What was I supposed to do just let them die?!

>What was I supposed to do just let them die?!
>Maybe

You can not defend this scene.

I know what they were going for, and I think it gets blown out of porportion.

Some user made it 100% better by saying that hus dad should have said
"Thats not the point son!" And explained to him in more detail how dangerous he could be percieved as. Looking back the Kents didnt focus on "people are good, deep down. Some get lost or scared, but people are inherently good"

That element is whats missing and idk how they recover from here

Posting better murder dad.

>Kill them my son. Kill them all

fuck, i wish we got some scenes with young peter and yondu

it would've made the whole dad arc a lot better

What's to defend?

Jonathan doesn't want his son to become a lab rat, and doesn't want to lie to his son when asked a difficult question.

I will never understand the things like this that people get hung up on.

He's a father scared that his son would get abducted by the government and dissected to find out what makes him so weird, so like any father he cares more about his son's life than some other kids'.

There. Defended.

It's not a great scene, it obviously could have been done better, but it's not bad enough to keep forcing shitty memes.

>but people are inherently good
This isn't true though.
People aren't inherently good or inherently bad. People are just people.

soo

per

man

>It's not a great scene, it obviously could have been done better
I don't see that there's anything wrong with it at all.
Why do you feel the need to quality your rebuttal?

>could have been done better
Absolutely meaningless. Nothing is perfect.

>the production still has less color than the movie screenshot

I don't get the "no colors" meme.

Superman is supposed to save people you retarded fuck. If Clark took Jonathan's advice in this movie we would get a cowardly superman that is too scared to save anyone.

zack snyder doesn't see color, he's truly progressive in that way

That doesn't explain why the scene is bad, wrong or poorly done.
Jonathan is doing the best he can in a situation he's not equipped to handle.

>zack snyder doesn't see color
But the movie screenshot has more color than the production still.
Look at the truckbed in the two pictures.

That's quite a human response.

Do you need to have all the implications written as subtitles or something?

Sup Forums has a sizeable number of honest to god mentally ill people here, so yes.
Like the fine specimen in pic related.

With the way the Kents are in these movies it's no wonder Superman grew up to be a miserable cunt.

It's a bad scene because it's completely out of character. This is like Uncle Ben telling Peter to use his powers to get money and bitches. You retarded normies probably never read a Superman comic in your life.

>With the way the Kents are in these movies
Good people?
>you ARE my son.

He would rather an entire busload of children die than his kid be exposed.

He's a cunt

>it's completely out of character.
????
MoS is the first time we've seen Jonathan in this universe.

>You retarded normies probably never read a Superman comic in your life.
I guarantee you I own more Superman and DC comics than you do, my underage friend.

It's DC universe, you mong. It supposed to do characters justice. Not showing them as Earth-3 counterparts.

>He would rather an entire busload of children die
How could this possibly be your takeaway?
He clearly doesn't want either to happen and doesn't know what to do.
This is really, really, really fucking obvious in the movie.

>Not showing them as Earth-3 counterparts.
But it doesn't you fool.
see
Jonathan is in no way any less of a role model for Clark inthe DCEU than in any other incarnation. The DCEU just takes a less fairytale tack, and as a result Jonathan doesn't have all the answers for Clark.

>Johnathan is literally just redneck sociopath
>"less fairytale tack"
Go to bed, Snyder.

They would never, ever tell Clark not to help someone in need.

That's the antithesis of Superman.

>I have more le comics than you ;)
Kill yourself

>is literally just redneck sociopath
see
>He clearly doesn't want either to happen and doesn't know what to do.

Why is this so DAMN hard for you to comprehend?

They fear for their child. What is in any way bad or wrong or antithetical to Superman about that?

mad as fuck

But he's not Superman. He's just a kid.

>doesn't know what to do.
>literally just dumb redneck
?

I see you gave up the sociopath lie. That's a start.

Even worse that he is telling a kid to not help someone in need

Yet again, please refer to
>He clearly doesn't want either to happen and doesn't know what to do.

