It does develop Bruce. The Knightmare sequence shows us how his mental state is influencing his decisions. How a character thinks is an important part of character development.
I'm a little bit confused now. Now you say that the dream does develop Bruce, but a couple of pages ago you said:
This is an odd charge considering character development takes place pretty much everywhere but the dream sequences.
So which one is it, does Bruce's character develop in the dream, or does he not? You can't have it both ways. In the beginning you said I was wrong when I said that character development happens in the dream, but now you're saying that character development actually happens in the dream.
Nothing would happen? The second one of Clark's bullies tried to fight back and land a real punch on him, he would not only see that Clark doesn't bleed, but he would surely feel the pain of a human fist hitting a steel jaw. The struggle isn't just about revealing one's true self either. Anyone who has been bullied knows that fighting back by doing to the bully what has been done to you isn't best course of action.
Clark: I wanted to hit that kid. I wanted to hit him bad.
Jonathan: I know you did. I mean...part of me even wanted you to, but then what? Make you feel any better?
A good person, even in the face of brutality, looks for another way to solve problems before allowing a cycle of violence -- emotional or physical -- to continue.
Jonathan: You just have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be, Clark. Because whoever that man is, good character or bad, he's gonna change the world.
The choice Clark faces is what type of man he wants to be: does he want to be a man who will bully a bully or does he want to be a man who wants to create positive change?
I actually have a little history about being bullied, and that stopped when I decided to fight back. In your eyes, that prevents me from being a good person, which I find insulting, but, hey, at least I didn't have to worry about getting beaten any more.
And considering how fast and powerful Clark is, he could easily finish the fight before the bullies landed any punches, and without revealing the true scope of his powers. And he doesnt seem to have a problem to "bully a bully" as you describe it, considering what he does to that trucker's truck.
In Man of Steel, Jonathan's lecture to Clark about being cautious about revealing himself directly follows a visit from Pete Ross and his mother who declared Clark's efforts to save his classmates on the bus as "an act of God." It's a hint that those who merely suspect the truth about Clark may deify him. Clark is a young teen, and his father is rightly concerned that a boy being treated like a god isn't exactly a fate to be embraced with open arms. Most importantly, however, it's not about whether the risk is real or not. The point is that Clark is a young boy who is confused about who he is and resentful that he cannot be himself. It doesn't matter if Jonathan's fears for his son are unfounded because those fears still shape Clark's attitudes and behaviors. So, for Clark, it is a struggle because he's a child who believes in his dad, or he at least understands that it's important to make decisions that don't generate conflict within his family.
If I feel that the risks are real or not is definitely important. It's one of the most important things when you ask the audience to get invested in characters and their struggles. The fact that I feel that the characters don't have that much to lose, makes it hard for me to get invested in their so called struggles.
Your primary concern and complaint was that Clark lacked character. The fact that he struggles to be himself or is worried about being his true self due to real or imagined consequences tells us something about him. That Clark is willing to accept his father's cynical predictions about the world tells us about Clark's character. Choices and conflicts don't have to be entirely real in order to be character forming. What matters is whether those conflicts are meaningful for the character. For Clark, having a father who fears the worst about the world, causes him to conform or adopt those same fears -- real or not. Therefore, when Clark is in a position to act or be his true self, a genuine struggle does exist within him that reveals his character.
But it's not that simple that it only has to be meaningful for the characters. If it was, writing a good script would be easy. The audience also has to connect to the characters struggles and find meaning themselves in the characters conflicts. I didn't do that, but you obviously did.
Why wouldn't he be happy? Up until that point, there was no time when Clark seemed happy to be different or special. Having x-ray vision and superhearing as a child didn't bring a smile to his face, so why would flying be any different? The shift from fearing his powers to embracing them is a big deal for this character. Also, when you think about the differences between Clark's other powers and flying, you realize that flight is different because it is an ability -- a part of himself -- that Clark can indulge in without fear of discovery. The fact that both you and Clark would have the same response to the ability to fly says something about both of you.
True, Clark was really mopey in MoS. Quite ungrateful for the good life he actually has. He has his health, he's not starving, he has a mother who loves him and he's incredibly good looking with quite the body, so he wouldn't have trouble finding romantic interests, if that is something he desires. He has a better life than many. And I don't know why flying would be different to him, maybe just because he think's that it's more fun to fly than to be super strong? I would think it's more fun.
