The Double Standards Against Superman

[hopefuldreamer]

MOS Trailer 3 was fantastic and mindblowing. It looked like the film had the pitch-perfect balance between fantasy vs. realism, dark vs. light, etc. It gave off the vibe that anything could happen in this universe ranging from Batman to the space stuff.

*sigh*

*hugs*

We'll always have our imaginations. And maybe some fan edits of the film...

 

[jmc]

MOS Trailer 3 was fantastic and mindblowing. It looked like the film had the pitch-perfect balance between fantasy vs. realism, dark vs. light, etc. It gave off the vibe that anything could happen in this universe ranging from Batman to the space stuff.

*sigh*

Honestly, this is one of Snyder's strengths. Because he started in music videos he's able to infuse a lot of things in a short space of time, emotion, spectacle, substance, grandeur, all of that and more in the space of 2-3 mins. The problem is he cannot translate that to a 2 - 2½ hour movie. I have no doubt in my mind he would be an awesome short film director.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

The main disconnect between Trailer 3 and the movie is that we didn't get to hear the full blown heroic Superman theme (the one in the trailer) until the credits.

I can't think of a moment in the movie where it would have been truly appropriate though...Maybe the first time he catches Lois? (His first act of 'heroism' since he's "allowed" to be Superman, without any sense of guilt or uncertainty about his actions).

Or the maybe the problem is that the movie doesn't have scenes where it would be appropriate. Perhaps after the Smallville fight there could have been a scene in Smallville of Superman saving the townspeople from burning buildings, wreckage, etc; again, his first guilt-free public act of heroism as Superman.

There's something satisfying about the entire movie building up to the theme though. It was the same thing with Batman Begins. Zimmer didn't switch chords in the main two-note theme throughout the entire until the last shot once he's proven himself as Batman.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I do feel like fan expectations were kinda all over the place for Man of Steel, and that's what sunk the movie more than anything else. It was a weird phenomenom. I remember seeing an early screening on iMAX, and really enjoying it. I went on Facebook, and wrote a good review. I said there were some flaws, sure, but overall the film was enjoyable and set the groundwork for a better sequel. And all the other reviews popping up on social media said pretty much the same thing. Fast-forward two days, and the poor Rotten Tomatoes rating emerged, and people were savaging it, and all of a sudden people who had previously liked the film were back-pedalling and saying they actually didn't like it to fit in with the emerging consensus. And the fight scenes that everyone was raving about as some of the best action ever committed to a superhero film were suddenly this hot-button issue about disaster porn excess. It was amazing seeing the narrative of a film's reception being essentially rewritten before my eyes.

As regards the big fight between Superman and Zod at the end of the film, I still think it's excellent. It's been crapped on over and over these past few months about Superman being irresponsible and indifferent towards human life, think of all the wreckage he's leaving in his wake, etc etc. But I was here before Superman Returns, I remember the reception to that. For about a decade now I've had to read constant, CONSTANT posts like, "Superman can't be a ***** in the next film, give him a villain he can actually HIT, I want crazy battles that level city blocks, this should be like Dragonball Z on film!" etc, etc. Then when we finally get what so many of us have clamoured for all these years, suddenly it's, "Hmmm, Superman should be more restrained and delicate in his approach to villains, think of the property damage and the cost of building repairs!" The grass is always greener.

I do think Superman killing Zod was problematic. I can appreciate in theory Snyder and Goyer's conclusion that Zod needed to die rather than just go into the Phantom Zone with all the other rogue Kryptonians. But I think they wrote themselves into a corner and went about it the wrong way. It's the METHOD of Zod's death, the Bruce Lee style "BAM! ICE COLD MOFO!" swiping neck-break that just feels excessively intimite and brutal, like cold-blooded execution. And the whole way they set it up with him doing it to save those three idiots who couldn't just run away felt really weak. But for me it was more of a "Huh, didn't like that" flaw than an "OH MY GOD THE CHARACTER OF SUPERMAN IS DESTROYED FOREVER!" outrage.