I want you to tell me what is wrong with being lost because you're caught between the safety of your child and his abilities to help others.

He's almost always overprotective to a degree but the movie takes the wrong tone with it. It's not hard to understand. It's ok for him to try to reinforce the idea that Clark should focus on living a normal life it was just done poorly.

The death question can be interesting as an internal question for Clark to ask himself and it can add characterization if you have him working through it and actively deciding it's not good enough for him, but it's not appropriate for it to be something the movie shows him asking Pa because no parent should suggest their actual fucking child bear that burden.

You must understand Superman's character. He is willing to sacrifice himself for anyone. This is contradictory when his father figure tells him not to save a busload of children. Read some comics my friend

>it was just done poorly.
How?

>93084619
>but it's not appropriate for it to be something the movie shows him asking Pa because no parent should suggest their actual fucking child bear that burden.
Clark asked him the question you dingus.

And it's a finish. You can't deny that he is just braindead redneck who can't make proper solutions which lead to Clark being brooding scared edgelord who would hide for his entire life if not Zod.

I get that the intention is to show how other worldly the situation is. " in real life what would you tell your kid if he was kryptonian". But theres no reason why you couldnt have jonathan be paranoid as well as instill good morals for Clark to make the decision later in life.

The scene failed because he should, and Jonathan as a character would, be honest about the situation. It isnt a "maybe" situation, its way more complex than maybe and he would explain that to clark.

>He is willing to sacrifice himself for anyone.
And he did.


>when his father figure tells him not to save a busload of children.
1. Jonathan didn't tell him that
2. even if he did (he didn't) it still wouldn't do anything to Supes' character since he did save the bus, and he continued to save people all throughout the film.
Hell, that's how Lois tracks him down. Backtracking through his good deeds.

>What is in any way bad or wrong or antithetical to Superman about that?
Because Superman is all about using his special abilities to help people that can't help themselves. Even Golden Age asshole Superman was about that.
Having Jonathan say this in this scene would've been fine if at some other point he would've realised his son call was to actually go out and help, but he never does, and that's why we get a 30 year old Superman that acts like an angsty 17 year old. And in the sequel, Martha repeats the same to him. They're the shittiest parents ever, and because of that they gave us the shittiest Superman ever. I feel sorry for Cavill. Let's hope they let him finally be Superman in JL.

Fuck Snyder and his need to destroy the characters in order to make them be what they were supposed to be right from the start. It's this backwards shit storytelling what made the DCEU fail so hard.
Why would anybody invest themselves into a guy with superpowers that doesn't wanna help (Superman), an ultraviolent vigilante (Batman) and someone who gave up on mankind (Wonder Woman), when each character is supposed to be exactly the opposite.
They broke them before we could care about them, so people don't give a shit about them getting their shit together at the end.

>and he would explain that to clark.
Did you not watch the entire scene?
He does. There is more dialogue than "Maybe".
Hell, that's when he shows Clark where he came from.

Sometimes I think you people have never seen the movies you bitch about.

I kinda want a reboot where Superman's adopted father is the unabomber.

>that doesn't wanna help
see
>Hell, that's how Lois tracks him down. Backtracking through his good deeds.

Superman is saving random people all throughout MoS.

The oil rig, the bus, the soldier, Lois, the world, etc..

>a blue filter helped blueish greenish objects seem more vibrant
really chills my milk

>being brooding scared edgelord who would hide for his entire life
?
see
>he continued to save people all throughout the film.
>Hell, that's how Lois tracks him down. Backtracking through his good deeds.

You have to admit he was consistent. He didn't let his son save him either.

Oh cmon you elist wannabe shit. I said that jonathan wouldn't have said maybe. Saying maybe set the wrong tone for the whole conversation. Jonathan would be up front, his response would've been something like " I dont know how to answer that son". One word can fuck everything up when it comes to dialog. The words used have a big impact. Jonathan isnt about being mysterious, he is a straight shooter. He would talk in a more direct manner.

