Follow

    Superman

    Character » Superman appears in 18886 issues.

    Sent to Earth as an infant from the dying planet Krypton, Kal-El was adopted by the loving Kent family and raised in America's heartland as Clark Kent. Using his immense solar-fueled powers, he became Superman to defend mankind against all manner of threats while championing truth, justice, and the American way!

    Would you have gone back to save your dog?

    Avatar image for thebhramabull
    TheBhramaBull

    457

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #1  Edited By TheBhramaBull

    *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.

    Avatar image for marionettegeist
    Marionettegeist

    1936

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    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!

    Avatar image for fallschirmjager
    Fallschirmjager

    23432

    Forum Posts

    1162

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 32

    User Lists: 16

    #3  Edited By Fallschirmjager

    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.

    Avatar image for thebhramabull
    TheBhramaBull

    457

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #4  Edited By TheBhramaBull

    @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.

    Avatar image for fallschirmjager
    Fallschirmjager

    23432

    Forum Posts

    1162

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 32

    User Lists: 16

    #5  Edited By Fallschirmjager

    @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.

    Avatar image for marionettegeist
    Marionettegeist

    1936

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #6  Edited By Marionettegeist

    @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.

    Avatar image for theblueangel93
    TheBlueAngel93

    21064

    Forum Posts

    16240

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: -1

    #7  Edited By TheBlueAngel93

    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.

    Avatar image for rulerofthisuniverse
    RulerOfThisUniverse

    6518

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 11

    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.

    Avatar image for wolverine008
    Wolverine008

    51027

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 3

    Yes.

    Avatar image for thebhramabull
    TheBhramaBull

    457

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @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.

    Avatar image for bumpyboo
    BumpyBoo

    14977

    Forum Posts

    270338

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 10

    User Lists: 20

    #11  Edited By BumpyBoo  Moderator

    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)

    Avatar image for thebhramabull
    TheBhramaBull

    457

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #12  Edited By TheBhramaBull

    @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

    Avatar image for fallschirmjager
    Fallschirmjager

    23432

    Forum Posts

    1162

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 32

    User Lists: 16

    @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.

    Avatar image for bumpyboo
    BumpyBoo

    14977

    Forum Posts

    270338

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 10

    User Lists: 20

    #14 BumpyBoo  Moderator

    @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 :)

    Avatar image for thebhramabull
    TheBhramaBull

    457

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #15  Edited By TheBhramaBull

    @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.

    Avatar image for theincrediblesuperhulk8642
    TheIncredibleSuperHulk8642

    5433

    Forum Posts

    50

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    Avatar image for thefirstlantern
    TheFirstLantern

    1548

    Forum Posts

    2

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

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

    Avatar image for mikex20
    mikex20

    3146

    Forum Posts

    220694

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 10

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

    Avatar image for hazlenaut
    Hazlenaut

    2096

    Forum Posts

    19139

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 14

    User Lists: 11

    #19  Edited By Hazlenaut

    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.

    Avatar image for armiv2
    ARMIV2

    10074

    Forum Posts

    15

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    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.

    Avatar image for deactivated-5ad9d72d64170
    deactivated-5ad9d72d64170

    367

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 0

    I would save the dog if it would be safely.

    Avatar image for tdk_1997
    TDK_1997

    20456

    Forum Posts

    60103

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 153

    User Lists: 13

    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.

    This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

    Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

    Comment and Save

    Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.