To be fair, though, even "maybe" is a pretty shocking answer given the context (a bus full of drowning children).
A very honest and human answer for a parent that wants to protect their child, even maybe at the expense of the many, but still.
I think Pa Kent as a character would have been helped if the writing had made it a little more clear *when* Clark was supposed to start changing the world and making a difference. It seemed that was the Kents' dream for him, but when was that to start? It seems they did not see Clark bumping into extraordinary, life changing moments of danger (the crash, the tornado) as providence. But what was the plan? How many people was Clark supposed to not save before he was ready to go save the world?
I don't think that was the Kents' dream at all.
Wasn't Jonathan trying to talk Clark into being a farmer just before they encountered the tornado?
I think Clark's trying to change the world and make a difference was more of a dreaded inevitability than a dream.
Yes, they definitely were having a (dramatically convenient, since Pa was about to die) fight about whether or not Clark would take on the family farm.
But how does that square with the scene (unless I am remembering something that didn't happen) where Pa tells Clark that he will change the world someday? It might even be in the "maybe" scene- isn't there a point where Pa is basically telling Clark that he has to wait. That the answer is basically 'not yet', but that someday he will change the world?
Or is it that he wish was for Clark to hide his true nature his whole life?
Honestly, I guess it was unclear. I was left with the impression that Pa believed that someday Clark would change the world, but he kept putting off that day, and was even willing to die to put off that day. But then there is the controlling (even putting the powers aside this would be a controlling thing for a parent to do) 'you WILL take over the family business' argument. So which is it? Given that this is what Pa is willing to die for, I think the film could do a better job of making it clear.
I am also curious, if indeed we are supposed to believe that Pa wished for Clark to hide his powers his whole life, how does that square with their faith? The scene where Clark chooses to seek the wisdom of a priest was supposed to imply, I take it, that he was raised a Christian. And I would guess that was this decision his adoptive family made to raise him that way. Given the Christian teachings on the role of service to your fellow man, how Christian would it have been to hide such gifts an entire life out of fear?
I will agree with all of those that have said that Costner was well cast. He played the hell out of what he had. But I feel like what they gave him did not make for a very clear point of view.
I thought Costner rocked in the role. A huge chunk of this movie, to me, is about two opposing fathers with different ideas about how to achieve the same goal.
Jor-El expected his son to be a God.
Jonathan Kent wanted his son to be a Man.
Sure. . . but what kind of man? The kind that lets others die around him when he has the power to intervene? Was he to have an entire life not only of turning the other cheek, but also of turning away whenever someone needed help?
Yes, they definitely were having a (dramatically convenient, since Pa was about to die) fight about whether or not Clark would take on the family farm. But how does that square with the scene (unless I am remembering something that didn't happen) where Pa tells Clark that he will change the world someday? It might even be in the "maybe" scene- isn't there a point where Pa is basically telling Clark that he has to wait. That the answer is basically 'not yet', but that someday he will change the world?
Or is it that he wish was for Clark to hide his true nature his whole life?
Honestly, I guess it was unclear. I was left with the impression that Pa believed that someday Clark would change the world, but he kept putting off that day, and was even willing to die to put off that day. But then there is the controlling (even putting the powers aside this would be a controlling thing for a parent to do) 'you WILL take over the family business' argument. So which is it? Given that this is what Pa is willing to die for, I think the film could do a better job of making it clear.
I am also curious, if indeed we are supposed to believe that Pa wished for Clark to hide his powers his whole life, how does that square with their faith? The scene where Clark chooses to seek the wisdom of a priest was supposed to imply, I take it, that he was raised a Christian. And I would guess that was this decision his adoptive family made to raise him that way. Given the Christian teachings on the role of service to your fellow man, how Christian would it have been to hide such gifts an entire life out of fear?
I will agree with all of those that have said that Costner was well cast. He played the hell out of what he had. But I feel like what they gave him did not make for a very clear point of view.
Like I said above, Clark's changing the world was a dreaded inevitability.
When he shows Clark the spaceship, he says he kept waiting for the government to show up, but they never did.
Being a Christian, Jonathan knows what the authorities have traditionally done to miracle workers.
I thought Costner rocked in the role. A huge chunk of this movie, to me, is about two opposing fathers with different ideas about how to achieve the same goal.
Jor-El expected his son to be a God.
Jonathan Kent wanted his son to be a Man.
Sure. . . but what kind of man? The kind that lets others die around him when he has the power to intervene? Was he to have an entire life not only of turning the other cheek, but also of turning away whenever someone needed help?
A man who lives a full life, not one who gets nailed to a cross?
A man who chooses to help others selflessly, humbly and discretely, rather than make himself more important than his deeds?
I don't know. Maybe?
Also, note my verbs: expected vs. wanted.
Jonathan had no idea what Clark was, but he loved him. And he wanted to be a Man, not a God. Nor a Freak.* Nor a Target.
Can you imagine the Kents, The Rosses and the Langs on Jerry Springer?
Yes, they definitely were having a (dramatically convenient, since Pa was about to die) fight about whether or not Clark would take on the family farm. But how does that square with the scene (unless I am remembering something that didn't happen) where Pa tells Clark that he will change the world someday? It might even be in the "maybe" scene- isn't there a point where Pa is basically telling Clark that he has to wait. That the answer is basically 'not yet', but that someday he will change the world?
Or is it that he wish was for Clark to hide his true nature his whole life?
Honestly, I guess it was unclear. I was left with the impression that Pa believed that someday Clark would change the world, but he kept putting off that day, and was even willing to die to put off that day. But then there is the controlling (even putting the powers aside this would be a controlling thing for a parent to do) 'you WILL take over the family business' argument. So which is it? Given that this is what Pa is willing to die for, I think the film could do a better job of making it clear.
I am also curious, if indeed we are supposed to believe that Pa wished for Clark to hide his powers his whole life, how does that square with their faith? The scene where Clark chooses to seek the wisdom of a priest was supposed to imply, I take it, that he was raised a Christian. And I would guess that was this decision his adoptive family made to raise him that way. Given the Christian teachings on the role of service to your fellow man, how Christian would it have been to hide such gifts an entire life out of fear?
I will agree with all of those that have said that Costner was well cast. He played the hell out of what he had. But I feel like what they gave him did not make for a very clear point of view.
Like I said above, Clark's changing the world was a dreaded inevitability.
