All Things Superman: An Open Discussion (Spoilers) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 95

[TheComicbookKid]

I disagree. Options are still choices, and just because Jor-El says something doesn't mean that Clark has to go through with it. That's Donner Jor-El -- the guy who tells his son it's either Superman or love, and if he wants to love then he best get rid of his powers. If he wants to be Superman, then he can't have a girlfriend. The guy who, when Superman walks into the Fortress, downloads him with his entire being including telling him to have a secret identity. Alternatively, in the DCEU, Jonathan and Jor-El give Kal suggestions and options, but it's Clark who makes the ultimate choice. Indeed, Jor-El's dream of Kal being a bridge is something Kal considers when Zod offers him that choice. When he talks to Martha, look at what she says and he says:

Nope. There's a difference between options/choices you make and those that are given to you. The entire point of superheroes is the villain tries to make the hero do something he doesn't want to. It's the hero who finds another way.

We never see Clark be assertive in his option/choices except to Zod who is trying to kill him.

When we meet Clark, the wisdom of his Earth parent's teachings about his humanity has lead him to isolate himself from everyone in the cold of Alaska after is father's death. Not looking for answers like in 78. Just to wander around aimless away from humanity. Did he ever finish college? What happened to all his college friends? He doesn't care. His reaction to tragedy is to isolate himself from us and his Earth mother.

Jor-el just comes in to the story and gives him direction. That's not choice.

Clark would like to be able to be a bridge and to share Earth with the Kryptonians, and so would Jor-El, but he has to make a choice. When Jor-El suggests being a bridge, he doesn't define exactly what that means or what that looks like. Clark is the one who ultimately decides what that will be, and he decides that Zod's method of terraforming the Earth is a step too far and that a true co-existence is impossible. He then has to attempt to banish Zod and the rest to the Phantom Zone, and when all but Zod remain, he takes Zod out. The choices before him weren't black and white, and he had the agency to make them as he saw fit.

He literally opens up a wall with the Superman suit in it during the speech!!!??? Are you kidding me.

There's a reason traditionally that Ma Kent makes the suit for him.

Huh? You just got done belittling Jor-El for not giving Clark options, but then you praise the Amazons for pushing the notion that protecting people should be done out of a sense of duty and based on deciding who is deserving according to them. How does that work? Also, the Kents never said don't trust people in general. Remember when Martha told this to Clark?

Yeah. That's textbook definition of a coming of age story. One generation teaches the next generation, and it's up to that generation to deal with how those ideals don't exactly wash with what is presented in front of them.

Mom and dad taught me to hate gay people. But now I'm met gay people and they're aren't what I expected. What do I do? Boom. Choice.

Jonathan spoke of the future as a time when Clark and the world would be ready; their advice was as parents to a child not to an adult. They just see the world as Diana comes to see it: as filled with people who are light and dark and who are capable of making choices that are in the light. Diana doesn't even trust humanity after killing Ludendorff fails. She rejects them and would've continued to do so had Ares not shown up and Steve not taught her a lesson she apparently didn't already know.

MOS holds every side of the argument that's the problem.

Clark (speaking as Johnathan):

"My father believed, that if the world found out who I was. They'd reject me."

 

[misslane38]

Nope. There's a difference between options/choices you make and those that are given to you. The entire point of superheroes is the villain tries to make the hero do something he doesn't want to. It's the hero who finds another way.

We never see Clark be assertive in his option/choices except to Zod who is trying to kill him.

Jor-el just comes in to the story and gives him direction. That's not choice.

