Do you like the DC Cinematic Universe Johnathan Kent, Sup Forums?

Do you like the DC Cinematic Universe Johnathan Kent, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xQ5C4sGh-SU
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Wasn't really blown away by him

Yeah, I think he was the first Pa Kent, in a long time, that wasn't two dimensional and actually portrayed the struggle that would go into raising an alien with super powers. He wasn't perfect, but he was undoubtedly human. He had to consider what was right and what would protect his son, to the point where he was willing to lay down his life to keep the world and him safe.


Best Pa Kent since Smallville.


Also not enough people talk about the Secret Identity influence on MoS and BvS.

>Best Pa Kent since Smallville.
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were a sane person just giving your offbeat opinion and then you had to speak positively of Smallville

I really do, but unfortunately, Man of Steel's confusion in the message it's trying to deliver with his character is contradictory and goes against what Clark eventually does. Also, the death of his character was rather forced, in my opinion. I understand what they were trying to do, protecting Clark's true nature from the world and all, but the way they had him go down was more comedic than it did seem impactful.

But yeah, I did like Kevin Costner as Pa Kent a lot, and I was glad to see his "ghost" in Batman v. Superman in spite of how odd it was for the writers to insert him in like that.

He did great, he seemed like a nice man who cared about his family...

I mean, the part where Clark learns he's not of this world was emotional. Costner did great with the whole "you are my son" bit with little Clark.

Oh, but he wasn't good enough to save the movie though. He just did a damn good job in it.

Smallville had about 3 seasons worth of great/good content spread out across 10 season. But come on, their Pa Kent was excellent


youtube.com/watch?v=xQ5C4sGh-SU

maybe

> but unfortunately, Man of Steel's confusion in the message it's trying to deliver with his character is contradictory and goes against what Clark eventually does.

In what way? Pa Kent's whole thing was that he didn't want Clark to reveal himself before he, and the world, were ready. Turning yourself over willingly during an alien invasion is probably the best first impression you can make.

As someone who genuinely enjoyed MoS and BvS, i do not like this version of Pa Kent

>still this triggered by the maybe

fuck off, he knew Superman revealing himself would change the balance of the world, and it did and does in every iteration of Superman.

why?

I do, his dead wwas retarded

Look son, to this day I am haunted by the screams of drowning horses. No matter what you choose, people will die and you will be tormented by it forever. So maybe it doesn't matter and you should just do what you want to do.

If it's going to change anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to be a little more proactive and prepare for it (like in most versions of the Kents) than shuffling your feet and keeping your eyes on the ground like you're trying to avoid the inevitable?

How do you prepare for it?

He did prepare for it, him and ma kent were teaching him how to use his powers and not lose control. He doesnt keep his eyes down at all, but he does have an idea of the consequences should they act too soon.

>this is what idiots got out of his speech

I'm sorry that most media is just too hard for you to understand and appreciate. Maybe in the next life.

Smallville had a lot of good writing for that kind of show and a lot of nods to the source material, you can tell that they put a lot of effort into it.

The best part is that girls loved the show too, so its like a a bridge between geeky shit and girls

>like in most versions of the Kents

what? the only proactive thing was making his suit.


Pa Kent wanted his son to be a good pesorn and to grow up knowing he will change the world and that isnt as pretty as it sounds

...

are you literally stupid?

The speech was about how not doing the right thing when you could will haunt you forever.

>I didnt understand the movie.jpg

The tornado sequence could have worked if they quickened the pace.
Had Pa say outloud "no protect you mother" to Clark to explain why he couldn't go after the dog instead.
Have Pa get to his feet out of the car & Clark get to the overpass simultaneously so it doesn't seem like Clark is just standing around doing jack shit forever.
Have Pa wave him off and Clark hesitate only for a second and Pa is immediately swept away.
As it is, it meanders way way too fucking long, it comes off like Clark could have just ran over at a normal human level and got him.
And I say that as someone who loves the film, it was unquestionably the most incompetently handled scene in the film.

in MoS they helped him control his strength and super vision

Clark didnt know he had super speed at that time, and you really must not know what its like to try and run in a tornado.


