Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

[fan4stic]

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.

That plays into the general frustrated aspect.

That's the general heroic aspect.

That's an assumption on his character as a person. This emotional aspect of him isn't developed.

He doesn't.

That's a general heroic aspect.

That too.

That's not about him as a person, but about his skills. In truth he doesn't show a real caring about his limits as a hero.

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.

This is that sad thing.

That doesn't tell me about him as a person.

This is another generalized aspect of him. That's not about him as a person, so much as the general heroicness.

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.

There's a reason I didn't cite anything against the Zod thing. I know we establish Zod and his motives. We do the same with Red Skull early on. We've not built up any romance potential. They don't even have a conversation as people. Just about what Clark means. Lois doing that is a general not selfish person thing.

 

[misslane38]

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.

The situations aren't analogous at all. Jonathan is not committing suicide. He's sacrificing his life to preserve the future for his son and the human race. If a father takes a bullet to save his son, it defeats the purpose for the son to take the bullet for his father.

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.

No, obviously it does not. It means that as an immature 17 year-old, Clark Kent listened to his father.

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.

Restraining Clark through other means defeats the entire purpose of the scene. You are trying to make it about something that it wasn't. It wasn't about sending the message that even Superman can't save everyone. It wasn't about putting him in a pseudo-Bruce Wayne position of having Superman inspired by the powerlessness he felt to save his own father from death. It's about Clark recognizing that as a superpowered alien, his choices aren't the same choices that you or I would make. He has to think about how his choices affect people and the world beyond himself and his immediate surroundings. It's about how extraordinary power comes with extraordinary responsibility, and that responsibility includes understanding the limits of your agency and the scope of the impact of your choices on others.

 

[Herofan]

But (more from the other side) how would Clark rushing in and visibly saving his father have any negative impact on any of the people that saw it?

The film seems to take the position that Clark clearly saving a person from a natural disaster would lead to people either fearing or worshiping him but him (as an alterego) saving people from other superpowered beings would lead to them just being thankful and inspired but not excessively so.

 

[misslane38]

But (more from the other side) how would Clark rushing in and visibly saving his father have any negative impact on any of the people that saw it?

The negative impact isn't a direct negative impact on the people who saw it. It's the wider impact of someone with Clark's abilities being exposed. The people who saw Clark may not keep it a secret. They might, as Mrs. Ross did, raise him up as a figure of worship that would catch the attention of the government, scientists, and other people with questionable motives. The impact could also be equivalent to what happened with Wallace Keefe: the observers see Clark using his powers to save Jonathan but later discover that those same powers could have been used to save others who were hurt or killed in the tornado.

The film seems to take the position that Clark clearly saving a person from a natural disaster would lead to people either fearing or worshiping him but him (as an alterego) saving people from other superpowered beings would lead to them just being thankful and inspired but not excessively so.

When Clark saves people as the "ghost," he doesn't have a name and cannot be tracked. He's an urban legend. When Superman is revealed to the world, it comes at a time when he can demonstrate his allegiance to humanity. It's also at a point that Clark has first-hand knowledge that someone who had the chance to exploit him, Lois Lane, did not. He's an adult when he comes forward as Superman. He's more capable of handling the fallout of his debut. Clark coming forward has to come at a time when not only is the world ready, but he's ready too.

 

[Limonade]

The situations aren't analogous at all. Jonathan is not committing suicide. He's sacrificing his life to preserve the future for his son and the human race. If a father takes a bullet to save his son, it defeats the purpose for the son to take the bullet for his father.



No, obviously it does not. It means that as an immature 17 year-old, Clark Kent listened to his father.



Restraining Clark through other means defeats the entire purpose of the scene. You are trying to make it about something that it wasn't. It wasn't about sending the message that even Superman can't save everyone. It wasn't about putting him in a pseudo-Bruce Wayne position of having Superman inspired by the powerless he felt to save his own father from death. It's about Clark recognizing that as a superpowered alien, his choices aren't the same choices that you or I would make. He has to think about how his choices affect people and the world beyond himself and his immediate surroundings. It's about how extraordinary power comes with extraordinary responsibility, and that responsibility includes understanding the limits of your agency and the scope of the impact of your choices on others.

The situations are not supposed to be analogous. It's what that scene reminded me of. If you find that me describing The Incredible scene was tantamount to some passive analogy, that wasn't my intention.

mmm. I disagree... because if that's the purpose then it came at a cost. Because again you have a someone with the ability to take the moral high ground but didn't because of the wishes of his loved one.

That goes against a very conservative view point. IE All life sanctimonious and worth rescuing. The film does the opposite and says only those that want to be rescued are worth rescuing. But Superman fails to do that when it comes to Metropolis. So I dunno. The films all over the place. Regardless, the purpose of the scene, whatever it is... I believe--Snyder's forced viewpoint caused division and probably alienated a good amount of folks... and I can see why.

 

[Herofan]

The negative impact isn't a direct negative impact on the people who saw it. It's the wider impact of someone with Clark's abilities being exposed. The people who saw Clark may not keep it a secret. They might, as Mrs. Ross did, raise him up as a figure of worship that would catch the attention of the government, scientists, and other people with questionable motives.

That's a rather pessimistic view of Smallville, that neighbors wouldn't be willing to keep a secret, but the film was pretty convincing that Smallville wasn't as friendly or nurturing an environment as traditionally shown.

The impact could also be equivalent to what happened with Wallace Keefe: the observers see Clark using his powers to save Jonathan but later discover that those same powers could have been used to save others who were hurt or killed in the tornado.

Also fresh but believable, the public can be quite demanding and then angry if someone doesn't fulfill all their expectations.

When Superman is revealed to the world, it comes at a time when he can demonstrate his allegiance to humanity. It's also at a point that Clark has first-hand knowledge that someone who had the chance to exploit him, Lois Lane, did not. He's an adult when he comes forward as Superman. He's more capable of handling the fallout of his debut.