Superman did not do exactly as Jor-El told him. He was a bridge in that his nature was Kryptonian and his nurture was human, and in that way he was, as Jor-El said, "the best of both worlds" just by virtue of his birth [blackout]as much as Diana was the godkiller by birth[/blackout]. However, as an agent to bring about co-existence between Kryptonians and humans, Kal-El and Jor-El would have hoped to have both live together; yet Zod had other plans. Jor-El, therefore, informed Lois how to banish the Kryptonians to the Phantom Zone and Kal followed through with that plan, including killing Zod, because he concluded that "Krypton had its chance." In other words, he did not insist on being a bridge between Earth and Krypton in any practical way -- he didn't allow Zod to get the codex to produce new Kryptonians -- and he refused to save Zod and the rest when they refused to compromise and choose co-existence as Kal and Jor originally hoped. Ultimately, then, he chose to send the Kryptonians back to the Phantom Zone, and he becomes or is a bridge because of how he was born and raised, and because he chooses to bring hope and inspiration to the people of Earth and make a better world than Krypton was. By your logic, Diana herself doesn't make a choice in WW. [BLACKOUT]Ares tells her spare Poison or join me. She spares Poison.[/BLACKOUT] Does that mean Diana isn't a true hero? No, it doesn't.

When we meet Clark, the wisdom of his Earth parent's teachings about his humanity has lead him to isolate himself from everyone in the cold of Alaska after is father's death. Not looking for answers like in 78. Just to wander around aimless away from humanity. Did he ever finish college? What happened to all his college friends? He doesn't care. His reaction to tragedy is to isolate himself from us and his Earth mother.

Are you kidding me? Clark is traveling the world, including Alaska because he is looking for answers!!! That's why he's working at the bar with Chrissie. That's where he overhears the information about the scout ship. It's Jonathan who tells Clark in the car before he dies that maybe he's not enough for Clark anymore. Jonathan is the one who encourages Clark to find out the reason why he was sent to Earth. These are all lines of dialogue from the film that I have quoted to you several times in the last few hours!!!

And I cannot believe how you have characterized the Donner film. Yes, Clark looks for answers in that film, but in order to hear them, the AI version of Jor-El makes Kal isolate himself in the Arctic Fortress of Solitude away from his "silver haired" mother back in Kansas. At least MoS Clark is interacting with people and saving people during his quest for answers. At least he's creating a path of grateful people to share his story with Lois who ultimately proves Jonathan was right: one day the world would be ready for Clark to stand proud in front of the human race.

He literally opens up a wall with the Superman suit in it during the speech!!!??? Are you kidding me.

There's a reason traditionally that Ma Kent makes the suit for him.

A suit doesn't make a hero. [BLACKOUT]Diana's costume wasn't made with her input. Her weapons and tiara are passed down to her without her input. For both heroes, their costumes are a part of their legacies.[/BLACKOUT] The same is true for Reeve's Superman who dons his own costume after exiting the Fortress of Solitude. It's the person inside the suit that defines what that suit means. For Clark, it was a symbol of hope. And, when Martha saw it, she was supportive and proud. She did not communicate disappointment or resentment because her son had chosen to reveal himself to the world as its champion and hero.

Yeah. That's textbook definition of a coming of age story. One generation teaches the next generation, and it's up to that generation to deal with how those ideals don't exactly wash with what is presented in front of them.

It looks like textbook double standards to me.

Mom and dad taught me to hate gay people. But now I'm met gay people and they're aren't what I expected. What do I do? Boom. Choice.

What???? First of all, once again, the Kents did not teach Clark to hate people or not to help people. They didn't teach him that he shouldn't use his gifts to help people. They taught him that being different and having powers comes with responsibilities. They taught him that he has to choose his actions carefully because his actions have the power to change the world. They taught him that he has to be ready to face the world and face the consequences of his choices. They believed one day he would see his blessings as a gift, one day he would stand proud in front of the human race, and one day the world would see that the truth about him was beautiful. And even if they had taught him the world was awful, people were awful, and that saving people was not worth his time, the actions Clark takes in MoS would still reveal him to be a man who chose time and time again to save people who needed saving, to help those who needed helping, and to give hope to those who were hopeless.

MOS holds every side of the argument that's the problem.

Clark (speaking as Johnathan):

"My father believed, that if the world found out who I was. They'd reject me."