I literally just explained how it was done poorly in the second paragraph. It is wrong to write a parent into that situation because it makes him the villain to suggest to his child that he would ever think that his friends and classmates shouldn't live. It's fucking horrible. It is not something that should be voiced ever. That is being a parent. You cannot say "maybe" in that situation even if you don't know.

I'm not doing what most people do here. Pa was not a bad man. Pa was not a bad character. The writers just did not treat him well and put him in bad situations that distracted from their message.

They clearly only wanted to show the struggle of the characters as people. They wanted to show that the balance was something that Clark struggled with, that Pa struggled with. That even though Clark has a lot of powers they are not without risk. All of this is fine and none of it is unique to MoS. They just executed it improperly.

>Clark asked him the question you dingus.

Yes I literally just said that. But Clark didn't write the script to make himself say it.

The entire movie still is more saturated you blind fool. Look at the skin tones.
You all are truly insane. I mean that. It's really crazy how dogmatic the intentional blindness is.

The Miserable Cunt vs the Murderous Asshole.
Worlds Finest.

>helping few people on his way while people who is not on his way are dying all around
>s-see? He is a hero!

Im not the guy youre responding too, but yes. Thats exactly what im trying to get at too. It was handled poorly, Jonathan wouldnt say " maybe". Poor choice of dialog.

>They just executed it improperly.
How?

>It is wrong to write a parent into that situation because it makes him the villain to suggest to his child that he would ever think that his friends and classmates shouldn't live. It's fucking horrible. It is not something that should be voiced ever. That is being a parent. You cannot say "maybe" in that situation even if you don't know.
Parents make mistakes.
Parents are people.

This is the problem I see with people that don't understand that the scenes works.
They simply refuse to accept that the more flawed human approach the filmmakers take is a valid approach.

Please just stop.
You said "brooding edgelord who would hide all his life".
Saving people in danger isn't very edgy.

Yes, but he does it as if it's something to be ashamed of. Just look at his face of suffering every time he helps somebody.
I'm not saying he should sport the Christopher Reeve smile but every time he helps somebody it looks like it's such a chore, unless he's rescuing Lois. That's not Superman, and never should be. Saving the world is not a burden for Superman, it's a privilege.
Now, if you wanna do a movie where he feels overwhelmed by the task or something, fine, but first make us care about him so we can simpathize with how he feels about it. What Snyder and Goyer gave us was a fucking pussy that always awaits to the last second in order to do something.

>plot is forcing you to save people
>you hate it more than everything as your dad tought you to
>Superman was never real. Dead farmer's dream
>Nothing stays good in this world, MARTHA. Just like me.
>s-stop!

>but he does it as if it's something to be ashamed of.
This is nowhere to been seen in his behavior in MoS.
In BvS his is leery of people deifying him and it's freaking him out, but at NO point does he seem "ashamed".

>>you hate it more than everything as your dad tought you to
Explain.
I don't know what you're referring to.

>literally said that not saving bus full of children is an option even if it's easy to you just like save a cat to swimmer
Only BAD parent will say that. This mistake is impossible to be made by a decent human being.

>This mistake is impossible to be made by a decent human being.
Completely wrong. Get some life experience. And some English lessons.

Have you seen his hatred face when he is saving people? He clearly doesn't want to do it. He want to fuck Lois to home.

>They simply refuse to accept that the more flawed human approach the filmmakers take is a valid approach.

This argument would have more weight if this wasn't the defence for every fucking decision Snyder makes in these movies,like somehow realism is a bulletproof excuse for any and all criticisms.

It's a superhero movie. If the flaws of the characters get in the way of a superhero acting like a superhero, then that's shit writing. Write some drama about shitty parenthood if you want, and maybe you'll make a great film. But if you're getting on the way of what the movie's supposed to be, you're just shooting yourself in the foot, which is what Snyder did over and over again in his two movies.
If you're making a superhero movie, and not only that but you're giving us a new introduction for their characters, the last thing you have to do is make them the exact opposite of a superhero.

