman because his father was realistic with him, not telling him that everything would be alright.

I couldn't disagree more.

 

[Lencho01]

What do you think is going to negatively affect your perception of the character, going into the next one?

Pretty much everything about his character is a turn-off for me. I just simply find him to be a boring, unsure, Spider-Man-lite take in an attempt to make him cool or relatable (if that's what they were going for).

 

[dnno1]

That's such a lame excuse. So he had to get lectured by his spacedad and put on a kryptonian suit to become a good man? Clark is supposed to be a good man even from his childhood. He becomes Superman because he's a good man, not the other way around.

If you really paid attention to that film, neither father encouraged him to kill or not kill. It was a decision he made on his own and he learned to regret it. American culture teaches us that although killing is considered wrong there are times when it is warranted. It would be unrealistic to think that he was told that wasn't the case when his world is filled is filled with war and crime and self defense is the American way.

They forgot that Superman doesnt have a scarred psych. He's had the childhood every kid would dream of and now he's trying to share.
That one was a great scene, i'll give you that.

This is a different universe and a different Superman, a more grounded one that has to learn not to kill from experience.

 

[Wise]

Would this Jonathan ever say "maybe"?

It still cracks me up that Bo Duke was Superman's dad in that show. I wonder if he had the General Lee parked under a sheet next to Clark's spaceship.

 

[Reiter]

humanity's capacity for good (don't let the quote distract you; I've no attachment to the Donner films)

I dont have much attachment either, but damn, this one line! This line!

(i just thought it sounded better in the trailer with all the music and cuts of him flying so here it is)

[YT]_z4LafXkU6c[/YT]

 

[Jekecy]

Pretty much everything about his character is a turn-off for me. I just simply find him to be a boring, unsure, Spider-Man-lite take in an attempt to make him cool or relatable (if that's what they were going for).

That's a shame. I think there's still some sliver of hope for you though. The last 2 scenes of him, as Clark and Supes, indicate to me a more assured and confident Superman that we're more familiar with in the books.

I'm crossing my fingers they've gotten over the melancholy and strife portion of Clark's life. Now they've got room to navigate "classical" territory.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Don't hate on dat bat! hahaha I embrace "dat" for the team. lol everyone said lighten up so I'm going to do dat!

 

[Boy Scout]

I heard the "maybe" line in one of the previews and I immediately knew that I would like the movie.

I assumed he and Clark would have an intelligent discussion that would eventually lead to Jonathan admitting that had only uttered that word out of fear and concern, that Clark had made the right decision, and that he was proud of him. That didn't happen.

It symbolised that the movie would take a realistic approach where the character is being challenged rather than being granted automatic victories.

I think "pessimistic" is the better word.

I think it's how a loving father would handle it in the real world.

I think a loving father would (or should) express himself better. If my father ever said that I "maybe" should have let my classmates die so I could protect myself, I'd look at him a lot differently after that.

People are selfish when it comes to their kids and don't always know all the answers.

Then perhaps he should have said, "I don't know. I just want you to be safe. I'm not saying what you did was something to be ashamed of, but you were seen, Clark, and the thought of you being carted away terrified me." instead of, "Maybe."

Isn't that what one sect of the American population is trying to instill (fear and mistrust of our government)?

Are those the people who should be raising Superman?

Why wouldn't they impose their fear on young Clark to suppress his abilities?

Because that's not how you're supposed to raise children? Caution and vigilance is one thing; fear and mistrust is quite another.

 

[Reiter]

If you really paid attention to that film, neither father encouraged him to kill or not kill. It was a decision he made on his own and he learned to regret it. American culture teaches us that although killing is considered wrong there are times when it is warranted. It would be unrealistic to think that he was told that wasn't the case when his world is filled is filled with war and crime and self defense is the American way.

In real life, sure, you are going to have to kill if you do what he does. But this is a fictional universe and you dont have to go there, especially when Superman has an alternate dimension prison for his villains.

You just dont need to go there. It's Superman for crying out loud.

This is a different universe and a different Superman, a more grounded one

**** realism and Nolan for making it a cool thing. I'm gonna watch my talking racoon shooting Uzis and have a nice time.

that has to learn not to kill from experience.

What the actual **** am i reading? Do you know anything about Superman, or real life for that matter?

 

[dnno1]

There are ways to work around that, it's a story which someone writes. It's the writers fault if he places the character in a bad corner, which he can only escape from if he loses one of his cores. They stupidly placed Superman in a situation where he had to kill. They stupidly went too aggressive with the government thing and lost the entire point of the Kents and Clark's childhood.

