As, hopefuldreamer said, (I'll paraphrase) One of the big things about Lois and Clark's meetings is that he wouldn't reveal himself to the world until the world was ready, like his father wanted. However, Clark does not reveal himself to the world because the world is ready, this moment of stepping into the light is a hollow moment because his hand is forced by Zod, it is a problem of circumstance. This can be furthered where the fact that the world didn't implode (though we didn't really see much of the world's continued reaction) with this knowledge, so why exactly did Jonathan Kent die?
A super being stepping out from the shadows and revealing himself to have god like powers and alien origins is a much different circumstance than one stepping out of the shadows and saving the world from certain destruction. Like I said, Jonathan death was his way of telling Clark to "remember what I taught you". If no Zod, Clark likely comes out in a much different manner, one that is gradual and not in the grand fashion type of way that was forced with Zod's arrival.
I like to relate what happened in the movie to a real world what-if scenario, which I'm sure they wanted you to do. Clark doesn't take Jonathan's advice and comes out about his origins and his powers, we'd all fear him and what his intentions were, no matter what he said.
Clark comes out as a symbol of hope, a savior from the stars. The way Jor-El intended him to come out. I'd like to think the world would be a lot more accepting to this individual.
Zod provided the means for Clark to come out. The means were not as he intended, but it actually all worked out. The world will be much more accepting to someone that just saved their asses from certain destruction. This is actually highlighted in the film when the military initially fires on him despite him telling him that he's not an enemy of theirs, but puts their guns down and labels him their friend after he saves them. Actions speak louder than words.
Also by "Clark Kent" I mean the man who will be working in the Daily Planet, wears glasses etc Goyer himself said he left this for the sequel, and that it would be difficult to write. So it would be like taking out all of the "Bruce Wayne- eccentric billionaire" scenes out of Batman Begins and ending the film with him being brought back from legal death.
I know what you meant, and there's nothing to be said about this character that already hasn't been said. Bruce Wayne, playboy billionaire is a facade, much like the Clark Kent that wears glasses. What else is there to tell?
There was what, 1 scene with that Bruce Wayne in Begins? Literally 1 scene. Well, actually 2 because of the party scene. Only 1 was necessary to show the audience who the fake Bruce Wayne was, the other was plot related. Point being, we already knew who the fake Bruce Wayne was and why he put on the act, that's what we got from MOS. MOS had 1 scene with glasses wearing Clark Kent, and it was explained in the film, "what are you going to do when you're not saving the world?" "I gotta find a job where I can keep my hear to the ground, where people wont look twice when I want to go somewhere dangerous, start asking questions".
There's nothing else to be said about this character.
Nopenopenope. Clark Kent- as per David Goyer- has not been explored. Until the end of the film, there was no dual identity. "Clark Kent" was created by Clark at the end of the film when he was talking to his mother at the end of the film. We never really saw how Superman was created either, what is Clark's motivation to want to help people? We're supposed to accept that he just does.
Like I said, we know everything we need to know about this character. Just like Goyer and Nolan didn't need multiple scenes to show the audience who the facade Bruce Wayne was.
Clark has an inherent need to want to save people, why does there need to be any explanation further than that? You seem to want another Batman type character. That's not Superman. Clark doesn't need to see his parents get killed, or his uncle get killed. Some people are born with that need and some people develop it. Clark was born with it, and it was pretty obvious by the flashbacks that he had the call from the outset. Your problem seems to stem from not knowing the Superman character. We're supposed to accept that he just does because he just does. He was born with it. Not all super heroes are created the same.
In the same way Bruce developed his crime fighting abilities(his "powers"), Clark was born with them.
Yeah, that's a good example of a scene where the film shines. But it seems like the tornado scene is payoff to only a poorly represented scene before it- the bus sequence. We don't see why Clark wants to help people, there's no explanation to it, and that is then furthered by Jonathan saying he should have maybe let those children die in order to protect yourself.
Why does there need to be an explanation to it? You see a car crash and people need help, you go and help. You're later interviewed and asked why you decided to help, what are you going to say? "My parents died in a car crash, that was why I helped"? No. Because that didn't happen. You helped because not only do you have the means to help, but you have the inherent need to help people in trouble.
This is what we're shown throughout the movie. The bus scene, the oil rig, Lois being hurt, Zod, etc...
Going back to the scene where Jonathan is talking to Clark after the bus scene. He tells Jonathan "I just wanted to help", "what was I supposed to do, just let them die?" That's someone who knows nothing else than to save people. That's what you're not getting. That need doesn't need to be born from an event, it just needs to be born. It was there with Clark from the outset.
