#1 Edited by CharlieJade (422 posts) - - Show Bio

Supes story is bright, he is heroic, it has romance, it has comedy, it is known to us readers and viewers through the DCAU Superman and Christopher D'Olier Reeve. It sometimes has spiritual or religious parts to it like Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster Moses like origin, baby in a space basket or the comic book Kingdom Come. I'm not religious but I remember a sing from above, a sign from the Gods or what you call it a few months back....the new man of steel Superman was supposed to be filming an infamous tornado scene, then a huge tragedy in Colorado happened, Zack wondered if he should keep his scene...after all pictures like "Gangster Squad" cut a movie theater shooting scene out of deference to last summer's tragedy in Aurora, and Spidey cut his twin towers scene after 911.

So what did Zack do? He kept his ridiculous scene in his movie anyways.....with great power comes the responsibility not to help others get wiped out from collateral damage....why didn't daddy Kent just say to Superman hey Clark just carry a VforVendetta mask in his back pocket and don’t get caught. Pa Kent mentally dented Superman for his whole life

and remember at the end of the movie Zod, Michael Shannon's character he's fighting Clark Kent....and he goes LOL, where did you learn to fight? ON A FARM

Did you fight when you were feeding your chickens and hens?? While picking grain and flowers in the fields?

I was about the burst out laughing but then suddenly thought

Clark should have responded : - you think you're badass !!

my daddy was a crazy, paranoid psycho and wanted me to kill a bus load of kids

It was at this moment I was no longer entertained by the Zod character and wanted the battle to be concluded quickly, Supes giving Zod the beatdown gladiator style

Jonathan Kent DID NOT WORK IN THIS MOVIE

#2 Posted by joshmightbe (24885 posts) - - Show Bio

God people are being cry babies about this damn movie

#3 Posted by Z3RO180 (6552 posts) - - Show Bio

@joshmightbe: I know it's not enough they get a great Superman movie but they need to bitch about everything

#4 Posted by joshmightbe (24885 posts) - - Show Bio

@z3ro180: I'll admit there are parts where it could have been better but its not like it was Green Lantern or Batman and Robin. MOS was a pretty good movie, and that's good enough for me.

#5 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3519 posts) - - Show Bio

@joshmightbe @z3ro180

He cared about his son. He was also extremely conflicted about his son. In response to "should I have let them die" he did not say "eff yeah!" He looked away (almost ashamedly,) paused, and said "MAYBE." He had no idea.

I thought it was extremely poignant to have him waiting for his son to grow up to make the choice to become a hero, and the son thinking that he's ready. How many fathers see their sons as younger than they are, and how many sons see themselves as older than they are and ready for responsibility?

#6 Posted by joshmightbe (24885 posts) - - Show Bio

@kal_smahboi: I completely understood where Jonathan was coming from, he was dealing with a situation that no one had ever had to deal with before as far as he knew and had no idea what Clark should've done. And I feel its odd that all these people claiming they paid attention to this movie enough to give a qualified critique seem to have missed large portions of the movie that undercut their criticism. Jonathan wasn't saying he should kill people just that he was uncertain if saving those kids was safe for his son, also Jonathan was right in not knowing if the world was ready to know about Clark since realistically humans would be f**king terrified if someone like Superman actually ever turned up.

#7 Posted by RDClip (1129 posts) - - Show Bio

I agree with you. I loved the movie, but they sure as hell screwed over Pa Kent. In the 1978 Superman the death of Pa taught Clark an important lesson: no matter how strong he is, no matter how many powers he has, Superman cannot do everything. He had to accept that bad things happen in the world and sometimes he can't fix them. In MoS, Pa Kent's death didn't really accomplish anything in the grand scheme of things other than to give Clark a darker backstory.

#8 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3519 posts) - - Show Bio

@rdclip said:

I agree with you. I loved the movie, but they sure as hell screwed over Pa Kent. In the 1978 Superman the death of Pa taught Clark an important lesson: no matter how strong he is, no matter how many powers he has, Superman cannot do everything. He had to accept that bad things happen in the world and sometimes he can't fix them. In MoS, Pa Kent's death didn't really accomplish anything in the grand scheme of things other than to give Clark a darker backstory.