I mean i'm sure in real life it would play like that, but this isnt real life. Every other kid Clark could hide from the government just fine and still be a saviour without his father going "maybe" on whether he should let a bus full of children sink in a river.

(right click and open in new tag to see it in full size)

You are going on the premise that they have to work around that. This is the storyteller's take on the character and he has the artistic license to tell the story as he sees fit and not necessarily as other writers have done it. Even with the established source material there are still questions that are asked and unaddressed backstory on the childhood of Clark Kent and this is one person's (David Goyer's) take on it. It doesn't have to follow the path that Grant Morrison or the many other writers took.

 

[MrsKent26]

Would this Jonathan ever say "maybe"?

I don't think the "maybe" in MOS was meant to be taken literally. It symbolizes a very vulnerable human parent that wants two things for his son simultaneously.

1) He wants his son to be safe. The reality of a world like ours is that people would be unkind to a being like Clark. It's unknown how strong Clark really is, so maybe he would survive being taken into custody by the government or something and maybe he wouldn't. There's also the lives of everyone else on the planet to consider. Seeing as how Clark is "the answer to are we alone in the universe" his reveal would cause global upset. It's reasonable for Pa to worry about this.

2) He knows Clark could do great things; "Good or bad...you're going to change the world." It seems like he wants that for Clark. Who wouldn't want a son that has a desire to help others?

The "maybe" tells us that Pa is caught between a rock and a hard place. He wants his son to do well and thinks he could some day, but he wants Clark to be safe as well. The way he says maybe really means "I don't know what to say to my son who is both vulnerable and strong and like nothing the world has ever seen."

 

[Lencho01]

That's a shame. I think there's still some sliver of hope for you though. The last 2 scenes of him, as Clark and Supes, indicate to me a more assured and confident Superman that we're more familiar with in the books.

I'm crossing my fingers they've gotten over the melancholy and strife portion of Clark's life. Now they've got room to navigate "classical" territory.

Eh, one or two scenes aren't enough for me to get excited for what's in store for this version. The foundation's just too weak for me.

 

[Tra-El]

I don't think the "maybe" in MOS was meant to be taken literally. It symbolizes a very vulnerable human parent that wants two things for his son simultaneously.

1) He wants his son to be safe. The reality of a world like ours is that people would be unkind to a being like Clark. It's unknown how strong Clark really is, so maybe he would survive being taken into custody by the government or something and maybe he wouldn't. There's also the lives of everyone else on the planet to consider. Seeing as how Clark is "the answer to are we alone in the universe" his reveal would cause global upset. It's reasonable for Pa to worry about this.

2) He knows Clark could do great things; "Good or bad...you're going to change the world." It seems like he wants that for Clark. Who wouldn't want a son that has a desire to help others?

The "maybe" tells us that Pa is caught between a rock and a hard place. He wants his son to do well and thinks he could some day, but he wants Clark to be safe as well. The way he says maybe really means "I don't know what to say to my son who is both vulnerable and strong and like nothing the world has ever seen."

People act like Jonathan literally said "Yes Clark! What do you think I've been telling you this whole time!" instead of actually reading Jonathan's body language, how he pause's briefly then how he looks down to the ground with hesitation knowing that he's treading water carefully to Clark's question to give him a sense of answering a difficult question that can have a parenting impact. Jonathan saw Clark's existence both in his eyes and Clark's eyes and really tried to balance out the right advice at the givin' time in MoS. In my eyes, JK was nicely written and showed substance to Clark's well-being.

 

[Boy Scout]

If DOJ ignores MOS as much as TDK ignored BB, I'd be willing to do the same, provided I end up liking the movie. I seriously doubt that'll happen, though.

 

[Jekecy]

It's too late now, but an interesting twist on Jonathan that I've always imagined, is him being internally torn up over raising Clark due to the responsibilities in raising a potential god. From Clark's pov he's the chummy dad that we all know and love. Caring, full of life, and ever optimistic about anything and everyone.

But in private and with Martha, Jonathan grows ever more weary the closer Clark gets to fully realizing his potential. That's where the reality of it all weighs down heavily upon him, but he doesn't ever show it to Clark for fear of a negative influence. I wouldn't even have him die a heroic death. Just of old age, like many others. Clark's impression of his father is one of positivity and inspiration, without realizing the burdens he kept within. I always thought there was remarkably poignance in that.

