Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

[2kt09]

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.

That works more for a character like Kara who's old enough to understand she had to leave everything behind. With Kal, he just knew he was special because he can do superhuman things yet totally in the dark on why or where he actually came from. So, since he's more or less assimilated to humanity, to Smallville, there doesn't seem a need for such a reaction.

 

[Flint Marko]

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,

Hit the nail on the head.

 

[misslane38]

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

Then all of Superman media prior to BIRTHRIGHT must also be poorly written given that its author, Mark Waid, has said he investigated and thought about this basic question using the existing mythos and found it impossible to answer. The one answer he subsequently came up with is the exact one reflected in MOS.

 

[Flint Marko]

Then all of Superman media prior to BIRTHRIGHT must also be poorly written given that its author, Mark Waid, has said he investigated and thought about this basic question using the existing mythos and found it impossible to answer. The one answer he subsequently came up with is the exact one reflected in MOS.

I'm not talking about all of Superman media, I'm talking about one movie and asking basic questions about that one movie.

 

[MaceB]

I do think that Superman is a bit of a poison pill. My favorite depiction of Superman has to be Miller's The Dark Knight Returns...and that's probably the most controversial depiction of him.

In my view, Superman is a pure hearted, all good hero. When done right, that can be really inspiring; he makes us want to be better through his extraordinary example. However, outside of Kryptonite, they really don't emphasize any of of his weaknesses. His fears and motivations are not as clear as I'd like them to be.

Many fans don't want him to have internal weaknesses honestly. He's always been sold as a pure hearted, overpowered, super-do-gooder, and as a result, most fans would prefer that he never question what is good, or if he should do the selfish thing, or if he should have a monkey on his back about his parentage, etc. etc. etc. He has to be perfect.... yawn. When done wrong, Superman is a 1 dimensional character whose only weakness is an alien rock.

 

[misslane38]

I'm not talking about all of Superman media, I'm talking about one movie and asking basic questions about that one movie. The questions are difficult to answer, because they didn't make a good movie.

The basic question you say MoS had to answer was where did Clark's motivation for saving people come from? You said, "If Clark has other motivations for saving people like you say here, why didn't you mention them? [...] If this movie were well-written, these basic questions wouldn't be so difficult to answer." I'm applying that standard to other films to test the validity or consistency of your point.

Based on your statement, a film is well-written if it answers the basic question of character motivation. Yet, if someone like Waid can say that such a question hadn't yet been answered to his satisfaction, and he was taking all of Superman media into consideration including the first Reeve film, then that would suggest that that movie or even the original Action Comics didn't accomplish this. Are they not well-written or good?

Look at other films, like Harry Potter, or something as simple as Zootopia. Neither explain why the main character chooses to be good or does good. Most movies featuring heroes don't answer such a question explicitly, which is what can make it a fascinating and challenging thing to analyze. Personally, and it seems you are willing to give me some credit for this ("Misslane's come in and changed the conversation a bit"), I think it's fairly straightforward what the answer to the question is in MoS, and the answer aligns with Waid's conclusions. As such, I don't think it's as open and shut a case as you're making it out to be.

 

[Flint Marko]

Most movies featuring heroes don't answer such a question explicitly, which is what can make it a fascinating and challenging thing to analyze.

I have only been talking about Man of Steel and my issues with it, so I have no idea why you're talking to me about an essay Mark Waid wrote.

The above portion of your quote is clearly incorrect, particularly in regards to superhero films. My head is now spinning with all of the various explicitly-outlined, clear-as-day motivations that we've seen in origin stories to explain why a character wants to do good. Stark sees the horror that he has profited from and has a change of heart, Spider-man uses his powers irresponsibly and pays the price for it, Captain America was weak and bullied and knows the true value of strength, Batman wants to eradicate injustice so no one suffers what he went through, I could keep going.

I look at basically every single superhero movie and they have something clean and clear to explain a character's motivation. I can't do that with Man of Steel, which is odd considering how often this character has people talk at him about how important he supposedly is. I just can't figure out why.

 

[misslane38]

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

That doesn't make any sense. If he could remember what he was listening to in there, he could remember his parents. I have major doubts about this conclusion. In any case, we see in MoS that young Clark not only participated in Science Fairs, but he also reads giant books about Plato as a teenager.

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.

In MoS, we also see that Clark is picked on by his classmates. We see it multiple scenes. First, he overhears kids talking about how he's a freak in elementary school while locked in a closet. Second, Pete Ross bullies him in the school bus before it crashes. Third, he is ambushed by Whitney Fordman and his gang outside of a mechanic's. After each of these incidents, we have additional scenes that develop Clark's character, his motivations, and moral reasoning. In elementary school, his mother teaches him that when he is in distress, to focus on something positive and that gives him comfort. While not teaching him to do good or save people, Martha's patience and love for a child who is strange, which constrasts to how the other people were treating him, instills in him both a way of focusing on the positive and a sense of gratitude or appreciation for compassion. On the bus years later, Lana Lang defends Clark to Pete Ross, the bully. Her pity and compassion is something Clark then rewards by saving her and then replicates by saving Pete Ross. After that incident, Jonathan teaches Clark that his gifts were given to him for a reason, and one day they will be a blessing he can share proudly with the human race. Finally, during Whitney's attack, we see Clark resist using his powers for petty revenge, and we also see Jonathan reinforcing his son's actions immediately afterward as indicitive of good character, which is something Jonathan tells Clark he will have to have if he wants to change the world for the better when he grows up.

