BvS The BvS Rumor/Speculation Discussion Thread! - Part 3

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]501585[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]494211[/split]

 

[RF20Lennon]

For you. For myself it all worked like gangbuster each of my six times seeing it in theaters. And I am a Superman fan that isn't someone that likes something just cuz it's SUPERMAN. I hated LOIS AND CLARK and was disappointed in STAS and SMALLVILLE.

MOS was the Superman movie I didn't even know I wanted. It's NOT what I would have done, or would have had the testicular fortitude to do if I were in charge. All I wanted was an updated Donner formula, music too, and a physical baddie to showcase Supe's awesome power to rope in the DBZ generation.

For me, it worked that he wasn't immediately hailed as a savior. After all... Was Jesus immediately accepted by everyone around him? Sure, that messiah had followers but the story of his widespread acceptance didn't take place in a day. Otherwise that crucifixion don't happen.

The triumphs and tragedies in MOS are about Clark and how he reacts anyway. What were his struggles and quest. It's like with the ending... It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about him killing Zod... It matters what Superman thinks about him killing Zod.


The idea of Superman is usually a totally upbeat one, no argument, but there have been quite a few stories in comics over the years and there are even bits in the Reeve films, that point to less pure uplift, and I think it's fine to tell a more complex and more nuanced super hero story with the Man of Steel as a character. I think he's flexible enough a creation to be done in many ways and not break. If anything this world needs more fictional heroes that present morality, tragedy, and triumph in more shades than black and white and wrapped up in a bow of certainty. Real growth as we travel through life is ever so perfect. Would that more heroic fiction in the States at least, mirrored this. As I said before, STM was the fairy tale version of Superman from nearly 40 years ago... And it is a glorious fairy tale. But Superman has always changed with the times. From scrappy New Deal styled social crusader to agent of order and the status qou, to galactic hero and beyond. MOS is just another link in this chain for me.

But except for me, MOS didn't come across as nuanced at all. It was pretty on the nose with the symbolism and it never really grasped the character properly. It gave some new and fresh ideas but it never really went deeper into the morality and the philosophy of the character. Why does he do what he does? Why is he the best of us? What makes his morality unshakable?

With Nolan's TDK trilogy, the flashback scenes were carefully chosen to show true layering of the character and actual growth. Here we got a lot of choppy flashback sequences which never really connected in terms of a proper narrative and just told us that Clark is a really nice guy. It never explored what makes him tick, his philosophies, his sense of morality and his view on humanity.

IMO it tried to be more complex and dark but the only thing really dark about it was the color palette. I had fun with it in parts but looking back it could've been so much more.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I want to see Superman be Superstalker.

 

[moviefreak]

I want to see Superman be Superstalker.

Did we got it already in Super Returns?

 

[Black Narcissus]

Did we got it already in Super Returns?

Yeah, but this version is more intense. His jealousy makes him follow Bruce Wayne etc.

 

[moviefreak]

Yeah, but this version is more intense. His jealousy makes him follow Bruce Wayne etc.

Are you sure that it's the other way around?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

But except for me, MOS didn't come across as nuanced at all. It was pretty on the nose with the symbolism and it never really grasped the character properly. It gave some new and fresh ideas but it never really went deeper into the morality and the philosophy of the character. Why does he do what he does? Why is he the best of us? What makes his morality unshakable?

.

I'll zero in on this... Does your conception of Superman ever let people die? And yes... This is a bit of a trick question, but I am always interested in hearing people explain this.

As for the rest... What did we learn of Superman in STM? Did we learn about his philosophy, how he views humanity ect? Yeah... But let's not pretend it's especially deep. Jor-el lays out this mostly actually to the audience. What we learn of Superman is that he has a sort of motivating guilt about Jon's death ("All those powers... And I couldn't even save him...) and that he chafed under having to hide his powers. He's a good person with a tremendous weight on his shoulders but around 18-19 Jor-el gives him his mission to be... A messiah more or less and the point of the moment with the time reversal is the revelation that... Nope... He is SUPER AND HE IS MAN. He defies Jor-el and in mythological terms takes the power of the father for himself. But again... Other than being a good person for the sake of it, and that is a simple powerful message no doubt, what in STM do we learn really? I posit not more than is in MOS, and MOS is very much an experience of what this God in human form raised by human beings goes through. Despite his powers the choices are not easy and there is a great burden, not even so much from his action, but firstly just on his mere existence. The second trailer for BVS seems to indicate that Jon Kent as played by Costner was pretty accurate in his view of things. The difference is, the responsibility of letting his existence be known was taken out of Clark's hands by an outside force neither he or Mr. Kent could foresee.

