Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

[DrCosmic]

Actually he saves people because they need saving and because he has the power to do so. His power cannot be removed form the equation here, because it's key to his conflict.

Why is what's actually being shown on film discounted?

I think a reasonable person can draw the conclusion that he saves them so they don't suffer and die. Which equates to basic human compassion for the plight of another, doesn't it? Is that really a stretch?

Again, saving people from dying so they don't die is like saying 'he saves people because he saves people.' It is literally no information.

Your thoughts are not a stretch, but they aren't in the movie, and they bring up other questions about when he doesn't show basic compassion and far exceeds basic human compassion later in the film. Power to save is not a reason to save people or else all people with power to save people would save people... they don't. All power means is that if he has a reason to save people he'll do it. Still don't know why tho.

Is that the most unique reason for saving people ever devised, or the most satisfying portrayal of Superman's altruism ever seen? No, of course not. I understand that these ideas aren't dramatized the way that many would like, but there is is still a reason shown for Clark to save people.

They aren't dramatized at all though. You're asking us to draw conclusions, not feel what's on screen int he moment.

 

[misslane38]

Again, saving people from dying so they don't die is like saying 'he saves people because he saves people.' It is literally no information.

Your thoughts are not a stretch, but they aren't in the movie, and they bring up other questions about when he doesn't show basic compassion and far exceeds basic human compassion later in the film. Power to save is not a reason to save people or else all people with power to save people would save people... they don't. All power means is that if he has a reason to save people he'll do it. Still don't know why tho.

They aren't dramatized at all though. You're asking us to draw conclusions, not feel what's on screen int he moment.

I addressed a similar question in another thread. I'll repost some of it here.

...in MoS. Jonathan spoke about one day when Clark would see his differences as a blessing. Clark talks about wanting his life to have purpose. A blessing is something that is perceived of as a gift. The idea is that Clark's differences, his powers, are a gift he can give in the service of others. It's the "reason" that he was sent to Earth, as Jonathan hints at when he's a teenager and Jor-El confirms when he's an adult. In BvS, we get more of a sense of this when Clark worries that his gifts are no longer that blessing. That dream doesn't seem real anymore when people die in the Capitol bombing because of his presence there; so he wonders if he's doing more harm than good.

Even Clark's conversation with Jonathan focuses on the why of it all. Specifically, why continue to do good if you don't get the results you want? This is the heart of Superman's existential arc in [BvS] ... Does one do good to receive the "hero cake," as Jonathan did as a child, or does one do it even though it can mean carrying the burden of the nightmares of all the things one can't control or fix? In choosing to embrace his mission as Superman following this test, Superman affirms his purpose.

...

Clark is raised by kind and loving parents whose own choice to adopt him exemplifies grace: instead of being afraid, they chose to view this strange baby that fell from the sky as a blessing. They, in turn, raise him to make sense of his differences and cope with them by framing them as follows:

One day you're going to think of [these changes you're going through] as a blessing. [...] Somewhere out there you've got another father too, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark. And even if it takes you the rest of your life, you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is.

In other words, doing good for the world gives not only Clark's differences, his powers, meaning, but it gives his whole existence meaning. Speaking to Jor-El, as Jonathan predicted, only clarified the specific dreams and goals his biological parents had, but from an early age Clark was taught, as many Christians and likely people of other faiths are also taught, that whatever god they pray to created them with a purpose. Clark begins to want to seek his purpose as a teenager: "I'm tired of safe. I just want to do something useful with my life."

I highly recommend reading Mark Waid's essay "The Real Truth about Superman: And the Rest of Us Too" because it aligns almost perfectly with what I and the films have expressed about Superman's motivations. Here's an example. After years of loving and working on the character, Waid writes that "the one question I could not answer [was] why does [Superman] do what he does?" The essay follows several of his trains of thought, but he ultimately concludes "When [Superman] lives as who he really is, in full authenticity to his nature and gifts, and then brings his distinctive strengths into the service of others, he takes his rightful place in the larger community, in which he now genuinely belongs and can feel fulfilled. [...] In helping others, Superman helps himself. In helping himself, he helps others." He adds, "Kal-El knows instinctively that it is only when he puts his gifts to use that he truly feels alive and engaged."

To sum up, MoS establishes that Clark is heroic -- he does good -- because it gives his life, his existence, and his powers meaning. He wants to understand the "why" of who he is and what he can do, and he wants to do something useful with his life. That's it. It's a simple as what Jonathan tells Clark in the storm cellar: saving people and doing good is a way for Clark to see his differences as blessings he can proudly share with others when they're ready. It's the ultimate resolution of his identity crisis because he can be fully himself without fear of rejection.

 

[The Guard]

Again, saving people from dying so they don't die is like saying 'he saves people because he saves people.' It is literally no information.

Except that it is some information. Not wanting people to suffer and die is a pretty solid reason to save someone. It may be the best and most moral reason there is to do so.

Your thoughts are not a stretch, but they aren't in the movie.

The things I'm talking about are fairly straightforward concepts, and are clearly conveyed visually.

-We are shown people who are suffering and about to die.
-We are shown Clark being concerned about this fact.
-We are shown Clark saving them.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here.

What's in the movie is not discounted, simply your thoughts and conclusions. Nothing you conclude is considered part of the movie, because it's in your head and not on film.

You understand that film is a visual medium and just because a character doesn't say something out loud, that doesn't mean it's not in the film, right?

You can't say "That thing you imagined happening isn't on film" and expect that to hold water when the element being discussed is conveyed visually and happens onscreen.

Basic human compassion is a nice theory, and attractive based on our knowledge of him from comics, but not only is it not shown, not only is it not the only reasonable option, but Superman does things to save people later in the film that far exceed basic human compassion, and does not demonstrate basic human compassion at other times. What motivates him then? The film doesn't say then either.

It's not only nice theory, it's the one that makes logical sense given the circumstances. Aside from the not being human part.

I'm fuzzy on how one sees the presence of basic human compassion if wanting to help others avoid a terrible fate isn't considered a form of compassion.

Compassion, btw, is partially defined as

"concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others."

sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to
alleviate it

It is generally accepted that if someone shows a desire to help others, that they are showing compassion.