For me, a far greater flaw in the movie is the character assassination of Pa Kent. Rather than the inspirational figure he is in the comics and in the original movie, he's presented as well-intentioned, but inadvertently subjecting his son to emotional abuse. Rather than setting young Clark on his path to heroism, he just fills him with self-doubt and self-hatred, and turns him into a target for bullies. He's so dedicated to making Clark afraid of his own power that he sets up a scenario where he'll die so that Clark will be traumatised and cower in the shadows feeling guilty long after he's gone. My problem with the tornado death scene is that it totally botches the tragedy of his death. In the original film, Pa Kent's heart attack is genuinely tragic, and to this day one of the only scenes in a superhero film that can bring me close to tears, because for all his power, it's something Clark is powerless to stop. Saving Pa Kent from a tornado is something Clark IS powered to do, but he doesn't, and that for me sends the exact opposite message than you might want to take away from that death scene. And so Pa Kent becomes this obstacle, this ghost he has to exorcise with the help of his "real" dad Jor-El in order to embrace his destiny. That's not right for me. For me, Pa Kent IS his real dad. The "you ARE my son" scene is beautiful, and still one of my favourites in the movie, and I wish Pa Kent's portrayal throughout had been more consistent with that.

In my opinon, Man of Steel is roughly on par with The Amazing Spider-Man in the quality department: both are reimaginings of a superhero origin story already memorably committed to film, that make some goofy decisions that feel like being different for different's sake, and they're both ultimately a bit light on plot, but they're well-acted, and set the goundwork for a compelling film universe that should result in superior sequels. I'd say Man of Steel is better, actually, but they both fit a similar framework of strengths and weaknesses. But the difference is that The Amazing Spider-Man came sandwiched between two of the biggest superhero films ever that got all the attention, and overshadowed it in the quality department, so the film was later rediscovered on DVD as a bit of an underappreciated gem. Man of Steel, however, was THE superhero film of this summer, and came with the burden of HUGE expectation, only enhanced by the amazing trailers. People were expecting something legendary. And so when instead we got a very good superhero film that isn't quite on the top-tier of the all-time classics of the genre, the backlash was massive and it felt like a huge failure.

 

[Micromind]

I do feel like fan expectations were kinda all over the place for Man of Steel, and that's what sunk the movie more than anything else. It was a weird phenomenom. I remember seeing an early screening on iMAX, and really enjoying it. I went on Facebook, and wrote a good review. I said there were some flaws, sure, but overall the film was enjoyable and set the groundwork for a better sequel. And all the other reviews popping up on social media said pretty much the same thing. Fast-forward two days, and the poor Rotten Tomatoes rating emerged, and people were savaging it, and all of a sudden people who had previously liked the film were back-pedalling and saying they actually didn't like it to fit in with the emerging consensus. And the fight scenes that everyone was raving about as some of the best action ever committed to a superhero film were suddenly this hot-button issue about disaster porn excess. It was amazing seeing the narrative of a film's reception being essentially rewritten before my eyes.

As regards the big fight between Superman and Zod at the end of the film, I still think it's excellent. It's been crapped on over and over these past few months about Superman being irresponsible and indifferent towards human life, think of all the wreckage he's leaving in his wake, etc etc. But I was here before Superman Returns, I remember the reception to that. For about a decade now I've had to read constant, CONSTANT posts like, "Superman can't be a ***** in the next film, give him a villain he can actually HIT, I want crazy battles that level city blocks, this should be like Dragonball Z on film!" etc, etc. Then when we finally get what so many of us have clamoured for all these years, suddenly it's, "Hmmm, Superman should be more restrained and delicate in his approach to villains, think of the property damage and the cost of building repairs!" The grass is always greener.