Selective quoting is a great way to undermine your argument. Because Clark goes on to ask what Lois thinks. And it's her answer that opens up Clark to make a choice to stand proud in front of the human race. Do you not understand how the very quote you are citing disproves your thesis!? If Clark was raised to believe that he shouldn't help people because he would be rejected out of fear, then everything about Lois and what happens after that conversation undermines the idea that Clark is bound by fear and cynicism. Lois is there because Clark did show his face to a famous reporter who could reveal him to the world. The question Clark asks Lois shows that he is open to different perspectives. What comes next (Clark showing the world who he really is) is his choice.

Finally, one more time because it seems to bear repeating, Jonathan also said these things to his son:

All these changes that you're going through, one day...one day you're going to think of them as a blessing; and when that day comes, you're going to 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 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.

Jonathan wanted his son to discover a purpose and a reason for his blessings. He looked forward to the day his son could stand proud in front of the human race. When Jonathan's overprotectiveness had reached its inevitable endpoint, exactly at the moment Clark describes to Lois when he shares his father's fears about the world's rejection, Clark pushes back:

I'm tired of safe. I just want to do something useful with my life.

Jonathan admits:

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

Jonathan is not some rigid and arrogant man who impressed ironclad ideas of humanity and destiny onto his son. He admitted he didn't have all the answers. He admitted when he wasn't sure his best was no longer good enough. He listened to Clark and validated his feelings and ideas.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I have to get to work so i'll respond to the rest later.

Superman did not do exactly as Jor-El told him. He was a bridge in that his nature was Kryptonian and his nurture was human, and in that way he was, as Jor-El said, "the best of both worlds" just by virtue of his birth [blackout]as much as Diana was the godkiller by birth[/blackout]. However, as an agent to bring about co-existence between Kryptonians and humans, Kal-El and Jor-El would have hoped to have both live together; yet Zod had other plans. Jor-El, therefore, informed Lois how to banish the Kryptonians to the Phantom Zone and Kal followed through with that plan, including killing Zod, because he concluded that "Krypton had its chance." In other words, he did not insist on being a bridge between Earth and Krypton in any practical way -- he didn't allow Zod to get the codex to produce new Kryptonians -- and he refused to save Zod and the rest when they refused to compromise and choose co-existence as Kal and Jor originally hoped. Ultimately, then, he chose to send the Kryptonians back to the Phantom Zone, and he becomes or is a bridge because of how he was born and raised, and because he chooses to bring hope and inspiration to the people of Earth and make a better world than Krypton was. By your logic, Diana herself doesn't make a choice in WW. [BLACKOUT]Ares tells her spare Poison or join me. She spares Poison.[/BLACKOUT] Does that mean Diana isn't a true hero? No, it doesn't.

None that means anything to Clark. He literally learns of all of this right before Zod confronts him about it and they fight.

He doesn't even get a chance to question or do anything about the information that isn't informed by his interactions with Zod.

Look at Begins. When Bruce makes his no "kill rule" It's of his own accord. It has nothing to do with the choice presented before him about killing the thief. He's based that decision on his travels. He takes that forward in his return to Gotham and doesn't waver.

The entire movie revolves around it. The Codex and Jor-els message only have time to breathe for a minute before Zod attacks and forces him to do something.

re you kidding me? Clark is traveling the world, including Alaska because he is looking for answers!!! That's why he's working at the bar with Chrissie. That's

Bull!

WRITING 101. SHOW DON'T TELL.

Where are Clark's travels? Just look at what Nolan was able to do with a brief montage in Begins where Bruce learns what stealing and survival actual means. That's world traveling to find answers. That's character growth. Bruce grows in understanding from what he was. His travels matter to his growth to be Batman.

Nothing about Clark's travels impart anything upon him about his humanity or what Johnathan taught him?

Did I miss something?

Selective quoting is a great way to undermine your argument. Because Clark goes on to ask what Lois thinks. And it's her answer that opens up Clark to make a choice to stand proud in front of the human race. Do you not understand how the very quote you are citing disproves your thesis!? If Clark was raised to believe that he shouldn't help people because he would be rejected out of fear, then everything about Lois and what happens after that conversation undermines the idea that Clark is bound by fear and cynicism. Lois is there because Clark did show his face to a famous reporter who could reveal him to the world. The question Clark asks Lois shows that he is open to different perspectives. What comes next (Clark showing the world who he really is) is his choice.