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

I'm not sure how this is relevant, but in MoS we see Clark enjoy being able to use his powers to teach sexual harrasser, Ludlow, a lesson, and he enjoys the experience of flying. Similar to Superman: The Animated Series, we see Clark mostly anxious about his powers and his Kryptonian heritage until his first flight.

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

In MoS, Clark is so inclined to use his powers to help people that Jonathan opens his heart to heart with Clark following the bus incident by noting how many times he has had to remind Clark to be cautious. It's a hard lesson for Clark to learn, because as a child it's difficult to think macrocomically rather than the microcosm of your own world, especially when you don't know how truly radical a being you are. That's why Jonathan decides that this is the moment he will finally reveal Clark's alien origins to him which, again, is exactly what happens in S: TAS. Many years later, Lois Lane is able to trace so many good deeds of Clark's that she concludes that he finds it impossible to not use his powers to help people.

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

Clark is unable to save his father in MoS as well but to different effect. He learns from that incident that as a hero of his caliber, he isn't as free to make selfish choices as others might be; his choices have worldwide consequences. While this lesson is one Clark remains mindful of in MoS, the lesson of Jonathan's death in Superman I is completely forgotten by the end of the movie when Superman uses his powers to save Lois after he previously failed to do so.

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

Obviously, Clark in MoS does this too. It's something he begins to think about as early as 14, but something Jonathan encourages him to do and we see him do for at least a decade. The film even frames the discovery of these answers as the final piece of the puzzle that will help Clark see how he can use his gifts in a public way.

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.

Although we don't see Clark make preparations to leave, we do see him discuss his readiness to learn and do more in his argument with Jonathan before the tornado. We also get to see him care enough to reunite with his mother and share things with her once he has found what he was looking for. In that conversation, we see his joy at finding out about his people and the encouragement Martha provides when she says, "The truth about you is beautiful" and the "whole world would see that" someday.

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.

Instead of training we never get to see and which is akin to learning how to be a doctor without actually doing any fieldwork as an intern, Clark in MoS's training is something he acquires from exploring Earth, learning about people, and testing his limits as a hero. He also learns about his Kryptonian heritage and the dreams his biological parents had for him to protect and inspire the people of Earth as a bridge or as the best of both his worlds: Earth and Krypton.

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.

All of things I've noted about Clark's journey in MoS also occurred before he became Superman. Since MoS did all of the same things, and even more in some respects, than I don't think these points are why Cavill's was less successful or indicative of Cavill's characters being more alien than human. For him, his Clark persona isn't as much of a disguise, and for him, a lot of the lessons he learned were from human peers and from the humans he met along the way. He also sought out the advice of humans like Lois and Father Leone when making big decisions and forms more intimate relationships, like his with Lois. This is a character who embraces and lives authentically as both an alien and a human. In short, I think you're wrong.

 

[Rorschach2012]

The two guys that I think can really do it the right way are JJ and Matt Vaughn

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I do think that Superman is a bit of a poison pill. My favorite depiction of Superman has to be Miller's The Dark Knight Returns...and that's probably the most controversial depiction of him.

In my view, Superman is a pure hearted, all good hero. When done right, that can be really inspiring; he makes us want to be better through his extraordinary example. However, outside of Kryptonite, they really don't emphasize any of of his weaknesses. His fears and motivations are not as clear as I'd like them to be.

Many fans don't want him to have internal weaknesses honestly. He's always been sold as a pure hearted, overpowered, super-do-gooder, and as a result, most fans would prefer that he never question what is good, or if he should do the selfish thing, or if he should have a monkey on his back about his parentage, etc. etc. etc. He has to be perfect.... yawn. When done wrong, Superman is a 1 dimensional character whose only weakness is an alien rock.

Yet in both of the popular Superman movies, he does act selfishly. In STM he defies Jor-El and turns back time to save the girl he liked. In SMII, he voluntarily gives up his powers so he can be with her (which allows Zod to take over the world unopposed). Audiences were fine with it.

 

[daddydivine]

Yet in both of the popular Superman movies, he does act selfishly. In STM he defies Jor-El and turns back time to save the girl he liked. In SMII, he voluntarily gives up his powers so he can be with her (which allows Zod to take over the world unopposed). Audiences were fine with it.

They were fine with it because the instances of him being kind, thoughtful, and selfless far outweighed the acts of selfishness. In both instances he was established as a beacon of hope before he decided to make concessions on his ideals.

 

[misslane38]

I have only been talking about Man of Steel and my issues with it, so I have no idea why you're talking to me about an essay Mark Waid wrote.

I know that, but it's relevant to test your logic and assumptions. At the moment, it's very effectively revealing your double standards.