The film doesn't say what motivates him later? Inaccurate. The film details Superman's reason for saving people AS Superman as not only being about wanting people not to suffer and die, but also being about honoring the newly discovered legacy of Jor-El, who literally says "You can save them all" at one point in the film to motivate his son.

All people who save people have the power to do so, but they all have different reasons for using that power. All having power does for the equation is eliminate a reason NOT to save people (I can't). If power itself was a reason, all people with power to save would save people (they don't). A paramedic who saves people because a paramedic saved his mom's life is a story, a paramedic who saves people because he has an ambulance (the power to) is just a report, not even worthy of a newspaper article.

There are also common reasons for using that power to save others, and what I talked about is one of them.

I didn't say that having power is the only reason he saves people. It's one of the reasons he is able to, certainly. It's certainly the reason he is able to save people in this particular sequence.

And this is not a typical situation. Clark doesn't have the normal ability to save someone that most people have anymore than Batman just has the normal skills that someone has to fight crime with.

This is a scenario where Clark has an ability to alter a situation drastically that no other human possesses.

These ideas aren't dramatized at all. All that is shown is that he has the power, that he can save people, and that he does. There simply is no 'why' in the film.

Yes they are. It doesn't get much more dramatic or exaggerated than "a bus full of schoolchildren in peril". Go look up the definition of dramatized, and explain to me why what we see in the film doesn't fit it. I've already provided it above in a previous post.

The ideas are not dramatized in the way you might like them to be, but they are very much dramatized.

So you're just going to discount the sequence of the first time he saves people where he's clearly trying to prevent suffering and death?

I've said it several times now. His main motivation in saving people is the most obvious; to prevent them from suffering and dying.

You say that's not an actual reason, yet that's generally the key reason that people in fiction AND in real life tend save people when they're not either getting a paycheck to do so or just seeking an adrenaline rush.

 

[The Guard]

I addressed a similar question in another thread. I'll repost some of it here.



To sum up, MoS establishes that Clark is heroic -- he does good -- because it gives his life, his existence, and his powers meaning. He wants to understand the "why" of who he is and what he can do, and he wants to do something useful with his life. That's it. It's a simple as what Jonathan tells Clark in the storm cellar: saving people and doing good is a way for Clark to see his differences as blessings he can proudly share with others when they're ready. It's the ultimate resolution of his identity crisis because he can be fully himself without fear of rejection.

Accurate. It's part of his search for an identity as the film progresses. And that's not all seen when he's young and first saving people, but it's absolutely part of his path to becoming and his role as Superman.

 

[misslane38]

Accurate. It's part of his search for an identity as the film progresses. And that's not all seen when he's young and first saving people, but it's absolutely part of his path to becoming and his role as Superman.

It's not seen when he first saves Pete and the rest of the kids on the bus, but it is an idea his father introduces after the bus incident, and it also follows a previous flashback in which he was isolated and afraid around his classmates and teacher at his elementary school.

What's wrong with him?

He's such a freak.

Crybaby.

His parents won't even let him play with other kids.

Before the bus crashed, Clark seems to have some sort of friendship with Lana who stands up for him when Pete bullies him. Clark saves the kids on the bus and ultimately Pete because, as he tells his father, "I just wanted to help." What we see is that this initial impulse to help may have generated some suspicion in Smallville, but it also turned Clark's former bully, Pete, into a friend. Thus, saving people began as a simple desire to help, but it evolved over time to become intermingled with a more complex desire for purpose and belonging.

 

[DrCosmic]

I addressed a similar question in another thread. I'll repost some of it here.

To sum up, MoS establishes that Clark is heroic -- he does good -- because it gives his life, his existence, and his powers meaning. He wants to understand the "why" of who he is and what he can do, and he wants to do something useful with his life. That's it. It's a simple as what Jonathan tells Clark in the storm cellar: saving people and doing good is a way for Clark to see his differences as blessings he can proudly share with others when they're ready. It's the ultimate resolution of his identity crisis because he can be fully himself without fear of rejection.

Hi misslane!


So the movie already has him saving people when the question of why 'continue' to save people comes up, so the initial reasoning is still a cypher thing. That's the discussion you're coming into, that lack is part of the reason why Man of Steel failed the way it did.

Then, nearly everything you've said is not in the film, but something you've projected into the movie. Everyone who adopts strange babies is not brave, so the film does not show their character merely by having him adopted. I think case in point for your post is the bolded. Here is every word Johnathan Kent shares in the storm cellar:

Jonathan Kent: [Jonathan shows Clark his ship] We found you in this. We were sure the government was gonna show up at our doorstep, but no one ever came.
Jonathan Kent: [Jonathan shows Clark the command key] This was in the chamber with you. We took it to a metallurgist at Kansas State. He said whatever it was made from didn't even... didn't even exist on the periodic table. It's another way of saying that it's not from this world, Clark... and neither are you. You're the answer, son. You're the answer to, "are we alone in the universe?" Jonathan Kent: And I don't blame you, son. It'd be a huge burden for anyone to bear; but you're not just anyone, Clark, and I have to believe that you were... that you were sent here for a reason. All these changes that you're going through, one day... one day you're gonna think of them as a blessing; and when that day comes, you're gonna have to make a choice... a choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not.
Jonathan Kent: [hugs Clark nearly in tears] You are my son;... but somewhere out there, you... you have another father too, who gave you another name, and he sent you here for a reason, Clark; and even if it takes you the rest of your life, you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is.

Nothing. About. Saving. People.

This is why I remember your name misslane38. I see your name and I'm like "Oh, this is the person who ignores what's being discussed and then tells us a bunch of things that aren't in MoS are there, and are unavoidable conclusions."
Since we're suggesting essays, I strongly recommend Film Crit Hulk's analysis of MoS as a film:

https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2013/07/03/film-crit-hulk-man-of-steel. I think it illustrates well why the film MoS fails to live up to anything in Mark Waid's essay or Superman stories.