>Have you seen his hatred face when he is saving people?
see
>In BvS his is leery of people deifying him and it's freaking him out

Literally a major plot point.

because not muh pa.

If you're just as stupid as dumb redneck and would do the same mistake, you should never reproduce then. I understand why you like Pa "dead horses" Kent now.

Yeah, that's why he hides and waits until the last moment to go out and face Zod.

Thank you. It's not that deep, just a minor mistake but it ruins the whole scene.

You can disagree but don't pretend like you can't comprehend what I'm saying. I'm not going to explain how again. Just reread the post until you get it.

No decent parent going to suggest that other children should DIE, not even talking about good loving ones. But the bare minimum. Decent people don't do that. That's beyond comprehension. Only abusive monsters would think nothing of phrasing at a time like that.

But Pa is not meant to be a monster. I understand the authorial intent perfectly fine. Aiming for flaws is fine. But they just missed the mark. Shit happens.

People make mistakes.
Writers are people.

>bad writing
>B-but it was done on purpose!
Get Snyder dick out your ass.

I really hate to say it, but "not muh" just isn't a compelling argument guys.
Because there never was a "muh".
Even putting aside elseworlds, mainline Supes has had so many different incarnations it's not even funny.

>>They simply refuse to accept that the more flawed human approach the filmmakers take is a valid approach.
I'm gonna have to stick with this as my final thought on the matter.

I'm honestly sorry that your mental deficiencies prevent you from enjoying good things.

>people think I'm a God
>better silently save them with grim on my face, not explain to them that I'm just like them, just fellow american who is simply trying to do good. To use my gift to helping people. And that's what other people are supposed to do - use their advantages to help other people. Make world better place.
>Damn, nothing stays good in this world, why would I bother? I don't even believe in hope and people.

Im a diff user. But. No. Its not about it being about a flawed human approach. It doesnt work because it makes no sense. The whole point of Superman's adopted parents is that these people are the ones who instill in him a great sense of responsibility and justice.

Maybe is not the answer clark needs to hear. Maybe inplies he may have done something wrong, which he didnt. Jonathan knows he didn't do anything wrong but that what he has done may have put Clark in danger. The lesson that should be learned here isnt weather or not Clark shouldve let anyone die but that Clark needs to understand that there are consequences to his actions. It shouldnt have been " good character or bad" it should always be good character, but he needs to help clark understand that now isnt the right time.

The scene is flawed because it tries too hard to focus on a " real world" perspective. supposed to help clark see that doing good is the right thing. But this Jon is far too cynical, so when clark makes his decision to sacrafice himself its kind of his own decision but with jon being so cynical youre left wondering what was it that convinced clark internally to give himself up? Because of some priest? Bullshit.

>>better silently save them
See, this is progress. You're at least admitting he saves people.
The Snyder haters used to deny even that.

Maybe in a few years we'll have you admitting that Pa Kent doesn't advocate child murder.

I can, because I'm not an autistic asshole who cannot read human emotions or nuance and subtext to the scene.

Jonathan is conflicted and fails to find the right words to say to Clark in that situation. He has trouble explaining why it was a bad thing that Clark risked exposure. Hence why he ends up telling Clark the truth about where he comes from, because it's now time and he can no longer shield him from the truth.

It's a very emotional and strong scene about fatherhood. Which apparently is a foreign concept for the haters.

It's all about "not muh" my man. Because "muh" Superman is the only Superman what majority of people like. What do you thing will happen if Injustice timeline would be put in canon universe? People would burn DC office to the ground by being assblasted. DCEU IS main universe to cinematic universe. We don't have Earth-0 where heroes are good people. It IS Earth-0.

No one is saying not muh. The writers tried to present the idea of a good man, a good father, who was scared and in over his head because he doesn't even know what his son is. In that context they misrepresented him with poor writing. It's not and intentional flaw when it contradicts the rest of his characterization that they themselves wrote.