Yeah, those are fine differences for why he is confident enough later but it seems a little overdramatic or something that he has to literally be demonstrating his allegiance to humanity, by literally fighting aliens, to believe that people won't (might not) be intensely hostile to him. You would think he could, as in previous adaptations, debut & demonstrate that he's good and not out to be a conqueror through less intense circumstances than fighting off against conquerors.

 

[The Guard]

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.

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.

In a hypothetical film where the villain ONLY has that motivation, just being "evil" would be pretty bland and generic.

But that's not the only motivation Clark has for saving people, or for being Superman.

It's the motivation he has in a single scene at the beginning of his character arc.

I'm not sure where the idea that audiences coming to a film with preconceived ideas about basic social interaction and human experience became a bad thing. All filmmakers rely on this sort of thing.

There's underwritten, and there's no motivation existing at all. They're not the same thing. Nor is a thin motivation or generic motivation the same thing as a nonexistent one.

Clark is underspoken to be sure. We don't hear much of the character's voice, by design, due to the focus on alienation. But he has several layered, evolving motivations throughout the course of the film.

 

[The Guard]

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

The film doesn't discuss or explore compassion, either, so we can eliminate that as well by the same logic.

No you can't.

Compassion as a concept doesn't not exist just because the film doesn't focus on the concept much, develop or explore it. Pretty much every time he saves someone, it is an act of compassion.

There is a clear act of compassion shown in the bus sequence. There are many of them, actually. Not only from Clark, but from other characters as well. In the scene in question, it is the reason that the children don't suffer and die in that disaster.

What's more the film does discuss duty (Father Leone, Jor-El) and show Clark feeling guilt often.

Right, but that's later in the film. There are a number of motivations in the film, and Clark's motivations evolve and are layered together.

So compassion is actually the only one we can eliminate.

No, you can't, because what he does in the bus scene is an inherently compassionate act. There's an inherent element of compassion to it, and to all the instances in the film when he saves people.

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.

I find it very interesting that here we are talking about how many motivations the film has for Clark, when a few days ago he supposedly had none.

The film doesn't have to specify or explore any one motivation to save people clearly above all the rest, as they are all valid, and because that's not the focus of the film.

The film chooses to do something different and to explore the concepts that make Superman unique, not to focus the concepts that almost all heroic characters have in common.

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

I thought his motivation was far more complex than a lot of child characters. Compassion, alienation, duty, a bit of guilt, searching for who you are...adoption and legacy elements...

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.

No, we're drawing the conclusion that in the scene in question it's compassion, because we see someone in the midst of a compassionate act.

If the movie doesn't make it clear, then how can you readily identify several examples of the concepts at play?

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.

That doesn't have anything to do with the existence of motivational concepts in MAN OF STEEL.

This film is a bit more subtle about many of it's themes than many movies are, and doesn't rely on exposition to highlight and explore all of them. That's hardly a weak point of it.

 

[The Guard]

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?

The point of the scene is that Jonathan knows Clark isn't ready to reveal himself to the world. Clark doesn't know what he is, who he is, or why he's there.

They just got done having a conversation about Clark wanting his life to mean something. Ergo, he is still searching for himself.

The point of Jonathan's sacrifice was not just because the world was going to reject Clark...it was to allow Clark to reveal himself to the world when he is ready and knows his purpose. That is the choice Jonathan preserved for Clark, and that is what the film shows happening.

 

[misslane38]

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.

As Waid pointed out in his essay, no Superman film nor any other form of Superman media has done this. Superman: The Movie is unequivocally a critical and fan favorite Superman film. It is the touchstone Superman film upon which filmmakers' dreams were born and a lifelong love of Superman began for generations of fans. Superman: The Movie does not give young Clark any motivation for saving people or for becoming Superman beyond stating that he wasn't sent to Earth to score touchdowns and the lecture AI Jor-El imparts in the Fortress of Solitude. Superman: The Animated Series by Bruce Timm introduces Clark to heroism the same way Snyder does: a young Clark saves people from a car accident. There's no set up or explanation for his motivation. There's no follow up. Maybe Clark's motivation to save people, to be good, and to be Superman should be more spelled out. Maybe it should. One thing I do know, however, is that the absence of such fleshed out and pitch perfect motivations has not prevented Superman from finding success in film (Superman: The Movie) or on television (Superman: The Animated Series).

 

[DrCosmic]

Fair point...

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

The first thing the movie does with the character is dramatize his sense of duty, that he demands respect for the soldiers, and we then see him demonstrate, then explain to his friend his reason he fights these losing battles. That's within ten minutes, which is literally what screenwriters recommend.

Man of Steel hamstrings itself with Jor-El's storyline, which turns out not to be what motivates Clark, hamstringing the story before it begins, and when we finally meet Clark we see him saving someone just because they're about to die, and we aren't ever really told or shown why.

It's 10-15 minutes later when Pa Kent is talking about not saving people, in which Clark's reasoning is still not dramatized and they end up talking about inclusion, and so there is room there to imagine that this idea of motivation and finding himself are connected, even though the movie does not support this.

No you can't.

Compassion as a concept doesn't not exist just because the film doesn't focus on the concept much, develop or explore it. Pretty much every time he saves someone, it is an act of compassion.

There is a clear act of compassion shown in the bus sequence. There are many of them, actually. Not only from Clark, but from other characters as well. In the scene in question, it is the reason that the children don't suffer and die in that disaster.

Right, but that's later in the film. There are a number of motivations in the film, and Clark's motivations evolve and are layered together.

No, you can't, because what he does in the bus scene is an inherently compassionate act. There's an inherent element of compassion to it, and to all the instances in the film when he saves people.

I find it very interesting that here we are talking about how many motivations the film has for Clark, when a few days ago he supposedly had none.

The film doesn't have to specify or explore any one motivation to save people clearly above all the rest, as they are all valid, and because that's not the focus of the film.

The film chooses to do something different and to explore the concepts that make Superman unique, not to focus the concepts that almost all heroic characters have in common.

I thought his motivation was far more complex than a lot of child characters. Compassion, alienation, duty, a bit of guilt, searching for who you are...adoption and legacy elements...

No, we're drawing the conclusion that in the scene in question it's compassion, because we see someone in the midst of a compassionate act.