I do think Superman killing Zod was problematic. I can appreciate in theory Snyder and Goyer's conclusion that Zod needed to die rather than just go into the Phantom Zone with all the other rogue Kryptonians. But I think they wrote themselves into a corner and went about it the wrong way. It's the METHOD of Zod's death, the Bruce Lee style "BAM! ICE COLD MOFO!" swiping neck-break that just feels excessively intimite and brutal, like cold-blooded execution. And the whole way they set it up with him doing it to save those three idiots who couldn't just run away felt really weak. But for me it was more of a "Huh, didn't like that" flaw than an "OH MY GOD THE CHARACTER OF SUPERMAN IS DESTROYED FOREVER!" outrage.

For me, a far greater flaw in the movie is the character assassination of Pa Kent. Rather than the inspirational figure he is in the comics and in the original movie, he's presented as well-intentioned, but inadvertently subjecting his son to emotional abuse. Rather than setting young Clark on his path to heroism, he just fills him with self-doubt and self-hatred, and turns him into a target for bullies. He's so dedicated to making Clark afraid of his own power that he sets up a scenario where he'll die so that Clark will be traumatised and cower in the shadows feeling guilty long after he's gone. My problem with the tornado death scene is that it totally botches the tragedy of his death. In the original film, Pa Kent's heart attack is genuinely tragic, and to this day one of the only scenes in a superhero film that can bring me close to tears, because for all his power, it's something Clark is powerless to stop. Saving Pa Kent from a tornado is something Clark IS powered to do, but he doesn't, and that for me sends the exact opposite message than you might want to take away from that death scene. And so Pa Kent becomes this obstacle, this ghost he has to exorcise with the help of his "real" dad Jor-El in order to embrace his destiny. That's not right for me. For me, Pa Kent IS his real dad. The "you ARE my son" scene is beautiful, and still one of my favourites in the movie, and I wish Pa Kent's portrayal throughout had been more consistent with that.

In my opinon, Man of Steel is roughly on par with The Amazing Spider-Man in the quality department: both are reimaginings of a superhero origin story already memorably committed to film, that make some goofy decisions that feel like being different for different's sake, and they're both ultimately a bit light on plot, but they're well-acted, and set the goundwork for a compelling film universe that should result in superior sequels. I'd say Man of Steel is better, actually, but they both fit a similar framework of strengths and weaknesses. But the difference is that The Amazing Spider-Man came sandwiched between two of the biggest superhero films ever that got all the attention, and overshadowed it in the quality department, so the film was later rediscovered on DVD as a bit of an underappreciated gem. Man of Steel, however, was THE superhero film of this summer, and came with the burden of HUGE expectation, only enhanced by the amazing trailers. People were expecting something legendary. And so when instead we got a very good superhero film that isn't quite on the top-tier of the all-time classics of the genre, the backlash was massive and it felt like a huge failure.

Nice post !


I wonder if people will view it in more positive light after few years, as WB won't be making another Superman reboot any time soon.

Edit: I believe a longer version of MOS exists, maybe they will release it some day, the movie was very fast paced, it needed a longer run-time, but Studios generally want maximum number of shows per day, if MOS had given certain scenes more breathing time, it would have looked far better. (just like there is a longer version of SR that Singer won't admit.)

 

[LaughingMage]

My problem with the movie can be summarized in one word – Excess Everything was so bombastic that it verged on the edge of parody. And as much as I hate to do it, I think it is necessary to compare certain points to the old Superman movies. The one thing that broke the proverbial camel's back for me was Pa Kent's death and the message it conveyed. In the Donner's film it was pretty much a punch in Clark's face making it painfully obvious to him that even with all his powers he has limits. That he's not a god just a very powerful mortal being. Pa's death was subtle, poignant and in its simplicity and humbleness. It was truly emotional. Now then, lets talk MOS. The whole tornado scene was ludicrously over the top and lacked any emotional impact whatsoever. I still can't fathom why the writer felt it necessary to use a tornado for Pa Kent's demise other than the point, that it brought in “action”. The whole message it send was conflicted and like a poster before me said “guilt tripping”. It didn't give Clark any useful insight whatsoever. Sometimes less is more and a less excessive approach to Pa Kent's death would have benefited the movie much more. To get Pa Kent off the stage with a bang like that just didn't feel right. I might be more forgiving, if he would have died from collateral in the tornado since that does happen quite often. But him being swept away, gee, can ya say “Wizard of Oz”?. That's just too much. But that's just one of the many examples. The movie's over the top direction is expressed in excessive action, excessive destruction and so forth. The movie would have been much better if Snyder would have dialed down a bit and added more subtlety to some of the scenes. Guess he felt he had to compensate for the lack of action of “Superman Returns”. Imho. It just shows that too much of a good thing can spoil the show. Steak is delicious once in a while but Steak everyday of the week becomes stale very quickly