Finally, one more time because it seems to bear repeating, Jonathan also said these things to his son:

All these changes that you're going through, one day...one day you're going to think of them as a blessing; and when that day comes, you're going to 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 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.

And when Clark had the chance to stand up. He told him no, and died. When Clark had the chance to hit back as a kid, he didn't. When it came time for Clark to stand up to Zod, it took his other father, Jor-el telling him what to do before he got off his butt. He was still confused and went to speak to some random priest who we've never met before.


Selective quoting is what you're doing? I'm not disagreeing with anything you quoted. The problem is that there are other quotes that flat out contradict the words and actions in another part of the movie.

Funneling the entire part of Clark's interaction with humanity with one conversation is exactly the problem. The movie says the "world will reject you" and yet all we get is Clark's paranoia and one person saying no as Lois and the military who are fighters.

There's no man on the street view of an alien until BvS?

You have to understand this. It's simple storytelling. 101. Show don't tell. That's what WW got right. WW got multiple points of views about the outside world. Not just Steve's.

Jonathan wanted his son to discover a purpose and a reason for his blessings. He looked forward to the day his son could stand proud in front of the human race. When Jonathan's overprotectiveness had reached its inevitable endpoint, exactly at the moment Clark describes to Lois when he shares his father's fears about the world's rejection, Clark pushes back:

I'm tired of safe. I just want to do something useful with my life.

Jonathan admits:

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

Jonathan is not some rigid and arrogant man who impressed ironclad ideas of humanity and destiny onto his son. He admitted he didn't have all the answers. He admitted when he wasn't sure his best was no longer good enough. He listened to Clark and validated his feelings and ideas.

Clark's already in college at that point.

The vignettes don't add up. The conversations don't flow to make that argument. That's a conversation a younger Clark would have.

Words and actions don't match he wants his son to discover but also takes offense to him not thinking about taking over the farm? What the heck was he sending him to Kansas U for anyways? Majoring in farming? That conversation makes no sense at that point. Clark hasn't decided what he's studying? The Kent's don't know he has a passion for anything.

It's small stuff like that that undermines the entire movie.

 

[misslane38]

None that means anything to Clark. He literally learns of all of this right before Zod confronts him about it and they fight.

He doesn't even get a chance to question or do anything about the information that isn't informed by his interactions with Zod.

I'm sorry. That's not how choices work. That's not how decisions work. One's decisions don't lose their importance or meaning just because one doesn't get a lot of time to mull it over. If that were true, then that would mean Diana's decision to spare Poison would be meaningless. It would mean that her belief in humanity and in love would be meaningless. And, frankly, your recall of the amount of time and point of view we have from Superman on this matter is suspect. I already cited specific lines that disprove your assertion that Clark didn't have time to question or do anything about the information. Remember this conversation he had with his mother after the fight in Smallville?

Clark: Mom, Zod said this Codex he's looking for can bring my people back.
Martha: Isn't that a good thing?
Clark: I don't think they're interested in sharing this world.

This was after Superman already had a conversation with Zod about sharing Earth with Kryptonians while he was unconscious on Zod's ship:

Zod: You led us here, Kal. Now it's within your power to save what remains of your race. On Krypton the genetic template for every being yet to be born is encoded in the registry of citizens. Your father stole the registry's Codex and stored it in the capsule that brought you here.
Clark: For what purpose?
Zod: So that Krypton can live again on Earth. Where is the Codex, Kal?
Clark: If Krypton lives again, what happens to Earth?
Zod: The foundation has to be built on something. Even your father recognized that.
Clark: No, Zod. I can't be a part of this.
Zod: Then what can you be a part of?

This conversation occurred prior to Jor-El's comments about being a "bridge between two peoples," so Clark was already considering these ideas and leaning in a particular direction before Jor-El's comments were even made. I guess I'm just not seeing any evidence that Clark's decision-making process was somehow impaired, at least not in any way that would make his choices any different than the choices made by other heroes, including heroes you admire like Wonder Woman.