AND Clark was supposed to protect the people in the overpass (lots of debris during a tornado too), and him following his father's wishes was meant to be him "apologizing" for calling him not his real dad not a moment earlier

Costner's perfect, it's just that his logic about protecting Clark is poorly justified at the script level -- the film doesn't sufficiently dramatize what he thinks he's protecting Clark from -- and then his death is fucked up just as much at the directorial level.
The actual blocking/staging of the circumstances setting up his self-sacrifice is so unconvincing that his death seems goofy.
Snyder made the same mistake with Zod's killing at the end: in neither case did these decisions (that everyone in the film had to expect to be controversial among fans, and even many non-fans) seem like the only possible option at that time. Just from the immediate visual information about what was happening right at that moment in each scene -- let alone fan head-canonish speculation about what else Superman could have done to save the day, based on knowledge of his powers from the other films and comics -- there were clearly a bunch of other things Superman could have done other than inviting death, first through negligence, second through direct action.
That both sequences involved so much planning and thought because of the effects involved, but could still be so stupidly staged as far as story logic goes is shocking.

I think Snyder's not a bad director, but holy shit does he have his blind spots, and they tend to undermine everything else he does.

I'm more or less talking about how one moment, Clark feels he can't help people, but the next minute, he saves people in a shipwreck. Then, when he actually does help people, he doesn't seem like he wants to.

I feel like the whole conflict of "should he or shouldn't he" is very blurred and needed to be more explicit in its message, hence why a lot of people who did notice it say it's not bad, and that people are just not smart enough to look at it.

In all honesty, Man of Steel really should have been a good movie, but the tone, the uncertainty, and the radical differences upstage the overall story. Then, Clark himself is a bit more bland. I feel like he's just there to have all of these conflicts thrown at him, as he just sighs, rather than strives onwards with hope.

I was willing to give it a second chance, but then Batman v. Superman happened, and it just proved to be a mess in what it was trying to do, overflown with way too much setting up, way too less on telling an actual story, and too many brow-raising moments (Clark dying for no good reason other than to be dramatic).

It's not even the pace as much as it was the execution. In Man of Steel lies a great movie, but the result is unfortunately a million times worse than what it should have been. I think a rewrite with the idea on "HOPE" would hope, rather than being an awkward coming-of-age, super-hero, action-blockbuster, art film. It's ambitious, but not well-thought in terms of presentation, thus having the story (be it symbolic and internal for Clark or regarding the actual invasion) being rather muddled and off for those who expected a simple "Superman movies, but hopeful".

Man of Steel could be fixed so much, because it could've been great, but some of Snyder's choices (and Goyer's often mediocre capabilities as a screenwriter) set a good final product into looking like a mediocre sci-fi film with a mopey-tryhard story, when really, it can be so much more

(Was busy writing my own fucking blog post while this was posted, but wholeheartedly agree, obviously)

It's as much a directing/editing problem as it is a script issue. That this sequence had to pass through so many hands and sets of eyes (let alone all the focus group testing), and still end up so lame-brained for such a crucial scene is fucking bizarre.

There is a few other things he could have done to advert Zod killing the 1 family but that would not have stopped Zod period and taking him out of that room & risking loosing the headlock would have been incredibly negligent. The instant he is out of the headlock thousands of lives are in immediate danger again.

Fpbp

Didn't Synder say some silly DM shit like he changed nothing about Superman in his films and if you were real fans you'd know that?

Why do you guys still talk about this film? It's a big Hollywood middle finger to Superman.

I really do, but unfortunately, Man of Steel's confusion in the message it's trying to deliver with his character is contradictory and goes against what Clark eventually does. Also, the death of his character was rather forced, in my opinion. I understand what they were trying to do, protecting Clark's true nature from the world and all, but the way they had him go down was more comedic than it did seem impactful.

>Costner's perfect, it's just that his logic about protecting Clark is poorly justified at the script level -- the film doesn't sufficiently dramatize what he thinks he's protecting Clark from -- and then his death is fucked up just as much at the directorial level.

THIS. FUCKING THIS.