The above portion of your quote is clearly incorrect, particularly in regards to superhero films. My head is now spinning with all of the various explicitly-outlined, clear-as-day motivations that we've seen in origin stories to explain why a character wants to do good. Stark sees the horror that he has profited from and has a change of heart, Spider-man uses his powers irresponsibly and pays the price for it, Captain America was weak and bullied and knows the true value of strength, Batman wants to eradicate injustice so no one suffers what he went through, I could keep going.

Come on, you're going too easy on these films. Why does Stark react that way? He could have just as easily reacted to others using his weapons by arming their enemies with even better weapons or devising a technology to locate his weapons in the wrong hands and personally punish those people. Same for Peter Parker. His failure could have hardened him. Why doesn't it? Why does Captain America value strength? And how come some people who are bullied become bullies themselves, but he becomes a hero? Why doesn't Batman become a killer because he was traumatized, spoiled, and wants to take his anger out on the whole world? Not every child who loses parents does what he does after all. All I'm saying is that if those simplistic explanations are sufficient and are inferences, then MoS is in the same boat.

I look at basically every single superhero movie and they have something clean and clear to explain a character's motivation. I can't do that with Man of Steel, which is odd considering how often this character has people talk at him about how important he supposedly is. I just can't figure out why.

Maybe it's just you're so used to the model of a trauma creating transformation as a trope that you don't pick up on something that follows a different path. For Superman, it's not about preventing others from being hurt as he was hurt but giving back the love and compassion that he received. Try to think about it this way (from Batman v3 #36).

 

[misslane38]

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.

First, it's a two minute scene and not a montage at all. Second, it isn't a scene that juxtaposes two contrasting things. It's a two minute scene that shows a pattern of similar things. It is not supposed to provide contrast. It is supposed to be building on the idea of compassion. People saving people are not contrasting ideas. You have to ask yourself: If the purpose of the scene (not montage) were mere spectacle, then why not start on the oil rig? Why bother with the fisherman saving Clark, holding out his hand to help him up, and leave us with a close up of Clark's face as a small smile crosses his face?

Finally, I did not share the scene to show you the origins of Clark's motivations to help people. I did it to show that we do get information about Clark from the first scene we meet him. You argued that we learn nothing about him the first time we meet him. I disagree. The first thing Snyder wants to show us about Clark is that he is moved by a man saving his life and that he in turn saves others. I also mentioned a similar dynamic underpinning the first time Clark saves people on the bus. Lana stands up for him. Clark saves her.

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.

I don't know. You don't even know the difference between a scene and a montage. I'm also deeply curious what you make of the fisherman saving Clark. It's clearly not there by accident and isn't part of the "spectacle," so even taking the existential character questions about Superman out of the equation: What do you get out of the scene?

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.

The 20 minute set up isn't just there to set up Superman's motivations. See, when you oversimplify everything, you start digging yourself a fallacy shaped hole. The Krypton sequence sets up Kal's motivations and Zod's motivations. It provides exposition about the genetic engineering program on Krypton, including the codex. All of these things come into play as the film's narrative unfolds. You don't get a 20 minute set piece setting up Clark's motivations because it would be ludicrous to suggest one's identity and motivations coalesce as a consequence of one defining moment. One moment can be a spark, but it doesn't do the world of a lifetime of personal growth. Instead of 20 minute set pieces, we get several detailed flashbacks about Clark's childhood that are thematically juxtaposed with his adulthood. Because big questions require big answers. The big questions of your life cannot be reduced to one cinematic moment.

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.

A source of motivation you said existed prior to Clark saving the family from the car accident did not exist. It was factually inaccurate. I am not conceding anything because you got the facts wrong and your logic is circular. I am not adding anything; I am correcting your facts. You claimed Clark's motivations for saving people from the car accident were his love of his powers combined with his compassion as evidenced by his concern for the teacher on the ladder and abstaining from abusing his x-ray vision. I pointed out that prior to the accident, Clark did not demonstrate any joy in his powers. And, if you are using Clark being compassionate to explain why he is compassionate, then you still aren't answering the question of where that compassion began. Why does he care about his teacher on the ladder? Why does he choose not to spy on girls in the locker room? There is no information in the episode that answers these questions that you demand be answered in other Superman media. That is the hypocrisy I am calling out.

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.

Oh my God. I'm talking about change in character rather than change in appearance. The change in appearance signals that Clark is older now and wears the symbol of his family. It does not tell me anything about his motivations!!! It is not my personal taste for Superman's origin to essentially establish his motivation to help people as ephemeral and subject to the whims of his own selfishness. Superman: The Movie isn't beloved because of Superman's simplistic yet mysterious motivations. It's beloved because it's a wish-fulfillment fantasy with classic rom-com elements. I cannot believe you are arguing the rooftop scene's appeal has nothing to do with the sexual tension and sexual subtext. The scene is dripping with that subtext.

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.

I am not listing events. I am showing how MoS using a pattern of events with similar features to establish clear answers to the question of Clark's motivation. Each scene in the past is linked to a scene in the present both in theme and in imagery. The end result is simple: Clark is a freak who seeks belonging and meaning. Saving people gives him a chance to give back and make friends out of enemies.