If the movie doesn't make it clear, then how can you readily identify several examples of the concepts at play?

That doesn't have anything to do with the existence of motivational concepts in MAN OF STEEL.

This film is a bit more subtle about many of it's themes than many movies are, and doesn't rely on exposition to highlight and explore all of them. That's hardly a weak point of it.

If Compassion can't be dismissed because it's not discussed, why can duty or guilt or anything else? You say it's a compassionate act, but the only evidence you submitted is logic that applies to other motivations as well. It could be an act of duty, or guilt or anything else. You are convinced it is obviously a compassionate act.

You say his motivations are complex and layered, but how does the movie demonstrate this layering? From what I've seen, it does not, and apologetics write the parts of the film that Snyder couldn't be bothered to.

As for the question about whether he has a lot of motivations or none, here's a great example of me saying a lot of things at once:


pue9qur0j--942jjrifojmionciongvr3-0491u-4391jfionpin131


Because it is not organized, specific, ordered in a recognizable way, I have failed to say anything. Certainly you can pull words from there, using various... ciphers. But if no one else can... isn't that a fault in my communication?

As Waid pointed out in his essay, no Superman film nor any other form of Superman media has done this. Superman: The Movie is unequivocally a critical and fan favorite Superman film. It is the touchstone Superman film upon which filmmakers' dreams were born and a lifelong love of Superman began for generations of fans. Superman: The Movie does not give young Clark any motivation for saving people or for becoming Superman beyond stating that he wasn't sent to Earth to score touchdowns and the lecture AI Jor-El imparts in the Fortress of Solitude. Superman: The Animated Series by Bruce Timm introduces Clark to heroism the same way Snyder does: a young Clark saves people from a car accident. There's no set up or explanation for his motivation. There's no follow up. Maybe Clark's motivation to save people, to be good, and to be Superman should be more spelled out. Maybe it should. One thing I do know, however, is that the absence of such fleshed out and pitch perfect motivations has not prevented Superman from finding success in film (Superman: The Movie) or on television (Superman: The Animated Series).

Great examples of how to get around this problem. Superman: The Movie handles the motivation challenge by making it otherworldly. This is why the Krypton sequence in STM works so much better than the one in MoS, because it serves the purpose of investing us in the grandness of Krypton and then cashes in on that, by having that be the formation of Clark's adult life. We do not know what his core motivation is, only that it comes from Jor-El.

This also works because STM, as SOON as it gives Clark this unknowable motivation makes Lois Lane the protagonist, and so his motivation then needs to be mysterious for the tension of the movie to continue. If his motivations are known and clear, the entire interview becomes boring, because we know both sides. It is Clark's motivation that make him otherworldly, not just his powers. It's a genius move, done by great storytellers, who understood how difficult it was to make a good Superman movie, and worked around it to give us one of the most beloved superhero stories ever.

Superman TAS does a really cool thing, which works gangbusters for a kids cartoon, where it repeatedly shows that he really enjoys his powers, that being able to fly was his dream, that being Sueprman is fun. (another thing MoS touches on then contradicts) TAS then demonstrates, in the first few minutes, how strict his moral code is, being offended that Lana would even suggest he look in the girl's locker room, and showing him concerned about safety all the time. So when he goes to rescue people, we already know he's the kind of person who would be offended if someone thought he didn't, and is always concerned about everyone's well being.

What's most important is that Last Son of Krypton, and TAS that follows is consistent in this portrayal. They don't then dab into other types of motivations or ideas or motifs and leave the audience to decide whether it's layered or contradictory or consistent at all (because if the filmmaker can't be bothered, why should I), but they keep going back to this well.

And even then, this kind of characterization, this kind of unspecific strict moral code doesn't strike the audience as hard as Batman's mission. That's part of why Superman is harder because in a way you have to convince the audience what right and wrong is, or the character doesn't work as a protagonist.

 

[misslane38]

Great examples of how to get around this problem. Superman: The Movie handles the motivation challenge by making it otherworldly. This is why the Krypton sequence in STM works so much better than the one in MoS, because it serves the purpose of investing us in the grandness of Krypton and then cashes in on that, by having that be the formation of Clark's adult life. We do not know what his core motivation is, only that it comes from Jor-El.

I'm sorry, but this is just utter nonsense. It is terrible characterization for Superman to have his motivation to help people come from legacy training from the beyond. I know it is terrible because it has absolutely no effect on Clark's core self. He isn't fundamentally changed. He isn't committed to being Superman. He isn't committed to Jor-El's ideals. He gives up being Superman the second he gets his trophy girlfriend, and he breaks one of Jor-El's core rules to save her life. There is no core motivation at all.

This also works because STM, as SOON as it gives Clark this unknowable motivation makes Lois Lane the protagonist, and so his motivation then needs to be mysterious for the tension of the movie to continue. If his motivations are known and clear, the entire interview becomes boring, because we know both sides. It is Clark's motivation that make him otherworldly, not just his powers. It's a genius move, done by great storytellers, who understood how difficult it was to make a good Superman movie, and worked around it to give us one of the most beloved superhero stories ever.

The interview isn't boring because it's two people who like each other flirting with each other. Superman doesn't share his motivation with Lois in the interview at all. He shares what he stands for and nothing else. He never explains why he stands for those things. It's not genius. It's simplistic and cliche. The only reason why no one questions the shallowness of it all is because it's wrapped up in an entertaining and fun wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Superman TAS does a really cool thing, which works gangbusters for a kids cartoon, where it repeatedly shows that he really enjoys his powers, that being able to fly was his dream, that being Sueprman is fun. (another thing MoS touches on then contradicts) TAS then demonstrates, in the first few minutes, how strict his moral code is, being offended that Lana would even suggest he look in the girl's locker room, and showing him concerned about safety all the time. So when he goes to rescue people, we already know he's the kind of person who would be offended if someone thought he didn't, and is always concerned about everyone's well being.