I appreciate your passion, but there aren't enough walls of text to make your comments relevant to the discussion you're quoting, or to make your conclusions logical. If you'd like to respond to me or to the topic, and not try to educate me about MoS try responding to these questions:

Do you want to learn more about Man of Steel, or do you already know everything?
What filmmaking techniques does Man of Steel use to help the audience feel Clark's motivations?
What do you think the greatest shortcoming of Man of Steel was?

Except that it is some information. Not wanting people to suffer and die is a pretty solid reason to save someone. It may be the best and most moral reason there is to do so.

The things I'm talking about are fairly straightforward concepts, and are clearly conveyed visually.

-We are shown people who are suffering and about to die.
-We are shown Clark being concerned about this fact.
-We are shown Clark saving them.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here.

You understand that film is a visual medium and just because a character doesn't say something out loud, that doesn't mean it's not in the film, right?

You can't say "That thing you imagined happening isn't on film" and expect that to hold water when the element being discussed is conveyed visually and happens onscreen.

It's not only nice theory, it's the one that makes logical sense given the circumstances. Aside from the not being human part.

I'm fuzzy on how one sees the presence of basic human compassion if wanting to help others avoid a terrible fate isn't considered a form of compassion.

Compassion, btw, is partially defined as

"concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others."

sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to
alleviate it

It is generally accepted that if someone shows a desire to help others, that they are showing compassion.

The film doesn't say what motivates him later? Inaccurate. The film details Superman's reason for saving people AS Superman as not only being about wanting people not to suffer and die, but also being about honoring the newly discovered legacy of Jor-El, who literally says "You can save them all" at one point in the film to motivate his son.


There are also common reasons for using that power to save others, and what I talked about is one of them.

I didn't say that having power is the only reason he saves people. It's one of the reasons he is able to, certainly. It's certainly the reason he is able to save people in this particular sequence.

And this is not a typical situation. Clark doesn't have the normal ability to save someone that most people have anymore than Batman just has the normal skills that someone has to fight crime with.

This is a scenario where Clark has an ability to alter a situation drastically that no other human possesses.

Yes they are. It doesn't get much more dramatic or exaggerated than "a bus full of schoolchildren in peril". Go look up the definition of dramatized, and explain to me why what we see in the film doesn't fit it. I've already provided it above in a previous post.

The ideas are not dramatized in the way you might like them to be, but they are very much dramatized.

So you're just going to discount the sequence of the first time he saves people where he's clearly trying to prevent suffering and death?

I've said it several times now. His main motivation in saving people is the most obvious; to prevent them from suffering and dying.

You say that's not an actual reason, yet that's generally the key reason that people in fiction AND in real life tend save people when they're not either getting a paycheck to do so or just seeking an adrenaline rush.

Yeah, it seems like you get fuzzy on the point every time you split posts up. You probably shouldn't do that.

Here's a very short version: There are a dozen reasons to save people from suffering and dying. Three popular ones are: Compassion, Guilt, and Duty. Man of Steel does not dramatize which of these, if any, is involved. Compassion is your theory, because they're dying, but that doesn't discount, duty, guilt or some other reason that is not compassion. How does everyone know which one it is? If any?

No diversions into power or whatever, just the core point.

 

[Flint Marko]

Damn, I knew Dr. Cosmic was gonna bring the heat but there it is. I'm glad you suggested the Film Crit Hulk essay, as it's extremely insightful and tackles this particular issue amongst many others.

There isn't much more I want to add, but I still would like to ask The Guard what the difference is between his interpretation of Superman's motivations ("they show him doing good things, therefore he's a good person because he doesn't want people to suffer") and the motivations of oft-mocked one-note villains like Yellowjacket, Malekith, Steppenwolf, etc.

By The Guard's logic, every evil villain who is trying to destroy the world has an acceptable motivation simply because we see them doing evil things; we don't actually need to be told/shown why they're doing what they're doing, we see them doing evil things therefore we can reasonably assume that they're evil, and all the necessary groundwork has been laid.

 

[misslane38]

So the movie already has him saving people when the question of why 'continue' to save people comes up, so the initial reasoning is still a cypher thing. That's the discussion you're coming into, that lack is part of the reason why Man of Steel failed the way it did.

No, it didn't fail. Clark was given a choice to help his classmates or do nothing. He chose to do something. He wanted to help. Why did he want to help? Because Lana was his friend. Why would you help if you were in a similar situation? Why did the people on United 93 stop the terrorists from using the plane as a weapon? As a child, Clark was on a bus with a friend when it crashed. If he didn't do something, someone like Lana who liked him and stood up for him would die, so he did something. When he and Jonathan talk about the incident later, Jonathan hints that this isn't the first time Clark has done something like this. Consider this: Clark had a family because the Kents saved him. At minimum, their act of trust and compassion for him, and his gratitude for it, would instill in him a desire to do the same.

Then, nearly everything you've said is not in the film, but something you've projected into the movie. Everyone who adopts strange babies is not brave, so the film does not show their character merely by having him adopted. I think case in point for your post is the bolded. Here is every word Johnathan Kent shares in the storm cellar:

Everything I said is in the film. I quoted the film. The film clearly says that Clark is seeking a reason for his existence. He wants to see his differences as blessings and for his life to be useful. All explicitly part of the film.

Nothing. About. Saving. People.

The entire context of the conversation began with a question of whether or not Clark should save people!!!!!!!!!!!! Jonathan talks about Clark's powers being a blessing, which is another way of saying a gift. Gifts are meant to be given. In other words, his powers will be something he shares with others in a helpful way. It's all right there.

This is why I remember your name misslane38. I see your name and I'm like "Oh, this is the person who ignores what's being discussed and then tells us a bunch of things that aren't in MoS are there, and are unavoidable conclusions."

Ad hominem is not a good look, DrCosmic.

Since we're suggesting essays, I strongly recommend Film Crit Hulk's analysis of MoS as a film:

https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2013/07/03/film-crit-hulk-man-of-steel. I think it illustrates well why the film MoS fails to live up to anything in Mark Waid's essay or Superman stories.

