What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS*

[Project862006]

how are you gonna compare a 3rd film in a franchise where you had well over 7 hours worth of getting to know people of gotham to an origin film of superman

 

[BlueLantern]

Seriously, can you read? I've been quite clear in stating that this was the case in Batman Begins too.

I was invested from the off. Why? Because Batman Begins takes the time to establish the city from the moment it's introduced.

Chris Nolan himself said that Gotham City is almost another character itself in the films and he intended it from the first film itself.

 

[Project862006]

superman has to establish 3 cities

smallville ,krypton and metropolis

not even the same

but we all get it you hate man of steel so no use arguing

done here

 

[BlueLantern]

Krypton goes boom fairly soon and if the writers found that it so difficult to establish an emotional connection for the audience with those cities, they should've managed their own expectations.

Stretching themselves is admirable, but don't sacrifice the emotional resonance possible and substitute for spectacle. That's just stupid.

but we all get it you hate man of steel so no use arguing

And there's you dropping the ball. I've explicitly stated that I thoroughly enjoyed the majority of the film but the action scenes were a major let down. But I get it. You don't know how to read and you don't know how to respect other people's opinions, so we are done here. I salute your myopia.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

It doesn't matter if Man of Steel had two cities to make us invested in, they both fit nicely into the umbrella of "Earth".

Just like Gotham is Batman's home, legacy and protectorate, the Earth is for Superman.

 

[BlueLantern]

Yup. The issue really is that because the film's trying to portray him not being sure of whether to trust humanity and whether Earth is home or not, that investment becomes difficult.

It's why I was really perturbed at how late that scene of Jor-El saying 'you can save her, you can save all of them' happens. That's the turning point. But the fact that it happens then leaves little room to establish him as mankind's greater protector.

 

[marcvader]

Is this the "complaints" thread or the "your wrong don't complain about that" thread? Isn't there like a myriad threads to talk about what you liked?

 

[BlueLantern]

Unfortunately there's plenty of folk with the pitchforks out going 'That guy didn't like the film, he's a witch!'

'Why is he witch?' 'He turned me into a newt!' 'A newt?' 'Well I got better...'

And once more with feeling, I really liked the film but didn't care for the third act's action sequences.

 

[Skrilla31]

sorry, this is just not the version of your pa kent.
neverthless, pa kent is just like any other great father who will sacrifice himself for his son.
he didn't want the world to know his son is an alien. he didn't want his son to die (most likely if they do, he will get caught and killed for experiment in the real world)
how hard is it for you to understand?

Hey, relax with the superiority thing. I didn't like the movie. Deal with it. Do I throw insults at you? Stop acting petty because I talked bad about your precious movie.

It has nothing to do with it being "my" Pa Kent. It's Pa Kent, period. Clark could have been found by anyone. The reason he is who he is, the reason he decided to put everyone else first is because he was raised by the Kents. That's where he gets his values from. That's why he had what it took to be Superman.

In MOS, Clark gets nothing from his father. His father tells him to hide who he is. WHY!?!? What's the difference whether he reveals himself at age 8 or at age 18? WHERE was the harm in Clark saving him from the tornado? What a horrible lesson this movie teaches. No matter how special you think you are, you gotta hide it because people fear what they don't understand. Even in the most dire of circumstances.

Once again, that does NOT sound like the Pa Kent who raised Superman. He should have been the one to see what Clark could offer humanity. That's why he raised him the way he did. To love people and to help people. He should have ENCOURAGED his son to reveal himself to the world. Clark is the one who should have been afraid. That sounds like a more interesting story to me, and it also sounds like I might have had more sympathy for that Pa Kent character instead.

 

[Project862006]

pa kent has always been a protective father pa kent never would want him to reveal himself and be superman he would prefer if clark stayed clark kent and worked in the family business

it may be selfish but his fears over what the world would do to him if they found out would hurt him too much

 

[spider-neil]

Basically for me to care for something I need the protagonist to care for something. I really needed to see Superman devestated as the destruction is happening. What Superman is feeling in the final scene (won't spoil it here) you feel the emotion with him but that emtion needed to be shown throughout the battle. If Superman is concerned then I'll be concerned, if Superman seemingly doesn't care then neither will I. Pointless 'telling' me the stakes I need to feel it.

An example, the stakes in SM 2 are if Spidey webs don't hold everyone on the train will die and you get the stakes, you feel the tension and by comparison a train full of people is a drop in the ocean to buildings falling yet still I was far more engaged with the train fight.

 

[BlueLantern]

Agreed.

 

[Project862006]

oh dont get me wrong i would of loved a scene with zod tossing civilians out of buildings and superman having to save them

 

[Skrilla31]

pa kent has always been a protective father pa kent never would want him to reveal himself and be superman he would prefer if clark stayed clark kent and worked in the family business

it may be selfish but his fears over what the world would do to him if they found out would hurt him too much

Superman wasn't raised by a selfish man. That's the problem. Otherwise he wouldn't be Superman. Superman is the complete OPPOSITE of selfish.

 

[Project862006]

pa kent is no different than any father who loves their son and would do anything to make sure the were safe and thats exactly what costner showed imo

people are looking at just the surface and not johnathan's view point he is jsut trying to secure the safety of his son

 

[Skrilla31]

pa kent is no different than any father who loves their son and would do anything to make sure the were safe and thats exactly what costner showed imo

people are looking at just the surface and not johnathan's view point he is jsut trying to secure the safety of his son

No, I get it. Really, I do. He's trying to protect his son. That's an admirable trait in and of itself. I never said he was a bad father, just that I'm not sure if he's the man who could have been responsible for raising Superman.