Okay, THIS is true. But that's been done so so so many times. However, MoS' death of pa Kent isn't any more dark than Superman: TM's version. Clark was unable to save Jonathan, but in the new version, Jon believed that he was saving his son. I think it's actually prettier, not darker. They changed Jon Kent's history, but not his character, and his death was the necessary outcome to his honestly more realistic beliefs about his son.

#9 Posted by cattlebattle (12779 posts) - - Show Bio

I agree. They kind of botched the importance of the Kents. Jor-El seemed to give him more guidance in the film.

#10 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3519 posts) - - Show Bio

@cattlebattle said:

I agree. They kind of botched the importance of the Kents. Jor-El seemed to give him more guidance in the film.

Not really. Jor-El guided him in the short term and specifically, sure: telling him to push himself, explaining the Phantom Zone mechanism, etc, but the Kents are the people that raised him to be the kind of man that would surrender himself to humanity, that would put himself between Zod and the city, that would sacrifice himself for the people in his care.

In fact, that's exactly what Jon Kent's death accomplished. Sacrifice.

#11 Posted by joshmightbe (24885 posts) - - Show Bio

I do find it amusing seeing the amount of people claiming they know exactly how they would raise an alien god to be a good person.

#12 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

God people are being cry babies about this damn movie

Oh my God! This is starting to get annoying. It looks like the only version of Superman that exist is Donnerman...

#13 Edited by RDClip (1129 posts) - - Show Bio

@kal_smahboi: I see what your saying and I have to separate this Superman from the comics Superman. Comics Superman would never let someone die over something like this. If he could save a life he absolutly would do anything to save that life.

Still in the end, Pa Kent's death still feels useless and more damaging to Clark because Clark spent the next several years isolating himself from society and people. I got the impression that he was just a drifter without any friends or purpose still racked with emotional baggage because Pa Kent forced a untrusting worldview on him. Like I said before, this isn't the comics and it is fine that this Pa Kent is so different, I just don't see how his death taught Clark anything important.

#14 Edited by Kal'smahboi (3519 posts) - - Show Bio

@rdclip: He did the same thing in Superman: The Movie, iirc. When he applied at the Planet, he had a bunch of references from local newspapers all over the world. He went around doing small acts of heroism without ever showing his face and not staying in the same place for long, before finally landing in Metropolis. And I'm pretty sure that it was the same in many incarnations of the comics. The difference really is that he didn't start at a newspaper until much later in MoS.

Pa Kent gave his life for his son, and what he believed was best for the people in his care. I don't know how that couldn't teach Clark something. Maybe it might have taken him a bit to figure out the real lesson hidden under the grief and the guilt, but I think he figured it out and took the lesson to heart.

#15 Posted by RDClip (1129 posts) - - Show Bio

@kal_smahboi: In Superman: The Movie, it is implied that he spent twelve years in the fortress of solitude with Jor-El learning everything in the crystals. In Superman: Birthright he travels around the world writing articles and helping people. He wasn't Superman yet, but he already knew he wanted to help people and if he had to use his powers, so be it. He wasn't terrified to reveal his secret to people and he wasn't emotionally isolating himself.

In MoS it seems like he is just aimlessly wandering and helping people that are around him and are imperiled in an accident rather than consciencely travelling to troubled parts of the world like in Birthright.

Sure Pa Kent sacrifices himself, but it was a pretty useless sacrifice. Superman does believe in sacrifice, but I highly doubt he would advocate throwing one's life away for a something when one can live on. The moral that Pa Kent is trying to teach Clark is opposed to the dominate moral that Jor-El is advocating which Clark eventually follows. I just prefer Pa Kent to be as important if not more important than Jor-El in instilling selfless values upon Clark.

#16 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3519 posts) - - Show Bio

@rdclip said:

Sure Pa Kent sacrifices himself, but it was a pretty useless sacrifice. Superman does believe in sacrifice, but I highly doubt he would advocate throwing one's life away for a something when one can live on. The moral that Pa Kent is trying to teach Clark is opposed to the dominate moral that Jor-El is advocating which Clark eventually follows. I just prefer Pa Kent to be as important if not more important than Jor-El in instilling selfless values upon Clark.