When he shows Clark the spaceship, he says he kept waiting for the government to show up, but they never did.
Being a Christian, Jonathan knows what the authorities have traditionally done to miracle workers.
Sure. But being a Christian (and I only hold him to this standard of thinking as the movie took some time to really hang a light on the idea of Clark as Christian), would he and his father not aspire to the same sacrifice as Jesus? Isn't the story of Jesus' death meant to inspire others to the same bravery and sacrifice? I don't think it is meant to be a cautionary tale. I don't think the lesson is 'keep your head down or else this is what you get!'
Now, of course, Jonathan can still choose protecting his son over wanting his son to protect others. That is a valid, and believable character choice, and tension between parent and child. But it still leaves me a little confused as to what Jonathan meant when he told Clark that he would change the world someday. Was the sentiment meant to be, 'You'll change the world someday. . . when they rip you from my cold, dead hands!'?
As for motive, what motivates children to grow up to become police, firefighters, EMTs, etc? How do we know Clark didn't read a comic or see a show with a hero (of any kind)? I wanted to become a detective since I first saw the Scooby Gang solve mysteries. I am not related to or know anyone in law enforcement type field.
When you're in high school, you take a vocational aptitude test right? Mine said I was meant to be a cop... A Cop... A COP!
As for motive, what motivates children to grow up to become police, firefighters, EMTs, etc? How do we know Clark didn't read a comic or see a show with a hero (of any kind)? I wanted to become a detective since I first saw the Scooby Gang solve mysteries. I am not related to or know anyone in law enforcement type field.
When you're in high school, you take a vocational aptitude test right? Mine said I was meant to be a cop... A Cop... A COP!
A cop, or a gameshow host.
Mine was an attorney, law enforcement was #2. That examine held no weight in my future.
Yes, they definitely were having a (dramatically convenient, since Pa was about to die) fight about whether or not Clark would take on the family farm. But how does that square with the scene (unless I am remembering something that didn't happen) where Pa tells Clark that he will change the world someday? It might even be in the "maybe" scene- isn't there a point where Pa is basically telling Clark that he has to wait. That the answer is basically 'not yet', but that someday he will change the world?
Or is it that he wish was for Clark to hide his true nature his whole life?
Honestly, I guess it was unclear. I was left with the impression that Pa believed that someday Clark would change the world, but he kept putting off that day, and was even willing to die to put off that day. But then there is the controlling (even putting the powers aside this would be a controlling thing for a parent to do) 'you WILL take over the family business' argument. So which is it? Given that this is what Pa is willing to die for, I think the film could do a better job of making it clear.
I am also curious, if indeed we are supposed to believe that Pa wished for Clark to hide his powers his whole life, how does that square with their faith? The scene where Clark chooses to seek the wisdom of a priest was supposed to imply, I take it, that he was raised a Christian. And I would guess that was this decision his adoptive family made to raise him that way. Given the Christian teachings on the role of service to your fellow man, how Christian would it have been to hide such gifts an entire life out of fear?
I will agree with all of those that have said that Costner was well cast. He played the hell out of what he had. But I feel like what they gave him did not make for a very clear point of view.
Like I said above, Clark's changing the world was a dreaded inevitability.
When he shows Clark the spaceship, he says he kept waiting for the government to show up, but they never did.
Being a Christian, Jonathan knows what the authorities have traditionally done to miracle workers.
Sure. But being a Christian (and I only hold him to this standard of thinking as the movie took some time to really hang a light on the idea of Clark as Christian), would he and his father not aspire to the same sacrifice as Jesus? Isn't the story of Jesus' death meant to inspire others to the same bravery and sacrifice? I don't think it is meant to be a cautionary tale. I don't think the lesson is 'keep your head down or else this is what you get!'
Now, of course, Jonathan can still choose protecting his son over wanting his son to protect others. That is a valid, and believable character choice, and tension between parent and child. But it still leaves me a little confused as to what Jonathan meant when he told Clark that he would change the world someday. Was the sentiment meant to be, 'You'll change the world someday. . . when they rip you from my cold, dead hands!'?
"Gladly the cross I'd bear" is easier to sing when there's no real chance of having to.
Again. Dreaded inevitability. "Someday you'll change the world, but does it have to be today? Once you do, you can never stop. They won't let you. YOU won't let you. Clark will become less important than Superman."
But Clark will never be less important than Superman to his father.
"I kept waiting for the government to show up. They never did."
Imagine that, from the day she was born, you knew "They" could show up any day and confiscate your daughter.
Yes, they definitely were having a (dramatically convenient, since Pa was about to die) fight about whether or not Clark would take on the family farm. But how does that square with the scene (unless I am remembering something that didn't happen) where Pa tells Clark that he will change the world someday? It might even be in the "maybe" scene- isn't there a point where Pa is basically telling Clark that he has to wait. That the answer is basically 'not yet', but that someday he will change the world?
Or is it that he wish was for Clark to hide his true nature his whole life?
Honestly, I guess it was unclear. I was left with the impression that Pa believed that someday Clark would change the world, but he kept putting off that day, and was even willing to die to put off that day. But then there is the controlling (even putting the powers aside this would be a controlling thing for a parent to do) 'you WILL take over the family business' argument. So which is it? Given that this is what Pa is willing to die for, I think the film could do a better job of making it clear.
I am also curious, if indeed we are supposed to believe that Pa wished for Clark to hide his powers his whole life, how does that square with their faith? The scene where Clark chooses to seek the wisdom of a priest was supposed to imply, I take it, that he was raised a Christian. And I would guess that was this decision his adoptive family made to raise him that way. Given the Christian teachings on the role of service to your fellow man, how Christian would it have been to hide such gifts an entire life out of fear?
I will agree with all of those that have said that Costner was well cast. He played the hell out of what he had. But I feel like what they gave him did not make for a very clear point of view.
Like I said above, Clark's changing the world was a dreaded inevitability.
When he shows Clark the spaceship, he says he kept waiting for the government to show up, but they never did.
Being a Christian, Jonathan knows what the authorities have traditionally done to miracle workers.
Sure. But being a Christian (and I only hold him to this standard of thinking as the movie took some time to really hang a light on the idea of Clark as Christian), would he and his father not aspire to the same sacrifice as Jesus? Isn't the story of Jesus' death meant to inspire others to the same bravery and sacrifice? I don't think it is meant to be a cautionary tale. I don't think the lesson is 'keep your head down or else this is what you get!'
