You're missing the point.
Pa Kent speaks to the central conflict of the film, but tells us nothing about why Clark ultimately wants to do good, proven by the fact that Clark is already good. He's already saving people for reasons we're never clued in on.
Pa Kent's speeches do inform the reason Clark ultimately wants to be Superman (which is the central story of the franchise)
even if they don't illuminate why Clark himself is basically good.
The reason Clark ultimately wants to do good in a grand sense is a combination of his experiences with his parents, Jor-El and Lara, and his time with Lois Lane.
Early in the film, he's saving lives because he can, and he wants to in order to prevent disasters. It's inherent in what's happening. And if that was the only reason, then while not being an absolutely faithful and thematically complete-compared-to-the-comics one or particularly satisfying in terms of classic Superman's rationale, then it would still be a valid reason for a character to do something, as well as relevant to the themes of the franchise. But he's ostensibly doing it to prevent suffering, the same reason most people tend to save lives or help others.
In fact, the film, as I have pointed out, actually SHOWS people (children) suffering, and shows Clark seeing them suffer and taking action to prevent that. Why is that being discounted in assessing his motivations? That single scene essentially shows that he saves people so that they don't suffer and die, which is generally why Superman saves people in other media, isn't it?
Conversely, the great power speech can be directly traced to Spider-man's motivations because it gives him a concrete moral ideal that changes him.
Pa Kent does not, merely telling him vaguely that he's going to be important and that he should also maybe let kids die because he's that important.
That's not all Pa Kent tells him. Pa's interactions with Clark directly inform Clark's motivations, and I really don't see how it can be argued that it doesn't change him as a person as well. It's partially due to Pa Kent's lessons that Clark hides what he can do from humanity. The speeches and his interactions with Pa about his abilities have a clear impact on the character and his choices, and he verbalizes this to Lois.
It's very much the beginning of Clark's motivation.
"Find out who you are and why you are here".
It's what drives him to search for the truth of his origins when the alien ship turns up.
Furthermore, wanting to honor his legacy is also a motivation, and is a motivation found in the film.
Sure, Pa says how "good character or bad" will affect the outcome of how the world changes, but he doesn't tip the scale in telling Clark how and why specifically to be a good person like Uncle Ben's speech, because he's already a good person. That's the entire point.
But wait, isn't Peter Parker also generally already a good person before he becomes Spider-Man? He chooses not to do the good that he knows he can do in one instance to spite someone, but he seems a decent sort prior to that.
As I recall, Uncle Ben, in the Raimi film, aside from saying "Just because you can beat him up, doesn't mean you should", also tells Peter "just be careful who you change into", which is pretty much what Pa Kent tells Clark in MOS, isn't it? They're both sequences about using power responsibility.
As pleasing as it is to the ear and as classic as it has become, "With Great power comes great responsibility" doesn't, in itself mean much of anything except just that; power should be used responsibly. Which again, is an idea that is conveyed by Jonathan Kent in MOS.
Jonathan basically tells Clark to consider the fears and concerns of others, to consider how the revelation that he exists will impact humanity and its perception about it's place in the universe, and to consider the bigger picture in any decision he makes about how to use his special heritage. That's an important moral lesson in itself, I would think.
We're shown characters we don't know in peril and he saves them.
We don't know who these people are or, more importantly, what they mean to Superman, but he saves them. Just like he always does.
I don't see why that especially matters. He's clearly a classmate of the first characters he saves. How would this be any different than Spider-Man saving random people after he becomes Spider-Man, or any other hero saving people we haven't been introduced to?
But... why? You get how this doesn't answer the question of what motivates Superman? Like.... at all?
You keep saying "what motivates Superman" while complaining that we don't know why Clark as a child saved lives.
Clark as a child and Superman are not the same thing conceptually.
"Superman" is the decision Clark Kent makes to put on the uniform and become a symbol. No, the film does not explain why he chooses to use his powers to save people when he is a child, but the film does show that he uses his powers to show hope to humanity and to honor his heritages, and that this is why he becomes Superman.
Most films don't exactly explain the seeds of basic human goodness or evil in their protagonists, they simply contextualize it within the plot and within the relevant conflicts. It's certainly not a requirement of an action movie to do such a thing.
Almost every worthwhile superhero film ever made has some sort of reasoning explicitly shown to explain why our hero does what they do (Cap doesn't like bullies, Spider-man wants to use his powers responsibly, etc.),
Ok, so if "I don't like bullies" is sufficient motivation, do we REALLY need the film to say "I don't like people suffering and dying" while showing someone acting to prevent such a thing in order to understand and to believe that not wanting people to suffer and die is a legitimate motivation for saving people, and that this is a legitimate reason for him to do good?
but in this case our protagonist's motivation is just "obvious" and not worth including at any point? Okay.
They do include the reason for his motivation. It's one of the earliest scenes after the Krypton stuff.
No one makes a speech about it because it's...as you said, obvious. It's a very common concept.
I guess the filmmakers thought that since audiences live in a world of stories and in some cases the real world where people save people because they have the skills to do so and don't want to see others perish or suffer because of the force that we call basic human decency that audiences would get that very simple and fairly common concept.
Superman does what he does because he wants to save people, wants to honor his legacy, and because he is selfless. We see each of these factors throughout MAN OF STEEL, and he only briefly questions the selflessness aspect in BVS, as it's part of his conflict there. Why he saves people when he has immense power is not the part of the film that should require an interesting motivation or exploration. It's, again, a very common, basic concept, especially in the superhero realm.
I'm not saying that couldn't ever work as I don't think it's some unwritten rule that every superhero has to have a clearly laid out motivation, but this version of Clark is such a cypher that it would have done wonders just to figure out what makes him tick. There are many reasons why Clark didn't connect with audiences, and it all boils down to how underwritten he is. That's why he's unlikable. It isn't because he's burdened and serious, we've seen that work before so that doesn't add up. It's because we ultimately don't understand who he is or why he does what he does.
Agree to disagree. I think it's arguable that most general audience members don't necessarily know how to analyze good writing, bad writing, or know when something is underwritten. They know what they like based on how a concept makes them feel. And they like positivity more than negativity. Especially in a film that many view as a form of escapism.
He does have a clearly laid out motivation in the film. What the film didn't do was deliver that motivation in exposition, or have Clark say his reasons for doing things out loud.
But actions aren't meaningless when interpreting someone's motivations, and visual storytelling isn't meaningless in a film.
Plenty of people do understand who he is or why he does what he does. They've spent two films exploring it, and even gave a nod to it in Justice League.