Look at Begins. When Bruce makes his no "kill rule" It's of his own accord. It has nothing to do with the choice presented before him about killing the thief. He's based that decision on his travels. He takes that forward in his return to Gotham and doesn't waver.

The entire movie revolves around it. The Codex and Jor-els message only have time to breathe for a minute before Zod attacks and forces him to do something.

That's funny. Batman Begins does make a big deal about Batman's so-called no-kill rule, but after sparing Ducard (R'as), Batman does eventually kill R'as Al Ghul. It's quite hypocritical, if you ask me, and really undermines the message. The "I don't have to save you" rationale is a cop out.

Entire films don't have to revolve around each and every choice a hero makes in order for those choices to be made freely or be defined as a genuine choice.

Bull!

WRITING 101. SHOW DON'T TELL.

Where are Clark's travels? Just look at what Nolan was able to do with a brief montage in Begins where Bruce learns what stealing and survival actual means. That's world traveling to find answers. That's character growth. Bruce grows in understanding from what he was. His travels matter to his growth to be Batman.

How do you find someone who has spent a lifetime covering his tracks? You start with the urban legends that have sprung up in his wake. All of the friends of a friend who claimed to have seen him. For some, he was a guardian angel. For others, a cipher; a ghost who never quite fit in. As you work your way back in time, the stories begin to form a pattern.​

You approve of Donner's Superman, I assume. Patty Jenkins who directed Wonder Woman certainly did. If you compare DCEU Clark to Donner's Clark, not only is what his parents teach him similar, but Donner's Clark actually does the opposite of what DCEU Clark did and what you're saying Nolan did correctly. This is what happens in Donner's Superman to high school senior Clark:

Jonathan: When you came to us, we thought people would take you away when they found out the things that you do. It worried us a lot. Then when a man gets older and he thinks very differently. And things get very clear. And there's one thing I do know, Son, and that is you are here for a reason. I don't know whose reason, or whatever the reason is maybe it's because....I don't know. But I do know one thing. It's not to score touchdowns.

- Jonathan has a heart attack and dies. -

Martha: Are you going to sleep all day? Clark, come on. Get up.
Clark: I have to leave.
Martha: I knew this time would come. We both knew it from the day we found you.
Clark: I talked to Ben Hubbard yesterday. He said that he'd be happy to help out from now on. Mother!
Martha: I know, Son. I know. Do you know where you're headed?
Clark: North.
Martha: Remember us, Son. Always remember us.

At the Fortress, Jor-El tells his son the following, which should sound familiar. It echoes both DCEU Jor-El's message and the way in which Clark's travels in the DCEU parallel the advice that Donner Jor-El gave his Kal-El:

Jor-El: For this reason, among others I have chosen Earth for you. It is now time for you to rejoin your new world and to serve its collective humanity. Live as one of them, Kal-El and discover where your strength and your power are needed. But always hold in your heart the pride of your special heritage. They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason, above all, their capacity for good I have sent them you my only son.

Notice the part I put in italics. What Jor-El advises Kal-El to do is exactly what DCEU Clark is actually shown doing: he lived as one of humanity in various capacities. Even better, unlike Donner Clark he arrived at his answers because he went searching for them like a detective whereas Donner Clark just followed the glow and call of the green crystal from his ship that pointed him North to where the Fortress was ultimately formed for his many years of lessons with Jor-El.

Nothing about Clark's travels impart anything upon him about his humanity or what Johnathan taught him?

Did I miss something?

Clark's travels impart upon him the chance to be a hero and to help people. Jonathan believed that Clark owed himself to find out the reason for his blessings and the reasons why he was sent to Earth. Clark's travels allow him what Donner's Jor-El more or less wished for his Kal-El: the space to test his readiness for revealing himself to people. It allows him to get a fuller picture of the "human race" he may stand in front of someday. What happens with Lois is a perfect example of this dynamic. Clark's travels also give him a chance to get close to people and places that might have information, like the two soldiers in the bar who were talking about the camp in Ellesmere.

The placement of the scene in bar is telling as well. How? This is the dialogue that precedes it:

Jonathan: And even if it takes you the rest of your life, you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is.