Clark does not initially view his powers as purely fun. He shares his anxiety with Lana before the accident happens. Later, when he discovers the reason he has his powers, he's utterly distraught. You mention Clark's strict moral code and concern for the safety of others, but you fail to mention from where that compassion comes. Isn't this the core of your criticism of Clark's characterization in Man of Steel? Your beef with Snyder's film is that it shows us Clark is compassionate when he saves the kids on the bus, but it doesn't tell you the motivation or source of that compassion. Isn't your assessment of S:TAS, therefore, a bit hypocritical?

What's most important is that Last Son of Krypton, and TAS that follows is consistent in this portrayal. They don't then dab into other types of motivations or ideas or motifs and leave the audience to decide whether it's layered or contradictory or consistent at all (because if the filmmaker can't be bothered, why should I), but they keep going back to this well.

So, it's great because it's so simple and underdeveloped? No, I don't buy it. Motivation for being Superman can't be a simple as loving superpowers and having the sense not to spy on girls in a locker room. It can't be as simple as fulfilling the legacy of a dead race. The initial impulse to help? Sure, I can maybe buy into that for a surface level motivation, but what is the motivation that sustains these versions of Superman? We don't know. Mark Waid didn't know either. I find it quite strange that you are comfortable disagreeing with Waid's conclusion that up until the 2000s when he wrote Birthright there had been no Superman story that adequately addressed the question: Why is Superman good? Are you prepared to say Waid got it wrong?

Furthermore, Man of Steel isn't contradictory or inconsistent. Clark is a lonely child -- a freak who behaves strangely at school and is not allowed to play with other kids. He makes a friend, Lana, who stands up for him. He saves her life and the lives of his classmates when their bus crashes. He saves his bully, too. Clark wants to keep helping, but his dad wants to protect his son and the world from the enormity of what Clark represents, which he explains to Clark. Jonathan wants Clark to understand that his powers are blessings he can one day share with the world when he understands his purpose. Saving Pete Ross made a bully who threatened Clark into someone who comforted and supported him. We'll see this paralleled again with Lois Lane and Colonel Hardy.

As he gets older, Clark is ready to leave his parents and Smallville to find his purpose. Jonathan dies after admitting he didn't have all the answers anymore and sacrificing his life so his son could have a chance to find out for himself. Clark spends over a decade looking for answers and testing his limits. Until his quest brings him to a point where his search for answers and his search for purpose intersect. In the process of discovering his Kryptonian origins, Clark also willingly exposes the truth about himself to a reporter when he saves her life. Ultimately, this reporter believes in him and that belief gives Clark the strength to take a leap of faith and stand proud in front of the human race just as both of his sets of parents always wanted and dreamed for him.

Saving people is Clark's way of protecting the people he cares about, making new connections, and giving his differences meaning and purpose. It's also how he honors his Kryptonian origins. Is it complicated? Yes, it is. Mark Waid found the answer complicated and paradoxical, too. But it's the only answer Waid and Snyder/Goyer found to be sufficient enough and insightful enough for a modern multi-dimensional character.

 

[The Guard]

If Compassion can't be dismissed because it's not discussed, why can duty or guilt or anything else? You say it's a compassionate act, but the only evidence you submitted is logic that applies to other motivations as well. It could be an act of duty, or guilt or anything else. You are convinced it is obviously a
compassionate act.

I'm not discounting that those elements are in the film.

I'm talking about the bus scene. We see a compassionate act take place.

However, while the character may feel a sense of duty at that point in his life, there is nothing inherent in the act or the way it is portrayed in that specific scene that makes it about duty, without bringing the knowledge of later scenes into the analysis, which his not an appropriate way to read film and its storytelling procedure. There is nothing inherent in the act that makes it about guilt, either. The scene is about Clark helping others in a moment of peril. Compassion.

The point of the scene is to show that Clark cares about people. It is revealed gradually throughout the rest of the film that he feels a sense of duty, and even that there's an element of guilt to his life.

You say his motivations are complex and layered, but how does the movie demonstrate this layering? From what I've seen, it does not, and apologetics write the parts of the film that Snyder couldn't be bothered to.

The movie demonstrates the layering by blending the concepts introduced by the story into Clark's conflict and character development as the film progresses.

miss lane has written several posts clearly laying out how this occurs.

I'm not going to get into an argument that a film that doesn't use exposition to explain everything that we see onscreen isn't actually a film containing ideas or a film that develops a story or character.

Film is a visual medium, and despite the less nuanced approached to mainstream cinema over the last decade or so, it still functions as a visual medium.

As for the question about whether he has a lot of motivations or none, here's great example of me saying a lot of things at once:

pue9qur0j--942jjrifojmionciongvr3-0491u-4391jfionpin131

Because it is not organized, specific, ordered in a recognizable way, I have failed to say anything. Certainly you can pull words from there, using various... ciphers. But if no one else can... isn't that a fault in my communication?

...

In no reasonable way is the structure of MAN OF STEEL comparable to what you just did.

The sequences in MAN OF STEEL are organized in a fairly common structural fashion, via use of opening and then subsequent flashbacks, nonlinear storytelling, and a good deal of linear storytelling.

Great examples of how to get around this problem. Superman: The Movie handles the motivation challenge by making it otherworldly. This is why the Krypton sequence in STM works so much better than the one in MoS, because it serves the purpose of investing us in the grandness of Krypton and then cashes in on that, by having that be the formation of Clark's adult life. We do not know what his core motivation is, only that it comes from Jor-El.

Part of Clark's core motivation to become Superman in MAN OF STEEL is ALSO otherworldly (representing the best ideals of Krypton) and comes from Jor-El. Jor-El discusses a very clear motivation for Clark, and the film implies that he embraces, since he takes up the house of El's symbol in a symbolic gesture to honor Krypton's legacy.

I'm...not going to address the rest of that stuff about S:TM and TAS. Suffice it to say that MOS is not a cartoon, and was never intended to be.

 

[MbJ]

The first thing the movie does with the character is dramatize his sense of duty, that he demands respect for the soldiers, and we then see him demonstrate, then explain to his friend his reason he fights these losing battles. That's within ten minutes, which is literally what screenwriters recommend.