 

[phantomknight09]

But except for me, MOS didn't come across as nuanced at all. It was pretty on the nose with the symbolism and it never really grasped the character properly. It gave some new and fresh ideas but it never really went deeper into the morality and the philosophy of the character. Why does he do what he does? Why is he the best of us? What makes his morality unshakable?

With Nolan's TDK trilogy, the flashback scenes were carefully chosen to show true layering of the character and actual growth. Here we got a lot of choppy flashback sequences which never really connected in terms of a proper narrative and just told us that Clark is a really nice guy. It never explored what makes him tick, his philosophies, his sense of morality and his view on humanity.

IMO it tried to be more complex and dark but the only thing really dark about it was the color palette. I had fun with it in parts but looking back it could've been so much more.

His father died because he wanted Clark to wait until the world was ready for his existence to be known. when zod threatened the earth that is when that moment came. He found his purpose, and great deal of his moral foundation, when an unprecedented amount of humans were in danger and he was the only being able to do anything. And the fact that he has all this power and he let his father die to respect his wishes means that he is bound by his father will, and both their morals, to be earths protecteror. Atleast that's what I gatherec from Mos.

 

[Mainline]

It gave some new and fresh ideas but it never really went deeper into the morality and the philosophy of the character. 1) Why does he do what he does? 2) Why is he the best of us? 3) What makes his morality unshakable?

1) Why is anyone a hero? The vast majority of real-life heroes are just ordinary people who don't have traumatic origin stories. The whole point of the bus rescue is to show Clark already had a heroic nature without the costume and without knowing his alien origins. He saved people because that was what he was raised to do, as proven when Jonathan helps people during the tornado and sacrifices himself for Clark.

2) Why does he need to be the best of us? The original Superman who swept across America an captured the hearts and minds of the population on a scale that no other superhero had ever repeated was generically good, but far from a saint. What version of Superman is actually morally perfect and why is that a reasonable standard or expectation to hold the character to? How many stories are told about morally perfect beings?

2b) Nonetheless, this Clark is good because his parents- birth and adopted- showed him love and sacrifice. He had trials but overcame them at every turn by always desiring to do and be good instead of succumbing to self-pity or wallowing in grief. Clark shows incredible sacrifice, trust, and volunteerism without obligation.

3) Again why does his morality need to be unshakable? That isn't true of Golden Age, Silver Age, Post-Crisis, or New 52 Superman. It isn't true of Alyn, Reeves, Reeve, Cain, Welling, or Routh. It doesn't apply to the cartoons, radio shows, or comics... so why an absurd false standard? How fair is it to judge MOS against a stick to which no previous mainstream incarnation of Superman can stand? It's an ironman fallacy (inverse of a strawman argument; an immeasurable standard versus something absurdly easy to knock down) rather than a legitimate criticism.

3b) Nonetheless, Clark's morality is strong because it's been tried and tested and Clark wrestles with genuine moral dilemmas rather than plot-device softballs where the writers let him escape from actually having to have his mettle tested.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Hello Pantera/Shinobi/All your other names that I can't remember/Dark Side

 

[RF20Lennon]

I'll zero in on this... Does your conception of Superman ever let people die? And yes... This is a bit of a trick question, but I am always interested in hearing people explain this.

