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

[BH/HHH]

/\ I disagree I loved that scene, infact it had me in tears. I think it's a good change that fit with the themes in the film.

 

[robot]

^ The tornado moment felt like a "ploy." It's like there was a sense of "the movie wasn't dramatic enough let's show Kent die in a preventable manner."

I'll defend the characterization of Kent for the most part, but I won't defend the tornado scene. That scene shouldn't have made it in the script.

Couldn't agree more!

But I would still like to see a tornado though... it looked absolutely awesome.. but instead of making it a 'keeping my identity is more important than saving my own father' scene, maybe lengthen it into a 'superman doing what superman does best, saving people moment'... turn this into a magical moment for superman....

 

[Lionbush]

Whether sacrifice or suicide, it is still a D-E-A-T-H nonetheless, which Clark acquiesced to. Regardless, his sacrifice was not proven to be necessary. I've previously pointed out prior to this that the fear of world not being ready for Clark's existence was never established in the film, merely muttered verbally by various characters opining. That is the very definition of poor story-telling. I'm surprised they didn't have time to feature a scene by the old water cooler at the Daily Planet where a couple more trivial characters mention an obligatory, "You know I was thinking last night that the world just isn't ready for the existence of beings from another planet."

It was more than established in the Pete Ross and his mother scene, when he first reveals himself to the military as wells as his capture, the pastor in the church ****s himself when Clark tells him that he is the one they are looking for. There there was the whole school episodes where the other kids mad fun of him for being 'different'.

It was so obviously laid down.

There are many examples of differing reactions to his presence.

 

[spider-neil]

I think it's harsh for Clark, like it was for Peter in SM1 that your father figure is taken from just after you are the biggest *****e in the world to them.
That's gotta hurt. That's gonna leave a mark.

 

[robot]

It was more than established in the Pete Ross and his mother scene, when he first reveals himself to the military as wells as his capture, the pastor in the church ****s himself when Clark tells him that he is the one they are looking for. There there was the whole school episodes where the other kids mad fun of him for being 'different'.

It was so obviously laid down.

There are many examples of differing reactions to his presence.

Your argument actually helps the opposing view... Clark seems to not care that much about his identity (like you said, exposing himself to the priest, to the kids, to the oil riggers, etc), but the only time that exposing himself was necessary to save his dad, he didn't do it..

Like many who's seen this movie, that scene was a total ploy and a 'wtf' moment, defies all logic, and bordering on the obscene...

 

[Lionbush]

Your argument actually helps the opposing view... Clark seems to not care that much about his identity (like you said, exposing himself to the priest, to the kids, to the oil riggers, etc), but the only time that exposing himself was necessary to save his dad, he didn't do it..

Like many who's seen this movie, that scene was a total ploy and a 'wtf' moment, defies all logic, and bordering on the obscene...

If you think that you completely missed the point.

His dad was always trying to keep him a secret (as told is so many scenes). His dad told him that sometimes he may have to let people die in order to hide away, even coming to the point of refusing to be saved himself. These moments were all when he was young (going by the novel he would be around 16/17 yrs old when his father died). He chose to let his father die because he loved his dad and knew what his dad was trying to do. He made a sacrifice because his dad believed that there was a bigger picture to just him being saved. Christ, he even spells it out to Lois and that's the first time someone actually linked him to all the events.

'I let my father die because I trusted him. He was convinced that I had to wait, that the world wasn't ready.'

It's also obvious that by Clark running around under aliases was him trying to hide away, but yet he still couldn't let people die as he got older. Hence why he disappeared after the oil rig, went away after the trucker incident etc. He was stuck in two minds trying to help people but keep it a secret. Again explained in the scene at his dads grave.

LL - ' It's (your story) going to get out eventually...'

CK - 'Then I'll just disappear again.'

LL - 'The only way you could disappear for good is if you stopped helping people altogether, and I sense that is not an option for you.'

The moment he spoke to the Pastor was the moment he decided to reveal himself, take that leap of faith. It's important to note who he gave himself up to, humanity. He placed his trust in humanity because with the threat of Zod, he knew it was the right time.

 

[The Guard]

In terms of plot holes and exposition, this film is guide book on how not to make a complex film. Everything is told, ignored and told again. And then there's **** spoken about that has parenthesis explaining that certain off-screen events might nullify said exposition or consequences of said scenes.