Superman puts other people first no matter the cost. This is a guy who takes "With great power comes great responsibility" to the extreme. Superman's biggest fear - once becoming Superman - is someone dying and him not being there to save them. Why is this you ask? Because that's how his parents raised him. That's why the planet owes a debt of gratitude to the Kents. Because if anyone else had found Clark's pod, he might have grown up differently.

Pa and Ma Kent represent the best of what humanity has to offer. And I'm sorry, the thought of Pa Kent telling his son not to save people so that he could keep his identity a secret doesn't sit right with me like it does you. How in the world did Superman ever learn from this guy?

 

[DarthPollo]

This.. I took my boys to watch it, and my oldest (11 year old) turn to me after that scene and he asked me "is that stealing?" , yep, I didn't like the way they did that...

And while I like Henry Cavill's performance as Clark, I think it would've made more sense for his character to actually go up to the house and ask if he could borrow some clothes as opposed to stealing them (which actually would've been pretty amusing)

 

[Project862006]

No, I get it. Really, I do. He's trying to protect his son. That's an admirable trait in and of itself. I never said he was a bad father, just that I'm not sure if he's the man who could have been responsible for raising Superman.

Superman puts other people first no matter the cost. This is a guy who takes "With great power comes great responsibility" to the extreme. Superman's biggest fear - once becoming Superman - is someone dying and him not being there to save them. Why is this you ask? Because that's how his parents raised him. That's why the planet owes a debt of gratitude to the Kents. Because if anyone else had found Clark's pod, he might have grown up differently.

Pa and Ma Kent represent the best of what humanity has to offer. And I'm sorry, the thought of Pa Kent telling his son not to save people so that he could keep his identity a secret doesn't sit right with me like it does you. How in the world did Superman ever learn from this guy?

he learned his kindness and his mid western values from Johnathan and to hold back his anger and not strike for instance he could of killed that bully had he punched him in that flashback

 

[marcvader]

I think what some here are saying is how does a man learn to be selfless and help others at all costs when they're constantly being told to refrain from helping others.

 

[BatLobster]

I had a lot of issues with the movie but the way Jonathan raised Clark actually isn't one of them. First of all, Clark had the urge to do good with his powers from the very beginning. Being selfless with his powers just isn't something Jonathan would've needed to impart in Clark, because Clark was a good-natured child. The point is, Jonathan didn't say Clark should have to hide from his powers forever...he seemed to truly believe there would be a time where both Clark and the world would be ready. He wanted Clark to grow into the man he believed he could be before revealing himself to the world. If he had been turned over to science at such a young age, that might never have happened.

I think the idea is that the Kent values about doing the right thing are implicit. It's just that Jonathan is willing to take a hard stance on a more complex issue about what "the right thing" is.

 

[Project862006]

This.. I took my boys to watch it, and my oldest (11 year old) turn to me after that scene and he asked me "is that stealing?" , yep, I didn't like the way they did that...

And while I like Henry Cavill's performance as Clark, I think it would've made more sense for his character to actually go up to the house and ask if he could borrow some clothes as opposed to stealing them (which actually would've been pretty amusing)

is this legit i have seen a couple people say this

do people here actually have a problem clark taking those clothes?

 

[spider-neil]

I think what some here are saying is how does a man learn to be selfless and help others at all costs when they're constantly being told to refrain from helping others.

Yep, there is a disconnect with what Pa Kent is teaching Clark.

Clark - 'So, I should have just let them die'

Pa - 'Maybe...'



Excuse me, wait, what?!

 

[Da-Scribe]

I think this movie operates a lot in the gray area and it seems to have made some of the more die hard fans uncomfortable.

I'm not big on Supes, but I'm aware of the major traits of some of the more important characters. That being said, it was nice to see a more conflicted Pa Kent. In the end, he just wanted his son to reveal himself when the time was right and to accept that he simply can't save everyone. It's a harsh reality, but for me, it worked for the film.

As far as complaints, a little too much destruction. I hope they find a way to tie that into the sequel, but as it stands, the guy leveled like two cities. A bit much.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

pa kent has always been a protective father pa kent never would want him to reveal himself and be superman he would prefer if clark stayed clark kent and worked in the family business

it may be selfish but his fears over what the world would do to him if they found out would hurt him too much

Yep, there is a disconnect with what Pa Kent is teaching Clark.

Clark - 'So, I should have just let them die'

Pa - 'Maybe...'



Excuse me, wait, what?!

I am also puzzled as to why Pa Kent suddenly was teaching Clark NOT to save lives, NOT to use his powers for a greater good. He knows there's "a reason" for him being here though.

is this legit i have seen a couple people say this

do people here actually have a problem clark taking those clothes?

There is this cliche where the hero - mostly Dr. Banner - is in need of clothes so he finds some but always makes sure to leave some bills hanging.

I personally didn't have a problem with it because I doubt he had money with him. But it didn't look very Superman-esque.

 

[sf2]

So pa kent is a selfish father who want his son to be a farmer.

He is not the comic book pa kent. He is just a normal father who doesn't want his son to get hurt.

Unacceptable?