 

[Dr.]

The one thing that broke the proverbial camel's back for me was Pa Kent's death and the message it conveyed. In the Donner's film it was pretty much a punch in Clark's face making it painfully obvious to him that even with all his powers he has limits. That he's not a god just a very powerful mortal being. Pa's death was subtle, poignant and in its simplicity and humbleness. It was truly emotional. Now then, lets talk MOS. The whole tornado scene was ludicrously over the top and lacked any emotional impact whatsoever. I still can't fathom why the writer felt it necessary to use a tornado for Pa Kent's demise other than the point, that it brought in “action”. The whole message it send was conflicted and like a poster before me said “guilt tripping”. It didn't give Clark any useful insight whatsoever.

In STM, Glenn Ford Pa’s advice to Clark was this: don’t use your powers, it’s too risky; it’s not time yet. His concern as a father: “When you first came to us, we thought people would come and take you away…” And that’s essentially the same for Kevin Costner Pa. True, MOS tackled this theme in terms of life-and-death stakes. And true, that makes it “darker.” In STM, the Rockwell-esque Smallville sequence simplified and sanitized the lesson as “you shouldn’t show off, son.”

We can only speculate how STM Pa would have reacted to a deadly school bus accident or tornado.

 

[blumatic]

I believe that the death of Pa Kent in STM is underwhelming.

He died and was never revisited again. In Smallville and MOS the Clark carries the burden of his death (lighter load in MOS).

People die all the time of sickness, that should not bother Superman so deeply. If it did he should have been a medical researcher.

Batman's parents death lead him to his destiny. Same with Spiderman and Uncle Ben.

I was hoping Pa Kent wouldn't die at all in Snyders film. I dont think his death has any effect on Superman's legacy.

 

[LaughingMage]

In STM, Glenn Ford Pa’s advice to Clark was this: don’t use your powers, it’s too risky; it’s not time yet. His concern as a father: “When you first came to us, we thought people would come and take you away…” And that’s essentially the same for Kevin Costner Pa. True, MOS tackled this theme in terms of life-and-death stakes. And true, that makes it “darker.” In STM, the Rockwell-esque Smallville sequence simplified and sanitized the lesson as “you shouldn’t show off, son.”

We can only speculate how STM Pa would have reacted to a deadly school bus accident or tornado.

Wrong message. I wasn't talking about the lesson Pa Kent gave Clark, I was talking about the lesson Pa Kents Death gave Clark, namely "There are limits to your power. You can't prevent every form of death. some forms of it are beyond your abilities." which is, granted a little half hearted in STM considering that Clark can travel back in time and save people. However, the death scene in MOS would have been completely preventable. What's the lesson there? Don't use your powers to help people even though you can? And sorry, even if there is a lesson it's still no excuse for the ludicrous events in that scene. Like I said, if Pa Kent would have died in a tornado because something collapsed on him I'd be more lenient but being swept off his feet like that, sorry, that's just too much excess for my taste.