Can you elaborate?

 

[robot]

If you think that you completely missed the point.

His dad was always trying to keep him a secret (as told is so many scenes). His dad told him that sometimes he may have to let people die in order to hide away, even coming to the point of refusing to be saved himself. These moments were all when he was young (going by the novel he would be around 16/17 yrs old when his father died). He chose to let his father die because he loved his dad and knew what his dad was trying to do. He made a sacrifice because his dad believed that there was a bigger picture to just him being saved. Christ, he even spells it out to Lois and that's the first time someone actually linked him to all the events.

'I let my father die because I trusted him. He was convinced that I had to wait, that the world wasn't ready.'

It's also obvious that by Clark running around under aliases was him trying to hide away, but yet he still couldn't let people die as he got older. Hence why he disappeared after the oil rig, went away after the trucker incident etc. He was stuck in two minds trying to help people but keep it a secret. Again explained in the scene at his dads grave.

LL - ' It's (your story) going to get out eventually...'

CK - 'Then I'll just disappear again.'

LL - 'The only way you could disappear for good is if you stopped helping people altogether, and I sense that is not an option for you.'

The moment he spoke to the Pastor was the moment he decided to reveal himself, take that leap of faith. It's important to note who he gave himself up to, humanity. He placed his trust in humanity because with the threat of Zod, he knew it was the right time.

I am sorry, but i totally disagree with you on this whole-heartedly...

And all the arguments both mine and other have already been given (countless times he chose to ignore his dad but the one time he needs to save him, he follows him? Too convenient for me to be gullible like that)... and this is going nowhere.. so, i'll just disagree with you...

PLUS, NO ONE LETS THEIR PARENTS DIE (for almost every reason you can think of)

 

[Lionbush]

I am sorry, but i totally disagree with you on this whole-heartedly...

And all the arguments both mine and other have already been given (countless times he chose to ignore his dad but the one time he needs to save him, he follows him? Too convenient for me to be gullible like that)... and this is going nowhere.. so, i'll just disagree with you...

PLUS, NO ONE LETS THEIR PARENTS DIE (for almost every reason you can think of)

Hey let him die because it's what his dad wanted him to do. To protect him and the family. If he'd revealed himself then, it would have led to a lot of trouble. No human could have saved him, only Clark. If he had saved him then his secret would have been out, which is what his parents had been trying to avoid for 16 years.

It's not about being gullible, it's about being able understand the whole point of that scene past the very simplistic view of 'he let him die'.

You have to look at it in the wider context of the film as well. It follows on from the talk his dad gave him about not revealing himself, which was also the first time he told Clark that he was not human. Up until then Clark thought he was human and did help people when he was a boy. After that, you can infer that Clark was on the same page as his father and began to understand the reasons why his dad didn't want him to expose his true identity.

If you don't want to buy it then fine, but it's not a difficult concept to follow seeing it was so blatantly laid down.

 

[The Guard]

I really wish more people understood the Jonathan Kent's sacrifice thing, and the psychological reasons this happens, in terms of the impact it has on Clark later in his life, and how it figures into the film.

It goes well beyond "Don't save people, hide yourself, and let me die".

Sigh.

 

[robot]

Ok, let's see if any of your arguments hold any water (taking into consideration of this movie's script and that it wanted to be grounded on our reality)

Hey let him die because it's what his dad wanted him to do. To protect him and the family. If he'd revealed himself then, it would have led to a lot of trouble.

1. More trouble than having his father die? In case people don't realize this, dying the the greatest trouble you can get your family into... to the point is mute.

2. Illogicality of the script/scene. If this happened in real life, put yourself in Clark's shoes.. would you allow him to run out into the tornado to save a dog in the first place or would you do that yourself? Clark could have easily go save the dog, then vanish into the tornado, to be found later still alive (and people might buy that story without revealing himself)... also, he could have saved the dog and got out of the car better than his dad would have been.

It's not about being gullible, it's about being able understand the whole point of that scene past the very simplistic view of 'he let him die'.

Yes, and you think we don't understand what goyer is trying to say? Even my 10 year old nephews understood what the scene is supposed to be doing.. but we don't buy it.. not the way it's done.. for many, reasons, the main one being:

No one lets their parents die. It just doesn't happen in real life This doesn't happen in real life... not if you could have easily saved them...