Read the article before. I think it is a poor essay. I don't think it illustrates its argument well either in structure or substance. Not even close. It doesn't help your case. Its biggest flaw is its conclusion that Clark doesn't change over the course of the film (i.e. he doesn't have a character arc). I think there's a big difference between saving a bus full of school kids in a small town and saving the world on a very public way, but that's just me. I think the author is right when he says that Clark keeps doing the same things, but the author is wrong when he says that these choices don't change either in their context or their effects (i.e. choices reflect change in scale rather than change in ethos).

I disagree. Saving Pete Ross is not the same thing as saving Lois Lane. The risks involved are extraordinarily different. She's a respected reporter, for one thing, and not a child. She was also saved at a site of an anomalous object: the ship. The ethos is different. Every save gets Clark closer to answering the question: Is the world ready for me? The real me. The saves get bigger and the costume becomes less camouflage and more primary colors because Clark keeps "testing his limits." He's going from someone who uses his gifts in a useful way in the periphery of society to someone who uses his gifts in a useful way in the spotlight of society. It's a shift from shame to acceptance, questions to answers.

Waid's essay is in response to the fact that when asked to write Birthright, he a Superman mega fan couldn't recall a single comic, film, or television property that ever attempted to answer the question. It seems to me the entire film and fan community holds up Superman: The Movie as the holy grail of not only Superman storytelling but a touchstone for filmmaking in general. Can you tell me why Clark saves people in that film?

I appreciate your passion, but there aren't enough walls of text to make your comments relevant to the discussion you're quoting, or to make your conclusions logical. The only thing you can do to seem relevant is answer this question:

More ad hominem. You are on a roll!

What filmmaking techniques does Man of Steel use to help the audience feel Clark's motivations?

Dialogue. Framing. Music. Juxtaposition. Motifs. Clark wants to know the "why" of his existence. Clark wants to belong. Clark fears rejection. Clark wants to know the reason why he was sent to Earth. Over and over and over again we see Clark isolated and rejected, then he takes a leap of faith and the trust part comes later. He saves Pete, he makes a friend. He saves Lois, she protects him. He saves soldiers, Colonel Hardy concludes he is not the enemy. The film starts with Lara worrying that her son will be a rejected outcast. It ends with Lois saying, "Welcome to the Planet." Clark's reply, "Glad to be here, Lois." The film is about identity, choice, trust, and purpose.

Look, I have no interest in continuing a discussion with you. If you disagree with me, that's fine. If you take issue with my arguments, that's fine. But there's absolutely no reason for the belittling antagonism layered throughout your reply. It's not a good look. Someone who has a strong argument doesn't need to do this, yet you did. Makes you wonder.

 

[misslane38]

Damn, I knew Dr. Cosmic was gonna bring the heat but there it is. I'm glad you suggested the Film Crit Hulk essay, as it's extremely insightful and tackles this particular issue amongst many others.

What part did you find most insightful about this particular issue?

 

[The Guard]

Yeah, it seems like you get fuzzy on the point every time you split posts up. You probably shouldn't do that.

For the sake of argument...which point have I gotten fuzzy on? Be specific, please.

Here's a very short version: There are a dozen reasons to save people from suffering and dying. Three popular ones are: Compassion, Guilt, and Duty. Man of Steel does not dramatize which of these, if any, is involved. Compassion is your theory, because they're dying, but that doesn't discount, duty, guilt or some other reason that is not compassion. How does everyone know which one it is? If any?

Well, let's use the process of elimination, shall we?

The film does not mention or show guilt on Clark's part.

The film does not discuss duty. That's more of the sequel's exploration of Clark's mission.

That leaves compassion.

Let's look at some definitions of compassion, shall we?

sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

Hmm...does MAN OF STEEL show Clark being concerned about the suffering or misfortunes of others?

Why, yes. Yes it does. In the scene I mentioned involving him being concerned over a busload of suffering children who have suffered a misfortune.

The scene literally shows Clark in the midst of a compassionate act. In the midst of alleviating suffering.

Ergo, given the lack of exploration of guilt or a particular emphasis on his duty (again, this is a theme in BVS), his motivation for saving people is likely compassion.

 

[The Guard]

There isn't much more I want to add, but I still would like to ask The Guard what the difference is between his interpretation of Superman's motivations ("they show him doing good things, therefore he's a good person because he doesn't want people to suffer") and the motivations of oft-mocked one-note villains like Yellowjacket, Malekith, Steppenwolf, etc.

Where has that been my interpretation of Superman's motivations?

I haven't really said much of anything about his goodness, aside from Jonathan pointing out that his character will affect the future of the world.

I said that he saves people because he doesn't want them to suffer and die, not that he's magically good because of that, or all good because of that. And frankly, the first two films (and in some ways JL) go out of their way to show that he is not all good all the time, and to present gray areas in his characterization, and come to think of it, even present doing good itself as something of a gray area, and something that can lead to unforeseen conflict.

By The Guard's logic, every evil villain who is trying to destroy the world has an acceptable motivation simply because we see them doing evil things; we don't actually need to be told/shown why they're doing what they're doing, we see them doing evil things therefore we can reasonably assume that they're evil, and all the necessary groundwork has been laid.

What does this random hypothetical scenario have to do with anything we're discussing?

We are told and shown why Clark does what he's doing. There are several reasons for it, and as misslane pointed out, his reasoning grows more complex as he matures and learns more about who he is and what he can be. I simply said that the initial motivation to save the kids in the bus existed, because several people were saying that no motivation existed for what he did, and that is incorrect.

You seem to be hung up on the movie not explaining why Clark is good, or how the motivations in the film work in comparison to specific other films.

But Clark's basic source of morality is not the movie's focus, and was never really intended to be. The filmmakers are far more interested in the unique conflicts that would arise as a result of his attempts to do good than they are about the origins of that goodness. There's a clear effort to avoid telling the same relatively straightforward Superman story, the familiar "Kents teach Clark to be good" storyline of other Superman mythos. Though there are still traces of that in MOS, as Jonathan is clearly trying to get Clark to make wise decisions about the use of his powers and their impact on humanity.

 

[Herofan]

Superman saves people. Why? Because.... he's a good person, obviously! He cares about people and doesn't want them to suffer! Uh okay but why exactly does this alien care about people and doesn't want them to suffer? Er..... because he's a good person!