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.

No, it doesn't. This entire thread asks, "Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?" If your answer to that question led to a questioning of character motivations in MoS, then it begs the question of whether or not a Superman film can be good without closely interrogating Superman's altruistic motivations. Waid's essay concludes that good Superman stories have never sufficiently answered that question, so having a clear and relatable motivation for altruism clearly isn't all that important when it comes to making a good Superman movie. I am not comparing Birthright to Man of Steel. I am referring to Waid's essay in a philosophy book about superheroes to assist in my analysis of Man of Steel and other Superman media. In his essay, Waid concludes that Superman's motivation to do good is complex and paradoxical.

"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."

Following the bus incident, Clark explains that he wanted to help and wants to know if he should save people. His father doesn't have a clear answer at first, but concludes:

"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 going to think of them as a blessing. When that day comes, you have to make a choice. A choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not."

It's the same answer. It's also the heart of Clark's entire arc in the film. I can't explain why a story about a search for self-actualization leading to a leap of faith doesn't connect with you on an emotional level. All I can say is that it worked for me.

 

[lordofthenerds]

The above portion of your quote is clearly incorrect, particularly in regards to superhero films. My head is now spinning with all of the various explicitly-outlined, clear-as-day motivations that we've seen in origin stories to explain why a character wants to do good. Stark sees the horror that he has profited from and has a change of heart, Spider-man uses his powers irresponsibly and pays the price for it, Captain America was weak and bullied and knows the true value of strength, Batman wants to eradicate injustice so no one suffers what he went through, I could keep going.

I look at basically every single superhero movie and they have something clean and clear to explain a character's motivation. I can't do that with Man of Steel, which is odd considering how often this character has people talk at him about how important he supposedly is. I just can't figure out why.

Good points all around. All of the Jonathan and Martha Kent lectures were about how completely clueless they were as to what Clark should do with his powers. And they offered no ideas for what his being here could mean for the planet. The best we got was, "You were put here for a reason".

So maybe they wanted him to use his powers for the common good? Sensible, but Jonathan expresses paranoia about Clark revealing his powers. His extreme anxiety about the world potentially reacting negatively to Clark's powers seemed to far outweigh whatever the "put here for a reason" line suggested. He questions whether Clark should've saved a bus full of children, and later sacrifices his own life to keep the powers a secret. Maybe Pa Kent believed there was wisdom to fearful secrecy and martyrdom for that cause? I don't know.

As for Jor-El, his monologues revolved around Kal being the last biologically born son of Krypton - thus, Jor-El didn't see him as being corrupted by Krypton's system. Krypton stripped people of freedom, so I suppose Jor-El meant that Kal should be free to choose his own path. The movie played this up as though it were extremely thought-provoking and wise, but the right to liberty is treated as an axiom in modern, Western society. It's hardly a groundbreaking thought.

 

[SnyderCut2020]

They were fine with it because the instances of him being kind, thoughtful, and selfless far outweighed the acts of selfishness. In both instances he was established as a beacon of hope before he decided to make concessions on his ideals.

LOL, nah. Audiences were "fine" with it back then because they were just as "stupid" then as they are now.

 

[misslane38]

Good points all around. All of the Jonathan and Martha Kent lectures were about how completely clueless they were as to what Clark should do with his powers. And they offered no ideas for what his being here could mean for the planet. The best we got was, "You were put here for a reason".

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Not only do the Kents impart more extensive advice, but they also encourage him to seek out more answers, which Jor-El also provides. Also, it's important to note that the "here for a reason" line is basically all Donner Jonathan ever says.

The Kents

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. [...] 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.

You just have to decide what kind of a man you want to grow up to be, Clark; because whoever that man is, good character or bad, he's... He's gonna change the world.

The truth about you is beautiful. We saw that the moment we laid eyes on you. We knew that one day, the whole world would see that.

He always believed you were meant for greater things, and that when the day came, your shoulders would be able to bear the weight.

Jor-El

You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.

Your mother and I believed Krypton lost something precious, the element of choice, of chance. What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended? What if a child aspired to something greater? You were the embodiment of that belief Kal. Krypton's first natural birth in centuries. That's why we risked so much to save you. [...] No, you are as much a child of Earth now as you are of Krypton. You can embody the best of both worlds. The dream your mother and I dedicated our lives to preserve. The people of Earth are different from us, it's true, but ultimately I believe that is a good thing. They won't necessarily make the same mistakes we did, but if you guide them, Kal, if you give them hope, that's what this symbol means. The symbol of the House of El means hope. Embodied within that hope is the fundamental belief the potential of every person to be a force for good. That's what you can bring them.​

So maybe they wanted him to use his powers for the common good? Sensible, but Jonathan expresses paranoia about Clark revealing his powers. His extreme anxiety about the world potentially reacting negatively to Clark's powers seemed to far outweigh whatever the "put here for a reason" line suggested. He questions whether Clark should've saved a bus full of children, and later sacrifices his own life to keep the powers a secret. Maybe Pa Kent believed there was wisdom to fearful secrecy and martyrdom for that cause? I don't know.