You have to look at it in the wider context of the film as well. It follows on from the talk his dad gave him about not revealing himself, which was also the first time he told Clark that he was not human. Up until then Clark thought he was human and did help people when he was a boy. After that, you can infer that Clark was on the same page as his father and began to understand the reasons why his dad didn't want him to expose his true identity.

All i hear from the opposing views are 'lots of inference, that may not even be there'. Dont forget he also revealed himself after knowing he's an alient o the oil riggers and the priest...

If you don't want to buy it then fine, but it's not a difficult concept to follow seeing it was so blatantly laid down.

Blatantly laid down indeed... just 'totally illogical' and 'complete utter failure' way of laying it down...

 

[The Guard]

I don't really think we can assess the logic of what Clark/Jonathan chose to do in that's sequence based on what we would do.

Especially since its not based on logic, and since we're not them. We haven't actually had to deal with the issues they have, or the potential issues. Nor are we in that emotionally charged moment, making those split second decisions.

 

[Lionbush]

I really wish more people understood the Jonathan Kent's sacrifice thing, and the psychological reasons this happens, in terms of the impact it has on Clark later in his life, and how it figures into the film.

It goes well beyond "Don't save people, hide yourself, and let me die".

Sigh.

I fully agree.

It wasn't a mistake they chose this death and sacrifce. It was by design. It's the ultimate was of JK trying to prove to his son what he was preaching to him all along.

The impact that had on Clarke is obvious with his conflict of helping people but under different guises in places he can't be traced. His torment is revealed in the dialogue with Lois.

It's not a simple, 'he let him die' at all. There is a lot behind that scene.

 

[robot]

I don't really think we can assess the logic of what Clark/Jonathan chose to do in that's sequence based on what we would do.

Why not? This movie is supposed to be what 'you would do if you were superman'.. Snyder / Goyer said this numerous times...

Especially since its not based on logic,

It is precisely because it's not based on logic that he would save his dad.. if it were just a logical decision, then he won't have... and he's not vulcan.. he's human.. raised as such.. he has already demonstrated that he doesnt' listen to his father when people's lives are at stake as evidenced by the bus rescue scene/oil rig scene and even the priest scene... so, why the 180% turnaround when it's his father's life's at stake instead of total strangers???

and since we're not them. We haven't actually had to deal with the issues they have, or the potential issues. Nor are we in that emotionally charged moment, making those split second decisions.

I have been in precisely such a situation with life/death hanging on the balance.. and i have more to lose than Clark did.. Clark had his identity to lose, I had my life, and yet i chose to come out of my locked room when armed robbers threatened my moms' life.. and my brother did the same too..

And just use a thought experiement.. ask yourself this question, what would you do? Snyder want you to ask that question... and don't lie..

 

[The Guard]

And people arguing the "right" and "wrong" of it, while not missing the point, are nonetheless missing the point. Which is that given the particular conflicts the Kents face, there may BE no right or wrong to those decisions...just the very human choices they make regarding them.

 

[SlamAdams]

^ The tornado moment felt like a "ploy." It's like there was a sense of "the movie wasn't dramatic enough let's show Kent die in a preventable manner."

I'll defend the characterization of Kent for the most part, but I won't defend the tornado scene. That scene shouldn't have made it in the script.

Bingo!

 

[SlamAdams]

I really wish more people understood the Jonathan Kent's sacrifice thing, and the psychological reasons this happens, in terms of the impact it has on Clark later in his life, and how it figures into the film.

It goes well beyond "Don't save people, hide yourself, and let me die".

Sigh.

I would agree with that, and it was clear before the sacrifice, but the tornado scene drove the point home in an incredibly sloppy way.

 

[Lionbush]

Ok, let's see if any of your arguments hold any water (taking into consideration of this movie's script and that it wanted to be grounded on our reality)



1. More trouble than having his father die? In case people don't realize this, dying the the greatest trouble you can get your family into... to the point is mute.

2. Illogicality of the script/scene. If this happened in real life, put yourself in Clark's shoes.. would you allow him to run out into the tornado to save a dog in the first place or would you do that yourself? Clark could have easily go save the dog, then vanish into the tornado, to be found later still alive (and people might buy that story without revealing himself)... also, he could have saved the dog and got out of the car better than his dad would have been.