>It's a big Hollywood middle finger to Superman.
Putting Superman in a context were he is flawed and the world around him is flawed so he has to struggle, put in real effort and overcome & inspire hope rather then inspiring hope simply out of existing isn't a middle finger to the character.

Even more because it was made as an actual middle finger to the family of Superman's creator.

This thread is just the safespace for paid shills.

Execution matter.

Most Superman stories do it better. I heard that American Alien was way better in this regard, but I still have to watch.

Meant to put a ">" in front of the first part of that post. Sorry.

American Alien has him be a childish selfish fucking brat that doesn't give a fuck about helping people.

Except it didn't work out that way

Instead he blew up a city, broke a guy's neck, and is arbitrarily either feared as a demon or a savior depending on whatever's convenient for the next plot development in a movie series that takes Superman's years of existing backstory for granted without establishing a grounding for it's own plans

A down to Earth Superman story with a sociological look at things and real stakes is hunky dory but it also has to be good

>Instead he blew up a city
No he was on the other side of the planet when the world engine did that, he had no part in it.
>broke a guy's neck
Saving thousands if not millions of lives.
>and is arbitrarily either feared as a demon or a savior
As exactly what would happen in real life as humans are inconsistent indecisive mother fuckers.

Yes it is when it comes from the context of thinking Superman as a concept is outdated, campy and a character that they felt they needed to apologize for and change. Have you read their interviews? That's how they think of him and they never acknowledged Superman already existed in a realm that surrounded him with conflict.

The middle finger is also jammed in when his dad dies to teach him his decisions have consequences and he should ignore even family in danger to protect himself when Clark immediately throws that life lesson away to stick his mysterious key into a mysterious space craft not knowing what would happen. When the Ursa here said that having a sense of morality made him weak and them strong without it, Clark didn't say shit. There's alot of examples I can point out that is a middle finger to Clark's capabilities, intelligence, moral compass, and he concept he already was. This film came from people who didn't read his shit and one who wrote a few Superman comics but still thought he's outdated. This film did Superman absolutely no justice or favors. Everyone still likes the DCU one much better.

>Instead he blew up a city
No he didn't and while that city was destroyed he prevented the entire human race from ceasing to exist.

He sure got blown away, though.

If only the actual movie went to half as much effort in justifying the shit that happened in it as you do

>I'm more or less talking about how one moment, Clark feels he can't help people, but the next minute, he saves people in a shipwreck. Then, when he actually does help people, he doesn't seem like he wants to.


What are you talking about? How does he ever seem like he doesn't WANT to help people? And don't say his facial expression because thats a retarded argument.

The argument is never whether or not Clark SHOULD help people, its whether or not his presence ends up doing more good than bad in the long run.


>Clark dying for no good reason other than to be dramatic

But he didn't die for no good reason at all, he died to save the world, showing how easily he is willing to sacrifice himself for the world and proving to everyone (Batman, Lex, Lois, the people, the press, the government) that he is not a god or a demon, just a man trying to do good.


AND it shows to Batman that men can still be good, bringing him back.


Honestly, saying he died for no reason is like the stupidest complaint about the movie and shows you didnt even observe the most basic of plot points.

How did Superman inspire anything?

The entire planet wouldn't have the casualties they had if Clark died in space as a baby. If you make a film where it's better for the Earth if Superman died as a baby then that's a giant middle finger to the character.

>Yes it is when it comes from the context of thinking Superman as a concept is outdated
Bline idealism coming from a flawless mary sue is the definition of outdated, it is alienating and unrelatable.
In the real world it doesn't help anything it just causes more problems.
>and a character that they felt they needed to apologize for and change
What works in 1 context doesn't work in another. That doesn't equal a apologetic change, its just a valid form of adaption.
>and they never acknowledged Superman already existed in a realm that surrounded him with conflict.
Conflict without consequence, weight or ever allowing the lead character to make mistakes or fail in anyway.

>Bline idealism coming from a flawless mary sue is the definition of outdated
Hi Synder and Goyer. I don't know why or how you became in charge of the movie verse but you are the worst thing to happen to Superman since TDKR. Fuck you for shitting on an international icon and getting paid handsomely to do it.