If there was a fault in MOS' characterization, there was too much telegraphing of themes. Donner's Jonathan was also a victim of this. I much prefer Clark's parents to be the typical old country couple. The greatest thing about the Kents were how they managed to be (seemingly) normal and happy.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I don't think the "maybe" in MOS was meant to be taken literally. It symbolizes a very vulnerable human parent that wants two things for his son simultaneously.

1) He wants his son to be safe. The reality of a world like ours is that people would be unkind to a being like Clark. It's unknown how strong Clark really is, so maybe he would survive being taken into custody by the government or something and maybe he wouldn't. There's also the lives of everyone else on the planet to consider. Seeing as how Clark is "the answer to are we alone in the universe" his reveal would cause global upset. It's reasonable for Pa to worry about this.

2) He knows Clark could do great things; "Good or bad...you're going to change the world." It seems like he wants that for Clark. Who wouldn't want a son that has a desire to help others?

The "maybe" tells us that Pa is caught between a rock and a hard place. He wants his son to do well and thinks he could some day, but he wants Clark to be safe as well. The way he says maybe really means "I don't know what to say to my son who is both vulnerable and strong and like nothing the world has ever seen."

Well said.

I find that Costner's Kent showed a lot of concern for the rest of the world. That was his whole point. He had the concern of the wider world on his mind. He wasn't a sociopath, or crazy, or pessimistic. To quote MEN IN BLACK: " A person is smart. PEOPLE are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. " Jon was attempting to balance the love for his son with a concern for what his son's very existence meant for the wider world.

And again... I don't get why "canon" Superman, who has long held himself to a standard that even though he knows that people suffer and die under tyrants all over the world, yet for the sake of the ideal of human self determination does nothing gets a pass on allowing others to die, but as shown in MOS a similar outlook gets excoriated to high heaven. The end result is the same. Superman allowing people to die. And the argument of it not happening in front of his face seems like weak tea to me, because he can see and hear almost everything. So again... He is aware in the comics that he is allowing terrible suffering and death to take place. For the sake of an ideal, for the sake of the wider world he let's it continue. I don't judge the character harshly there. I don't judge Jon Kent harshly in MOS. I don't think detractors have really allowed themselves to fully imagine having his responsibility and the moral needle he was trying to thread.

 

[dnno1]

In real life, sure, you are going to have to kill if you do what he does. But this is a fictional universe and you dont have to go there, especially when Superman has an alternate dimension prison for his villains.

You just dont need to go there. It's Superman for crying out loud. **** realism and Nolan for making it a cool thing. I'm gonna watch my talking racoon shooting Uzis and have a nice time.
What the actual **** am i reading? Do you know anything about Superman, or real life for that matter?

You don't have to get hysterical over this. Like you said, this is fiction, but as you say that you have to understand that anything goes. The "no-kill" policy stems from the past target market of comicbook readers who were mostly children and it would be irresponsible to make them think that crime would pay, or that killing was okay. The thing is that now we are marketing Superman to a more mature market (audiences who range from ages 12 to 24 and even older) and they have no appetite for the corny goodie two shoes hero. You curse Chris Nolan, but what about the directors of the Marvel films going back to the beginning of the last decade who allowed their heroes to kill? Audiences and critics tolerated that but yet there are still some DC fans who can't come to grips with the times. Look, don't question my knowledge of Superman because I have been reading him for more than 40 years, and even I know there have been a few occasions where he has killed. I actually question if you know the character.

 

[Reiter]

You are going on the premise that they have to work around that. This is the storyteller's take on the character and he has the artistic license to tell the story as he sees fit and not necessarily as other writers have done it. Even with the established source material there are still questions that are asked and unaddressed backstory on the childhood of Clark Kent and this is one person's (David Goyer's) take on it. It doesn't have to follow the path that Grant Morrison or the many other writers took.

Make that all the writers.

No, they dont have to follow what other people have written but Snyder was said to be walking around the set with a copy of All-Star in his hand. Apparently he didnt understand any of it.

In any case i can just say that i dont like this perverted version of Superman, but more importantly, that it doesnt work well as a story. As The_Boy_Scout proved, Clark becomes Superman in spite of his father, despite all these flashbacks supposedly having some meaning. They didnt because only Jor El's message actually helped him. Nor did we see the world react to him. The military briefly fought him but they were no match for him anyway at that point.

 

[Lencho01]

Smallville's Pa Kent had pretty much the same fears as the MOS one except he didn't make it sound like the world would react so negatively to Clark. Just that they weren't sure and it'd be something for Clark to decide when he's older. They even had him show anger at Clark once for using his powers in public, but was show he was proud he used it to save someone's life. He just needed to be more careful about it.