Now, of course, Jonathan can still choose protecting his son over wanting his son to protect others. That is a valid, and believable character choice, and tension between parent and child. But it still leaves me a little confused as to what Jonathan meant when he told Clark that he would change the world someday. Was the sentiment meant to be, 'You'll change the world someday. . . when they rip you from my cold, dead hands!'?
"Gladly the cross I'd bear" is easier to sing when there's no real chance of having to.
Again. Dreaded inevitability. "Someday you'll change the world, but does it have to be today? Once you do, you can never stop. They won't let you. YOU won't let you. Clark will become less important than Superman."
But Clark will never be less important than Superman to his father.
"I kept waiting for the government to show up. They never did."
Imagine that, from the day she was born, you knew "They" could show up any day and confiscate your daughter.
Again, I get why Kent would want to be protective (and even understand how he could consider it worth the lives of other people's children to do so). I can empathize with that, of course. I just think it would have been nice for us to not have to guess what he imagined the inevitable to be. Was the plan really to try to hide until the inevitable? Or was there some reason why, even at 30something-pretending-to-be-17 Cavill/Clark, Kent was guilt tripping the family business to keep him away from the world?
I am not saying I don't understand the motivation, I just think the movie could have done a better job of defining the scope of it. 'Change the world someday' + 'You are almost a man, but let's let this tornado eat me, because you should go to grad school first or something' was a strange mix to me.
All it would have taken to better define Kent's point of view would have been one or two more beats to their conversation in the car. If the Kents did expect the government to come someday, was there a plan for it? Was there some kind of 'you are almost a man now' talk about what his responsibilities would be, as well as what the limits should be, if that were to happen?
I would have gladly traded, say, one falling skyscraper for it.
I suppose it leads to a potentially provocative question-- some have said that Jor-El was the villain of the movie for putting a target on Earth by sending his baby/The Codex to it. And there could even be political readings of Jor-Els intent that are to do with colonialism and 'The White Man's Burden' and all that. Even if his motivation was a father's love.
BUT
Is Pa Kent potentially as much of a would-be villain for attempting to guilt and shame the world's most powerful would-be protector into hiding his gifts? Even if he motivation was a father's love?
Is Pa Kent potentially as much of a would-be villain for attempting to guilt and shame the world's most powerful would-be protector into hiding his gifts? Even if he motivation was a father's love?
YES. THIS.
Honestly I see this as a movie about two bad dads and a son who has to overcome both of their negative influence and screwed up world view in order to become a hero.
Its interesting how the majority of people who disliked the movie are comic book fans.
M
I don’t know that you can unequivocally claim either of those statements. I doubt most of the people going to see the movie knew any details about that particular scene or that the scene was a difference-maker in their decision to buy their ticket one way or the other.
As for the second, how many non-comic book fans have you heard talking about he movie positively or negatively? I’m not being snarky, I’m just pointing out that going by the reviews and posts I’ve read about the movie here and elsewhere I could say that the majority of the people who disliked the movie are comic fans, but I could also say that the majority of the people who liked the movie are comic fans, because the majority of the reviews and posts I’ve read were from comic fans. I haven’t seen any exit polls of non-fans. If anyone knows of any, I’d be interested in seeing them. I know Rotten Tomatoes (where it’s impossible to distinguish fans from non-fans) has the movie at 6.3/10 (not a great rating) from the critics, with 82% of the audience liking it.
I think it’s safe to say that non-fan viewers will vastly outnumber fan viewers. And I think it’s also safe to say that a majority of the non-fan viewers liked the film, but just based on pure statistics, it wouldn’t take a large percentage of non-fan viewers who dislike the film to outnumber the comic fan viewers who dislike the film.
I know it’s a bit nitpicky, but you strike me as one who is usually very careful with how he presents facts. And I agree with you on the doesn’t/shouldn’t issue for the most part, but I would also point out that I thought it was a bad idea when Byrne had Superman kill, and when Donner did. But, then, I also think The Incredibles is the best superhero movie ever made.
Its interesting how the majority of people who disliked the movie are comic book fans.
M
I don’t know that you can unequivocally claim either of those statements. I doubt most of the people going to see the movie knew any details about that particular scene or that the scene was a difference-maker in their decision to buy their ticket one way or the other.
As for the second, how many non-comic book fans have you heard talking about he movie positively or negatively? I’m not being snarky, I’m just pointing out that going by the reviews and posts I’ve read about the movie here and elsewhere I could say that the majority of the people who disliked the movie are comic fans, but I could also say that the majority of the people who liked the movie are comic fans, because the majority of the reviews and posts I’ve read were from comic fans. I haven’t seen any exit polls of non-fans. If anyone knows of any, I’d be interested in seeing them. I know Rotten Tomatoes (where it’s impossible to distinguish fans from non-fans) has the movie at 6.3/10 (not a great rating) from the critics, with 82% of the audience liking it.
I think it’s safe to say that non-fan viewers will vastly outnumber fan viewers. And I think it’s also safe to say that a majority of the non-fan viewers liked the film, but just based on pure statistics, it wouldn’t take a large percentage of non-fan viewers who dislike the film to outnumber the comic fan viewers who dislike the film.
I know it’s a bit nitpicky, but you strike me as one who is usually very careful with how he presents facts. And I agree with you on the doesn’t/shouldn’t issue for the most part, but I would also point out that I thought it was a bad idea when Byrne had Superman kill, and when Donner did. But, then, I also think The Incredibles is the best superhero movie ever made.
It was just a ridiculous sequitur.
Well, my gallop pole consisted of a dozen non-comic fans and 11 of 12 liked it. The majority of the positive reviews came from reviewers not known to be fans. Aside from the people on this forum, the majority of negative reviews have come from comic fans. That's not to say these are universal.
It has also fallen into play with the different feedback I've seen about Star Trek: Into Darkness. I theorize these types of movies are being done more for the enjoyment of the general public & less the niche of the diehards.
Yes, they definitely were having a (dramatically convenient, since Pa was about to die) fight about whether or not Clark would take on the family farm. But how does that square with the scene (unless I am remembering something that didn't happen) where Pa tells Clark that he will change the world someday? It might even be in the "maybe" scene- isn't there a point where Pa is basically telling Clark that he has to wait. That the answer is basically 'not yet', but that someday he will change the world?
Or is it that he wish was for Clark to hide his true nature his whole life?