>and he should ignore even family in danger to protect himself
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, he wasn't fucking protecting himself.
This was NEVER fucking about just protecting Clark.
LISTEN TO THE FUCKING MOVIE.
He said "there is more at stake then our lives or the lives of those (directly) around us"
It was about concern that going public would cause more deaths then Clark could hope to save.
>when Clark immediately throws that life lesson away to stick his mysterious key into a mysterious space craft not knowing what would happen
Over a decade transpired in between Pa's death & the discovery of the craft.
The craft was out FAR fucking away from civilization it was immeasurably better that it be activated properly by him, then be incompetently activated/tampered with/dissembled by the military.
>When the Ursa here said that having a sense of morality made him weak and them strong without it, Clark didn't say shit.
He doesn't need to say anything, he has nothing to prove, he knows she is wrong that is all that matters.

PS. You should have had Batman raped in your film after all since you said it was possible. It was unrealistic that Batman wasn't raped in your ultra realistic film.

Horse killer

I'm not justifying anything, it is what factually took place on screen.
A full power Kryptonian can kill the entire human race by hand, Zod saying he intends to kill them all 1 by 1 out of spite isn't a outlandish boast, its a factual possibility.

Strongly second everything you said here.

He was amazing.

Zod was making his way to every colonial world, he may have made it to earth regardless.
Same can be said about the Joker existing because of Batman, many if not most villains do what they do because of the heroe's presence. Why the fuck are you only holding it against Superman this 1 time?

>but you are the worst thing to happen to Superman since TDKR
No having all writers/creators walk on egg shells around the character and refusing to ever challenge him or have him grow is the worst thing to ever happen to the character.

And having Superman compromise for the greater good isn't bad writing.
He worked for the US government to save his friends fucking lives. They would have been hunted down and murdered had Clark not compromised.

>It was about concern that going public would cause more deaths then Clark could hope to save.
It was also about teaching Clark to value himself over others. Hence the whole let a bus full of kids die. And again, Clark continuously invalidated his dad's death, exposing himself to save others. Invalidated it by activating an alien ship he didn't know anything about. Had no back up plan for the worst case scenario and guess what? At the end, Superman called a bunch of aliens and an incalculable amount of people died. He could not take a bigger shit on his dad's grave and his "Your actions have consequences" message. He could have tried to steal the fucking ship than activate it.

>He doesn't need to say anything, he has nothing to prove.

This is fucking Superman. He, Superman, has nothing to say when an enemy says having a sense of morality makes him inferior? Really? Again, I don't see why people argue about this film, it's just a middle finger to Superman and a finger popping to people who never liked, barely skimmed, or have their own notions of who the character is. One thing you fucks can't mentally tap dance out of is this attempt failed.

Okay but the ship could have easily been a bomb and took out the Earth. The point being he unnecessarily risked the entire planet with no back up plan and people died. What's certain is what happened in the film and what happened is tons of people died when they would have lived if Superman died as a baby. That even includes his goddamn dad lol Jon wouldn't have known to go back for the dog had there been no Clark.

Not really

He went back and forth from "you have the power to make the world a better place" to "what the fuck were you doing saving those children?!" so often that it's no wonder why Clark sucks

I think all this repetitive inane arguing over an objectively terrible movie on multiple levels is a perfect microcosm of why the world at large is going to absolute shit.

>It was also about teaching Clark to value himself over others. Hence the whole let a bus full of kids die
No it was fucking not.
If he saves the bus but reveals himself and Muslims murder a thousand people to spite the being that proves their god wrong then it factually would not have been worth it.
It had NOTHING to fucking do with selfishness in anyway.

Have you considered that the film is trying to say that Pa was in the wrong to a extent?

He didn't die to keep Clark from going public ever, he died so Clark wouldn't have to do so YET when he was still young and incredibly unprepared mentally.

>At the end, Superman called a bunch of aliens and an incalculable amount of people died.
If a serial killer sees me by a new car, follows be home & murders all my neighbors is it my fault?
Clark did nothing fucking wrong, he was out in the fucking arctic there would be no safer place to activate it. It's a thousand times better then letting the military reverse engineer it.