As for the rest... What did we learn of Superman in STM? Did we learn about his philosophy, how he views humanity ect? Yeah... But let's not pretend it's especially deep. Jor-el lays out this mostly actually to the audience. What we learn of Superman is that he has a sort of motivating guilt about Jon's death ("All those powers... And I couldn't even save him...) and that he chafed under having to hide his powers. He's a good person with a tremendous weight on his shoulders but around 18-19 Jor-el gives him his mission to be... A messiah more or less and the point of the moment with the time reversal is the revelation that... Nope... He is SUPER AND HE IS MAN. He defies Jor-el and in mythological terms takes the power of the father for himself. But again... Other than being a good person for the sake of it, and that is a simple powerful message no doubt, what in STM do we learn really? I posit not more than is in MOS, and MOS is very much an experience of what this God in human form raised by human beings goes through. Despite his powers the choices are not easy and there is a great burden, not even so much from his action, but firstly just on his mere existence. The second trailer for BVS seems to indicate that Jon Kent as played by Costner was pretty accurate in his view of things. The difference is, the responsibility of letting his existence be known was taken out of Clark's hands by an outside force neither he or Mr. Kent could foresee.

In what way exactly? As in he kills? or he can't save everyone? or he intentionally lets people die? Could you give me a scenario?

As for the second part you explained it clearly yourself! In STM Superman has clear motivations for WHY he does what he does. Which in my mind is 3 things:

1. His home got destroyed and he cannot let that happen to Earth. He will do anything to protect this planet and its people. Like Killing Zod. Which I had no issue with.

2. He feels like he OWES the people of Earth for the home and the life that he's been given. That and Jor-El reminding him of his purpose and what he needs to do for the people. "They can be a great people Kal-El--they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all--their capacity for good, I have sent them you, my only son".

3. And finally and this is the most important one! He couldn't save his father. ""All those powers... And I couldn't even save him...". He learned a very valuable lesson that day. Even with all his might, he cannot save everybody so he transitions that guilt into trying to save as many as he possibly can, so others won't have to suffer.

In MOS, other than being a nice guy, Clark Kent had almost no motivation and no personality. He didn't come off as an actual person but just a caricature of Superman.

 

[RF20Lennon]

1) Why is anyone a hero? The vast majority of real-life heroes are just ordinary people who don't have traumatic origin stories. The whole point of the bus rescue is to show Clark already had a heroic nature without the costume and without knowing his alien origins. He saved people because that was what he was raised to do, as proven when Jonathan helps people during the tornado and sacrifices himself for Clark.

2) Why does he need to be the best of us? The original Superman who swept across America an captured the hearts and minds of the population on a scale that no other superhero had ever repeated was generically good, but far from a saint. What version of Superman is actually morally perfect and why is that a reasonable standard or expectation to hold the character to? How many stories are told about morally perfect beings?

2b) Nonetheless, this Clark is good because his parents- birth and adopted- showed him love and sacrifice. He had trials but overcame them at every turn by always desiring to do and be good instead of succumbing to self-pity or wallowing in grief. Clark shows incredible sacrifice, trust, and volunteerism without obligation.

3) Again why does his morality need to be unshakable? That isn't true of Golden Age, Silver Age, Post-Crisis, or New 52 Superman. It isn't true of Alyn, Reeves, Reeve, Cain, Welling, or Routh. It doesn't apply to the cartoons, radio shows, or comics... so why an absurd false standard? How fair is it to judge MOS against a stick to which no previous mainstream incarnation of Superman can stand? It's an ironman fallacy (inverse of a strawman argument; an immeasurable standard versus something absurdly easy to knock down) rather than a legitimate criticism.

3b) Nonetheless, Clark's morality is strong because it's been tried and tested and Clark wrestles with genuine moral dilemmas rather than plot-device softballs where the writers let him escape from actually having to have his mettle tested.

1. That is not what he was raised to do. Because in the world of MOS, both his parents are visibly upset at the fact that he saved those kids in the bus. When he asks the question if he should have let them die, Jonathan Kent replies with a "maybe" so he certainly wasn't raised that way. And why does a hero need motivation? Because we need to see growth in the character and see him or her evolve into the hero they become. Understand what makes them that way.