Soldier: Wait a second. Aren't you here fer the exercise?
Soldier: No, there was a change in the plans. Somebody found something strange on Ellesmere.

Snyder cut the film so that the second the audience hears Jonathan say that Clark owes it to himself to find out the reason why he was sent to Earth, we see Clark overhearing a clue. I don't think it could have been more clear.

And when Clark had the chance to stand up. He told him no, and died. When Clark had the chance to hit back as a kid, he didn't. When it came time for Clark to stand up to Zod, it took his other father, Jor-el telling him what to do before he got off his butt. He was still confused and went to speak to some random priest who we've never met before.

Jonathan told him "no" because he was the one who needed saving. Jonathan told him "no" because the timing wasn't right. Just like it wouldn't have been right to hit back as a kid. You're not seriously suggesting Clark should have hit Whitney Fordman, are you?

As for the rest of your statement, your timeline of events is a bit off. Clark turned himself into Zod and the U.S. military before speaking to Jor-El about being a bridge between Earth and Krypton. That conversation with Jor-El occurred after Superman had already defied Zod.

Clark did speak to a priest before he turned himself in, and I thought it was a beautiful touch. Not only because Clark was, once again, sharing the truth of himself with someone new, but also because it showed just how much of a choice it was for him to stand in front of the human race. And Clark did make that choice to take a "leap of faith" and let the "trust part come later."

Selective quoting is what you're doing? I'm not disagreeing with anything you quoted. The problem is that there are other quotes that flat out contradict the words and actions in another part of the movie.

Funneling the entire part of Clark's interaction with humanity with one conversation is exactly the problem. The movie says the "world will reject you" and yet all we get is Clark's paranoia and one person saying no as Lois and the military who are fighters.

I'm not selective quoting. I'm taking into consideration the entire context of what Clark learned from his father whereas you are reducing the sum total of what Jonathan believed to ONE statement. You must understand how that doesn't work, right? Your evidence only works as evidence if you ignore everything else that establishes Clark's relationship with his father and the advice his father shared with him. Your quote also completely ignores the context of the scene in which it takes place.

When Jonathan told his son that the world wasn't ready, it was because the world wasn't ready when Jonathan was alive. When Jonathan believed the world would reject his son, it was when Jonathan was still alive. Jonathan sacrificed his life to protect his teenaged son from revealing the truth about himself to the world before his son and the world were ready. But Jonathan was consistently characterized as a man who did believe his son would someday see his powers as blessings and would stand proud in front of the human race. Jonathan, as Martha says, "always believed you were meant for greater things. And that when the day came your shoulders would be able to bear the weight."

Clark's words and actions throughout the entire film present him as a child, teenager, and adult who listened to his father but did not always agree with him. Jonathan was consistently portrayed as a man who believed his son would make a choice to use his blessings and stand proud in front of the human race. He also was portrayed as a father who never let his son believe he had all the answers. When Clark asked if he should save people, he told him "Maybe," and when Clark wanted to do something useful with his life besides farming, Jonathan admitted that his best may not be good enough for Clark anymore. Jonathan Kent was a complex man whose character and relationship with his son cannot be boiled down to one out of context comment.

There's no man on the street view of an alien until BvS?

I don't know what you mean by this.

You have to understand this. It's simple storytelling. 101. Show don't tell. That's what WW got right. WW got multiple points of views about the outside world. Not just Steve's.

Multiple points of view? Not only does Clark have humanity's perspective on an alien from his own parents and Pete Ross's mom, he later gets Lois Lane's reaction as well as the priest's, Father Leone's, point of view when he visits him in the church before finally taking his "leap of faith" to reveal himself to the world. Like Diana, it is Clark's love interest who ultimately gives him the biggest boost. For Diana, it's to believe in love or the good in humanity. For Clark, it's to believe that humanity is ready in part because Lois took a chance on him first: she was willing to kill her story and risk treason charges to show that she respected his choice to wait until the world was ready, and then to do the right thing and turn himself in to save Earth. All of this is covered in the church scene:

Clark: I'm the one they're looking for.
Priest: Do you know why they want you?
Clark: No. But this General Zod, even if I surrender, there's no guarantee he'll keep his word, but if there's a chance I can save Earth by turning myself in, shouldn't I take it?
Priest: What does your gut tell you?
Clark: Zod can't be trusted. The problem is I'm not sure the people of Earth can be either.
Priest: Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith first. The trust part comes later.