>In what way? Pa Kent's whole thing was that he didn't want Clark to reveal himself before he, and the world, were ready.
The massive problem is that we were never told what he meant by "ready".

And I can't help but feel what he meant was "never reveal yourself unless some other alien already showed up".

And what we got was Zod.

>Superman killing the same character he killed in the comics, for much better reasons, is a middle finger to the character

kek, you casual

Going to absolute shit? That's to our male overlords we're looking at environmental existinction of our species in the next 35-40 years at best. Mind as well argue about something objectively horrible on every level because there's nothing we can do otherwise.

Thanks broskie

>Okay but the ship could have easily been a bomb and took out the Earth
Preposterous and the military fucking with the ship would have risked that even worse.

>Okay but the ship could have easily been a bomb and took out the Earth
Even if it was booby trapped from intruders, why would using a key from their own species be what set it off?
You see how fucking retarded your being.

>The massive problem is that we were never told what he meant by "ready".

Because Pa Kent knows thats Clark's choice to decide, not his. He isn't a despot, just a parent. When Clark does decided, he decides its when his revealing himself will do the most good and (at least in that moment) spare the whole world.

>If he saves the bus but reveals himself and Muslims murder a thousand people
Stopped reading right here.

He's the Pa Kent nobody wanted. The most unsure people want Pa Kent to be is "don't worry son we'll figure it out" not an understandably confused regular jagoff who just so happened to adopt Alien jesus and is panicking because he's not just raising a kid he's raising a kid whose very existence will change the course of history. But like everything else in MoS that's not what they wanted from a Superman movie. So you have a mediocre movie but then you fill it with decisions that go against everyone's ideas of what Superman should be which is why I think there's so much vitriol aimed at the DCEU.

I thought he was good until he died. He may not have had the best message but he seemed like a good father figure.

Then your willfully blinding yourself to Pa's concerns.
That was just a random example.
Pa said it himself that both science and religion would be thrown into disarray by the reveal.
We have had genocides over far smaller fucking things then godly powerful aliens existing.

STOP

No. He was a cynical, paranoid, uninspiring dick.

>And don't say his facial expression because thats a retarded argument.
Don't get hostile, please. I'm just stating my mind. And I say he never wants to help people because he's never shown to be GLAD he is. They instead opt for him to do things because he feels like he HAS too, but then, next film, "you don't owe this world a damn thing". It's unclear. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and state that they really make it seem like he doesn't want to help people in the second film especially. The scenes (rather sequences the more I think about it) where he's shown after asaving a rocket ship, or dragging a ship, rescuing people from a flood..the way it's executed is off. Those whole moments could have been entire scenes where Superman tries his hardest to make a difference, and we see how he feels about helping them when said scenes are over.

>The argument is never whether or not Clark SHOULD help people, its whether or not his presence ends up doing more good than bad in the long run.

When you start asking those questions, it should be in the second film, not the first. Look at Spider-Man 2. It's flawed and dated to most, but it at least had Peter Parker wondering "Why the fuck should I put myself through this?" Man of Steel pushed too many questions for being an origin film, and while some may call that ambitious, it ended up being too bloated, getting in the way of establishing SUPERMAN. First, have Superman save Earth from an invasion, poise the questions on his identity, more about who he is rather than his impact. You can keep the big DBZ fight a the end, have the sequel questioning his repercussions, where it's appropriate to ask "whether or not his presence ends up doing more good than bad in the long run."
Snyder had good ideas, but he felt too confident in them, and the movie suffered.

1/2

So you're telling me that only humans would be capable of having a self destruct option? Okay, my actual point being Clark didn't know what the fuck he was activating, he took no heed of possible danger for him or the planet, he took no heed of his dad's DYING message of "Your choices have consequences", he had no back up plan, and the ship could easily do anything for all he knew and what happened was that people actually died. There would be no defending if the ship destroyed the whole planet (Technically Zod almost did) or activated more killer robots like the one that attacked Lois or whatever. He could have stole the fucking ship. This film is made purely for idiots.

cont'd
>But he didn't die for no good reason at all, he died to save the world, showing how easily he is willing to sacrifice himself for the world and proving to everyone

Now you see, think about the actual situation. He’s Superman, right? He’s carrying a Kryptonite spear made by Batman, and decides, “Hey, what if instead of me actually killing myself with Doomsday, I told Batman or Wonder Woman to through it while I hold them off?” But he didn’t. What they could have done is this:

Superman gets Bats to wield the spear while he and Wonder Woman hold off Doomsday. Then, as Superman and Wondie get the tar beaten out of them from Doomsday, Batman throws the spear, or sneaks on Doomsday amidst the battle.