He believed that the responsibility that would come from being a creature with the power Clark had was responsibility best wielded by an adult who is better able to understand himself and the world. He wanted to protect his son and guide him so that one day he would be ready.

As for Jor-El, his monologues revolved around Kal being the last biologically born son of Krypton - thus, Jor-El didn't see him as being corrupted by Krypton's system. Krypton stripped people of freedom, so I suppose Jor-El meant that Kal should be free to choose his own path. The movie played this up as though it were extremely thought-provoking and wise, but the right to liberty is treated as an axiom in modern, Western society. It's hardly a groundbreaking thought.

It was more than just free will Jor-El imparted to Kal. He spoke about being a leader, a protector, and a bridge.

 

[lordofthenerds]

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Not only do the Kents impart more extensive advice, but they also encourage him to seek out more answers, which Jor-El also provides. Also, it's important to note that the "here for a reason" line is basically all Donner Jonathan ever says.

The Kents

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. [...] 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.

You just have to decide what kind of a man you want to grow up to be, Clark; because whoever that man is, good character or bad, he's... He's gonna change the world.

The truth about you is beautiful. We saw that the moment we laid eyes on you. We knew that one day, the whole world would see that.

He always believed you were meant for greater things, and that when the day came, your shoulders would be able to bear the weight.
​

All of these lines support what I posted. The Kents are telling Clark that they have no idea what his powers mean, but they do think everything about him is beautiful. Sure, Martha says, "He always believed you were meant for greater things, and that when the day came, your shoulders would bear the weight"... and that's an incredibly vague statement. What does "greater things" mean? Did Jonathan say? He seemed to have no idea; he told Clark to find out for himself what he should do - he wasn't even sure if he should have "good character or bad".

Jor-El

You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.

​

And what ideal would that be? Incredibly vague, prophetic quote. It is poetic though.

Your mother and I believed Krypton lost something precious, the element of choice, of chance. What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended? What if a child aspired to something greater? You were the embodiment of that belief Kal. Krypton's first natural birth in centuries. That's why we risked so much to save you. [...] No, you are as much a child of Earth now as you are of Krypton. You can embody the best of both worlds. The dream your mother and I dedicated our lives to preserve. The people of Earth are different from us, it's true, but ultimately I believe that is a good thing. They won't necessarily make the same mistakes we did, but if you guide them, Kal, if you give them hope, that's what this symbol means. The symbol of the House of El means hope. Embodied within that hope is the fundamental belief the potential of every person to be a force for good. That's what you can bring them.

​

In that long-winded speech he never defined what "force for good" meant. He speaks of the mistakes of Krypton, and suggests that their ultimate mistake was taking away its citizens' freedom to choose what they wanted out of life. Maybe he thinks Clark should simply go around reminding people of the importance of liberty. Or maybe, on a grander scale, he thinks Kal should choose to fight authoritarian dictatorships around the globe.

He believed that the responsibility that would come from being a creature with the power Clark had was responsibility best wielded by an adult who is better able to understand himself and the world. He wanted to protect his son and guide him so that one day he would be ready.

Clark looked fairly grown when Jonathan allowed himself to be killed by a tornado.

It was more than just free will Jor-El imparted to Kal. He spoke about being a leader, a protector, and a bridge.

But, without articulating what he means by them, the terms are just a series of vague platitudes.

 

[The Guard]

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.

Mince words? Wouldn't dream of it. My answer to why Clark saves people has only been compassion with respect an introductory scene, early in the film (which I already told you in my previous post). That is not the only reason he saves people, nor has that been the only motivation I have discussed.

You're asking me to point out where Clark's compassion is shown in the film? Every time he saves someone, it is an inherently compassionate act, simply by the nature of saving people from disaster scenarios or danger. Compassion is concern for and the desire to alleviate the suffering, pain and misfortune of others.

That said, off the top of my head, there's a really good example of him being compassionate in the sequence with Lois. He saves her from danger, smiles to put her at ease, calms her down by saying "It's all right", calmly explains the situation she's in, and then uses his heat vision to save her life, letting her hold his hand for support.

Why didn't I mention other motivations for saving people? Well, for the most part its because the lion's share of the conversation has been about the bus sequence, where he displays compassion, and which really doesn't delve into the subsequent motivations he has in the film, because it's an introductory scene.

But also because every time I introduce more than one concept, I am accused of being "fuzzy", "missing the point", "missing the forest for the trees" or some other delightful deflection.

But also, I did.

On 6/3 in post #319, I posted the following regarding his motivations:

Clark wants to save people because he can, due to his fantastic powers, and because it's the right thing to do. He's wanted to do that from a young age.

On 6/4, post #334, I posted another statement about multiple motivations.

Superman does what he does because he wants to save people, wants to honor his legacy, and because he is selfless.

Superman is the result of Clark finding out who he is, and his purpose in life. It's a symbolic act. He wants to be "Superman" to give hope to others, and to honor the legacy of his parents and their wishes for him.