There's no such thing as a useless sacrifice, because the worth is in the eyes of the proverbial lamb. He did exactly what he wanted to do, protect his son. If you asked the character if his sacrifice was worth it, he would say yes. And to suggest that the few hours (or other vague amount of time) Clark spent with Jor-El's hologram were more important than the ~18 years that he spent with Jon Kent is crazy.

To you're other point, that Superman would not sacrifice his life for what he believed? That's just wrong. He put himself between Zod and the people of Earth. What Zod said, that he was the superior warrior and would likely win, was true, and Superman knew it, but he fought anyway. Superman doesn't fight because he knows he can win. He fights because he's the only one who can, and because he has to win.

#17 Posted by RDClip (1129 posts) - - Show Bio

@rdclip said:

Sure Pa Kent sacrifices himself, but it was a pretty useless sacrifice. Superman does believe in sacrifice, but I highly doubt he would advocate throwing one's life away for a something when one can live on. The moral that Pa Kent is trying to teach Clark is opposed to the dominate moral that Jor-El is advocating which Clark eventually follows. I just prefer Pa Kent to be as important if not more important than Jor-El in instilling selfless values upon Clark.

There's no such thing as a useless sacrifice, because the worth is in the eyes of the proverbial lamb. He did exactly what he wanted to do, protect his son. If you asked the character if his sacrifice was worth it, he would say yes. And to suggest that the few hours (or other vague amount of time) Clark spent with Jor-El's hologram were more important than the ~18 years that he spent with Jon Kent is crazy.

To you're other point, that Superman would not sacrifice his life for what he believed? That's just wrong. He put himself between Zod and the people of Earth. What Zod said, that he was the superior warrior and would likely win, was true, and Superman knew it, but he fought anyway. Superman doesn't fight because he knows he can win. He fights because he's the only one who can, and because he has to win.

Superman would sacrifice his life if he had to. It is heroic to give up one's life when there isn't any other alternative, it is quite a different matter to give up one's life when there is another alternative. Like I said before, this is another interpretation of the character. But to me, no matter what interpretation of him, Superman ALWAYS chooses life.

I'm not suggest that Jor-El was more important to Clark than Pa Kent. What I am saying is that Clark eventually rejects the lesson Pa Kent was trying to teach him while choosing Jor-El's advice. Thus, in the movie, Jor-El is more important because he was the one pushing for Clark to become a hero while Pa wanted him to keep himself secret and live as a normal person.

#18 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3519 posts) - - Show Bio

@rdclip said:

Superman would sacrifice his life if he had to. It is heroic to give up one's life when there isn't any other alternative, it is quite a different matter to give up one's life when there is another alternative. Like I said before, this is another interpretation of the character. But to me, no matter what interpretation of him, Superman ALWAYS chooses life.

I'm not suggest that Jor-El was more important to Clark than Pa Kent. What I am saying is that Clark eventually rejects the lesson Pa Kent was trying to teach him while choosing Jor-El's advice. Thus, in the movie, Jor-El is more important because he was the one pushing for Clark to become a hero while Pa wanted him to keep himself secret and live as a normal person.

Jonathon believed he was saving his son's life. As a parent, there is no other choice. I'm not saying that Superman is going to choose to die before any other viable option, but he puts his life on the line in any Superman story worth reading. In fact, if there is no other option, it's not a sacrifice. You didn't choose to do it. The other option is to let Doomsday rampage through a city, or to let Brainiac abduct people and destroy the sun. But he doesn't do that. He puts himself between very real threats on his life and the people that he views as in his care.

And I'm sorry, but I still disagree with your point. Pa Kent didn't want Clark to hide himself forever. He always said that he wasn't ready and that the world wasn't ready. He said "someday you're going to have to make a choice." He just believed that that day had not yet come, whether or not that was true. Superman didn't choose Jor-El's lesson over Pa's. He carries them both with him.

And let's be fair. If there hadn't been a global threat that only Superman could handle, the world might not have accepted him, out of fear. That was the fear that Jon had, and he felt that it was a strong enough reason to die for.

#19 Posted by BiteMe-Fanboy (7853 posts) - - Show Bio

Meh. Scene sucked. But wasn't really anything to complain about.