If you still wanted Supes to die (even though it’s way too soon for him to die in the cinematic universe they’re pushing so hard for), you can have Superman in a position where he’s being pummeled, and Batman can’t use the spear unless he kills Clark too. Presumably Clark is about to have his arms torn off (he’d be in the pose of Jesus of the cross for symbolic reasons that Snyder loves so much). In order to bring Doomsday off his feet, Clark then uses his heat vision to knock him on his back...but while he does, Doomsday still hangs tight to Supes’ arms, and he’s not letting go. Clark can’t get out, Wonder Woman is defeated, and only Bruce can help...at the cost of Clark’s life. He looks at Clark, who nods. Bruce shakes his head. Even though he's killed countless men, now he can’t do it. He should but can’t. His arm trembles...until the good arm of Wonder Woman holds it as well. They both throw the spear together, it penetrates through Superman, killing Doomsday.

The reason why I say he died for no reason though isn’t just because it could’ve been done a million different ways, though, but because it’s too soon to kill off Superman. Its only the second movie. They should’ve held their cards.

>2/2

>and a finger popping to people who never liked, barely skimmed
Try again fucker.

>it should be in the second film
No it fucking shouldn't.
It would be negligent for Clark to just rush into it and not consider the ramifications till after it is too late.

>"you don't owe this world a damn thing"
Its a mother just wanting whatever will bring her son peace.
>the way it's executed is off.
No it's not, the sequence wasn't about Clark, it was about the world reacting to him.

>have their own notions of who the character is
And your notion of the character is as garbage as MOS.

>He could have stole the fucking ship.
No he fucking couldn't, he is strong but he is not even remotely strong enough to break it out of all that ice and physically carry it anywhere. Its as big as a fucking battlship.

>Its a mother just wanting whatever will bring her son peace.
Peace for a son who just is the sole person responsible for summoning aliens at a whim. He owes all those people their lives back. There was zero reason to activate the ship. This Martha is a massive sociopath if she thinks otherwise. Disgusting.

>So you're telling me that only humans would be capable of having a self destruct option?
No I am asking why would they program the self destruct to go off when their own species key turned the ship on?

1.) It would be cowardly.
2.) DD could dodge a throw.
3.) Batman doesn't have the strength to thrust it deep enough to kill DD.
4.) Wonder Woman holding DD with the lasso is the only thing restraining him and his shockwaves.
5.) It's Zod, he was reborn specifically to kill him, its his responsibility.
6.) Batman can't get in close or would die by DD's arms flailing or the shockwaves.

What kinda of question is this. Do our own species keys not work when activating a bombing sequence or self destruction? Trump or his guards have a suit case, I believe they call the nuclear football, to launch nuclear warfare. The suit case has a key from our species to open said suit case. Clark didn't know what he was activating when he stuck his key in. He just saw a hole and then a city was flatten later.

My notion is that he is a hero who inspires hope.
There is nothing garbage about me wanting him to struggle & endure hardship and overcome rather then mary sue his way through every problem.
That is basic character writing 101.

>There was zero reason to activate the ship.
Personal level = To discovery his origins.
Big Picture Level = Keep it out of the hands of the military who would likely use the tech for weapons.

so because Superman never flat out says he likes helping people and never makes the correct facial expression you assume he doesnt like it? How about the fact he KEEPS DOING IT over and over and over again despite no one ever saying he has to. No one has ever put it in his mind that he has a duty to these people, he keeps doing it of his own volition. His actions show that he wants to save people. That is one of the big points of BvS, is that in the end, Superman says and does more to influence the narrative through his actions than Batman or Luthor can do through their words.