I don't know how to explain to you that visual filmmaking is legitimately showing something, and that showing something does not require exposition or a character to say how they are feeling or how they are being motivated. So I won't.

I already addressed the one note villain thing. Please reread my previous post to you, #382

I suppose you could argue that if the movie were written with more exposition that people would have less of an issue answering questions about the motivation of the character, but I don't believe that's an issue of the quality of the writing.

 

[The Guard]

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.

The sequence of Clark as a lone drifter using his powers to do good is immediately juxtaposed with the flashback of a lonely, alienated little boy who used his powers to save others, and was considered an outsider because of it.

The sequences are clearly connected both thematically and structurally, and parallel each other within the film.

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.

misslane already pointed out that the scene impacts three characters motivations...but The Jor-El sequence absolutely informs Clark's motivations for becoming Superman, as well as Zod's ongoing motivation, and is chock full of Jor-El's, who factors into a good bit of the rest of the film, and in Clark's development into Superman. It's actually fairly efficient filmmaking.

You say it doesn't affect Superman's motivations, but that is incorrect. The sequence highlights, or "dramatizes" the failure of Krypton's ideals and the importance of Jor-El's last stand to save its legacy.

This plays into the later sequence when Jor-El implores Superman to stand for Krypton's better ideals, and to essentially redeem Krypton's legacy by standing for its best ideals.

 

[The Guard]

All of these lines support what I posted. The Kents are telling Clark that they have no idea what his powers mean, but they do think everything about him is beautiful. Sure, Martha says, "He always believed you were meant for greater things, and that when the day came, your shoulders would bear the weight"... and that's an incredibly vague statement. What does "greater things" mean? Did Jonathan say? He seemed to have no idea; he told Clark to find out for himself what he should do - he wasn't even sure if he should have "good character or bad".

Why wouldn't it be vague? Jonathan didn't know Clark's purpose, and half the film is about Clark trying to find his purpose; why would Jonathan need to know a specific one, and how would watering down Clark's journey of self discovery serve the film?

It's entirely possible Jonathan didn't know how powerful Clark would become. Clark only discovers he can fly by testing his limits later in the film, for instance, and its implied that he doesn't know HOW strong he is, or what his limits truly are.

As for the line about "character", I think we can use context clues to determine that Jonathan is in fact implying that Clark needs to be careful who he becomes; IE he's advocating good character, and impressing upon Clark that he needs to be careful about who he becomes because of his impact on the world.

In that long-winded speech he never defined what "force for good" meant. He speaks of the mistakes of Krypton, and that their ultimate mistake was taking away its citizens' freedom to choose what they wanted out of life. Maybe he thinks Clark should simply go around reminding people of the importance of liberty. Or maybe, on a grander scale, he thinks Kal should choose to fight authoritarian dictatorships around the globe.

No he doesn't define what "force for good" means, because the phrase defines itself. Jor-El is letting CLark find his own path, just like Jonathan did. He simply believes Clark can be a force for good. He doesn't say "You have to be". He says "You can be".

He leaves it up to Clark to decide. He's simply saying that Clark has advantages, and that he believes in Clark's potential to do good.

Clark looked fairly grown when Jonathan allowed himself to be killed by a tornado.

He may have been grown but he clearly wasn't ready. He was bemoaning his lack of purpose in the scene right before the tornado occurred. After the event, he continues to travel the world searching for his purpose.

But, without articulating what he means by them, the terms are just a series of vague platitudes.

So are many of the things people say to inspire each other in real life, let alone in other superhero stories. One in particular, which we've discussed enough in this thread.

That doesn't make them meaningless.

 

[DrCosmic]

????



First, it's a two minute scene and not a montage at all. Second, it isn't a scene that juxtaposes two contrasting things. It's a two minute scene that shows a pattern of similar things. It is not supposed to provide contrast. It is supposed to be building on the idea of compassion. People saving people are not contrasting ideas. You have to ask yourself: If the purpose of the scene (not montage) were mere spectacle, then why not start on the oil rig? Why bother with the fisherman saving Clark, holding out his hand to help him up, and leave us with a close up of Clark's face as a small smile crosses his face?

Finally, I did not share the scene to show you the origins of Clark's motivations to help people. I did it to show that we do get information about Clark from the first scene we meet him. You argued that we learn nothing about him the first time we meet him. I disagree. The first thing Snyder wants to show us about Clark is that he is moved by a man saving his life and that he in turn saves others. I also mentioned a similar dynamic underpinning the first time Clark saves people on the bus. Lana stands up for him. Clark saves her.



I don't know. You don't even know the difference between a scene and a montage. I'm also deeply curious what you make of the fisherman saving Clark. It's clearly not there by accident and isn't part of the "spectacle," so even taking the existential character questions about Superman out of the equation: What do you get out of the scene?