You are twisting my words. I did not saying anything about Clark's interactions with Jor-El in the scout ship allowing Clark to become the man he always wanted to be. I said that Clark's experience of learning about his origins and experimenting with his new powers was welcomed with joy, which was a contrast to Clark's previous state of repression. I'm saying that it says a lot about Clark that learning more about his alien heritage made him happy rather than cause him to become even more closed off and despondent. It's not about Clark becoming anything. Clark didn't become Superman after he spoke to the AI of Jor-El. It takes a threat from Zod and some anxious moments in a church before Clark is ready to take a leap of faith with the rest of the world watching. It's about taking note of how Clark responded to identifying himself even more clearly as an alien with incredible power. He finds peace in knowing more about himself even if he still can't share it with the rest of the world.
Well, you did say that when he finds his answers he's a changed man and liberated. While that maybe doesn't mean that he's now the man he always wanted to be, it's still big character development that comes from one sequence, a sequence that's mostly filled with Jor-El spreading exposition about Krypton.
I thought the film set up Clark's dilemma well.
Jor-El: We wanted you to learn what it meant to be human first, so that one day, when the time was right, you could be the bridge between two peoples.
Clark: Look. Lois
Jor-El: You can save her, Kal. You can save all of them.
Clark: Mom, Zod said this Codex he's looking for can bring my people back.
Martha: Isn't that a good thing?
Clark: I don't think they're interested in sharing this world.
Jor-El: Stop this, Zod, while there's still time.
Zod: Haven't given up lecturing me, have you, even in death?
Jor-El: I will not let you use the Codex like this.
Jor-El: Our people can co-exist.
Zod: So we can suffer through years of pain trying to adapt like your son has?
Jor-El: You're talking about genocide.
Zod: Yes. And I'm arguing its merits with a ghost.
Jor-El: We're both ghosts, Zod. Can't you see that? The Krypton you're clinging onto is gone.
Zod: Ship, have you managed to quarantine this invasive intelligence?
Jor-El: You'll fail.
Ship: I have.
Zod: Then prepare to terminate it. I'm tired of this debate.
Jor-El: Silencing me won't change anything. My son is twice the man you were. And he will finish what we started. I can promise you that.
Zod: If you destroy this ship, you destroy Krypton!
Clark: Krypton had its chance.
Zod: We could have built a new Krypton in this squalor. But you chose the humans over us. I exist only to protect Krypton.
Sending the Kryptonians away to the Phantom Zone and killing Zod represented the end of Jor-El's dream for his son and for Krypton's legacy on Earth. Of course, when Clark sees that Zod is clearly not interested in any sort of diplomatic solution, he must choose Earth over Krypton, but that doesn't mean it is a decision that sits easily with him. In the midst of battle, there's scarcely time for Clark to contemplate or mourn the death of his father's dream for a bridge between Kryptonians and humans, but when he kills Zod, the grief pours out of him. What other hero would weep at his own victory?
But there's no dilemma to be found for Clark in those conversations from MoS you quoted. There's potential there for an amazing dilemma, but look at Clark's replies in those conversations. "I don't think they're interested in in sharing this world.". "Krypton had it's chance.". Where's the struggle? And the biggest conversation about the dilemma is between Zod and Jor-El, not Clark.
Man of Steel gives us a Clark whose dominant character arc is about belonging and acceptance. A romantic arc that serves as that bridge between Earth and Krypton. When Lara sent her son across the stars, she worried that her special son would be an outcast. Clark is first embraced by the Kents as a child, but finding love with Lois represents Clark's ability to replicate a new bond as an adult.
Oh, and I definitely saw the chemistry.
Well, I guess chemistry is subjective. I felt more that they were on their way of starting a friendship.
Clark's selfishness is justified. If Clark believes someone like Batman is making things worse for heroes like him, then that's a problem that doesn't just affect Clark. It is abundantly apparent, to the point that I cannot comprehend how you could miss it, that Clark does not start out pursuing the Batman. He first goes to Gotham to speak to the Nairomi woman who blames him for the deaths in her village. When he cannot find her, he is alerted to the fear ordinary people in Gotham feel because the Batman is "hunting." Clark's determination to take on Batman is deepened even more after he speaks to the wife/girlfriend of the criminal allegedly killed because of his Bat-branded chest. Clark sees a vigilante using his power to trample on the civil liberties of underprivileged people, and he sees this as a living example of the false accusations he is enduring. Maybe people don't believe heroes can be good because they've never had one who stayed that way? Is it selfish to want people to believe in heroes and in hope because you represent both? Absolutely. Is it a selfishness that also ultimately benefits others? Yes, it is.
When Matt Murdock is called out for his selfishness it is because his indulgence in his own heroic pursuits, though intended to affect positive change in Hell's Kitchen, do not prevent him from failing his own friends and their separate attempts to make a difference. There is no evidence that Clark pursuing his Batman story is hurting anyone. The only person who it seems to disadvantage or hurt is Perry White who wants his sports page. Perry White repeatedly calls Clark out on his selfish behavior.
