#1 Edited by TheBhramaBull (306 posts) - - Show Bio

*MoS SPOILERS*

So, in MoS, Ma Kent sends her husband back into a freaking tornado to save her dog. This is something that I kept swinging back and forth on whether or not I thought it was just completely ridiculous or if I can understand her decision.

I have a dog, so yes I understand the need to go and save the family dog in a life and death situation as they are definitely seen as a genuine member of the family. That being said, for me personally, there would still be a limit. I mean if my house was on fire, I would make sure to grab the dog when escaping. But if I was outside the building, the whole building was completely ablaze, unstable and basically just on the point of collapse, I wouldn't risk my life or let someone in my family risk theirs to go back inside and save the dog as it would basically be a suicide mission for a pet. So I can't accept Martha allowing her husband to do this, it is insane, there is a very slim chance he is going to be able to save the dog and come back alive in that situation and it's not worth it for a pet, no matter how much you love them. On the other hand I do believe she asked Clark to get the dog , but still, once she realised her husband was going she should definitely have told him to come back and leave it as far as I'm concerned.

But what has really made me decide that this whole part of the plot is insane (and it's crucial remember since Pa Kent dies), is the fact that she loves her dog so much she's willing to let her husband walk back into a freaking tornado with little chance of surviving instead of telling her husband to come back and forget the dog. She loves her dog so much to let this happen. However, she doesn't love her dog enough to remember to take it with her when they get out of the car to run away in the first place. This is just nuts, it is absolutely mental as far as I'm concerned. Now some of you may say, it would be easy to forget in that shocking and panic inducing situation, but I won't buy that. I think most dog owners that love their dogs would back me up here, your dog is part of the family, you would make sure your family got out the car and that would definitely include the dog, I think 100% I would grab my dog in that situation. And not only that, please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't she sitting in the back with the dog?! She is literally sitting next to the dog!!! She just shuts the door on her dog as she scrambled out the car to save her own butt but then suddenly remembers how much she loves the dog and lets her husband go to his death because of it. What the hell, it's so stupid!!!!

Anyway please let me know your thoughts on this part of the film, it's such a poignant and important part of Clark's life, but for me Pa Kent's death happened for a completely idiotic reason and thinking about it has actually made me quite dislike Martha (film universe version) for being so ridiculous and stupid and also made me think Pa Kent is a moron for going to get the dog rather than telling his wife to stop being so dumb.

#2 Posted by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

Pa Kent's death was the biggest problem I had with the movie. It just seemed so staged. I love dogs, but come on its a tornado!

#3 Edited by Fallschirmjager (18750 posts) - - Show Bio

Going back for the dog was weak, yes.

But Pa Kent dying had nothing to do with the dog. It was about Pa Kent sacrificing himself for Clark. Pa Kent believed his son would change the world, but he could NOT show himself to the world until he was ready for it, because he was literally going to have the weight of the world on his shoulders. Pa Kent even says something very close to "You have to decide what kind of man you want to become Clark, but you're going to change the world"

Earlier in the scene, Clark is 17/18 and is arguing with his dad about trying out for the football team. Pa says no. Clark gets pissed and says "you're not even my real dad, you're just some dude who found me in a field". Does that sound like a guy who's ready to take on the world's problems? No.

That's why Pa Kent died. Because his son was not ready for the responsibility he would one day have to take. And Pa Kent was willing to die for that. That act has substantial amounts of meaning and if you can only see "a guy dying for his dog" then you suck at watching movies.

#4 Edited by TheBhramaBull (306 posts) - - Show Bio

@fallschirmjager: No I completely understood his sacrifice, but despite his sacrifice he did die for the dog. If you were a husband and a father in that situation the right thing to do is tell your wife no my son is not going back out there to save the flipping dog and neither am I, are you mental? So no I do not suck at watching movies, I get the weight that they are trying to attach to it, but the fact is he put himself in the situation where he decided to sacrifice himself for his son for a completely stupid reason. He had to sacrifice himself because he went back for the dog. He died for the dog. And that is all kinds of dumb.

#5 Edited by Fallschirmjager (18750 posts) - - Show Bio

@thebhramabull said:

@fallschirmjager: No I completely understood his sacrifice, but despite his sacrifice he did die for the dog. If you were a husband and a father in that situation the right thing to do is tell your wife no my son is not going back out there to save the flipping dog and neither am I, are you mental? So no I do not suck at watching movies, I get the weight that they are trying to attach to it, but the fact is he put himself in the situation where he decided to sacrifice himself for his son for a completely stupid reason. He had to sacrifice himself because he went back for the dog. He died for the dog. And that is all kinds of dumb.

So what? It wasn't the point of the scene. Substitute the dog for a person and there you go. The message is still the same and the message is whats important.

#6 Edited by Marionettegeist (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

@fallschirmjager: Well ideally, the scene should convey the message while also being logical. If the scene doesn't seem to make sense it can distract you from the message it was trying to show in the first place.

#7 Edited by War Killer (20374 posts) - - Show Bio

I get the guy loved his dog, but no animal is worth the life of a human.

I did feel that scene was a bit forced.