Man of Steel hamstrings itself with Jor-El's storyline, which turns out not to be what motivates Clark, hamstringing the story before it begins, and when we finally meet Clark we see him saving someone just because they're about to die, and we aren't ever really told or shown why.

It's 10-15 minutes later when Pa Kent is talking about not saving people, in which Clark's reasoning is still not dramatized and they end up talking about inclusion, and so there is room there to imagine that this idea of motivation and finding himself are connected, even though the movie does not support this.


If Compassion can't be dismissed because it's not discussed, why can duty or guilt or anything else? You say it's a compassionate act, but the only evidence you submitted is logic that applies to other motivations as well. It could be an act of duty, or guilt or anything else. You are convinced it is obviously a compassionate act.

You say his motivations are complex and layered, but how does the movie demonstrate this layering? From what I've seen, it does not, and apologetics write the parts of the film that Snyder couldn't be bothered to.

As for the question about whether he has a lot of motivations or none, here's a great example of me saying a lot of things at once:


pue9qur0j--942jjrifojmionciongvr3-0491u-4391jfionpin131


Because it is not organized, specific, ordered in a recognizable way, I have failed to say anything. Certainly you can pull words from there, using various... ciphers. But if no one else can... isn't that a fault in my communication?


Great examples of how to get around this problem. Superman: The Movie handles the motivation challenge by making it otherworldly. This is why the Krypton sequence in STM works so much better than the one in MoS, because it serves the purpose of investing us in the grandness of Krypton and then cashes in on that, by having that be the formation of Clark's adult life. We do not know what his core motivation is, only that it comes from Jor-El.

This also works because STM, as SOON as it gives Clark this unknowable motivation makes Lois Lane the protagonist, and so his motivation then needs to be mysterious for the tension of the movie to continue. If his motivations are known and clear, the entire interview becomes boring, because we know both sides. It is Clark's motivation that make him otherworldly, not just his powers. It's a genius move, done by great storytellers, who understood how difficult it was to make a good Superman movie, and worked around it to give us one of the most beloved superhero stories ever.

Superman TAS does a really cool thing, which works gangbusters for a kids cartoon, where it repeatedly shows that he really enjoys his powers, that being able to fly was his dream, that being Sueprman is fun. (another thing MoS touches on then contradicts) TAS then demonstrates, in the first few minutes, how strict his moral code is, being offended that Lana would even suggest he look in the girl's locker room, and showing him concerned about safety all the time. So when he goes to rescue people, we already know he's the kind of person who would be offended if someone thought he didn't, and is always concerned about everyone's well being.

What's most important is that Last Son of Krypton, and TAS that follows is consistent in this portrayal. They don't then dab into other types of motivations or ideas or motifs and leave the audience to decide whether it's layered or contradictory or consistent at all (because if the filmmaker can't be bothered, why should I), but they keep going back to this well.

And even then, this kind of characterization, this kind of unspecific strict moral code doesn't strike the audience as hard as Batman's mission. That's part of why Superman is harder because in a way you have to convince the audience what right and wrong is, or the character doesn't work as a protagonist.

Great summary.

 

[misslane38]

I'm not discounting that those elements are in the film.

I'm talking about the bus scene. We see a compassionate act take place.

However, while the character may feel a sense of duty at that point in his life, there is nothing inherent in the act or the way it is portrayed in that specific scene that makes it about duty, without bringing the knowledge of later scenes into the analysis, which his not an appropriate way to read film and its storytelling procedure. There is nothing inherent in the act that makes it about guilt, either. The scene is about Clark helping others in a moment of peril. Compassion.

The point of the scene is to show that Clark cares about people. It is revealed gradually throughout the rest of the film that he feels a sense of duty, and even that there's an element of guilt to his life.



The movie demonstrates the layering by blending the concepts introduced by the story into Clark's conflict and character development as the film progresses.

miss lane has written several posts clearly laying out how this occurs.

I'm not going to get into an argument that a film that doesn't use exposition to explain everything that we see onscreen isn't actually a film containing ideas or a film that develops a story or character.

Film is a visual medium, and despite the less nuanced approached to mainstream cinema over the last decade or so, it still functions as a visual medium.



...

In no reasonable way is the structure of MAN OF STEEL comparable to what you just did.

The sequences in MAN OF STEEL are organized in a fairly common structural fashion, via use of opening and then subsequent flashbacks, nonlinear storytelling, and a good deal of linear storytelling.



Part of Clark's core motivation to become Superman in MAN OF STEEL is ALSO otherworldly (representing the best ideals of Krypton) and comes from Jor-El. Jor-El discusses a very clear motivation for Clark, and the film implies that he embraces, since he takes up the house of El's symbol in a symbolic gesture to honor Krypton's legacy.

I'm...not going to address the rest of that stuff about S:TM and TAS. Suffice it to say that MOS is not a cartoon, and was never intended to be.

Well said. I find DrCosmic's analysis to be seriously flawed. It's littered with inaccuracies and hypocrisies.

 

[The Joker]

The first thing the movie does with the character is dramatize his sense of duty, that he demands respect for the soldiers, and we then see him demonstrate, then explain to his friend his reason he fights these losing battles. That's within ten minutes, which is literally what screenwriters recommend.

Man of Steel hamstrings itself with Jor-El's storyline, which turns out not to be what motivates Clark, hamstringing the story before it begins, and when we finally meet Clark we see him saving someone just because they're about to die, and we aren't ever really told or shown why.

It's 10-15 minutes later when Pa Kent is talking about not saving people, in which Clark's reasoning is still not dramatized and they end up talking about inclusion, and so there is room there to imagine that this idea of motivation and finding himself are connected, even though the movie does not support this.


If Compassion can't be dismissed because it's not discussed, why can duty or guilt or anything else? You say it's a compassionate act, but the only evidence you submitted is logic that applies to other motivations as well. It could be an act of duty, or guilt or anything else. You are convinced it is obviously a compassionate act.

You say his motivations are complex and layered, but how does the movie demonstrate this layering? From what I've seen, it does not, and apologetics write the parts of the film that Snyder couldn't be bothered to.