He was raised by humans (including getting help adjusting to having powers) and at times prefers to think of himself as ordinary human (later Jor-El claims that his human and Kryptonian sides/roles can be mutually enhancing rather than competitive).

Every time a villain is written like this, people rightly criticize the hell out of it. Why is this guy killing people and wanting to destroy the world? Because..... he's evil, obviously!

Occasionally a villain portrayal is praised despite a motive being vague or lacking. But yeah it does make sense to be more critical of a weak motivation for a monstrous villain as we reasonably expect most people to be morally average and I would say hurting people, especially on mass scale, is more different than average than helping people who need it especially if you have greater abilities.

Nothing. About. Saving. People.

Jonathan hopes Clark will some day stand proudly in front of humanity but he doesn't know when or why he will or should do that; he knows it will and should be a challenge for him to do so given the valid fears that humanity could react with fear and hostility and him never revealing himself would be disappointing but maybe also OK. The conversation is not (the key to) Clark's motivation which makes sense as he doesn't become Superman for years later.
The movie did seem to made Jor-El more important than often is the case, even maybe more important than Jonathan, and even then seemed to have Clark make his own moral decisions more than just following Jonathan or Jor-El.

There are a dozen reasons to save people from suffering and dying. Three popular ones are: Compassion, Guilt, and Duty. Man of Steel does not dramatize which of these, if any, is involved. Compassion is your theory, because they're dying, but that doesn't discount, duty, guilt or some other reason that is not compassion. How does everyone know which one it is? If any?

As a boy he says he wanted to help and it seems to be from compassion rather than duty since he was breaking/bending Jonathan's rules to do so.
As an adult, being Superman, his motivation seems to primarily be empathy as when talking to the priest he felt Zod couldn't be trusted, he wasn't sure if humanity could be trusted but on the priest's advice he was willing to act like he trusted humanity before he actually did (and he seemed to do so because he felt more human than alien).

 

[Flint Marko]

I simply said that the initial motivation to save the kids in the bus existed, because several people were saying that no motivation existed for what he did, and that is incorrect.

It doesn't exist. Let's summarize your basic argument:

I think a reasonable person can draw the conclusion that he saves them so they don't suffer and die. Which equates to basic human compassion for the plight of another, doesn't it? Is that really a stretch?

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

In short: Clark saves people on the bus, therefore we can reasonably assume that he doesn't want them to suffer and die because he has human compassion. Just this alone is, in your words, a valid reason for a character to do something.

Now use that logic on a villain. Any villain who does evil and makes people suffer has a valid reason because the sheer act of showing them being evil allows us to reasonably conclude that they have a lack of compassion and a desire to make people suffer. It is, in your own words, inherent to what's happening, and therefore valid.

The only difference in these examples is that we can project our own sense of morality onto Clark, so we all can relate to it. That's clearly what the film-makers intended but from a dramatic perspective that is terrible and lazy. So if you're going to stick with insisting that Superman's motives for saving kids on the bus exists, then you'll need to start defending basically every villain from every movie.

Occasionally a villain portrayal is praised despite a motive being vague or lacking. But yeah it does make sense to be more critical of a weak motivation for a monstrous villain as we reasonably expect most people to be morally average and I would say hurting people, especially on mass scale, is more different than average than helping people who need it especially if you have greater abilities.

You're kind of proving my point for me. We can understand why he'd want to save people, but we can't understand a villain who wants to just destroy things so we're more likely to criticize it.

But my basic point is that they are both lacking and under-written or, in Superman's case, completely non-existent.

 

[Herofan]

You're kind of proving my point for me, that being: Superman's motives for saving people on the bus rely entirely on us projecting our own morals onto him. We can understand why he'd want to save people, but we can't understand a villain who wants to just destroy things so we're more likely to criticize it.

Even weakly-developed/motivated villains usually do still have the basic motivations of being greedy and/or resentful of society which are understandable and even somewhat valid motivations (though taken too far they lead to invalid actions); those who lack even that explanation yes the writing should be quite criticized.
A hero's motivations being basic (and thus easily implied, easily understood, almost yes to be inferred) may be disappointing but it doesn't mean there's no motivation or explanation.
Besides, why would Clark only having a basic/generic/even vague motivation in an early scene mean he's an unexplained or one-note character in general?

 

[Flint Marko]

Even weakly-developed/motivated villains usually do still have the basic motivations of being greedy and/or resentful of society which are understandable and even somewhat valid motivations (though taken too far they lead to invalid actions); those who lack even that explanation yes the writing should be quite criticized.

Keep in mind that I'm following the logic of someone who thinks that Clark's motivation for saving kids on the bus is displayed in the scene by the simple fact that he's saving kids on the bus. It clearly isn't. Clark saving people on the bus is essentially the inverse of a villain who lacks even that explanation.

I still think we never find out what truly makes him tick, but that's another conversation.

 

[DrCosmic]

For the sake of argument...which point have I gotten fuzzy on? Be specific, please.

No thank you. Let's focus on the point, which itself is a diversion from the overall thread topic.

Well, let's use the process of elimination, shall we?


The film does not mention or show guilt on Clark's part.

The film does not discuss duty. That's more of the sequel's exploration of Clark's mission.

That leaves compassion.

Let's look at some definitions of compassion, shall we?

sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

Hmm...does MAN OF STEEL show Clark being concerned about the suffering or misfortunes of others?

Why, yes. Yes it does. In the scene I mentioned involving him being concerned over a busload of suffering children who have suffered a misfortune.

The scene literally shows Clark in the midst of a compassionate act. In the midst of alleviating suffering.

Ergo, given the lack of exploration of guilt or a particular emphasis on his duty (again, this is a theme in BVS), his motivation for saving people is likely compassion.