 

[Keyser Soze]

The problem is that, when Pa Kent dies of a heart attack, it gives him a new dimension of his compassion, as it gives him a lesson that, though he may be strong, humanity is fragile. In Man of Steel, you have Clark Kent being a coward and not rescuing his father from death when he'd be able to, because.... why? Because his dad told him not to? That to me felt like a bigger betrayal of the character than killing Zod.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

The problem is that, when Pa Kent dies of a heart attack, it gives him a new dimension of his compassion, as it gives him a lesson that, though he may be strong, humanity is fragile. In Man of Steel, you have Clark Kent being a power and not rescuing his father from death when he'd be able to, because.... why? Because his dad told him not to? That to me felt like a bigger betrayal of the character than killing Zod.

I've just pointed this very thing out in a different thread. Even when I would have done it later in the series, Superman killing might be completely justifiable. But him NOT saving his father.... no way. There's simply no explanation for that.

I believe that the death of Pa Kent in STM is underwhelming.

He died and was never revisited again. In Smallville and MOS the Clark carries the burden of his death (lighter load in MOS).

People die all the time of sickness, that should not bother Superman so deeply. If it did he should have been a medical researcher.

Batman's parents death lead him to his destiny. Same with Spiderman and Uncle Ben.

I was hoping Pa Kent wouldn't die at all in Snyders film. I dont think his death has any effect on Superman's legacy.

Pa Kent's death in STM is revisited at the end, when Lois dies.

Pa Kent's death in MOS, not so much. It was supposed to stop Clark from showing and using his powers. And... it just didn't work, as he moved on to use and show his powers (I'm talking before he gets the suit and knows about Jor-el). The burden of NOT having rescued his father might be hgeavy, but at the same time... it's so incoherent from his character I don't know how he could deal with it.

 

[LaughingMage]

I believe that the death of Pa Kent in STM is underwhelming.

He died and was never revisited again. In Smallville and MOS the Clark carries the burden of his death (lighter load in MOS).

People die all the time of sickness, that should not bother Superman so deeply. If it did he should have been a medical researcher.

Batman's parents death lead him to his destiny. Same with Spiderman and Uncle Ben.

I was hoping Pa Kent wouldn't die at all in Snyders film. I dont think his death has any effect on Superman's legacy.

It was good that it was "underwhelming" because that was the whole idea behind it. It was supposed to be someting mundane, something utterly "normal". It's function as a narrative device was to humble Clark, who up to this point has not known anyhting he had no potential control over with his power. It was supposed to show him the limits of his gifts and fuction as "The call", accordning to Joseph Campbell. Urgh, I can't stand the "I'm burdened with the death of my father figure" trope anymore. Leave that to Spider-Man or Batman. Superman should not have that kind of angst. If Pa has to die, do it as a life lesson like Donner did but don't use it to inject more melodrama into the narrative. Superman really doesn't need the guilt trip and it's so cliche by now, it doesn't add up to good characterisation anymore, imho. Superman is not Batman or Spider-Man and certainly doesn't need to borrow tired tropes from them.

 

[LaughingMage]

I've just pointed this very thing out in a different thread. Even when I would have done it later in the series, Superman killing might be completely justifiable. But him NOT saving his father.... no way. There's simply no explanation for that.

Oh, there is. It's called "bad writing"... okay, okay, lets be a little lenient there. Lets call it "confused writing".

 

[blumatic]

I've just pointed this very thing out in a different thread. Even when I would have done it later in the series, Superman killing might be completely justifiable. But him NOT saving his father.... no way. There's simply no explanation for that.





Pa Kent's death in STM is revisited at the end, when Lois dies.

Pa Kent's death in MOS, not so much. It was supposed to stop Clark from showing and using his powers. And... it just didn't work, as he moved on to use and show his powers (I'm talking before he gets the suit and knows about Jor-el). The burden of NOT having rescued his father might be hgeavy, but at the same time... it's so incoherent from his character I don't know how he could deal with it.

Im talking about his death not advice. He could have been still alive for Clark to think about that advice again

The dumb thing is Pa Kent's advice goes against Jor-El's warning. Thats terrible.

I dont like that Clark didnt save his father in MOS. It is the most unreasonable thing put on film. But it has more of an impact on the story. That story made Lois not dig so deeply into Clark's secrets. Its why he saves and runs.