Yes but Krypton doesn't have infighting amongst themselves in that era. there would be no reason for them to booby trap the ship against their own species.

One thing I do think is amazing about BvS and MoS, is that we are having the very debate the citizens in the movies were having. We are arguing about the very issues that Pa & Ma Kent, Luthor, Batman, and the Senator were talking about themselves.

Not really.

American Alien is better than MOS and BvS in every regard.

>people talking about a movie discuss what the characters were saying on the movie

Fucking blew my mind.

Is it your first discussion about a movie?

Was it negligent of Peter Parker to suddenly becomes Spider-Man? Was it negligent for Green Lantern to immediately assume his role? Is it negligible that Barry Allen used his speed to help people? I'm not saying we have to have him jump in the costume right away and fly around, but rather, have him see that he can help people. There's nothing wrong with that. A man who's always wanted t help finally steps up to the occasion. He realizes he can do so much more, and does. And you know what? Clark was already pretty negligible in the movie. That whole destruction of Metropolis was insane, but I'd be willing to forgive it since he's rather verdant in this whole thing of fighting bad guys, and because of that, he's inexperienced and things break! He's playing with friggin' fire, you know? It's Clark's coming of age story...he has room to be negligible enough, and all can be repaired in a second film if the first one is good.

>Its a mother just wanting whatever will bring her son peace.
Alright, I'll give you that.

Okay, look, I want to agree with you, but this is film. You gotta show that he's doing this and feels some sense of reward to balance out all the moments he complains. Instead, the movies treat it more like he feels OBLIGATED because he is able to do these things. His actions show him helping people, sure, but they are only snapshots rather than actual segments. I want to see what happened when he saved the rocket, and see what the people reacted to after it, not hear them discuss if its right.

The movie takes the term "show, don;t tell" too literally, or not literally enough. It's either talking about things we should see, seeing things that should instead be talked about and seeing only a moment of things that need to be seen.

Yes because Clark partying on a billionares stolen boat and burning people's arms off is soooooo much more faithful to the core of the character then a version who would kill or die to save 7-8 billion innocent lives.

Are you really being a dick with a kid that couldn't control his powers? Also these were way better moments to humanize Clark than anything on the movies of Zack "suckered punch" Snyder.

>You gotta show that he's doing this and feels some sense of reward to balance out all the moments he complains.

When does he complain? Like ever? The only time I can think of, that comes even close to complaining, is right after the terrorist attack at the Senate building where he thinks his presence caused such a terrible event to happen and he briefly loses hope.

>Instead, the movies treat it more like he feels OBLIGATED because he is able to do these things.

HOW?! You are literally just projecting this because he didn't make the right facial expression for you.


>His actions show him helping people, sure, but they are only snapshots rather than actual segments.

What do you mean? There is like over 20 minutes of Man of Steel dedicated to Clark just wandering around helping people. If he saved people for an extra five minutes then you would believe he is doing it for the right reasons?


> I want to see what happened when he saved the rocket, and see what the people reacted to after it, not hear them discuss if its right.

But them discussing if its right IS their reaction to it.

>The movie takes the term "show, don;t tell" too literally, or not literally enough.

So you dont even actually know the point you are trying to argue?


> It's either talking about things we should see, seeing things that should instead be talked about and seeing only a moment of things that need to be seen.

Nah.

>Was it negligent of Peter Parker to suddenly becomes Spider-Man? Was it negligent for Green Lantern to immediately assume his role? Is it negligible that Barry Allen used his speed to help people?
The ramifications of Aliens existing is far different the the public's reaction to any of the above.
> That whole destruction of Metropolis was insane
That Clark had no part in except the crashing of the scout ship.
>he's inexperienced and things break!
The only thing that was damaged from his inexperience was the 711 in Smallville.

>Clark being irresponsible as a teenager and losing control, spitting in the face of everything Pa Kent taught him is more faithful

wew lad, its like you've never read Superman before 2015

Yeah you're right, I was totally talking about whether or not the force was real after Star Wars, and I was definitely talking about whether or not Spider-Man is a menage after the Spider-Man movies.


Goddamn you are a retard.