As for the question about whether he has a lot of motivations or none, here's a great example of me saying a lot of things at once:


pue9qur0j--942jjrifojmionciongvr3-0491u-4391jfionpin131


Because it is not organized, specific, ordered in a recognizable way, I have failed to say anything. Certainly you can pull words from there, using various... ciphers. But if no one else can... isn't that a fault in my communication?


Great examples of how to get around this problem. Superman: The Movie handles the motivation challenge by making it otherworldly. This is why the Krypton sequence in STM works so much better than the one in MoS, because it serves the purpose of investing us in the grandness of Krypton and then cashes in on that, by having that be the formation of Clark's adult life. We do not know what his core motivation is, only that it comes from Jor-El.

This also works because STM, as SOON as it gives Clark this unknowable motivation makes Lois Lane the protagonist, and so his motivation then needs to be mysterious for the tension of the movie to continue. If his motivations are known and clear, the entire interview becomes boring, because we know both sides. It is Clark's motivation that make him otherworldly, not just his powers. It's a genius move, done by great storytellers, who understood how difficult it was to make a good Superman movie, and worked around it to give us one of the most beloved superhero stories ever.

Superman TAS does a really cool thing, which works gangbusters for a kids cartoon, where it repeatedly shows that he really enjoys his powers, that being able to fly was his dream, that being Sueprman is fun. (another thing MoS touches on then contradicts) TAS then demonstrates, in the first few minutes, how strict his moral code is, being offended that Lana would even suggest he look in the girl's locker room, and showing him concerned about safety all the time. So when he goes to rescue people, we already know he's the kind of person who would be offended if someone thought he didn't, and is always concerned about everyone's well being.

What's most important is that Last Son of Krypton, and TAS that follows is consistent in this portrayal. They don't then dab into other types of motivations or ideas or motifs and leave the audience to decide whether it's layered or contradictory or consistent at all (because if the filmmaker can't be bothered, why should I), but they keep going back to this well.

And even then, this kind of characterization, this kind of unspecific strict moral code doesn't strike the audience as hard as Batman's mission. That's part of why Superman is harder because in a way you have to convince the audience what right and wrong is, or the character doesn't work as a protagonist.

Bravo

 

[writer0327]

After reading these gargantuan walls of text over the last two pages explaining the nuances and nature of Superman films, it seems obvious why it's gonna be damn near impossible to make a good Superman film. Superman has to be the most complex character in the history of fiction.

Yes, I said Superman....strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands, disguised as Clark Kent, a mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fighting a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way. This guy sounds like a writing nightmare, doesn't he?

Seriously though, the best Superman stories are the simple ones...an action hero that faces moral dilemmas that tests his character, maybe how much he should use his power or how much he should hold back. Directors seriously need to stop making him more than that. He's not God and he's not Batman. He's not a tragic head case.

Give him a nice villain that challenges his weaknesses, give him a sense of humor, give him some physical obstacles that aren't ridiculous (to the point that you are literally forcing him to be God in order to stop them), and give him intellectual challenges as well. You have a ton of villains that can fit the mold: Luthor, Brainiac, Mongul, Darkseid, Metallo, Manheim and Intergang, Parasite, Lobo, the list goes on. Stop recreating the wheel. Superman: TAS is the model they should follow if they can't figure it out on their own.

 

[spider-neil]

I think another major problem with Superman in the Snyderverse is (IMHO) he isn't likeable.

Likes take two examples;
Tony Stark and The Joker.

Tony Stark
A weapons manufacturer. A man who literally made billions from death and destruction and I would argue the audience like the character BEFORE he has his character arc.
He is fun, light and every word out of his mouth is GOLD.

The Joker
Such a compelling character and whilst you aren't rooting for him you certainly find him likeable (at least I did).

Contrast with Superman who is so downbeat, so dull so unengaging. When he died in BvS, you know what, I didn't care. That is a major problem.
And the funny thing is the movie Justice League makes out that the world has gone to the dogs because Superman is gone. I must have missed the movie where the world was fully behind Superman. You are been TOLD the world loves/loved Superman but you weren't SHOWN the world loves Superman.

 

[lordofthenerds]

I don't find any incarnation of the Joker to be likeable, but he certainly can be entertaining. For me, this sort of applies to RDJ's Tony Stark too actually - I find Stark to be slightly obnoxious, though interesting and funny.

That said, I do agree with you that this version of Superman is not at all fun or particularly likeable even. Hell, Batman cracks more jokes than he does.

 

[misslane38]

Man of Steel hamstrings itself with Jor-El's storyline, which turns out not to be what motivates Clark, hamstringing the story before it begins, and when we finally meet Clark we see him saving someone just because they're about to die, and we aren't ever really told or shown why.

Incorrect. The first time we meet Clark is when a fisherman saves him on a fishing boat. Clark smiles at the act of heroism. Then, when the fishing boat is called toward the fire on the oil rig, we see Clark disappear to save those in danger. Even with that little bit of information about adult Clark we can see that a human being risks his life and shows him compassion, and then Clark replicates that act of heroism on a super scale. We are shown that the "why" is that humans inspire Clark. When we catch up to Clark's story as a child, we are introduced to a lonely little boy who later makes a friend who stands up to the class bully. He saves her life and the life of his classmates. Lana stood up for him; he stands up for her. The compassion he sees in others motivates Clark's compassion.

ETA: The Jor-El storyline on Krypton is a huge factor in Clark's motivations because the whole point of Kal's existence is to be a natural born child who is free from the decay of Krypton and thus able to choose his own path and purpose. That's why it is so important to see how more than just birthright, blood, and legacy affect Clark's motivations and ultimate commitment to public superheroism. Rather than the Els bestowing upon Kal a path to a legacy of helping people, it's a legacy of helping people that serves as the path that brings Clark to his birth father.

 

[Superchan]

I think another major problem with Superman in the Snyderverse is (IMHO)he isn't likeable.