Pa Kents death in STM nothing. You couldnt save him, but you cant save he guy next door. Its a fact thats it. Its a nice line. For that particular moment.

But if Pa Kent didnt die in STM. Would the story change that dramatically? Superman would have found the crystal, and both parents would have gave their blessing for Clark to leave.

 

[blumatic]

It was good that it was "underwhelming" because that was the whole idea behind it. It was supposed to be someting mundane, something utterly "normal". It's function as a narrative device was to humble Clark, who up to this point has not known anyhting he had no potential control over with his power. It was supposed to show him the limits of his gifts and fuction as "The call", accordning to Joseph Campbell. Urgh, I can't stand the "I'm burdened with the death of my father figure" trope anymore. Leave that to Spider-Man or Batman. Superman should not have that kind of angst. If Pa has to die, do it as a life lesson like Donner did but don't use it to inject more melodrama into the narrative. Superman really doesn't need the guilt trip and it's so cliche by now, it doesn't add up to good characterisation anymore, imho. Superman is not Batman or Spider-Man and certainly doesn't need to borrow tired tropes from them.

I dont think he needed a guilt trip. All the burden that Clark needed was to know where he came from. And thats what really starts his journey.

Pa Kents death in both films are unnecessary. Why kill him. There are many versions with Pa Kent alive and well and with Superman just as humble. I think he is better off with his dad alive. It would make for great conversation on screen.

Clark was 18 years old when Pa Kent died, Im sure he heard of diseases that people die from. Im sure he thought about his powers and the limit they have. Maybe it was a device for the audience because it had no impact of Superman and his legacy. None.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I believe that the death of Pa Kent in STM is underwhelming.

He died and was never revisited again. In Smallville and MOS the Clark carries the burden of his death (lighter load in MOS).

People die all the time of sickness, that should not bother Superman so deeply. If it did he should have been a medical researcher.

Batman's parents death lead him to his destiny. Same with Spiderman and Uncle Ben.

I was hoping Pa Kent wouldn't die at all in Snyders film. I dont think his death has any effect on Superman's legacy.

But that's exactly what's different about Superman's origin (in the majority of interpretations), and part of why I like it so much more than any other heroes.

He's not a hero BECAUSE something awful happened. He's a hero because he was brought up by two incredible people who taught him what it means to be good; he was born with the powers to do unimaginable things; and he actively seeks a way to use them to help make people's lives better - just because.

You don't NEED grief and trauma in order to be a hero.

Pa Kent's death (if he must die) IMO SHOULDN'T be something that keeps being brought up throughout the film as though it's something that drives him.

I'm not a fan of STM, but they got that right in a sense. Pa Kent's death teaches him something about the nature of mortality and his own limitations... but it is just a natural part of life that he deals with, and not something he has to feel guilty about or carry the weight of.

In Man of Steel, you have Clark Kent being a power and not rescuing his father from death when he'd be able to, because.... why? Because his dad told him not to? That to me felt like a bigger betrayal of the character than killing Zod.

Yeah I don't understand it at all either.

 

[blumatic]

But that's exactly what's different about Superman's origin (in the majority of interpretations), and part of why I like it so much more than any other.

He's not a hero BECAUSE something awful happened. He's a hero because he was brought up by two incredible people who taught him what it means to be good; he was born with the powers to do unimaginable things; and he actively seeks a way to use them to help make people's lives better - just because.

You don't NEED grief and trauma in order to be a hero.

Pa Kent's death (if he must die) IMO SHOULDN'T be something that keeps being brought up throughout the film as though it's something that drives him.

I'm not a fan of STM, but they got that right in a sense. Pa Kent's death teaches him something about the nature of mortality and his own limitations... but it is just a natural part of life that he deals with, and not something he has to feel guilty about or carry the weight of.



Yeah I don't understand it at all either.