Honestly, I guess it was unclear. I was left with the impression that Pa believed that someday Clark would change the world, but he kept putting off that day, and was even willing to die to put off that day. But then there is the controlling (even putting the powers aside this would be a controlling thing for a parent to do) 'you WILL take over the family business' argument. So which is it? Given that this is what Pa is willing to die for, I think the film could do a better job of making it clear.
I am also curious, if indeed we are supposed to believe that Pa wished for Clark to hide his powers his whole life, how does that square with their faith? The scene where Clark chooses to seek the wisdom of a priest was supposed to imply, I take it, that he was raised a Christian. And I would guess that was this decision his adoptive family made to raise him that way. Given the Christian teachings on the role of service to your fellow man, how Christian would it have been to hide such gifts an entire life out of fear?
I will agree with all of those that have said that Costner was well cast. He played the hell out of what he had. But I feel like what they gave him did not make for a very clear point of view.
Like I said above, Clark's changing the world was a dreaded inevitability.
When he shows Clark the spaceship, he says he kept waiting for the government to show up, but they never did.
Being a Christian, Jonathan knows what the authorities have traditionally done to miracle workers.
Sure. But being a Christian (and I only hold him to this standard of thinking as the movie took some time to really hang a light on the idea of Clark as Christian), would he and his father not aspire to the same sacrifice as Jesus? Isn't the story of Jesus' death meant to inspire others to the same bravery and sacrifice? I don't think it is meant to be a cautionary tale. I don't think the lesson is 'keep your head down or else this is what you get!'
Now, of course, Jonathan can still choose protecting his son over wanting his son to protect others. That is a valid, and believable character choice, and tension between parent and child. But it still leaves me a little confused as to what Jonathan meant when he told Clark that he would change the world someday. Was the sentiment meant to be, 'You'll change the world someday. . . when they rip you from my cold, dead hands!'?
"Gladly the cross I'd bear" is easier to sing when there's no real chance of having to.
Again. Dreaded inevitability. "Someday you'll change the world, but does it have to be today? Once you do, you can never stop. They won't let you. YOU won't let you. Clark will become less important than Superman."
But Clark will never be less important than Superman to his father.
"I kept waiting for the government to show up. They never did."
Imagine that, from the day she was born, you knew "They" could show up any day and confiscate your daughter.
Again, I get why Kent would want to be protective (and even understand how he could consider it worth the lives of other people's children to do so). I can empathize with that, of course. I just think it would have been nice for us to not have to guess what he imagined the inevitable to be. Was the plan really to try to hide until the inevitable? Or was there some reason why, even at 30something-pretending-to-be-17 Cavill/Clark, Kent was guilt tripping the family business to keep him away from the world?
I am not saying I don't understand the motivation, I just think the movie could have done a better job of defining the scope of it. 'Change the world someday' + 'You are almost a man, but let's let this tornado eat me, because you should go to grad school first or something' was a strange mix to me.
All it would have taken to better define Kent's point of view would have been one or two more beats to their conversation in the car. If the Kents did expect the government to come someday, was there a plan for it? Was there some kind of 'you are almost a man now' talk about what his responsibilities would be, as well as what the limits should be, if that were to happen?
I would have gladly traded, say, one falling skyscraper for it.
I suppose it leads to a potentially provocative question-- some have said that Jor-El was the villain of the movie for putting a target on Earth by sending his baby/The Codex to it. And there could even be political readings of Jor-Els intent that are to do with colonialism and 'The White Man's Burden' and all that. Even if his motivation was a father's love.
BUT
Is Pa Kent potentially as much of a would-be villain for attempting to guilt and shame the world's most powerful would-be protector into hiding his gifts? Even if he motivation was a father's love?
Oh.
I understand now.
Yes.
It could absolutely have been better handled/clarified/etc.
And no, Pa Kent saved the world by keeping Clark out of the government's hands until he was able to stand up to its agents and be independent.
Yes, they definitely were having a (dramatically convenient, since Pa was about to die) fight about whether or not Clark would take on the family farm. But how does that square with the scene (unless I am remembering something that didn't happen) where Pa tells Clark that he will change the world someday? It might even be in the "maybe" scene- isn't there a point where Pa is basically telling Clark that he has to wait. That the answer is basically 'not yet', but that someday he will change the world?
Or is it that he wish was for Clark to hide his true nature his whole life?
Honestly, I guess it was unclear. I was left with the impression that Pa believed that someday Clark would change the world, but he kept putting off that day, and was even willing to die to put off that day. But then there is the controlling (even putting the powers aside this would be a controlling thing for a parent to do) 'you WILL take over the family business' argument. So which is it? Given that this is what Pa is willing to die for, I think the film could do a better job of making it clear.
I am also curious, if indeed we are supposed to believe that Pa wished for Clark to hide his powers his whole life, how does that square with their faith? The scene where Clark chooses to seek the wisdom of a priest was supposed to imply, I take it, that he was raised a Christian. And I would guess that was this decision his adoptive family made to raise him that way. Given the Christian teachings on the role of service to your fellow man, how Christian would it have been to hide such gifts an entire life out of fear?
I will agree with all of those that have said that Costner was well cast. He played the hell out of what he had. But I feel like what they gave him did not make for a very clear point of view.
Like I said above, Clark's changing the world was a dreaded inevitability.
When he shows Clark the spaceship, he says he kept waiting for the government to show up, but they never did.
Being a Christian, Jonathan knows what the authorities have traditionally done to miracle workers.
Sure. But being a Christian (and I only hold him to this standard of thinking as the movie took some time to really hang a light on the idea of Clark as Christian), would he and his father not aspire to the same sacrifice as Jesus? Isn't the story of Jesus' death meant to inspire others to the same bravery and sacrifice? I don't think it is meant to be a cautionary tale. I don't think the lesson is 'keep your head down or else this is what you get!'
Now, of course, Jonathan can still choose protecting his son over wanting his son to protect others. That is a valid, and believable character choice, and tension between parent and child. But it still leaves me a little confused as to what Jonathan meant when he told Clark that he would change the world someday. Was the sentiment meant to be, 'You'll change the world someday. . . when they rip you from my cold, dead hands!'?
"Gladly the cross I'd bear" is easier to sing when there's no real chance of having to.
Again. Dreaded inevitability. "Someday you'll change the world, but does it have to be today? Once you do, you can never stop. They won't let you. YOU won't let you. Clark will become less important than Superman."