The film doesn't discuss or explore compassion, either, so we can eliminate that as well by the same logic. What's more the film does discuss duty (Father Leone, Jor-El) and show Clark feeling guilt often. So compassion is actually the only one we can eliminate. By your logic, the scene literally shows Clark in the midst of a dutiful act, in the midst of fulfilling his responsibility to alleviate suffering. Because there are so many motivations that are not a "stretch," the film has failed to specify any one clearly. A good Superman movie will not do this, and giving a young child a strong motivation is probably a big part of what makes making a good Superman movie so hard. *topic*

Jonathan hopes Clark will some day stand proudly in front of humanity but he doesn't know when or why he will or should do that; he knows it will and should be a challenge for him to do so given the valid fears that humanity could react with fear and hostility and him never revealing himself would be disappointing but maybe also OK. The conversation is not (the key to) Clark's motivation which makes sense as he doesn't become Superman for years later.
The movie did seem to made Jor-El more important than often is the case, even maybe more important than Jonathan, and even then seemed to have Clark make his own moral decisions more than just following Jonathan or Jor-El.

As a boy he says he wanted to help and it seems to be from compassion rather than duty since he was breaking/bending Jonathan's rules to do so.
As an adult, being Superman, his motivation seems to primarily be empathy as when talking to the priest he felt Zod couldn't be trusted, he wasn't sure if humanity could be trusted but on the priest's advice he was willing to act like he trusted humanity before he actually did (and he seemed to do so because he felt more human than alien).

I pointed out that he's not talking about saving people in the barn just to highlight that misslane38 is objectively incorrect about what happens in Man of Steel, that's all. I agree, that it is not about him saving people.

As for duty, we know he has a religious upbringing, which is actually what leads into the cellar conversation, and moral obligation to help is often taught there, and we later see him turn his back on his father's orders under the encouragement of a priest, so we can't reasonably conclude that his duty to his parents would override his duty to help others. Even if we didn't have that counterexample, the movie just doesn't make it clear. We're guessing "yeah, it's probably compassion, because maybe his duty takes the form of being dutiful to his parents first," as opposed to pointing to a scene that illustrates that point.


There's a reason we don't have these kinds of discussions about Captain America or Wonder Woman's motivations. Cuz those things are crystal clear.

No, it didn't fail. Clark was given a choice to help his classmates or do nothing. He chose to do something. He wanted to help. Why did he want to help? Because Lana was his friend. Why would you help if you were in a similar situation? Why did the people on United 93 stop the terrorists from using the plane as a weapon? As a child, Clark was on a bus with a friend when it crashed. If he didn't do something, someone like Lana who liked him and stood up for him would die, so he did something. When he and Jonathan talk about the incident later, Jonathan hints that this isn't the first time Clark has done something like this. Consider this: Clark had a family because the Kents saved him. At minimum, their act of trust and compassion for him, and his gratitude for it, would instill in him a desire to do the same.



Everything I said is in the film. I quoted the film. The film clearly says that Clark is seeking a reason for his existence. He wants to see his differences as blessings and for his life to be useful. All explicitly part of the film.



The entire context of the conversation began with a question of whether or not Clark should save people!!!!!!!!!!!! Jonathan talks about Clark's powers being a blessing, which is another way of saying a gift. Gifts are meant to be given. In other words, his powers will be something he shares with others in a helpful way. It's all right there.



Ad hominem is not a good look, DrCosmic.



Read the article before. I think it is a poor essay. I don't think it illustrates its argument well either in structure or substance. Not even close. It doesn't help your case. Its biggest flaw is its conclusion that Clark doesn't change over the course of the film (i.e. he doesn't have a character arc). I think there's a big difference between saving a bus full of school kids in a small town and saving the world on a very public way, but that's just me. I think the author is right when he says that Clark keeps doing the same things, but the author is wrong when he says that these choices don't change either in their context or their effects (i.e. choices reflect change in scale rather than change in ethos).

I disagree. Saving Pete Ross is not the same thing as saving Lois Lane. The risks involved are extraordinarily different. She's a respected reporter, for one thing, and not a child. She was also saved at a site of an anomalous object: the ship. The ethos is different. Every save gets Clark closer to answering the question: Is the world ready for me? The real me. The saves get bigger and the costume becomes less camouflage and more primary colors because Clark keeps "testing his limits." He's going from someone who uses his gifts in a useful way in the periphery of society to someone who uses his gifts in a useful way in the spotlight of society. It's a shift from shame to acceptance, questions to answers.

Waid's essay is in response to the fact that when asked to write Birthright, he a Superman mega fan couldn't recall a single comic, film, or television property that ever attempted to answer the question. It seems to me the entire film and fan community holds up Superman: The Movie as the holy grail of not only Superman storytelling but a touchstone for filmmaking in general. Can you tell me why Clark saves people in that film?



More ad hominem. You are on a roll!



Dialogue. Framing. Music. Juxtaposition. Motifs. Clark wants to know the "why" of his existence. Clark wants to belong. Clark fears rejection. Clark wants to know the reason why he was sent to Earth. Over and over and over again we see Clark isolated and rejected, then he takes a leap of faith and the trust part comes later. He saves Pete, he makes a friend. He saves Lois, she protects him. He saves soldiers, Colonel Hardy concludes he is not the enemy. The film starts with Lara worrying that her son will be a rejected outcast. It ends with Lois saying, "Welcome to the Planet." Clark's reply, "Glad to be here, Lois." The film is about identity, choice, trust, and purpose.

Look, I have no interest in continuing a discussion with you. If you disagree with me, that's fine. If you take issue with my arguments, that's fine. But there's absolutely no reason for the belittling antagonism layered throughout your reply. It's not a good look. Someone who has a strong argument doesn't need to do this, yet you did. Makes you wonder.

My intention is not to offend, so let me be super straight forward: My comments on you and your posting style are an appeal to join the discussion at hand instead of derailing it, as has happened in all my previous discussions with you, regardless of how strong my argument is. It appears as though you've now decided to address the topic at hand, and so if you'd like to continue, so would I.

The conversation in the cellar spins off of Clark's perception of God punishing him, Clark is half-crying because of his own suffering, not that of others, forming a new context. His perception of God alludes to a nebulous Christian ethic with a capricious God. We don't know how this interacts with his feelings about adoption, if any, his feelings about death, if any. This is the closest we get to getting inside Clark's head in MoS and we're just guessing what that means or doesn't mean, which parts override which and in what way because the movie just doesn't say.