............. Superman who is so downbeat, so dull so unengaging. When he did in BvS, you know what, I didn't care. That is a major problem.
And the funny thing is the movie Justice League makes out that the world has gone to the dogs because Superman is gone. I must have missed the movie where the world was fully behind Superman. You are been TOLD the world loves/loved Superman but you weren't SHOWN the world loves Superman.

Nicely said spidy, Snyder's superman was dull as f*** and had about as much charisma as a skunk, which is one of the main reasons why most of the audience rejected that version of the character.
A successful superman movie needs a smart, hopeful, charismatic superman who isn't allergic to dialogue and not Snyder's mopey, emo, nihilistic version.

 

[Flint Marko]

In a hypothetical film where the villain ONLY has that motivation, just being "evil" would be pretty bland and generic.

But that's not the only motivation Clark has for saving people, or for being Superman.

It's the motivation he has in a single scene at the beginning of his character arc.

I'm not sure where the idea that audiences coming to a film with preconceived ideas about basic social interaction and human experience became a bad thing. All filmmakers rely on this sort of thing.

There's underwritten, and there's no motivation existing at all. They're not the same thing. Nor is a thin motivation or generic motivation the same thing as a nonexistent one.

Clark is underspoken to be sure. We don't hear much of the character's voice, by design, due to the focus on alienation. But he has several layered, evolving motivations throughout the course of the film.

Don't mince words, if a villain's motivations relied entirely on the viewer going "oh well they're doing bad things because they’re evil" it wouldn't be bland and generic. It'd be a terrible character with a non-existent motivation. I brought this all up because that's been exactly your answer thus far for why Clark saves people - he does it because, duh, human compassion.

You still have yet to point out where this is actually shown in the movie, you just keep insisting that projection is an acceptable substitute for a real motivation. Were this a villain who we see is just evil for reasons we aren't ever clued in on you'd be quick to criticize it, but it get a pass here for some reason.

That said: if Clark has other motivations for saving people like you say here, why didn't you mention them? Misslane's come in and changed the conversation a bit, but up until now your only explanation for why Clark saves people has amounted to "human compassion" (which is a projection and not actually in the movie) and, according to you, that in and of itself is a valid reason for a character to do something (which is obviously incorrect).

If this movie were well-written, these basic questions wouldn't be so difficult to answer.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

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.

Agreed. And let's take this back to the Christopher Reeve Superman and look at what we find out about him before he dons the tights:

He's book smart due to Jor-El's teachings when he was journeying to Earth.

He gets picked on his classmates and wishes to use his powers to show them up, but through the teaching of/respect for his father he is convinced that can be of far greater use than petty revenge.

He has fun using his powers, as seen in the train scene. He derives enjoyment out of them.

He wants to be able to tell other people about his powers, but admits he shouldn't.

It deeply hurts him that despite all of his powers that he is unable to save everyone, specifically his father.

He is searching for his purpose and answers about who he is and where he came from and why.

He reluctantly leaves his mother in order to journey to find those answers, but takes his time to make sure she's taken care of before he goes.

He's dedicated and willing to train for 12 years with Jor-El in order to master his powers and gain the knowledge to become what he was meant to be.

All before he emerges from the Fortress as Superman. This is a big part of the reason why that version was so much more successful than Cavill's. I think a good way of putting it is that Reeve is more human than alien and Cavill is more alien than human.

 

[Herofan]

Don't mince words, if a villain's motivations relied entirely on the viewer going "oh well they're doing bad things because they’re evil" it wouldn't be bland and generic. It'd be a terrible character with a non-existent motivation. I brought this all up because that's been exactly your answer thus far for why Clark saves people - he does it because, duh, human compassion.

You still have yet to point out where this is actually shown in the movie, you just keep insisting that projection is an acceptable substitute for a real motivation.

Well Superman's motivation in the past/in general tends to be that his parents raised him right (and helping others, at least when they need it, the audience assumes is part of that) and that, despite or even in part from his powers, he is highly empathetic to others. Part of the motivation also gratitude that Earth and humanity provided a new home.
The movie shows him disliking when he suffers from his senses overacting and his classmates bullying him and OTOH that he is appreciative of his parents raising and helping him, from those factors I think it's not unreasonable that he would both dislike suffering in general and want to be better than and the opposite of bullies.
The movie definitely could have done more about his parents giving him good morals and him being appreciative to them and reacting more to that the planet/humanity had provided him, a refugee, a home, those seemed a bit too skimmed over on the understandable assumption the audience had already seen previous versions.

 

[DrCosmic]

Incorrect. The first time we meet Clark is when a fisherman saves him on a fishing boat. Clark smiles at the act of heroism. Then, when the fishing boat is called toward the fire on the oil rig, we see Clark disappear to save those in danger. Even with that little bit of information about adult Clark we can see that a human being risks his life and shows him compassion, and then Clark replicates that act of heroism on a super scale. We are shown that the "why" is that humans inspire Clark. When we catch up to Clark's story as a child, we are introduced to a lonely little boy who later makes a friend who stands up to the class bully. He saves her life and the life of his classmates. Lana stood up for him; he stands up for her. The compassion he sees in others motivates Clark's compassion.

ETA: The Jor-El storyline on Krypton is a huge factor in Clark's motivations because the whole point of Kal's existence is to be a natural born child who is free from the decay of Krypton and thus able to choose his own path and purpose. That's why it is so important to see how more than just birthright, blood, and legacy affect Clark's motivations and ultimate commitment to public superheroism. Rather than the Els bestowing upon Kal a path to a legacy of helping people, it's a legacy of helping people that serves as the path that brings Clark to his birth father.

[Edit:]

This is my expression right now, and it's not because I'm admire your post's heroism. I wouldn't even call it smiling, tbh.

If your argument is that the filmmaker juxtaposed these two events in order to give the impression that these two events are related, which the movie does not necessarily indicate, then this is just poor filmmaking, which explains why it failed to impact the audience at large. Montage works by taking advantage of an emotional response, putting to contrasting things together in order to give the audience information, both about the character and about themselves. Not only does someone saving a Superman we don't know anything about gives us no real emotions, but someone saving him and him saving others doesn't provide much contrast. So the montage fails as a filmmaking technique, and we're left with the actual events of the film in which the man saving him isn't what inspires him to save people, nor does it cause him to save the people on the rig, leaving the entire introduction of the character with no meaning and little impact beyond its spectacle.