Tony Stark in Iron Man gained a need to save and help people too. However, we are shown why- his weapons destroy lives. Bruce Wayne gains a need to save people in Batman Begins- he saw his parents murdered. Thor gained a need to help people when he learned humility on Earth. Spider-Man gained it when he learned with great power comes great responsibility and Ben's death. Steve Rogers gained a sense of duty to his fellow man when one of the greatest most magnificent evils the world had ever seen was destroying Europe and had a sense of greater duty instilled in him by the SSSerum.
Clark just does.
First of all, you have Steve Rogers all wrong. He too, like Clark, was born with that need. If you think any kind of serum gave him that sense of duty, you don't know the character. All the serum gave him were the means to save people, that duty was already there.
You don't even need the comics to tell you that. The movie outlined this pretty well when he wanted to join the military despite his shortcomings, diving on the grenade, etc...
Secondly, what's the problem? Clark just does. So what? Heroes can't have an inherent need but must have something bad happen to them for them to actually want to help people? You must have a very sinister view of the world if you think people only want to help people if something bad happened to them. So what, every firefighter that is willing to put their life on the line and run into a burning building is only doing it because their parents died in a fire?
Excuse me if I'm just misunderstanding you, but that is just ridiculous. Iron Man and Batman had different origins that Superman, why is that a problem?
So, let me get this sorted: Clark wants to become a guardian for humanity, Jonathan accepts this, Clark has the perfect chance to reveal that all the people he saved over the years in Smallville were not flukes, but that he has the abilities far beyond those of mortal men, and the Jonathan says "psych!" and makes Clark let him die, because "my father believed if the world found out who I truly was, they'd reject me out of fear".
I thought you got that scene, but you obviously didn't. Jonathan sacrificed himself because he knew Clark had an inherent need to save people, but wanted him to protect his identity over everything.
"You have to keep this side of yourself a secret"
Firstly, how is saving his own father in front of like 20 people going to convince the world of anything? Secondly, Jonathan's point was to keep his Clark Kent side a secret, there was no "sike" moment involved in that scene, he'd been telling him his whole life that he needed to keep his powers a secret, even telling him that maybe he should have let those kids die on the bus. Would have been mightily selfish and hypocritical of him to then allow Clark to save him in front of all those people. He thought his message was greater than his own life, that's why he sacrificed himself.
But the message is disregarded anyhow, the message being "my father believed if the world found out who I truly was, they'd reject me out of fear".
Well, looks like I have to do it anyhow, and you were wrong dad.
Like I said before, saving the entire planet from certain destruction is much different than just coming out and revealing yourself to be an alien with godlike powers.
Was he wrong? Clark comes out to the military, telling them that he's not their enemy, that he's a friend, that he grew up a human and for all intents and purposes, is one of them. Then they FIRE ON HIM the first chance they get. He then saves them from getting killed, walks out, and they put their weapons down. "This MAN is not out enemy". They later work together.
This is a representation of how the world would feel. He reveals himself, and no matter what he says to them, they will not see him the way he wants them to see him. But let him personally save YOUR life, that will certainly change the way you feel. That's what happened in the movie. He saved those military guys' lives and changed the way they felt. "This man is not our enemy". He had already told them that, but they needed to have their lives hang in the balance and for him to save them to change their opinion of him.
The lives of every human just hung in the balance, and he saved them. I think they'll be a lot more accepting now. Jonathan was not wrong. The soldiers are not robots, they are humans. The fact that they didn't trust him despite all of his talk shows how humans feel. They were not ready, they didn't trust him, and they tried to
kill him.
But we don't see the motivation for Clark's methods. Jonathan tells him to find out who he is. Is he hunting the ship, did he stumble upon that person at the bar by chance? The film doesn't show what he is doing, just the results.
Actually it does. Why would he leave home in the first place? If he was content on being who he was, he would have just stayed. "I just want to do something useful with my life", he's obviously not saying he wants to be a banker, he's certainly not saying he wants to be a busboy. He wants to go out there and use his powers and save people.
Lois takes note that he's a traveler, moving place to place, saving people in need. He took his father's advice to heart and kept his identity a secret. Notice how he doesn't use his real name. He didn't move away from the farm life to pour drinks in a pub. If you bring it all together it's pretty obvious what he was doing. Searching. He didn't know about the ship until he happened upon it in the pub. But no doubt he was always keeping his ears open for such events.
And most importantly when trying to figure out what exactly he was doing, he returned home once he found about his origins.
This is just a broad summary of the film, with no substance to the rest of the previous conversation.
It's Clark's journey to fill the void, very much relevant to the previous conversation. I just don't think you understand the film or the character at all.