For example- In the TDK trilogy, we see where Bruce is coming from. He wants to avenge his death by killing Joe Chill but after Chill is taken out, he is visibly upset and realizes that the crime and injustice runs far deeper and the only true way for him to fight it is to understand them. He goes from being a man who wants to seek revenge for his parents to a hero willing to do anything for his city by trying to clean the system. That's proper character evolution.

In MOS, other than the fact that Clark is a nice guy and likes to save people we get nothing. Nothing about who he is, what his personality is like and why he is the way he is.

2. Superman was always meant to be the incorruptible messiah who represented the best of human values and ethics. Even Zack Snyder talks about it in a BTTS video about how Superman is the best of us. This is a man who could rule the universe if he wanted to but he's a humble, middle class man who chooses to use his godly powers to the service of humanity. That speaks volumes of his character and something that must be explored to see what that is so. I've explained in an earlier post, citing 3 reasons for why Superman does what he does.

2b. Yes! But we never got to see any of that in MOS. There is no scene where the Kents encourage him to do whats right or give him a sense of purpose or install a sense of morality.

3. His morality has to be unshakable. That's what is so great about Superman. That no matter what he'll never succumb to his emotions. He always holds back in every fight, and his greatest superpower is self control. Which is what the Reeve Superman was. And so is the Cavill Superman to an extent.

4. Yeah I agree! Superman's greatest conflicts are internal. The moral and ethical dilemma's he has to face. How would Superman react to the Syrian refugee crises? How would he respond to a terror force like ISIS? All these are extremely interesting questions to ask the character.

But in the film, as a kid he never really goes through any serious moral dilemmas to shape up his character.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

You do realize MoS wasn't about him being Superman but Becoming Superman?
He had been helping people and saving lives since he was a child. That speaks volumes about who he is and how kindhearted he is. And like anyone who doesn't know their sole purpose in life, he took the time to discover himself which was the final peice to him becoming Superman.

His Values and Moral compass were already in place, his motivation was to find out about himself so he could have some closure. Once he discovered his heritage, he realized what he had the power to truly do, whether the world was ready for it or not.

 

[Mainline]

1. His home got destroyed and he cannot let that happen to Earth. He will do anything to protect this planet and its people.

2. He feels like he OWES the people of Earth for the home and the life that he's been given.

3. Even with all his might, he cannot save everybody so he transitions that guilt into trying to save as many as he possibly can, so others won't have to suffer.

Nonsense.

1. Krypton was never his home, all of his formative years were on Earth, and there's zero indication the planet is going to be destroyed in S:TM, S2, or S3... the less said about S4 the better.

2. So we can just make up feelings that are never shown, demonstrated, or proven? Where does Superman ever say this? Moreover, your argument is that in your view, Superman is someone who does good out of a compulsive guilt complex and unpayable debt. So instead of a noble hero he's a guilty Catholic... great.

3. What a powerful lesson... oh wait, he can save everyone because he does undo death as the finale to the end of the film... so...

In MOS, other than being a nice guy, Clark Kent had almost no motivation and no personality. He didn't come off as an actual person but just a caricature of Superman.

Please. The poor analysis applied to S:TM makes it unlikely that you'd be able to determine motivation or personality if it punched you in the face! Nearly every action we're shown is the logical and natural consequence of something earlier in his life or in the story, which is, guess what, how actual people act.

We don't wax on about how Lois is the love of our life, then spend two subsequent films pretending like she's meaningless.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Clark's motivation to be a hero is basically himself. The movie makes it pretty clear that he's just innately good. His mom and two daddies just provided a framework. I think it's a nice contrast to Bruce.

Bruce is who he is because of death. Clark is who he is in spite of it.

A line from the teaser sums it up pretty well. "Maybe he's just a guy trying to do the right thing." The only character really comparable to that in cinema right now is Captain America and it's the sorta archetype that really represents the "everyman." Those people out there that are good just because. It feels more honest to me than a forced tragedy or something (not that those don't have their merits).