It is when you bring out these suspected intentions of the scenes that we really get to see how poor a filmmaker Snyder is and how poorly he uses film techniques that are handled so much better even by middling directors.

The Jor-El storyline, which takes 20 minutes just to show that a) he has free choice and b) his motivation doesn't come from Krypton fails as a film because the big questions that come from it a) What is his motivation and b) where does it come from, don't get meticulously investigated in a big 20 minutes setpiece the way the setups do. Man, this movie.

I'm sorry, but this is just utter nonsense. It is terrible characterization for Superman to have his motivation to help people come from legacy training from the beyond. I know it is terrible because it has absolutely no effect on Clark's core self. He isn't fundamentally changed. He isn't committed to being Superman. He isn't committed to Jor-El's ideals. He gives up being Superman the second he gets his trophy girlfriend, and he breaks one of Jor-El's core rules to save her life. There is no core motivation at all.

The interview isn't boring because it's two people who like each other flirting with each other. Superman doesn't share his motivation with Lois in the interview at all. He shares what he stands for and nothing else. He never explains why he stands for those things. It's not genius. It's simplistic and cliche. The only reason why no one questions the shallowness of it all is because it's wrapped up in an entertaining and fun wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Clark does not initially view his powers as purely fun. He shares his anxiety with Lana before the accident happens. Later, when he discovers the reason he has his powers, he's utterly distraught. You mention Clark's strict moral code and concern for the safety of others, but you fail to mention from where that compassion comes. Isn't this the core of your criticism of Clark's characterization in Man of Steel? Your beef with Snyder's film is that it shows us Clark is compassionate when he saves the kids on the bus, but it doesn't tell you the motivation or source of that compassion. Isn't your assessment of S:TAS, therefore, a bit hypocritical?

I didn't say Clark views his powers as purely fun, we were talking motivation, and you claimed there was none, I pointed out there was, now you're saying I said something other than what I said instead of conceding the point that his motivation is clearly laid out there. My criticism of Man of Steel is that his motivation is nebulous and all over the place and thus meaninglessness. I have used Guard's logic to illustrate that the bus heroism is not necessarily motivated by compassion, ergohow the movie did not show that it was. Concordantly I have not criticized its origin in this way with repeated examples and explicit statements. This is why you find my post contradictory, because you add things into it and address that instead of the point I've made. Which still stands.



To look at Superman go into the Fortress as a child and come out as SUPERMAN and say he is fundamentally unchanged is definitely nonsense. It's literally a different actor. If that doesn't signal things are different now, nothing does. Him going back on this rule in order to save Lois, because of contrast actually shows us what it takes for him to go against the source of his motivation (but not necessarily the motivation itself) which again, you might not like it having that origin, but that's personal taste, not bad filmmaking, which is why STM is beloved: great filmmaking. Even the rooftop scene understands that without the texture of them being from two different worlds, their flirtation isn't that interesting.

So, it's great because it's so simple and underdeveloped? No, I don't buy it. Motivation for being Superman can't be a simple as loving superpowers and having the sense not to spy on girls in a locker room. It can't be as simple as fulfilling the legacy of a dead race. The initial impulse to help? Sure, I can maybe buy into that for a surface level motivation, but what is the motivation that sustains these versions of Superman? We don't know. Mark Waid didn't know either. I find it quite strange that you are comfortable disagreeing with Waid's conclusion that up until the 2000s when he wrote Birthright there had been no Superman story that adequately addressed the question: Why is Superman good? Are you prepared to say Waid got it wrong?

Furthermore, Man of Steel isn't contradictory or inconsistent. Clark is a lonely child -- a freak who behaves strangely at school and is not allowed to play with other kids. He makes a friend, Lana, who stands up for him. He saves her life and the lives of his classmates when their bus crashes. He saves his bully, too. Clark wants to keep helping, but his dad wants to protect his son and the world from the enormity of what Clark represents, which he explains to Clark. Jonathan wants Clark to understand that his powers are blessings he can one day share with the world when he understands his purpose. Saving Pete Ross made a bully who threatened Clark into someone who comforted and supported him. We'll see this paralleled again with Lois Lane and Colonel Hardy.

As he gets older, Clark is ready to leave his parents and Smallville to find his purpose. Jonathan dies after admitting he didn't have all the answers anymore and sacrificing his life so his son could have a chance to find out for himself. Clark spends over a decade looking for answers and testing his limits. Until his quest brings him to a point where his search for answers and his search for purpose intersect. In the process of discovering his Kryptonian origins, Clark also willingly exposes the truth about himself to a reporter when he saves her life. Ultimately, this reporter believes in him and that belief gives Clark the strength to take a leap of faith and stand proud in front of the human race just as both of his sets of parents always wanted and dreamed for him.

Saving people is Clark's way of protecting the people he cares about, making new connections, and giving his differences meaning and purpose. It's also how he honors his Kryptonian origins. Is it complicated? Yes, it is. Mark Waid found the answer complicated and paradoxical, too. But it's the only answer Waid and Snyder/Goyer found to be sufficient enough and insightful enough for a modern multi-dimensional character.

Not only is it simple, it *must* be simple. Easily discernible motivations are key to any great story. They can be built on, certainly, but they must work at a basic level or else your story becomes inaccessible at best, and pretentiously self defeating at worst, which is another thing that seemed to happen with MoS. TLSoK works at a basic level AND when you delve into all the supposed montage. Birthright does both as well. MoS does neither, and listing its events does not address this.

My addressing how STM works without us knowing Superman's motivation does not conflict with Waid's conclusion that there was no clear description of his motivation before that, but rather supports it. Just because you put Birthright and Man of Steel in the same sentence doesn't mean that your comparison of them makes sense. Juxtaposition must be recognizable on a gut emotional level as well as from a cerebral cause and effect level in order to work. That's something I hope Snyder learned from his mistakes on Man of Steel.