I don't think selfishness is ever justified. Can I understand selfishness? Of course. Am I selfish? Of course. Is it justified? No. And if Superman is worried about people not believing that there exists good heroes, maybe he should spend more time finding out what actually happened in Africa. Because it's that, combined with the death of thousands in his fight with Zod, that really have people not believing in heroes. A person who Clark talks to in Gotham even says that the only people who are scared of Batman is people who have a reason to be. And the whole branding people so they will get killed in prison is ridiculous, and it doesn't make any sense that people would think that's Batman's intent. If he wanted those people dead, he could just kill them while he was beating the crap out of them and branding them.
I would say that the people he doesn't save while he's busy being selfish ends up hurting, no? And people needs saving all the time.
Perry doesn't call out Clark because he's being selfish, considering that Perry doesn't even know that Clark is going after Batman because of selfish reasons. Perry actually thinks the opposite: That Clark goes after Batman because he's dangerous and needs to be stopped.
Good characters are not active all the time. Characters, like real people, take time to think about their choices and deal with the consequences of those choices. How a character or real person makes choices or responds to the effects of their choices reveal a lot about character. Clark responds to his failure to stop Wallace Keefe's bomb at the Capitol by questioning whether Superman, as a concept, does more harm than good. Are the potential benefits worth the risks? He decides to take a break from being Superman to return to his roots as a lonely traveler, and he communes with the memory of his father for counsel. It says something about Clark that his response to the Capital bombing is quiet contemplation and the memories of his father. Another person might have responded by fighting back, taking control, or something more active. It seems to me that you discount passivity as a character trait. For you, the only real personality is an active personality, which is utter nonsense. There are people who have personalities that lean towards passivity more than activity, and sometimes a passive response is not an inherently weak response. Acting out in the face of difficulty is no more admirable than taking a step back to think about what one does next. As a film,
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice presents Superman's antagonists as those who see him as someone who acts carelessly or selfishly. Therefore, it matters that we see he responds to their judgment with thoughtfulness. It is an active choice to choose to remove oneself from a crucible in order to prevent an explosion.
A writer offers this advice about active vs. passive characterization:
When conflict pushes against my characters, they have choices. They can push back, or they can fall down. Or they can run away and hide where the pushing can’t reach them anymore. (I mean, that’s only normal, right?) It’s okay if my characters react to the plot with fear or doubt that makes them crawl into a hole for the sake of self-preservation. They just can’t stay in the hole. They can react, but they also have to act. They need to make a difference in the story, and not just let the story make a difference in them.
Note that the writer insists that is okay for a character to react with fear, doubt, and retreat as long as they don't stay that way. The just can't stay in the hole, or in Clark's case, on the top of a mountain. Clark could have let the Capitol bombing put an end to Superman for good, but his decision to take some time to think through what happens next, allows him to choose to return to the world as Superman to make a difference.
A good character doesn't have to be active all the time, and I never made that claim, but when big character development happens, it's better that the character is active. At least if the character is overall an active one. Do you think that Clark/Superman is overall a passive character? We often find active protagonists in Archplots, and passive characters in Miniplots. Would you say that BvS is an Archplot or a Miniplot? I would say that BvS is an Archplot and that Clark/Superman is an active character. If that's the case, then change doesn't come from passivity, it comes from action. In that sequence on the mountain, when the big character development happens, Clark doesn't make a difference in the story, the story makes a difference in him. The same thing the writer you quoted said you shouldn't do.
Superman doesn't jump into the fight. He is attacked, and he defends himself. After trying to speak with Batman ("Bruce, please, you have to listen to me, Lex wants..."), Superman tries to use minimal force to subdue Batman in order to engage in additional attempts to talk to him ("If I wanted it, you'd be dead already."). Superman tries to end the fight without deadly force, but he's either subdued by Batman's kryptonite, or the fight reaches a point of no return at which Superman loses hope that there's any way to reason with Bruce at all. For him, maybe the only way to save Martha will be to kill the Bat who has so clearly lost his way that he won't even listen to reason.
But you said that Superman tried to finish the fight quickly, which he didn't. After he decided to fight back, he prolongs the fight by not using his super speed, and because of that, Batman can use the kryptonite and everything else on him. Superman could have just used his super speed and peeled of Batman's suit before Batman had the chance to use the kryptonite.
It's crazy to not murder someone?!? Bruce was on the brink of complete moral collapse, and had made himself into a mechanized and soulless killing machine that wouldn't even listen to a man who only came to him to ask for help, but he is able to pull himself back from the brink because he remembers his own history and his own humanity. That is the very definition of coming back to one's senses!
Is it crazy do decide not to kill someone because the person's mother has the same name as yours? Yes, it definitely is. And I'm pretty sure that's not the definition of coming back to one's senses.