 

[Mainline]

1. That is not what he was raised to do.

Yes he was, which is why he did it. Nothing speaks to the contrary. Saying "maybe" in context, meant Clark had to consider the consequences of revealing his secret not that he shouldn't save people. If that was their objection, Martha would have raised it when reunited with Clark or after the Battle of Smallville, but saving people was never their objection, the revelation of secret was. The fact that you miss that nuance is why you can't make sense of the character and can't understand that real heroes rarely come from cliche traumatic origins.

2. Superman was always meant to be the incorruptible messiah

You're insane. Golden Age Superman killed and bullied. Silver Age Superman had childish dickery and pranks. Modern Superman killed, raged, navel gazed, had angst, and every other emotion. New 52 the same. Donner's Superman opposed the laws of nature, lied to his beloved, and killed powerless Phantom Criminals. On and on. It's a ridiculous non-existent standard.

2b. Yes! But we never got to see any of that in MOS. There is no scene where the Kents encourage him to do whats right or give him a sense of purpose or install a sense of morality.

I guess except for the scenes where they expressly tell him to do so. Okay.

3. His morality has to be unshakable. That's what is so great about Superman.

See above. You'vre made up a Superman that doesn't exist.

4. Yeah I agree! Superman's greatest conflicts are internal.

But in the film, as a kid he never really goes through any serious moral dilemmas to shape up his character.

Sure. He never has to decide whether to rescue or reveal his secret, whether to give in to his anger or not, whether to forgive a bully or not, whether to trust a reporter or not, whether to rescue strangers at the expense of his job or not, whether to sacrifice his privacy or not, whether to give up his freedom or not, whether to give up his only ties to Krypton or not, whether to allow others to help or not, whether to trust and forgive the military or not, whether to end a chance for Krypton to return or not, and whether to kill or not.

Yup. None of those moral dilemmas were presented, Clark never proved himself through them again and again.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Yes he was, which is why he did it. Nothing speaks to the contrary. Saying "maybe" in context, meant Clark had to consider the consequences of revealing his secret not that he shouldn't save people. If that was their objection, Martha would have raised it when reunited with Clark or after the Battle of Smallville, but saving people was never their objection, the revelation of secret was. The fact that you miss that nuance is why you can't make sense of the character and can't understand that real heroes rarely come from cliche traumatic origins.

You're insane. Golden Age Superman killed and bullied. Silver Age Superman had childish dickery and pranks. Modern Superman killed, raged, navel gazed, had angst, and every other emotion. New 52 the same. Donner's Superman opposed the laws of nature, lied to his beloved, and killed powerless Phantom Criminals. On and on. It's a ridiculous non-existent standard.

I guess except for the scenes where they expressly tell him to do so. Okay.

See above. You'vre made up a Superman that doesn't exist.

Sure. He never has to decide whether to rescue or reveal his secret, whether to give in to his anger or not, whether to forgive a bully or not, whether to trust a reporter or not, whether to rescue strangers at the expense of his job or not, whether to sacrifice his privacy or not, whether to give up his freedom or not, whether to give up his only ties to Krypton or not, whether to allow others to help or not, whether to trust and forgive the military or not, whether to end a chance for Krypton to return or not, and whether to kill or not.

Yup. None of those moral dilemmas were presented, Clark never proved himself through them again and again.

1. Actually not at all. If you watch the trailer of BVS Martha again clearly states he doesn't owe this world a thing. Of course it was the secret that was the objection but where in the film was he raised to save people? Never once do his parents encourage him to save anybody. Even when his father is about to die, he tells him not to save him. Whatever the reason maybe, my point is the Kents in MOS never encouraged their son to save anybody.

2. If you read interviews of Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster you can see what kind of Superman they wanted to create. He was meant to represent the classic immigrant story of a man trying to find a place in the world. David Goyer the writer of MOS says in a BTTS video that "Superman is Moses and Jesus rolled into one". That's how his character was built. So clearly I'm not the insane one here. Donner's Superman actually didn't kill Zod and co. If you go back and watch the extra scene that didn't make it into the film you can see that Zod and Co. are basically prisoners in the Fortress. He did not kill them. And I've already said I'm not a fan of the time travel ending of STM. Go back and read my previous posts.