The 20 minute set up isn't just there to set up Superman's motivations. See, when you oversimplify everything, you start digging yourself a fallacy shaped hole. The Krypton sequence sets up Kal's motivations and Zod's motivations. It provides exposition about the genetic engineering program on Krypton, including the codex. All of these things come into play as the film's narrative unfolds. You don't get a 20 minute set piece setting up Clark's motivations because it would be ludicrous to suggest one's identity and motivations coalesce as a consequence of one defining moment. One moment can be a spark, but it doesn't do the world of a lifetime of personal growth. Instead of 20 minute set pieces, we get several detailed flashbacks about Clark's childhood that are thematically juxtaposed with his adulthood. Because big questions require big answers. The big questions of your life cannot be reduced to one cinematic moment.



A source of motivation you said existed prior to Clark saving the family from the car accident did not exist. It was factually inaccurate. I am not conceding anything because you got the facts wrong and your logic is circular. I am not adding anything; I am correcting your facts. You claimed Clark's motivations for saving people from the car accident were his love of his powers combined with his compassion as evidenced by his concern for the teacher on the ladder and abstaining from abusing his x-ray vision. I pointed out that prior to the accident, Clark did not demonstrate any joy in his powers. And, if you are using Clark being compassionate to explain why he is compassionate, then you still aren't answering the question of where that compassion began. Why does he care about his teacher on the ladder? Why does he choose not to spy on girls in the locker room? There is no information in the episode that answers these questions that you demand be answered in other Superman media. That is the hypocrisy I am calling out.



Oh my God. I'm talking about change in character rather than change in appearance. The change in appearance signals that Clark is older now and wears the symbol of his family. It does not tell me anything about his motivations!!! It is not my personal taste for Superman's origin to essentially establish his motivation to help people as ephemeral and subject to the whims of his own selfishness. Superman: The Movie isn't beloved because of Superman's simplistic yet mysterious motivations. It's beloved because it's a wish-fulfillment fantasy with classic rom-com elements. I cannot believe you are arguing the rooftop scene's appeal has nothing to do with the sexual tension and sexual subtext. The scene is dripping with that subtext.



I am not listing events. I am showing how MoS using a pattern of events with similar features to establish clear answers to the question of Clark's motivation. Each scene in the past is linked to a scene in the present both in theme and in imagery. The end result is simple: Clark is a freak who seeks belonging and meaning. Saving people gives him a chance to give back and make friends out of enemies.



No, it doesn't. This entire thread asks, "Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?" If your answer to that question led to a questioning of character motivations in MoS, then it begs the question of whether or not a Superman film can be good without closely interrogating Superman's altruistic motivations. Waid's essay concludes that good Superman stories have never sufficiently answered that question, so having a clear and relatable motivation for altruism clearly isn't all that important when it comes to making a good Superman movie. I am not comparing Birthright to Man of Steel. I am referring to Waid's essay in a philosophy book about superheroes to assist in my analysis of Man of Steel and other Superman media. In his essay, Waid concludes that Superman's motivation to do good is complex and paradoxical.



Following the bus incident, Clark explains that he wanted to help and wants to know if he should save people. His father doesn't have a clear answer at first, but concludes:



It's the same answer. It's also the heart of Clark's entire arc in the film. I can't explain why a story about a search for self-actualization leading to a leap of faith doesn't connect with you on an emotional level. All I can say is that it worked for me.

This is my expression.

I am not moved.

What I do next is not inspired by compassion.

You have invested a lot of time into responding to arguments I have not made, and not to ones I have. This, as you know, is called the strawman fallacy. I feel confident that anyone reading these posts can see that clearly, and no longer hope for anything different.

This entire debate, interestingly enough underlines why making a good Superman movie is so hard. Not only is the value and skill of previous incarnations misunderstood and mischaracterized, but people subscribe deeply to highly anachronistic interpretations. In the eyes of some, Superman is simplicity itself, and the exploration of that simplicity and its conflict with our complicated is considered simple wish fulfillment.

There's a lot of theory to be had in terms of filmmaking and themes and power levels, but the fact that Man of Steel has ardent followers who will vocally detract from all other incarnations, no matter how successful, as poorly made in comparison. It'd be like if The Force Awakens had been The Last Jedi. Making a good Star Wars movie would be crazy because however you define Star Wars, you're putting, at the very least, a vocal minority off.

 

[Flint Marko]

Mince words? Wouldn't dream of it. My answer to why Clark saves people has only been compassion with respect an introductory scene, early in the film (which I already told you in my previous post). That is not the only reason he saves people, nor has that been the only motivation I have discussed.

You're asking me to point out where Clark's compassion is shown in the film? Every time he saves someone, it is an inherently compassionate act, simply by the nature of saving people from disaster scenarios or danger. Compassion is concern for and the desire to alleviate the suffering, pain and misfortune of others.

That said, off the top of my head, there's a really good example of him being compassionate in the sequence with Lois. He saves her from danger, smiles to put her at ease, calms her down by saying "It's all right", calmly explains the situation she's in, and then uses his heat vision to save her life, letting her hold his hand for support.

Why didn't I mention other motivations for saving people? Well, for the most part its because the lion's share of the conversation has been about the bus sequence, where he displays compassion, and which really doesn't delve into the subsequent motivations he has in the film, because it's an introductory scene.