Yes, and you think we don't understand what goyer is trying to say? Even my 10 year old nephews understood what the scene is supposed to be doing.. but we don't buy it.. not the way it's done.. for many, reasons, the main one being:

No one lets their parents die. It just doesn't happen in real life This doesn't happen in real life... not if you could have easily saved them...




All i hear from the opposing views are 'lots of inference, that may not even be there'. Dont forget he also revealed himself after knowing he's an alient o the oil riggers and the priest...



Blatantly laid down indeed... just 'totally illogical' and 'complete utter failure' way of laying it down...

The more you type the more you are showing that you don't get the the point past the simplistic appearance, at all.

1) The oil rigger scene was AFTER his dad's death. In film terms about 10-15 years after. He wasn't Clark in any of the scenes taking place in the early adult life scenes, he was operating as different people so he couldn't be traced, or so he thought until he presented himself to Lois. But he wouldn't have thought she would try to connect the dots.

2) His dad went to save the dog. He didn't expect to die. When he knew he was done (broken ankle) he told his son not to save him and reveal himself. That's also why he went himself. Yes Clark could have gone but again it would have risked revealing himself. It's never about easily saving his dad, it's about the question of if he should save him because of possible consequences. The Kent's spent all their lives trying to keep him a secret, to protect him. That's what the scene is about. The culmination of that in the ultimate sacrifice by his dad to protect his sons identity.

3) If Clark had saved his dad then what would have happened? You think the powers that be would let him and his family carry on farming? They feared that Clark would have been taken, they also would have been taken. That's spelled out many times in various points of the film.

4) As stated, you can't compare to real life as because Clarke isn't human and the stakes would never be faced by any of us (if it was ever plausible). Well done for the armed robbers/and your mum (genuinely). But it is pretty irrelevant to the point of this film. As his dad said, him revealing himself would change the world in every way. Religious beliefs, perceptions on life the universe, national security, the question of are we alone would be answered. There was all that to go with it.

The argument holds up, because it's what the film is trying to tell us.

 

[SlamAdams]

I think Clark should have saved his father. In a lot of ways the way Jonathan Kent was telling him to stay secret made sense when he was a kid, but now as an adult he needed to start getting challenged. The choice to act would have been a less hollow piece of character development than forced to stop, after all, it is not as simple as to listen to your parents' lessons but to eventually put them into action, whether your parents like it or not. Plus the act of revealing himself would be a better reason for him to leave Kansas than to simply going "Kerouac on everyone's ass."

 

[robot]

The more you type the more you are showing that you don't get the the point past the simplistic appearance, at all.

And the more you type, the more you're showing that you don't get how ridiculous that scene was... you're so enamored of 'the message' and blind to all logic..

1) The oil rigger scene was AFTER his dad's death. In film terms about 10-15 years after. He wasn't Clark in any of the scenes taking place in the early adult life scenes, he was operating as different people so he couldn't be traced, or so he thought until he presented himself to Lois. But he wouldn't have thought she would try to connect the dots.

I knew that.. did you think i was that stupid???

My point was, all throughout his life, child or adult, he has been consistent in saving people, putting people's lives above all else, including going against his dad's wishes... he's been a good boy, following orders until the situation calls for 'saving someone'... and i think this was a good thing, because it shows that Clark was not all that black and white, and it builds him up to the Superman that puts other's lives ahead of his own...

But you on the other hand did not understand the nuances of the 'real situation' outside of the sloppy script goyer presented us with...

If he wanted to hammer in the importance of staying hidden, the tornado scene is not it... there are better ways to do it...

2) His dad went to save the dog. He didn't expect to die. When he knew he was done (broken ankle) he told his son not to save him and reveal himself. That's also why he went himself. Yes Clark could have gone but again it would have risked revealing himself. It's never about easily saving his dad, it's about the question of if he should save him because of possible consequences. The Kent's spent all their lives trying to keep him a secret, to protect him. That's what the scene is about. The culmination of that in the ultimate sacrifice by his dad to protect his sons identity.

And you don't see the complete illogic of that? Clark could have as easily gone in to save the dog... and of course he didn't expect to die... but the danger was more than apparent...