But Clark will never be less important than Superman to his father.
"I kept waiting for the government to show up. They never did."
Imagine that, from the day she was born, you knew "They" could show up any day and confiscate your daughter.
Again, I get why Kent would want to be protective (and even understand how he could consider it worth the lives of other people's children to do so). I can empathize with that, of course. I just think it would have been nice for us to not have to guess what he imagined the inevitable to be. Was the plan really to try to hide until the inevitable? Or was there some reason why, even at 30something-pretending-to-be-17 Cavill/Clark, Kent was guilt tripping the family business to keep him away from the world?
I am not saying I don't understand the motivation, I just think the movie could have done a better job of defining the scope of it. 'Change the world someday' + 'You are almost a man, but let's let this tornado eat me, because you should go to grad school first or something' was a strange mix to me.
All it would have taken to better define Kent's point of view would have been one or two more beats to their conversation in the car. If the Kents did expect the government to come someday, was there a plan for it? Was there some kind of 'you are almost a man now' talk about what his responsibilities would be, as well as what the limits should be, if that were to happen?
I would have gladly traded, say, one falling skyscraper for it.
I suppose it leads to a potentially provocative question-- some have said that Jor-El was the villain of the movie for putting a target on Earth by sending his baby/The Codex to it. And there could even be political readings of Jor-Els intent that are to do with colonialism and 'The White Man's Burden' and all that. Even if his motivation was a father's love.
BUT
Is Pa Kent potentially as much of a would-be villain for attempting to guilt and shame the world's most powerful would-be protector into hiding his gifts? Even if he motivation was a father's love?
Oh.
I understand now.
Yes.
It could absolutely have been better handled/clarified/etc.
And no, Pa Kent saved the world by keeping Clark out of the government's hands until he was able to stand up to its agents and be independent.
Maybe-- and it is kind to think of it that way. But if the government didn't come around to investigate witness claims about that bus rescue, would they necessarily come to investigate some amazing bit of tornado rescue, had Clark ran or leaped out there to do so? Did the government investigate claims of a super-powered rescuer of oil rig workers?
Heck, as in the middle and end of the movie, even when the government decides they want to do something about Superman, it turns out they have no ability to contain or even properly monitor him.
I think the emotional center of Jonathan Kent is believable, but the writing does him few favors. At best, he comes off as loving, self-sacrificing. . . and quite wrong in his fears.
Yes, they definitely were having a (dramatically convenient, since Pa was about to die) fight about whether or not Clark would take on the family farm. But how does that square with the scene (unless I am remembering something that didn't happen) where Pa tells Clark that he will change the world someday? It might even be in the "maybe" scene- isn't there a point where Pa is basically telling Clark that he has to wait. That the answer is basically 'not yet', but that someday he will change the world?
Or is it that he wish was for Clark to hide his true nature his whole life?
Honestly, I guess it was unclear. I was left with the impression that Pa believed that someday Clark would change the world, but he kept putting off that day, and was even willing to die to put off that day. But then there is the controlling (even putting the powers aside this would be a controlling thing for a parent to do) 'you WILL take over the family business' argument. So which is it? Given that this is what Pa is willing to die for, I think the film could do a better job of making it clear.
I am also curious, if indeed we are supposed to believe that Pa wished for Clark to hide his powers his whole life, how does that square with their faith? The scene where Clark chooses to seek the wisdom of a priest was supposed to imply, I take it, that he was raised a Christian. And I would guess that was this decision his adoptive family made to raise him that way. Given the Christian teachings on the role of service to your fellow man, how Christian would it have been to hide such gifts an entire life out of fear?
I will agree with all of those that have said that Costner was well cast. He played the hell out of what he had. But I feel like what they gave him did not make for a very clear point of view.
Like I said above, Clark's changing the world was a dreaded inevitability.
When he shows Clark the spaceship, he says he kept waiting for the government to show up, but they never did.
Being a Christian, Jonathan knows what the authorities have traditionally done to miracle workers.
Sure. But being a Christian (and I only hold him to this standard of thinking as the movie took some time to really hang a light on the idea of Clark as Christian), would he and his father not aspire to the same sacrifice as Jesus? Isn't the story of Jesus' death meant to inspire others to the same bravery and sacrifice? I don't think it is meant to be a cautionary tale. I don't think the lesson is 'keep your head down or else this is what you get!'
Now, of course, Jonathan can still choose protecting his son over wanting his son to protect others. That is a valid, and believable character choice, and tension between parent and child. But it still leaves me a little confused as to what Jonathan meant when he told Clark that he would change the world someday. Was the sentiment meant to be, 'You'll change the world someday. . . when they rip you from my cold, dead hands!'?
"Gladly the cross I'd bear" is easier to sing when there's no real chance of having to.
Again. Dreaded inevitability. "Someday you'll change the world, but does it have to be today? Once you do, you can never stop. They won't let you. YOU won't let you. Clark will become less important than Superman."
But Clark will never be less important than Superman to his father.
"I kept waiting for the government to show up. They never did."
Imagine that, from the day she was born, you knew "They" could show up any day and confiscate your daughter.
Again, I get why Kent would want to be protective (and even understand how he could consider it worth the lives of other people's children to do so). I can empathize with that, of course. I just think it would have been nice for us to not have to guess what he imagined the inevitable to be. Was the plan really to try to hide until the inevitable? Or was there some reason why, even at 30something-pretending-to-be-17 Cavill/Clark, Kent was guilt tripping the family business to keep him away from the world?
I am not saying I don't understand the motivation, I just think the movie could have done a better job of defining the scope of it. 'Change the world someday' + 'You are almost a man, but let's let this tornado eat me, because you should go to grad school first or something' was a strange mix to me.
All it would have taken to better define Kent's point of view would have been one or two more beats to their conversation in the car. If the Kents did expect the government to come someday, was there a plan for it? Was there some kind of 'you are almost a man now' talk about what his responsibilities would be, as well as what the limits should be, if that were to happen?
I would have gladly traded, say, one falling skyscraper for it.
I suppose it leads to a potentially provocative question-- some have said that Jor-El was the villain of the movie for putting a target on Earth by sending his baby/The Codex to it. And there could even be political readings of Jor-Els intent that are to do with colonialism and 'The White Man's Burden' and all that. Even if his motivation was a father's love.