But also because every time I introduce more than one concept, I am accused of being "fuzzy", "missing the point", "missing the forest for the trees" or some other delightful deflection.

But also, I did.

On 6/3 in post #319, I posted the following regarding his motivations:

Clark wants to save people because he can, due to his fantastic powers, and because it's the right thing to do. He's wanted to do that from a young age.

On 6/4, post #334, I posted another statement about multiple motivations.

Superman does what he does because he wants to save people, wants to honor his legacy, and because he is selfless.

Superman is the result of Clark finding out who he is, and his purpose in life. It's a symbolic act. He wants to be "Superman" to give hope to others, and to honor the legacy of his parents and their wishes for him.

I don't know how to explain to you that visual filmmaking is legitimately showing something, and that showing something does not require exposition or a character to say how they are feeling or how they are being motivated. So I won't.

I already addressed the one note villain thing. Please reread my previous post to you, #382

I suppose you could argue that if the movie were written with more exposition that people would have less of an issue answering questions about the motivation of the character, but I don't believe that's an issue of the quality of the writing.

The bus was the focus of the conversation because it’s proof that Clark was always doing good well before he learned who he was. His parents legacy had nothing to do with it because at that point he knew nothing about his real parents, and he knew his adopted parents would get mad if he used his powers for good. But he did it anyway, for reasons that rely entirely on you projecting.

And that’s exactly my point: every other reason you’ve mentioned here (save for the parents which clearly isn’t valid) is still projecting. And by insisting that these motivations exist, specifically in the bus scene, and are valid reasons for a character to do something (your words, not mine), you’ve practically forfeited the right to complain about any character’s motivation in any movie from this point forward because, using your logic, someone can just say “visual story-telling” and that’s that. As long as you can reasonably conclude “oh he’s bad” or “oh he’s good”, that’s good enough.

I’m sure you’ll find a way to keep dancing around that, so have at it.

 

[The Guard]

The bus was the focus of the conversation because it’s proof that Clark was always doing good well before he learned who he was. His parents legacy had nothing to do with it because at that point he knew nothing about his real parents, and he knew his adopted parents would get mad if he used his powers for good. But he did it anyway, for reasons that rely entirely on you projecting.

And that’s exactly my point: every other reason you’ve mentioned here (save for the parents which clearly isn’t valid) is still projecting. And by insisting that these motivations exist and are valid reasons for a character to do something (your words, not mine), you’ve practically forfeited the right to complain about any character’s motivation in any movie from this point forward because, using your logic, someone can just say “visual story-telling” and that’s that. As long as you can reasonably conclude “oh he’s bad” or “oh he’s good”, that’s good enough.

...are you suggesting that I have indicated somewhere that Clark's motivations in the school bus scene have to do with his parent's legacy?

...what?

He did it for a very specific reason; so that his classmates wouldn't drown. I rely on the film that shows us him avoiding that outcome.


The idea that I cannot complain about another character's motivation in another piece of writing because of how I feel about a character in a different film is ridiculous.

It's not projecting. I've broken down the visual elements the film conveys. There are clear things the films shows happening. Those things are placed in a specific context.

No, you cannot always just say "visual storytelling", but you can say "visual storytelling conveys concept X" when visual storytelling conveys concept X.

I never said "As long as you can conclude someone is bad or good" that this is "good enough". I said that not wanting people to suffer and die is a valid reason to want to save them.

 

[The Guard]

D'oh.

 

[DrCosmic]

The sequence of Clark as a lone drifter using his powers to do good is immediately juxtaposed with the flashback of a lonely, alienated little boy who used his powers to save others, and was considered an outsider because of it.

The sequences are clearly connected both thematically and structurally, and parallel each other within the film.

misslane already pointed out that the scene impacts three characters motivations...but The Jor-El sequence absolutely informs Clark's motivations for becoming Superman, as well as Zod's ongoing motivation, and is chock full of Jor-El's, who factors into a good bit of the rest of the film, and in Clark's development into Superman. It's actually fairly efficient filmmaking.

You say it doesn't affect Superman's motivations, but that is incorrect. The sequence highlights, or "dramatizes" the failure of Krypton's ideals and the importance of Jor-El's last stand to save its legacy.

This plays into the later sequence when Jor-El implores Superman to stand for Krypton's better ideals, and to essentially redeem Krypton's legacy by standing for its best ideals.

The early scenes aren't just connected, they are essentially the same: loner saves people for unspoken reasons, showing us no growth has taken place in the between time, making the childhood scenes useless in drawing us further into his character. The film dramatizes his lack of character development as he continues being the same loner rescuer motif as he dons the Superman cape, and so we see finding his "purpose" with his people has no effect on his life, driving home the pointlessness of the initial 20 minutes by recapping it in an ACTUALLY efficient expo dump that would be far more interesting if we didn't know more about Krypton than the protagonist at that point.



Man this movie is poorly made. GoodNIGHT. All this builds to him revealing himself to humanity, to finish off what almost passes for an arc from his conversations with Johnathan, but then... he doesn't even do that, he reveals himself to the military, which the movie incorrectly presumes will have the same effect on the audience.