#8 Posted by RulerOfThisUniverse (6364 posts) - - Show Bio

It sort of seemed to me like it wasn't a life or death situation, but it became that when the other car toppled on him. Then his leg got stuck, and he was in real danger. At the time, it seemed like a reasonable choice.

#9 Posted by Wolverine08 (45036 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes.

Online
#10 Posted by TheBhramaBull (306 posts) - - Show Bio

@fallschirmjager: Look, I get what you're trying to say, I know the message was important. But that doesn't change the fact it had to be delivered for a dumb reason. The fact is that Clark's dad died, yes to protect his son, but the real reason he was in that deathly situation was because of the dog and it is just dumb and takes away from the message. As you said the point of the scene is his Dad's sacrifice, but it just takes away from that because of how completely stupid that situation is. You're right, if a person was trapped in a vehicle and he went back to save them, then that would have been absolutely fine. But it wasn't a person, it was Martha's pet. Clark says "I let my father die because I trusted him. Because he was convinced that I had to wait, that the world was not ready." Fantastic, lovely message. So, what can Martha say for herself from this scene. "I let my husband die, because I wanted him to go back into a tornado to save my dog. Not only is that stupid, but I was sitting next to my dog in the car in the first place and could have just let him out when I got out". That's how bad this plot device is. No matter how important the message, the device used to tell it is just awful.

#11 Edited by BumpyBoo (10444 posts) - - Show Bio

I would. Humans aren't automatically better or more important than animals. Besides, Arthur is family. He wouldn't leave me.

(Edited cos I had a total brainfart. Humans aren't better than people indeed XD)

Moderator
#12 Edited by TheBhramaBull (306 posts) - - Show Bio

@bumpyboo: Haha, fine, but do you not think it's stupid she forgot her dog in the first place, especially when it was sitting next to her. I can't accept that at all, I can accept someone might go back for the dog

#13 Posted by Fallschirmjager (18750 posts) - - Show Bio

@dctv3363 said:

@fallschirmjager: Well ideally, the scene should convey the message while also being logical. If the scene doesn't seem to make sense it can distract you from the message it was trying to show in the first place.

@fallschirmjager: Look, I get what you're trying to say, I know the message was important. But that doesn't change the fact it had to be delivered for a dumb reason. The fact is that Clark's dad died, yes to protect his son, but the real reason he was in that deathly situation was because of the dog and it is just dumb and takes away from the message. As you said the point of the scene is his Dad's sacrifice, but it just takes away from that because of how completely stupid that situation is. You're right, if a person was trapped in a vehicle and he went back to save them, then that would have been absolutely fine. But it wasn't a person, it was Martha's pet. Clark says "I let my father die because I trusted him. Because he was convinced that I had to wait, that the world was not ready." Fantastic, lovely message. So, what can Martha say for herself from this scene. "I let my husband die, because I wanted him to go back into a tornado to save my dog. Not only is that stupid, but I was sitting next to my dog in the car in the first place and could have just let him out when I got out". That's how bad this plot device is. No matter how important the message, the device used to tell it is just awful.

I all ready said in the beginning of my original post going back for a dog is weak.

But again. The message is whats important. And the message is very powerful.

But even so. I can bet you a lot of people would not have been ok if they let the dog die either.

#14 Posted by BumpyBoo (10444 posts) - - Show Bio

@thebhramabull: Absolutely agree, if you care enough to go back for it, you wouldn't forget it in the first place. Total lack of emotional continuity there :)

Moderator
#15 Edited by TheBhramaBull (306 posts) - - Show Bio

@fallschirmjager: OK but for me, because the reason the message that needs to be delivered is stupid in my opinion, it takes away from the importance of the message, because for me the message need not have been delivered in the first place.

Yeah true, the main thing I find crazy is not that she wants someone to go back but that she forgot it in the first place.

#16 Posted by TheIncredibleSuperHulk8642 (2065 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes.

#17 Posted by TheFirstLantern (1509 posts) - - Show Bio

My dog is the closest thing ever to me so yes i would. even if i die i will die knowing i saved him

#18 Posted by mikex20 (2771 posts) - - Show Bio

It was a bad scene. A better scene would of been Pa Kent sacrificing himself to save his wife, not the dog.

#19 Edited by Hazlenaut (1960 posts) - - Show Bio

Homer Simpson did it better when he was stopping his son from skateboarding over the Grand Canyon. He even he tried every option and there was nothing cryptic when he did it. Hommer even tried to do the stunt the best he could he even thought he could do it for a moment even thou he was sure he was going to die if he did it. Pa Kent just stood waiting to die that is what I got and that is mess up.

#20 Posted by ARMIV2 (8801 posts) - - Show Bio

Would I have saved my dog? Of course. I also would have freakin' left that area because no "super secret" is totally worth dying like that and leaving everyone who has loved you to have to deal with the single biggest stupid decision ever.

#21 Posted by Zardu (348 posts) - - Show Bio

I would save the dog if it would be safely.

#22 Posted by TDK_1997 (15076 posts) - - Show Bio

The scene felt a little bit forced but it was a powerful scene.I would've done the same thing for my dog.I love dogs and animals as a whole and if there is such a situation in which I know that there might be a chance for me to save the dog I will go back.