3. When I say moral dilemma's I mean dilemma's we face as people everyday on a personal level and dilemma's we face as a species. Whether to rescue strangers at the expense of his job? Yes but why does he do that? What makes him click? Heroes are built from tragedy. Superman lost his whole planet and his whole species, if that isn't tragic that I dunno what is.

What privacy and freedom is he sacrificing exactly? The whole Clark Kent persona was built around the fact that he could conceal his identity. When the military sent a drone to check up on him, he brought it to the ground which I agree with but I don't see how that's him sacrificing anything other than expensive equipment.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Nonsense.

1. Krypton was never his home, all of his formative years were on Earth, and there's zero indication the planet is going to be destroyed in S:TM, S2, or S3... the less said about S4 the better.

2. So we can just make up feelings that are never shown, demonstrated, or proven? Where does Superman ever say this? Moreover, your argument is that in your view, Superman is someone who does good out of a compulsive guilt complex and unpayable debt. So instead of a noble hero he's a guilty Catholic... great.

3. What a powerful lesson... oh wait, he can save everyone because he does undo death as the finale to the end of the film... so...

Please. The poor analysis applied to S:TM makes it unlikely that you'd be able to determine motivation or personality if it punched you in the face! Nearly every action we're shown is the logical and natural consequence of something earlier in his life or in the story, which is, guess what, how actual people act.

We don't wax on about how Lois is the love of our life, then spend two subsequent films pretending like she's meaningless.

1. Zod and co. attack Earth and make the President kneel to them in Superman

2. No, Superman does good because of a combination of things. Not being able to save his dad is a BIG ONE. And the fact that he is over protective about Earth after finding out what happened to Krypton.

3. Already discussed in the previous thread. Go back and re-read

4. It actually isn't at all. Tell me more about Clark Kent's personality in MOS. What does he like? What does he not like?

Why do you think this film was so decisive amongst fans and critics? Again I don't think it's a bad film but it squandered a chance to be something much more. Even Jerry Seinfeld, arguably the biggest Superman fanboy ever, thought it lacked big time in terms of character and the essence of Superman. You should watch Confused Matthew's review on the film. He essentially concisely explains a lot of the issues. I don't agree with everything but a lot of the points are quite salient.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

@Mainline: lets ease down a bit. Lennon isn't putting out bad vibes here. We disagree. At this time there's no need to get ugly.

 

[Mainline]

Never once do his parents encourage him to save anybody.

Wrong. Jonathan rescues a little girl before saving himself, then gives the girl to Clark to save and tells him to get his mother to the overpass to save her. Jonathan tells Clark as a child that he's going to change the world and to decide to be a man of good character. When Martha tells him he doesn't owe anyone, she frames it with all the expectations that are upon him, implying that he must pick them up willingly... she doesn't phrase it as a rejection of those things.

If you read interviews of Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster you can see what kind of Superman they wanted to create. He was meant to represent the classic immigrant story of a man trying to find a place in the world.
David Goyer the writer of MOS says in a BTTS video that "Superman is Moses and Jesus rolled into one".

If you read their interviews you'd spell their names right! Siegel was the one who wrote stories where Superman bullied, killed, broke the law, manipulated sports, framed criminals, extorted blackmailers, and more... FAR from perfection.

Moses was a murderer. Gilgamesh was a murderer. Where is mainstream canon does this moral paragon exist? It doesn't.

When I say moral dilemma's I mean dilemma's we face as people everyday on a personal level and dilemma's we face as a species.

WTF. So individual and collective dilemmas... meaning all dilemmas... but somehow excluding the ones in the film.

Heroes are built from tragedy.

Utter nonsense. Go down to any police precinct, any fire station, any EMS garage, any soldier barracks, any soup kitchen... and ask for their tragic origin story. You'll get some but as exceptions to the rule unless your assumption is that all do-gooders are the warped product of tragedy.

 

[Mainline]

It actually isn't at all. Tell me more about Clark Kent's personality in MOS. What does he like? What does he not like?