BUT
Is Pa Kent potentially as much of a would-be villain for attempting to guilt and shame the world's most powerful would-be protector into hiding his gifts? Even if he motivation was a father's love?
Oh.
I understand now.
Yes.
It could absolutely have been better handled/clarified/etc.
And no, Pa Kent saved the world by keeping Clark out of the government's hands until he was able to stand up to its agents and be independent.
Maybe-- and it is kind to think of it that way. But if the government didn't come around to investigate witness claims about that bus rescue, would they necessarily come to investigate some amazing bit of tornado rescue, had Clark ran or leaped out there to do so? Did the government investigate claims of a super-powered rescuer of oil rig workers?
Heck, as in the middle and end of the movie, even when the government decides they want to do something about Superman, it turns out they have no ability to contain or even properly monitor him.
I think the emotional center of Jonathan Kent is believable, but the writing does him few favors. At best, he comes off as loving, self-sacrificing. . . and quite wrong in his fears.
The writing did the whole cast few favors.
Yes the government comes across as completely incompetent, But Jonathan Kent doesn't see that part of the movie ;)
Yes, they definitely were having a (dramatically convenient, since Pa was about to die) fight about whether or not Clark would take on the family farm. But how does that square with the scene (unless I am remembering something that didn't happen) where Pa tells Clark that he will change the world someday? It might even be in the "maybe" scene- isn't there a point where Pa is basically telling Clark that he has to wait. That the answer is basically 'not yet', but that someday he will change the world?
Or is it that he wish was for Clark to hide his true nature his whole life?
Honestly, I guess it was unclear. I was left with the impression that Pa believed that someday Clark would change the world, but he kept putting off that day, and was even willing to die to put off that day. But then there is the controlling (even putting the powers aside this would be a controlling thing for a parent to do) 'you WILL take over the family business' argument. So which is it? Given that this is what Pa is willing to die for, I think the film could do a better job of making it clear.
I am also curious, if indeed we are supposed to believe that Pa wished for Clark to hide his powers his whole life, how does that square with their faith? The scene where Clark chooses to seek the wisdom of a priest was supposed to imply, I take it, that he was raised a Christian. And I would guess that was this decision his adoptive family made to raise him that way. Given the Christian teachings on the role of service to your fellow man, how Christian would it have been to hide such gifts an entire life out of fear?
I will agree with all of those that have said that Costner was well cast. He played the hell out of what he had. But I feel like what they gave him did not make for a very clear point of view.
Like I said above, Clark's changing the world was a dreaded inevitability.
When he shows Clark the spaceship, he says he kept waiting for the government to show up, but they never did.
Being a Christian, Jonathan knows what the authorities have traditionally done to miracle workers.
Sure. But being a Christian (and I only hold him to this standard of thinking as the movie took some time to really hang a light on the idea of Clark as Christian), would he and his father not aspire to the same sacrifice as Jesus? Isn't the story of Jesus' death meant to inspire others to the same bravery and sacrifice? I don't think it is meant to be a cautionary tale. I don't think the lesson is 'keep your head down or else this is what you get!'
Now, of course, Jonathan can still choose protecting his son over wanting his son to protect others. That is a valid, and believable character choice, and tension between parent and child. But it still leaves me a little confused as to what Jonathan meant when he told Clark that he would change the world someday. Was the sentiment meant to be, 'You'll change the world someday. . . when they rip you from my cold, dead hands!'?
"Gladly the cross I'd bear" is easier to sing when there's no real chance of having to.
Again. Dreaded inevitability. "Someday you'll change the world, but does it have to be today? Once you do, you can never stop. They won't let you. YOU won't let you. Clark will become less important than Superman."
But Clark will never be less important than Superman to his father.
"I kept waiting for the government to show up. They never did."
Imagine that, from the day she was born, you knew "They" could show up any day and confiscate your daughter.
Again, I get why Kent would want to be protective (and even understand how he could consider it worth the lives of other people's children to do so). I can empathize with that, of course. I just think it would have been nice for us to not have to guess what he imagined the inevitable to be. Was the plan really to try to hide until the inevitable? Or was there some reason why, even at 30something-pretending-to-be-17 Cavill/Clark, Kent was guilt tripping the family business to keep him away from the world?
I am not saying I don't understand the motivation, I just think the movie could have done a better job of defining the scope of it. 'Change the world someday' + 'You are almost a man, but let's let this tornado eat me, because you should go to grad school first or something' was a strange mix to me.
All it would have taken to better define Kent's point of view would have been one or two more beats to their conversation in the car. If the Kents did expect the government to come someday, was there a plan for it? Was there some kind of 'you are almost a man now' talk about what his responsibilities would be, as well as what the limits should be, if that were to happen?
I would have gladly traded, say, one falling skyscraper for it.
I suppose it leads to a potentially provocative question-- some have said that Jor-El was the villain of the movie for putting a target on Earth by sending his baby/The Codex to it. And there could even be political readings of Jor-Els intent that are to do with colonialism and 'The White Man's Burden' and all that. Even if his motivation was a father's love.
BUT
Is Pa Kent potentially as much of a would-be villain for attempting to guilt and shame the world's most powerful would-be protector into hiding his gifts? Even if he motivation was a father's love?
Oh.
I understand now.
Yes.
It could absolutely have been better handled/clarified/etc.
And no, Pa Kent saved the world by keeping Clark out of the government's hands until he was able to stand up to its agents and be independent.
Maybe-- and it is kind to think of it that way. But if the government didn't come around to investigate witness claims about that bus rescue, would they necessarily come to investigate some amazing bit of tornado rescue, had Clark ran or leaped out there to do so? Did the government investigate claims of a super-powered rescuer of oil rig workers?
Heck, as in the middle and end of the movie, even when the government decides they want to do something about Superman, it turns out they have no ability to contain or even properly monitor him.
I think the emotional center of Jonathan Kent is believable, but the writing does him few favors. At best, he comes off as loving, self-sacrificing. . . and quite wrong in his fears.
The writing did the whole cast few favors.
Yes the government comes across as completely incompetent, But Jonathan Kent doesn't see that part of the movie ;)
I don't think the U.S. government is done spying on him.
Want to go see it again. But trying to force myself to wait a week or two or three. Probably one of the few movies I'm looking forward to seeing an extended cut. Hope there is one.