The cellar conversation, as we all can see, is about Clark belonging, that is the emotional endpoint, but then it ends referencing his purpose from Jor-El. The movie doesn't say Jor-El sent him to save people from dying, Jor-El gives a nebulous purpose that can be fulfilled a dozen ways, but we can project our out-of-movie understanding of Superman to make this feel like it's about Superman's mission, even though the movie doesn't actually support that. Now this is just one of the points you were completely incorrect on, but this is a great example of the movie simply not saying anything by saying everything.

The scene can be read your way, sure, some Dialogue/Framing/Music/Juxtaposition/Motifs support it. My point is that some Dialogue/Framing/Music/Juxtaposition/Motifs contradicts it, and supports other ideas. There's a Christ motif, which means different things to different folks. We've got him juxtaposed with the military, which means different things to different folks. We've got an Ideal of Hope, with no objective or catharsis for that hope, Superman is never ultimately accepted by the people of Earth. We've got framing where we are meant to wonder if Clark will choose to save people, even though it is framed within the flashbacks of someone who saves people. And the dialogue... well, it's all downhill after the first kiss. Everything you say about this movie leverages not-movie things, and is contradicted by the movie.

Case in point: you're asking about my motivations, or the United 93 motivations, because the movie invites and requires projection from outside the film to work. Instead of asking us to empathize with Clark it asks us to empathize for Clark. That is what is called using a cipher in storytelling. It can be really great if done right. It was not done well in Man of Steel and because of this, more than anything else, it failed to launch a beloved universe and it failed to unite new and old Superman fans alike.

Which is the reason we are having this discussion here, because a good Superman movie needs to avoid these mistakes. Superman is not a good character to make into a cipher. Man of Steel is that evidence.

Now I'll give you this, asking you to point out weaknesses in Man of Steel, or say that you don't know everything was definitely ad hominem. I stand by those questions though, because I do believe your apparent bias has such a strong effect on the flow of conversation everyone should be aware of it before engaging.


EDIT: For all, I don't know why posts have this weird spacing issue now. Literally no clue.

 

[Herofan]

As for duty, we know he has a religious upbringing, which is actually what leads into the cellar conversation, and moral obligation to help is often taught there, and we later see him turn his back on his father's orders under the encouragement of a priest, so we can't reasonably conclude that his duty to his parents would override his duty to help others.

Fair point...

Even if we didn't have that counterexample, the movie just doesn't make it clear. We're guessing "yeah, it's probably compassion, because maybe his duty takes the form of being dutiful to his parents first," as opposed to pointing to a scene that illustrates that point.


There's a reason we don't have these kinds of discussions about Captain America or Wonder Woman's motivations. Cuz those things are crystal clear.

How is it more clear what motivates Captain America? Let alone other than what would generically motivate any World War II American (volunteer) soldier?

 

[misslane38]

Fair point...

I don't agree. First, Jonathan didn't give Clark orders. The last thing Jonathan said to his son:

He's right. Clark has a point. We're not your parents. But we've been doing the best we can. And we've been making this up as we go along, so maybe...Maybe our best isn't good enough anymore.

Second, Jonathan never told Clark that he could never save people or share the truth of himself with the world. Jonathan told him that there would be a day when Clark could use his blessings and stand proud in front of the human race. His caution to Clark was to reveal himself at the right time when he and the world were ready.

When Clark talks to Father Leone, he's already asked Lois if she thinks the world is ready. He's testing and questioning. Ultimately, as his father always wanted, Clark made up his own mind about when it was time to take a leap of faith on humanity.

 

[Skrilla31]

Second, Jonathan never told Clark that he could never save people or share the truth of himself with the world. Jonathan told him that there would be a day when Clark could use his blessings and stand proud in front of the human race. His caution to Clark was to reveal himself at the right time when he and the world were ready.

When Clark talks to Father Leone, he's already asked Lois if she thinks the world is ready. He's testing and questioning. Ultimately, as his father always wanted, Clark made up his own mind about when it was time to take a leap of faith on humanity.

Clark seemed ready and willing to save his father when he saw he was about to die in the tornado, and yet in that moment his father insisted he not get involved.



Why tell his son that he has to make a choice... only to deny of him that choice?

 

[misslane38]

Why tell his son that he has to make a choice... only to deny of him that choice?

Jonathan wanted to make his own choice. He didn't want his son to have to make a life-changing decision for his sake. It was an act of selflessness that Clark respected. Clark was not denied a choice. He made one. Clark did choose. He chose to respect his father's wishes in that moment.

 

[fan4stic]

Here's my take on this issue:

To me Clark in MOS and BvS is generally heroic and that's all. He doesn't have anything giving him character depth to me.

Yes, he's heroic in that general sense. But that's like saying a cardboard cutout is heroic to me. Him saving people in a general way is like watching a cardboard cutout save people. It's doesn't mean that I engage emotionally with that cardboard cutout really.

In comparison to something like Captain America TFA:

We don't get so much of a general perspective.

Steve wants to fight in the war.

He's wants to be respectful of people in the armed forces and will take a beating in standing up to people who aren't.

He doesn't see himself as different than any other man and thinks he has no right to not do the same as other soldiers.

In some ways he might feel like he has something to prove.

The reason he wants to go to war is because he doesn't like bullies and that's how he sees nazis.

He's willing to throw himself on a grenade.

He's clever.

He's insecure about himself because he's not exactly a dreamboat in the sense that some women might see it.

We learn all this about him before he even gets the supersoldier serum, on top of him being generally heroic. And we've established our villain's motives and Steve's friendship with Bucky, while building up a potential romance with Peggy.

In this time in MOS we've learned that Clark is sad, frustrated and doesn't get good advice from his dad. He's generally heroic along with that. We don't have an idea really in how he connects with people. His relationship with his parents isn't really established. And his relationship with Lois is talking about his dad's death.

I think MOS spends a lot of time with people talking about what Clark might mean as an alien, that it doesn't build up his character as a person.

 

[misslane38]

In comparison to something like Captain America TFA:

We don't get so much of a general perspective.

Steve wants to fight in the war.

He's wants to be respectful of people in the armed forces and will take a beating in standing up to people who aren't.