Notice how Clark doesn't just assume that Zod or humanity can be trusted, and his choice about coming forward is presented as a leap of faith where Clark has to make a decision from his heart (or his gut, in this case). Just like the scene in BvS when Martha tells Clark he doesn't owe the world a thing, Clark decides how he is going to proceed. He chooses to turn himself into humanity who would then turn him over to Zod. He did this to show the humans that he wasn't just hiding and that he wasn't an enemy like Zod.

Clark's already in college at that point.

The vignettes don't add up. The conversations don't flow to make that argument. That's a conversation a younger Clark would have.

Words and actions don't match he wants his son to discover but also takes offense to him not thinking about taking over the farm? What the heck was he sending him to Kansas U for anyways? Majoring in farming? That conversation makes no sense at that point. Clark hasn't decided what he's studying? The Kent's don't know he has a passion for anything.

It's small stuff like that that undermines the entire movie.

Clark was 17 years-old when he had that conversation in the car with his father. He was 17 years-old when his father died. How do I know? Here's a look at Jonathan's headstone at the Smallville cemetery. Jonathan died in 1997. Clark became Superman when he was 33 years-old. He told Dr. Hamilton: "Been here for 33 years, doctor." The film came out in 2013. So that means 2013-33=1980. Clark was 17 years-old when his father died. Jonathan initially wants to hold onto his son as a child, which is why he suggests the safer farming option. However, Clark's response about Jonathan not really being his "dad" gets Jonathan to reconsider. He says that "Clark has a point" and then goes on to say that maybe he and Martha have reached their limit in terms of being able to satisfy Clark's need for identity and purpose.

Clark: I just want to do something useful with my life.
Jonathan: So farming, feeding people. That's not useful?
Clark: I didn't say that.
Jonathan: Our family's been farming for five generations.
Clark: Your family, not mine. I don't even know why I'm listening to you. You're not my dad. You're just some guy who found me in a field.
Martha: Clark.
Jonathan: It's all right, Martha. He's right. Clark has a point. We're not your parents. But we've been doing the best we can. And we've been making this up as we go along, so maybe...Maybe our best isn't good enough anymore.

The implication is that he feels Clark is ready to start learning more from other sources so he can better understand the reason he is on this planet (kind of like a lot of parents feel when they send their kids off to college). Jonathan chooses to die to give Clark the chance to make that discovery so that he and the world can, hopefully, benefit one day.

In short, I think a lot of your confusion and frustration is less the result of the movie not showing things or telling a coherent story, and more the result of you missing many key details and contradicting yourself on multiple occasions given the double standards you apply by praising one thing in Nolan's Batman trilogy, Jenkins' Wonder Woman solo, or Donner's Superman solo that you will go on to criticize in Snyder's Superman even when it's handled similarly. There are also double standards on display when you argue that Clark should make choices of his own free will without input or guidance from his parents, but he should have totally been instilled with all of his heroic virtues by the Kents that he should have then simply acted on as an adult. You praise Diana for getting insight and inspiration from Steve, but dismiss Clark getting the same from people like his parents, Lois, and Father Leone. You bash Snyder's Clark leaving Martha to seek his future and receiving a suit instead of having it sewn for him, when Donner's Clark also left Martha and got his suit from the Fortress.

It's difficult for me to continue such a discussion with you when you are so inconsistent both in your knowledge of these narratives and in your positions. Therefore, I suggest we agree to disagree.

 

[harryoscop]

^^

 

[Kane52630]

 

[Flint Marko]

Doesn't one show concern for civilians by trying to stop the thing that is the source of the damage? Especially if one has to tackle such a major threat all by oneself?