Yes, they definitely were having a (dramatically convenient, since Pa was about to die) fight about whether or not Clark would take on the family farm. But how does that square with the scene (unless I am remembering something that didn't happen) where Pa tells Clark that he will change the world someday? It might even be in the "maybe" scene- isn't there a point where Pa is basically telling Clark that he has to wait. That the answer is basically 'not yet', but that someday he will change the world?
Or is it that he wish was for Clark to hide his true nature his whole life?
Honestly, I guess it was unclear. I was left with the impression that Pa believed that someday Clark would change the world, but he kept putting off that day, and was even willing to die to put off that day. But then there is the controlling (even putting the powers aside this would be a controlling thing for a parent to do) 'you WILL take over the family business' argument. So which is it? Given that this is what Pa is willing to die for, I think the film could do a better job of making it clear.
I am also curious, if indeed we are supposed to believe that Pa wished for Clark to hide his powers his whole life, how does that square with their faith? The scene where Clark chooses to seek the wisdom of a priest was supposed to imply, I take it, that he was raised a Christian. And I would guess that was this decision his adoptive family made to raise him that way. Given the Christian teachings on the role of service to your fellow man, how Christian would it have been to hide such gifts an entire life out of fear?
I will agree with all of those that have said that Costner was well cast. He played the hell out of what he had. But I feel like what they gave him did not make for a very clear point of view.
Like I said above, Clark's changing the world was a dreaded inevitability.
When he shows Clark the spaceship, he says he kept waiting for the government to show up, but they never did.
Being a Christian, Jonathan knows what the authorities have traditionally done to miracle workers.
Sure. But being a Christian (and I only hold him to this standard of thinking as the movie took some time to really hang a light on the idea of Clark as Christian), would he and his father not aspire to the same sacrifice as Jesus? Isn't the story of Jesus' death meant to inspire others to the same bravery and sacrifice? I don't think it is meant to be a cautionary tale. I don't think the lesson is 'keep your head down or else this is what you get!'
Now, of course, Jonathan can still choose protecting his son over wanting his son to protect others. That is a valid, and believable character choice, and tension between parent and child. But it still leaves me a little confused as to what Jonathan meant when he told Clark that he would change the world someday. Was the sentiment meant to be, 'You'll change the world someday. . . when they rip you from my cold, dead hands!'?
"Gladly the cross I'd bear" is easier to sing when there's no real chance of having to.
Again. Dreaded inevitability. "Someday you'll change the world, but does it have to be today? Once you do, you can never stop. They won't let you. YOU won't let you. Clark will become less important than Superman."
But Clark will never be less important than Superman to his father.
"I kept waiting for the government to show up. They never did."
Imagine that, from the day she was born, you knew "They" could show up any day and confiscate your daughter.
Again, I get why Kent would want to be protective (and even understand how he could consider it worth the lives of other people's children to do so). I can empathize with that, of course. I just think it would have been nice for us to not have to guess what he imagined the inevitable to be. Was the plan really to try to hide until the inevitable? Or was there some reason why, even at 30something-pretending-to-be-17 Cavill/Clark, Kent was guilt tripping the family business to keep him away from the world?
I am not saying I don't understand the motivation, I just think the movie could have done a better job of defining the scope of it. 'Change the world someday' + 'You are almost a man, but let's let this tornado eat me, because you should go to grad school first or something' was a strange mix to me.
All it would have taken to better define Kent's point of view would have been one or two more beats to their conversation in the car. If the Kents did expect the government to come someday, was there a plan for it? Was there some kind of 'you are almost a man now' talk about what his responsibilities would be, as well as what the limits should be, if that were to happen?
I would have gladly traded, say, one falling skyscraper for it.
I suppose it leads to a potentially provocative question-- some have said that Jor-El was the villain of the movie for putting a target on Earth by sending his baby/The Codex to it. And there could even be political readings of Jor-Els intent that are to do with colonialism and 'The White Man's Burden' and all that. Even if his motivation was a father's love.
BUT
Is Pa Kent potentially as much of a would-be villain for attempting to guilt and shame the world's most powerful would-be protector into hiding his gifts? Even if he motivation was a father's love?
Oh.
I understand now.
Yes.
It could absolutely have been better handled/clarified/etc.
And no, Pa Kent saved the world by keeping Clark out of the government's hands until he was able to stand up to its agents and be independent.
Maybe-- and it is kind to think of it that way. But if the government didn't come around to investigate witness claims about that bus rescue, would they necessarily come to investigate some amazing bit of tornado rescue, had Clark ran or leaped out there to do so? Did the government investigate claims of a super-powered rescuer of oil rig workers?
Heck, as in the middle and end of the movie, even when the government decides they want to do something about Superman, it turns out they have no ability to contain or even properly monitor him.
I think the emotional center of Jonathan Kent is believable, but the writing does him few favors. At best, he comes off as loving, self-sacrificing. . . and quite wrong in his fears.
The writing did the whole cast few favors.
Yes the government comes across as completely incompetent, But Jonathan Kent doesn't see that part of the movie ;)
Well, my gallop pole consisted of a dozen non-comic fans and 11 of 12 liked it. The majority of the positive reviews came from reviewers not known to be fans. Aside from the people on this forum, the majority of negative reviews have come from comic fans. That's not to say these are universal.
It has also fallen into play with the different feedback I've seen about Star Trek: Into Darkness. I theorize these types of movies are being done more for the enjoyment of the general public & less the niche of the diehards.
M
I don’t think there’s any question that this type of movie is being made in such a way as to sell as many tickets as possible, sell as many DVDs as possible, and generate as much licensing money as possible. That goes for the Marvel movies as well, though they are taking a slightly different—and more fun (for me anyway)—approach to that aim. (And for comparison, Avengers holds an 8/10 rating from critics, with 96% audience approval at Rotten Tomatoes.)
I’m not going to lump all comic book-based movies into the same category as Man of Steel or Avengers or Star Trek though, because Del Toro made the first Hellboy movie with the goal of appealing primarily to an audience of one—Mike Mignola—trusting that if it satisfied him, it would also satisfy a larger audience. And, sure enough, there was enough audience response to generate a sequel. It wasn’t the blockbuster the three aforementioned movies were, but it did just fine.
There are many different Superman stories they could have told—including many light-hearted (not slapstick—light-hearted; there’s a difference), fun stories—that would have had just as much appeal to a general audience as Man of Steel, and I have to admit it galls me a bit when I see someone (not you, Matt) post in threads like this, and they imply, or outright scream, that this “realistic” approach was the only way to go. And I use quotes because this is a fantasy story at its core, not a courtroom drama, and you can only take the realism so far before it impedes on the fantasy.