He doesn't see himself as different than any other man and thinks he has no right to not do the same as other soldiers.

In some ways he might feel like he has something to prove.

The reason he wants to go to war is because he doesn't like bullies and that's how he sees nazis.

He's willing to throw himself on a grenade.

He's clever.

He's insecure about himself because he's not exactly a dreamboat in the sense that some women might see it.

We learn all this about him before he even gets the supersoldier serum, on top of him being generally heroic. And we've established our villain's motives and Steve's friendship with Bucky, while building up a potential romance with Peggy.

In this time in MOS we've learned that Clark is sad, frustrated and doesn't get good advice from his dad. He's generally heroic along with that. We don't have an idea really in how he connects with people. His relationship with his parents isn't really established. And his relationship with Lois is talking about his dad's death.

I think MOS spends a lot of time with people talking about what Clark might mean as an alien, that it doesn't build up his character as a person.

Clark wants to know why he is the way he is and wants to do something useful with his life.

Clark wants to be respectful to humanity, including journalists and members of the armed forces, and will be handcuffed and save men who are shooting at him in order to earn their trust.

Clark sees himself as different than human beings but doesn't believe that means he is the enemy. He doesn't believe his powers put him above humanity. He is careful to ask human beings for their input. He asks Lois if the world is ready to embrace aliens. He asks a priest how he should respond to an ultimatum on his life. He collaborates with Swanwick, Hardy, and Hamilton.

In every way, Clark feels he has something to prove to humanity.

The reason he wants to be Superman is because he's looking for a way for his differences to be useful. He's found that using his powers to help others has created bridges between him and humanity. He also discovers that inspiring the people of Earth is the legacy his birth parents wanted for him.

He's willing to weaken himself near the terraforming rays of the World Engine to save humanity.

He's a novice. He's still figuring out his powers.

He's been alone or had ephemeral friendships throughout his life. He knows how to blend in. Women, like Chrissy at the bar, aren't super close to him, but smile at him and call him sweetie. Clark smiles after a fisherman saves him from a falling crate. He knows how to blend in. He's respectful of women and is comfortable being rescued and emotionally comforted by a woman.

We've established our villain's motives before Clark gets his iconic suit and before he flies. We've established Clark's history of alienation while building up a potential romance with Lois as the first person who has believed in Clark so much she was willing to face professional and personal consequences, including incarceration.

So, in this time in MoS, we've learned Clark is searching for meaning. His parents, like all parents, don't have all the answers, but Clark wants to know who he is and what his purpose is on Earth. We have a an idea how he connects to people: it is difficult for him. His relationship with his parents is clearly defined. His mother helps her son adjust to his differences; she's a source of comfort. His father is overprotective. He seeks out information about Clark's origins and presents a more disciplined approach to his son's powers. He cares about his son's feelings and is proud of him for not hitting bullies even when he could. He knows his son is destined for something great. Clark loves his parents, but as any adopted kid would feel, he wants to know about his birth parents. When this need for answers is the strongest in adolescence, Clark becomes rebellious. As an adult, Clark has a loving and open relationship with his mother. She is supportive of his quest for his origins and for whatever her son chooses to do next even though she shares her late husband's fears of losing him. Clark is very much a son who loves his mother. His relationship with Lois is about exposing everything about himself to her, a reporter, to be rewarded with not only acceptance and understanding but also her protection. She risks everything for him because she believes in him. It means the world to Clark.

I think MOS spends a lot of time showing us how being an alien affects a child and young adult's ability to find a place in society -- to trust and to connect with people without fear of betrayal or rejection. It builds Clark's character up as a person by showing that even though he is so disconnected, he still desires love and trust. He has extraordinary power yet he uses it to help people, including those who bully him or pose great risks to him.

 

[Limonade]

Jonathan wanted to make his own choice. He didn't want his son to have to make a life-changing decision for his sake. It was an act of selflessness that Clark respected. Clark was not denied a choice. He made one. Clark did choose. He chose to respect his father's wishes in that moment.

A superhero choosing to not use his super powers or be a hero. Is some how a selfless act on both parties?

On second thought: I'll never understand this moment. As there's no indication that any actions taken by an already adult Clark would have lead to any trouble for him or family. And if there were, they were simply written off as some vague concerns, early in his childhood, rather than some kind of tangible action that would have been easier for the audience to grasp.

 

[misslane38]

A superhero choosing to not use his super powers or be a hero. Is some how a selfless act?

Jonathan did not want to be saved. It was selfless for Clark to put his father's wishes above his own. His father wanted Clark to be able to choose for himself when it would be the right time to reveal himself to the world and was willing to die so his son could make that choice when he was ready.

On second thought: I'll never understand this moment. As there's no indication that any actions taken by an already adult Clark would have lead to any trouble for him or family. And if there were, they were simply written off as concerns, early in his childhood, rather than some kind of tangible action that would have been easier for the audience to grasp.

There is no indication any actions wouldn't have led to any trouble either.

 

[Limonade]

Jonathan did not want to be saved. It was selfless for Clark to put his father's wishes above his own. His father wanted Clark to be able to choose for himself when it would be the right time to reveal himself to the world and was willing to die so his son could make that choice when he was ready.



There is no indication any actions wouldn't have led to any trouble either.

It just reminds me of that bit in The Incredibles where Mr. Incredible saved a guy trying to commit suicide and is sued because Mr. Incredible ruined the guy's death.

And does that mean that Superman will only listen to people of great influence on how to act accordingly? It just adds so many questions to me rather than crossing over that bridge with other viewers who saw this scene and genuinely felt sympathy.

Additional thoughts: If there were additional restraints in place to prevent Superman from going... a rock of Kryptonite pinning him down... or something, anything! and to just catch his eyes with his father and his father just looking at him in the "it's going to be okay..." glance... then Boom! You have me on board. But stripped down in the way it was presented... just lost a lot of the emotional momentum it had already built up.

Allowing a death to take place is such a taboo thing to do... it's controversial for a reason. And to blatantly write that off as something that this character did and let's not revisit this issue anymore. I mean... it's not hard to see why it's still a clear place of contention.