You show concern for civilians by making an actual effort to contain/move the fight as much as you can while minimizing damage/casualties. Superman, and more importantly the film-makers who are totally in control of how it all plays out, did not do that.

This seems like a fairly obvious point since it's been done in most superhero films to date. You can explain why this didn't bother you, but it's a completely valid criticism.

 

[misslane38]

You show concern for civilians by making an actual effort to contain/move the fight as much as you can while minimizing damage/casualties. Superman, and more importantly the film-makers who are totally in control of how it all plays out, did not do that.

This seems like a fairly obvious point since it's been done in most superhero films to date. You can explain why this didn't bother you, but it's a completely valid criticism.

I agree that filmmakers can control how it plays out, but just because they choose to show that sometimes doing the best you can isn't enough doesn't mean it's bad or that Superman didn't care about those civilians' lives. Showing that sometimes doing the best one can isn't good enough is, to me, a compelling choice. It's clearly a theme in Snyder's work as well, given the message of Jonathan Kent's Lang farm flood memory and Lex Luthor's thesis about the holes in the holy.

Moreover, as I see it, Superman shows concern by trying to stop the world engine on the other side of the world, which saved Jenny and undoubtedly countless others even though it could have weakened him completely and even killed him. Superman shows further concern by focusing on fighting Zod and even killing Zod when just one family was threatened. Taken altogether with other instances in the film, it's very difficult for me to come away feeling like this Superman is one who doesn't care about people and doesn't want to save them.

So it's not as if I didn't feel upset as I watched Superman unable to contain some of the damage. I did. The difference is I don't assume that just because he didn't, that he didn't care. I also thought that ultimately it was a compelling idea to illustrate the honest imperfections that would likely happen if such a scenario were to actually happen. I appreciate that you feel differently, however, and that's okay. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Flint Marko]

I agree that filmmakers can control how it plays out, but just because they choose to show that sometimes doing the best you can isn't enough doesn't mean it's bad or that Superman didn't care about those civilians' lives. Showing that sometimes doing the best one can isn't good enough is, to me, a compelling choice. It's clearly a theme in Snyder's work as well, given the message of Jonathan Kent's Lang farm flood memory and Lex Luthor's thesis about the holes in the holy.

Moreover, as I see it, Superman shows concern by trying to stop the world engine on the other side of the world, which saved Jenny and undoubtedly countless others even though it could have weakened him completely and even killed him. Superman shows further concern by focusing on fighting Zod and even killing Zod when just one family was threatened. Taken altogether with other instances in the film, it's very difficult for me to come away feeling like this Superman is one who doesn't care about people and doesn't want to save them.

So it's not as if I didn't feel upset as I watched Superman unable to contain some of the damage. I did. The difference is I don't assume that just because he didn't, that he didn't care. I also thought that ultimately it was a compelling idea to illustrate the honest imperfections that would likely happen if such a scenario were to actually happen. I appreciate that you feel differently, however, and that's okay. We can agree to disagree.

We're treading a well-worn argument but for the record I'm not going to pretend that the film-makers were trying to make Superman come across as careless. Him trying to stop Zod and the world engine are clear acts of heroism that ultimately saved the planet. That much is obvious and I've never tried to debate that. However, that's the problem.... the film-makers weren't trying to make him come across as careless, but they did.

How do you reconcile the fact that the film-makers deliberately showed Superman taking the fight to populated areas on at least two occasions? He punched Zod from the outskirts of town straight through multiple grain silos and trains and into the heart of downtown Smallville, the most heavily populated area for miles. During the Metropolis fight Zod takes him to space, but Superman punches Zod right back to Metropolis. This on top of the fact that we never see Superman make any sort of effort to minimize destruction or take the fight elsewhere once he and Zod start laying waste in Metropolis.

That's why I don't buy that any of this was deliberate or intentional. Snyder and co. just wanted to lean into the destruction porn. I don't even remotely see a character "doing his best", I see a film-maker who prefers spectacle over story and character. The fact that the film immediately cuts away to an unspecified amount of time later and pretends that none of that ever happened only supports that point of view.

 

[LaughterLives]

It sounds like you've never been angry before.