If it isn't spoon fed to you or if you were so blatantly biased, you would apply the same level of inference and invention that you used to squeeze justifications out of the Donner portrayal.

I mean, how can you pretend we don't know what he likes and doesn't?

Clark likes beer and football, pretty women, and smart retorts. He likes riding a bike to work, playing with his dogs, and reading philosophy like Plato. He likes watching sports (which is why Pete bugs him) and his introverted, contemplative, and a man of few words. He cares about how other people feel (handcuffs, Thank you Colonel), loves coming home, and loves flying with an exuberance we've never seen before. He's patient and long-suffering even if called names or pushed around. He trusts clergy and seeks their counsel.

Clark doesn't like bullies, being picked on, ostracized or isolated, he can't stand to see someone threaten a woman, he doesn't like playing games and tries to get straight to the point when he speaks. He's trusting but he's not naive. He hates to see other hurt and will go to extremes to prevent it.

Pretending like there isn't a personality in the film is pure bias and the appeal to others isn't an argument, it just means they're being as selectively wrong as you. If all it took was to say, "Hey look, other agree with me!" any abhorrent belief would be justified with two or more people. Divisiveness isn't proof of your point only that the film is divisive.

 

[Nemeres]

2b) Nonetheless, this Clark is good because his parents- birth and adopted- showed him love and sacrifice. He had trials but overcame them at every turn by always desiring to do and be good instead of succumbing to self-pity or wallowing in grief. Clark shows incredible sacrifice, trust, and volunteerism without obligation.

Ho boy. What were the years of wasted potential and trauma/guilt about "not revealing himself at any cost, or else" about, then. Sacrifice and volunteerism were also pretty absent when he let his old father do all the running and saving during the tornado, despite being the young/superpowerful one. Also when he lets him die out of self-preservation.

You do realize MoS wasn't about him being Superman but Becoming Superman?
He had been helping people and saving lives since he was a child. That speaks volumes about who he is and how kindhearted he is. And like anyone who doesn't know their sole purpose in life, he took the time to discover himself which was the final peice to him becoming Superman.

His Values and Moral compass were already in place, his motivation was to find out about himself so he could have some closure. Once he discovered his heritage, he realized what he had the power to truly do, whether the world was ready for it or not.

It also speaks volumes that he saves people only when he coincides with the situation, not because he actively seeks them out. Gigantic, colossal difference. He's an occasional fireman... and one until the age of 33. So the difference between that and being the fully formed Superman was Jor-El informing him that he's supposed to be a full-time benevolent force. Why was that not an option before? Wouldn't it be an obvious one for someone of such mighty values and moral compass? It's a matter of simple human logic that stands even through the excuse that MOS aims at a more complex, less prepared Superman. If the topics at hand are motivation and characterization, the fact that those questions remain even by the end of the film... that speaks volumes aplenty.

 

[Mainline]

Ho boy. What were the years of wasted potential and trauma/guilt about "not revealing himself at any cost, or else" about, then. Sacrifice and volunteerism were also pretty absent when he let his old father do all the running and saving during the tornado, despite being the young/superpowerful one. Also when he lets him die out of self-preservation.

How about letting him grow up? A 13 year old probably could hold down a full time job and raise a family if you forced him to, it doesn't mean that a loving parent is going to impose that on their child. Somehow all compassion and reason leaves just because Clark has some powers? His father was in the prime of his life and Clark was still a child under his care. No father thinks to himself, "I think now would be a good time to risk the well-being of my son!"

Even Mark Waid, who hated Man of Steel, wasn't so blind as to pretend Clark was frozen out of self-preservation and to tell yourself that narrative is absurd.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

Also when he lets him die out of self-preservation.

I hate when people deliberately misrepresent that scene.

It wasn't self-preservation. Quite the contrary, it was a great personal sacrifice to let his father die for what his father believed was the greater good.

Yes, Pa Kent wanted him to conceal his identity (though that was just as much about the ramifications it would have on humanity as it was about protecting his son), but he also wanted him to protect his mother and the other people who were at risk.

Of course, Clark wanted to save his father, but he respected his wishes and beliefs enough to let him die.