I agree. Thats why his death means nothing. And I dont buy that his death teaches Clark the power of his limitations. People die everyday of sickness. AIDS, Cancer, heart disease etc. Clark's parents were really old in that film. You cant stop people dying from old age.

I guess it was important to teach the audience a lesson. But Clark didnt need that lesson. It does nothing for his growth.

They never bring it back up again. Its your dad that died man. Whats nice about Batman, its not that his parents death pushes him to be a hero, but that in BB you saw a genuine love and admiration he had for his dad. And he wont be able to share with dad again. All the flashbacks of the good times and nice moments with his father. And it humanizes a Bruce Wayne that can fall too deep into his dark persona.

In STM, Pa Kent died, and the story moved on.

In MOS, Pa Kent made a choice to die. That's fine. Clark not saving him is a disgrace. Save and deal with the consequences later. Clark could have disappeared right after that and the story wouldnt have skipped a beat.

If Pa Kent were to die I would have liked it if he was protecting and Superman while he was unconscious, and have Pa Kent doing his best fightinh kryptonians. Pa Kent would have found a kryptonian gun and shot them up. Superman would have woken up seeing his father lying next too him. But then discovering that he was bleeding and out. Then have Pa Kent with some lasting words to his son.

BOOOM!!!! It would have made Pa Ken heroic and saving his son's life would have had a great impact on Superman.

 

[LaughingMage]

I dont think he needed a guilt trip. All the burden that Clark needed was to know where he came from. And thats what really starts his journey.

Pa Kents death in both films are unnecessary. Why kill him. There are many versions with Pa Kent alive and well and with Superman just as humble. I think he is better off with his dad alive. It would make for great conversation on screen.

Clark was 18 years old when Pa Kent died, Im sure he heard of diseases that people die from. Im sure he thought about his powers and the limit they have. Maybe it was a device for the audience because it had no impact of Superman and his legacy. None.

It's a narrative device. Read Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" and you'll know what specific one it is. It's pretty much how every Hollywood screenplay works. Hero gets one, or multiple calls, which set him off on his heroic journey. Pa Kents death is part of the "Call" device. Besides, it does actually have repercussions for Clark in STM. It's the first death he witnesses first hand. The first death of a loved one and it's the framing device that leads to his reckless action at the end of STM, breaking the rule not to interfere with the natural progression of time when it comes to Lois death. As for your criticism about Pa's death in general. That does not apply to STM because the Kents were only kept alive Post-Crisis. Pre-Crisis they both were dead and STM was done when Pre-Crisis Continuity was still valid. Now MOS doesn't have an excuse and perhaps it would have been more prudent to have kept Pa Kent around. But then again we wouldn't have a justification for Superangstman.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I agree. Thats why his death means nothing. And I dont buy that his death teaches Clark the power of his limitations. People die everyday of sickness. AIDS, Cancer, heart disease etc. Clark's parents were really old in that film. You cant stop people dying from old age.

I guess it was important to teach the audience a lesson. But Clark didnt need that lesson. It does nothing for his growth.

They never bring it back up again. Its your dad that died man. Whats nice about Batman, its not that his parents death pushes him to be a hero, but that in BB you saw a genuine love and admiration he had for his dad. And he wont be able to share with dad again. All the flashbacks of the good times and nice moments with his father. And it humanizes a Bruce Wayne that can fall too deep into his dark persona.

In STM, Pa Kent died, and the story moved on.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Superman accepting that he can't save everyone is a key point of many stories. In STM, they use Pa Kent's death to show the first time he's been faced with that struggle on a personal level.

It doesn't mean nothing. It means a heck of a lot. It just isn't some violent and traumatic event that he has to feel guilty about or want vengeance over.

And yeah, they moved on from that moment... like they should, if the heroes journey isn't built around it (which I would prefer it not be).

 

[Skrilla31]

And so when instead we got a very good superhero film that isn't quite on the top-tier of the all-time classics of the genre, the backlash was massive and it felt like a huge failure.

I had never been more hyped and excited for a movie than I was MOS and my anticipation in the year or so leading up to it's release was at an all time high.