MOS pretty much gave the world a reason to react negatively to him because Zod was all "Give me him to me OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!!!!!" If they had let Clark be Superman by choice instead of forcing him, I think things would've been a little bit better for him on that side of things. But, they've apparently built a statue of him for this film, so I guess things are oddly all forgiven.

 

[Reiter]

Well said.

I find that Costner's Kent showed a lot of concern for the rest of the world. That was his whole point. He had the concern of the wider world on his mind. He wasn't a sociopath, or crazy, or pessimistic. To quote MEN IN BLACK: " A person is smart. PEOPLE are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. " Jon was attempting to balance the love for his son with a concern for what his son's very existence meant for the wider world.

And again... I don't get why "canon" Superman, who has long held himself to a standard that even though he knows that people suffer and die under tyrants all over the world, yet for the sake of the ideal of human self determination does nothing gets a pass on allowing others to die, but as shown in MOS a similar outlook gets excoriated to high heaven. The end result is the same. Superman allowing people to die. And the argument of it not happening in front of his face seems like weak tea to me, because he can see and hear almost everything. So again... He is aware in the comics that he is allowing terrible suffering and death to take place. For the sake of an ideal, for the sake of the wider world he let's it continue. I don't judge the character harshly there. I don't judge Jon Kent harshly in MOS. I don't think detractors have really allowed themselves to fully imagine having his responsibility and the moral needle he was trying to thread.

He doesnt go beat dictators in other countries because:
1) he cant enforce his will on other people and their countries if they dont want to
2) because of the real life ***storm that would emerge if there was a comic that said that it is ok to go to war and enforce your brand of government to other countries (who incidentally have oil. Poor Egypt and Syria dont, so nobody cares about their protestors getting shot with live ammo).

It's a complicated issue and most writers are simply choosing not to place themselves in that corner and would rather have him fight Brainiac.

The issue in MoS however was whether he should place his wellbeing and cover above the lives of those children. Gee let me think... This is Superman right? Hm.... I dont know...

 

[Reiter]

You don't have to get hysterical over this.

Sorry, sorry, my apologies. I kind of lost it there.

Like you said, this is fiction, but as you say that you have to understand that anything goes. The "no-kill" policy stems from the past target market of comicbook readers who were mostly children and it would be irresponsible to make them think that crime would pay, or that killing was okay. The thing is that now we are marketing Superman to a more mature market (audiences who range from ages 12 to 24 and even older) and they have no appetite for the corny goodie two shoes hero. You curse Chris Nolan, but what about the directors of the Marvel films going back to the beginning of the last decade who allowed their heroes to kill? Audiences and critics tolerated that but yet there are still some DC fans who can't come to grips with the times. Look, don't question my knowledge of Superman because I have been reading him for more than 40 years, and even I know there have been a few occasions where he has killed. I actually question if you know the character.

Marvel heroes kill because that's what they always did. And the movies themselves dont make a big deal out of it. The Extremis dude was unstoppable and was going to kill them, so they killed him in self defense. The end.

In MoS they made a big deal out of it, they put Superman in that overly complicated situation where he had to execute the bad guy. It wouldnt have been that bad if Zod died during the battle because of the intensity. But they had to put Supes on the spot because in their minds it was cool and deep.

 

[matt47]

May I ask why do people come here if you don't think this movie will be good and have no faith in it? It's like going to a theme park when you don't like the rides.

 

[Reiter]

MOS pretty much gave the world a reason to react negatively to him because Zod was all "Give me him to me OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!!!!!" If they had let Clark be Superman by choice instead of forcing him, I think things would've been a little bit better for him on that side of things.

That's my biggest problem with the movie. I could forgive everything else, but at the end of the day, the DC universe's parallel of Jesus only became a hero when he was forced to. If it hadnt been for Zod or that spaceship in the arctic, he would have spent his life flipping burgers and catching crabs wondering about his origins.

I mean, he reached 33 and he apparently had no life. No purpose in life. "Maybe i will fish the answer to my origin out of the ocean along with the crabs, who knows?"

This is why i like Morrison's Action Comics origin (and forgive me if i've busted your testicles with Morrison, but he's the go-to writer when it comes to the character) where we see a young, happy go lucky Clark who doesnt give a *** about what anyone thinks, or what the government will do to him. They cant catch him, he's freaking Superman, so evil beware, he's coming for you!

And the best part about it? It's uplifting, it's exciting, it's optimistic!