3) If Clark had saved his dad then what would have happened? You think the powers that be would let him and his family carry on farming? They feared that Clark would have been taken, they also would have been taken. That's spelled out many times in various points of the film.

So, what's the worse that could have happened? Worse than his dad dying???

Was that spelled out??

4) As stated, you can't compare to real life as because Clarke isn't human and the stakes would never be faced by any of us (if it was ever plausible). Well done for the armed robbers/and your mum (genuinely). But it is pretty irrelevant to the point of this film. As his dad said, him revealing himself would change the world in every way. Religious beliefs, perceptions on life the universe, national security, the question of are we alone would be answered. There was all that to go with it.

He isn't human but he's surely acting like one... he was brought up as one and there was no indication that he's any different...

And you think exposing religion as 'a bunch of bull' would be his biggest worry? or, any of the imagined 'things that could happen' that you try to rationalize into the script??? More so that letting your own family member die????

I am surprise that you don't see how unimportant the world would be to almost anyone when it comes to the lives of their loved ones...

The argument holds up, because it's what the film is trying to tell us.

As someone says, it's more of a ploy or sloppily written part of the movie..

 

[Lionbush]

And the more you type, the more you're showing that you don't get how ridiculous that scene was... you're so enamored of 'the message' and blind to all logic..



I knew that.. did you think i was that stupid???

My point was, all throughout his life, child or adult, he has been consistent in saving people, putting people's lives above all else, including going against his dad's wishes... he's been a good boy, following orders until the situation calls for 'saving someone'... and i think this was a good thing, because it shows that Clark was not all that black and white, and it builds him up to the Superman that puts other's lives ahead of his own...

But you on the other hand did not understand the nuances of the 'real situation' outside of the sloppy script goyer presented us with...

If he wanted to hammer in the importance of staying hidden, the tornado scene is not it... there are better ways to do it...



And you don't see the complete illogic of that? Clark could have as easily gone in to save the dog... and of course he didn't expect to die... but the danger was more than apparent...



So, what's the worse that could have happened? Worse than his dad dying???

Was that spelled out??



He isn't human but he's surely acting like one... he was brought up as one and there was no indication that he's any different...

And you think exposing religion as 'a bunch of bull' would be his biggest worry? or, any of the imagined 'things that could happen' that you try to rationalize into the script??? More so that letting your own family member die????

I am surprise that you don't see how unimportant the world would be to almost anyone when it comes to the lives of their loved ones...




As someone says, it's more of a ploy or sloppily written part of the movie..

I can't be arsed responding when you quote my points and try argue them despite the answer being in them.

Night.

 

[Visiting Arkham]

Pa Kent in this movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swvf3w6hcY4

 

[robot]

I can't be arsed responding when you quote my points and try argue them despite the answer being in them.

Night.

I can say the exact same thing about your arguments.. it's like all my points are invisible to you..

so, yes, i'll agree to disagree with you... bye!

 

[robot]

Pa Kent in this movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swvf3w6hcY4

HAHAHA... this was really funny... notice Spock's expressions at the end???

 

[KalMart]

I really wish more people understood the Jonathan Kent's sacrifice thing, and the psychological reasons this happens, in terms of the impact it has on Clark later in his life, and how it figures into the film.

It goes well beyond "Don't save people, hide yourself, and let me die".

Sigh.

I agree, but I also think the film could have done a little more to really help it sink in. Not so much spoonfeeding it, but something like Jonathan, when speaking to an adolescent Clark, tells him one day it will all somehow be clear as to why he can do what he can do...just not yet. And then some years later, in his crucial late teens when he's just about ready to become a man, and he's anxious and stubborn and even lashes out against him saying he's 'not his real father'...at that moment when Clark is going to reveal his abilities again to save him, Jonathan could have held his hand out and again mouthed the words 'not yet'. In a way that only Clark could hear, but also only he could understand that Jonathan was doing one last act to protect his son.

Like the rest of sounds of the storm and chaos are filtered out as Jonathan mutters those last words while holding his hand out to keep Clark back, followed by a comforting smile......and then he's gone.

It would tie it back to their talk when he was younger and be just a nice poetic and heartbreaking 'last words' by Jonathan that would, I feel, quite simply and elegantly explain his actions and his sacrifice. It wouldn't have been that much more to add, but I think it would contribute greatly to making Jonathan's death not seem so careless or senseless for some.