Look at how WW dealt with a similar situation: first, Hippolyta doesn't want Diana to train because she doesn't want her exposed to the dangers inherent to her mission, but eventually she realizes she can't get in the way of her daughter's call in life, and can't deny the world of her gift. Even when she's about to leave with Steve she still feels scared for her and says she doesn't like for her to go, but at the same time understands that Diana's gift means something and she needs to go out there. So it shows the fears typical of a parent, but she isn't a shitty one and eventually lets her daughter go. It humanizes her character but doesn't get in the way of the story and lets Diana eventually act the way a superhero should. And what's the result? Everybody liked the movie.

saved
/thread

>Everybody liked the movie.
Have you been on Sup Forums recently?
>they misrepresented him with poor writing.
sigh explain

Yeah, about that

The explanation is that they made him seem like a monster when they were clearly attempting to simply show him as a flawed man. We've gone over this. Why do you need to hear it again?

>The explanation is that they made him seem like a monster
But they didn't.
The scene worked for at least two people in this very thread (me and this guy ) so I don't think you can call it objectively bad.

At most you can explain why it didn't work for YOU.

>You all are truly insane. I mean that. It's really crazy how dogmatic the intentional blindness is.

YES
THEY'RE CRAZY
THEY'RE ALL CRAZY
ONLY WE TRULY SEE MOS FOR THE MASTERPIECE THAT IT IS
KINOKINOKINOKINOKINOKINOKINO
I'D WATCH IT WITH MY GF IF I HAD ONE

>FOR THE MASTERPIECE THAT IT IS
No one in thread has said that.
This is another trend I notice. Snyder haters seem very insecure, because this jumping to strawmanning happens sadly often in these threads.

Is it not inherent that when we're having a conversation we're discussing our opinion and interpretation of the scene?

There is no objective correct answer. One does not need to needlessly clarify that unless they have autism. Even if you get everyone who worked on the script in this thread they are not all going to agree with each other even.

>mainline Supes has had so many different incarnations it's not even funny.
Yes, but there's some constant character traits that remain and make him a recognizable character. Nobody gives a shit about a Superman that never acts like Superman. What's the point of even calling him Superman?

Look at Nolan's Batman. It's not classic comic book Batman, but it still worked because it kept the core of the character. MoS changed the very essence of the character, and that's the exact opposite of what you should do when you're adapting something.

First of all that picture is washed out, when people make fun of the retard Snyder is because he always does the same thing in every god damn movie in every damn scene.
He lowers brightness, raises contrast and puts a color filter over every scene.
So every scene has a reduced color palette, his favorite color is brown.
But sometimes he just straight out desaturates colors, but his favorite technique is to go a step or two short mono-chromatic, the fucking hack makes all his work exactly the same regardless of the material he is working with.

>There is no objective correct answer.
Then why are we even talking? I don't care about your bad opinion as long as you're not trying to pass it off as the factual truth.

>Superman is supposed to save people

Didn't realize you were the authority on what superman should and shouldn't do

>Have you been on Sup Forums recently?
Yeah, and even here there are more people that liked it than not, and that's saying a lot.

This is the only legitmate issue

>the fucking hack makes all his work exactly the same regardless of the material he is working with.
No?
He chooses a lot of material to direct that suits that style, but he doesn't use it when it's not appropriate.

Guardians of Ga'Hoole is his only children's movie and that is very colorful.

Interpretation is always ultimately more opinion not fact. Just the nature of the beast.

>a Superman that never acts like Superman.
>MoS changed the very essence of the character
nah
Donner Supes gave up his powers for some poon tang.

It was good

because Superman is about sex not saving people

now you're getting it

>there is literally one abosulutely mad LET THEM DROWN CLARK defender in the tread and everyone here is trying to put some sense intro him
top lel

His stuff being shot on film makes it feel more colorful to me than it would be if he went for the same color scheme on a digital shoot.
I think it's because you can push the grain/saturation/color manipulation of film much farther than digital, so his movies always feel painterly, if not brightly colored.

I'm not a phycologist, but I come away from a Snyder movie with more colors in my head than, say, Civil War. That looked really flat and lifeless.