But now that my own expectations aren't there to weigh it down and I could view the movie for what it is rather than what I wanted it to be... I could say I don't hate it nearly as much as I did when I first saw it.

But I still think it's a bad movie.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

The death of Jonathan is one of the only complaints about MOS I feel isn't totally bogus and hypocritical. I think it worked, but I can see why others did not.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Oh, there is. It's called "bad writing"... okay, okay, lets be a little lenient there. Lets call it "confused writing".

Good guy Greg meme here.


*************************************

Im talking about his death not advice. He could have been still alive for Clark to think about that advice again

Me too. I'm talking about his death. The way Clark realizes that he might be super-powered but he cannot defy death. And this is remembered when Lois dies.

The dumb thing is Pa Kent's advice goes against Jor-El's warning. Thats terrible.

How so?

Worst of cases, it leads to conflict.

But then again, Jor-el encourages Clark to use his powers for good in MOS (if I'm not mistaken), and Jor-el discourages him to do the same thing. So you see, their advice is also contradictory.

I dont like that Clark didnt save his father in MOS. It is the most unreasonable thing put on film. But it has more of an impact on the story. That story made Lois not dig so deeply into Clark's secrets. Its why he saves and runs.

Once reason and coherence are out, the impact is gone.

But even in the story... what was this "impact"? Did Pa Kent's death stop Clark from using his powers? No. Pa Kent's death had NO impact to be seen.

Pa Kents death in STM nothing. You couldnt save him, but you cant save he guy next door. Its a fact thats it. Its a nice line. For that particular moment.

It was more because when Lois died, Superman felt he couldn't allow it to happen again. It wasn't just Lois dying but the fact that he felt he couldn't defy death, just as it was the case when Pa Kent died.

But if Pa Kent didnt die in STM. Would the story change that dramatically? Superman would have found the crystal, and both parents would have gave their blessing for Clark to leave.

You wouldn't have had that moment after Lois's death when Superman decides to go against Jor-el's word because he won't let death take another of his beloved people again. Not dramatic enough? Maybe so.

But again, if Pa Kent hadn't died in MOS, would the story change that dramatically? Clark would have gone and save people with his super-powers as he was doing before Pa Kent died. Which was what he did after Pa Kent died. Meaning, it made no difference at all.



******************************

The death of Jonathan is one of the only complaints about MOS I feel isn't totally bogus and hypocritical. I think it worked, but I can see why others did not.

I have asked many times how it works. Nobody has told me exactly why, all they have done is re-telling that's an impact, that's a huge sacrifice. Yes, that's what it's supposed to be. But does it work in the movie? How does it actually change Clark's life?

 

[Human Torch]

The thing that bugged me most about Pa's death was the obligatory "Well,you're not my dad!Nyaaaaah!" argument that they had just minutes before his death.Just to add that extra unneeded angst.Is it so wrong for the hero and father figure to be on good terms before their death?Do we really need them to argue just before they die for the sake of "drama"?The Spider-Man films were also guilty of this.

 

[LaughingMage]

Upon further contemplation I think MOS just feels like a 90's version of Superman to me. The EXTREME Superman if you will. EXTREME Zod, EXTREME Jor-El, EXTREME Pa Kents Death, EXTREME Clark Angst, EXTREME City leveling action, EXTREME Zod execution. Zack Snyder, the Rob Liefeld of cinema... Eh, at least he casts actors with realistic proportions... that and he shows feet.*shrugs*

 

[Senator Pleasury]

The thing that bugged me most about Pa's death was the obligatory "Well,you're not my dad!Nyaaaaah!" argument that they had just minutes before his death.Just to add that extra unneeded angst.Is it so wrong for the hero and father figure to be on good terms before their death?Do we really need them to argue just before they die for the sake of "drama"?The Spider-Man films were also guilty of this.

Spider-manization right there.

I think Bruce Wayne was the only one that were close and friendly to his father before he died.