Well, my gallop pole consisted of a dozen non-comic fans and 11 of 12 liked it. The majority of the positive reviews came from reviewers not known to be fans. Aside from the people on this forum, the majority of negative reviews have come from comic fans. That's not to say these are universal.
It has also fallen into play with the different feedback I've seen about Star Trek: Into Darkness. I theorize these types of movies are being done more for the enjoyment of the general public & less the niche of the diehards.
M
I don’t think there’s any question that this type of movie is being made in such a way as to sell as many tickets as possible, sell as many DVDs as possible, and generate as much licensing money as possible. That goes for the Marvel movies as well, though they are taking a slightly different—and more fun (for me anyway)—approach to that aim. (And for comparison, Avengers holds an 8/10 rating from critics, with 96% audience approval at Rotten Tomatoes.)
I’m not going to lump all comic book-based movies into the same category as Man of Steel or Avengers or Star Trek though, because Del Toro made the first Hellboy movie with the goal of appealing primarily to an audience of one—Mike Mignola—trusting that if it satisfied him, it would also satisfy a larger audience. And, sure enough, there was enough audience response to generate a sequel. It wasn’t the blockbuster the three aforementioned movies were, but it did just fine.
There are many different Superman stories they could have told—including many light-hearted (not slapstick—light-hearted; there’s a difference), fun stories—that would have had just as much appeal to a general audience as Man of Steel, and I have to admit it galls me a bit when I see someone (not you, Matt) post in threads like this, and they imply, or outright scream, that this “realistic” approach was the only way to go. And I use quotes because this is a fantasy story at its core, not a courtroom drama, and you can only take the realism so far before it impedes on the fantasy.
I wouldn't say it was the only story that could be told, but I think it was a smart move. Marvel is doing a great job using the source material (though I'd say most of its non-comic book audience is because of RDJ...my wife being an example.)
DC could be going for a more realistic approach. Even though its a different universe, the Dark Knight trilogy has proven to be successful with that. I want to see their movies continue to be JUST out of range of reality. That's why I really like this movie.
Well, my gallop pole consisted of a dozen non-comic fans and 11 of 12 liked it. The majority of the positive reviews came from reviewers not known to be fans. Aside from the people on this forum, the majority of negative reviews have come from comic fans. That's not to say these are universal.
It has also fallen into play with the different feedback I've seen about Star Trek: Into Darkness. I theorize these types of movies are being done more for the enjoyment of the general public & less the niche of the diehards.
M
I don’t think there’s any question that this type of movie is being made in such a way as to sell as many tickets as possible, sell as many DVDs as possible, and generate as much licensing money as possible. That goes for the Marvel movies as well, though they are taking a slightly different—and more fun (for me anyway)—approach to that aim. (And for comparison, Avengers holds an 8/10 rating from critics, with 96% audience approval at Rotten Tomatoes.)
I’m not going to lump all comic book-based movies into the same category as Man of Steel or Avengers or Star Trek though, because Del Toro made the first Hellboy movie with the goal of appealing primarily to an audience of one—Mike Mignola—trusting that if it satisfied him, it would also satisfy a larger audience. And, sure enough, there was enough audience response to generate a sequel. It wasn’t the blockbuster the three aforementioned movies were, but it did just fine.
There are many different Superman stories they could have told—including many light-hearted (not slapstick—light-hearted; there’s a difference), fun stories—that would have had just as much appeal to a general audience as Man of Steel, and I have to admit it galls me a bit when I see someone (not you, Matt) post in threads like this, and they imply, or outright scream, that this “realistic” approach was the only way to go. And I use quotes because this is a fantasy story at its core, not a courtroom drama, and you can only take the realism so far before it impedes on the fantasy.
I wouldn't say it was the only story that could be told, but I think it was a smart move. Marvel is doing a great job using the source material (though I'd say most of its non-comic book audience is because of RDJ...my wife being an example.)
DC could be going for a more realistic approach. Even though its a different universe, the Dark Knight trilogy has proven to be successful with that. I want to see their movies continue to be JUST out of range of reality. That's why I really like this movie.
M
It may have been a smart move, or it may not have. I think the jury is still out. As I said in an earlier post, we'll need to wait and see how many people come back for the second film before we can really judge the success of this one. The goal of this film—besides trying to make a ton of cash—is to build/reestablish a franchise, so its true success hinges on what follows.
Warner Bros. (DC has no say in the films really) has most assuredly gone for a more realistic approach, and I’m sure they’re trying to ride the Batman wave for all it’s worth. I’m truly glad you liked the film. And I’m glad you’re not alone. And I hope even a fraction of whatever success the film garners carries over to DC.
As for me, I find that the older I get, the more I look for escapism, fantasy, and a sense of wonder not just in the movies I watch, but in the books I read (though I still read a lot of biography and history), and the comics I read. That’s not to say I no longer enjoy darker, serious, or realistic fiction, I’m just a lot pickier about that stuff than I used to be.
Another think I was thinking regarding this movie:
I don't know that we can necessarily consider Superman a comic-book only property anymore (in re: comics fans vs. non-comics fans liking the movie). If I go up to a non-comic fan and ask them who B'wana Beast is, they're probably going to look at me funny. But I can go up to a lot of non-comic fans and ask who Superman is, and they'll know...
George Reeves. Christopher Reeve. Lois and Clark. Smallville. Superman:TAS. Justice League Unlimited. Yes, we all know that his origins began in Action Comics #1, but that may not be how all of us were brought to the table.
Given that, I think a Superman movie (this one or otherwise) will always have appeal to a large audience, whether or not they are devoted comic geeks or not. Superman isn't just "ours" anymore...he belongs to a lot of different mediums.
Now that it's been about a week since I saw the movie, in my mind it's held up well (because I know you're all hinging on what Al thinks about this movie, right? :) ). Ultimately, I think I would like to have seen a middle ground between this and the Reeve movies - less campiness, but more heroism; he can kill Zod, but spend more time showing anguish about making the decision; when you do bring Lex Luthor into it, don't make him a dork (with all respect to Gene Hackman, one of my favorite actors). Stuff like that. I can see myself more willing to re-watch this in 10 years than any of the Salkind movies, and I liked those. Even IV. :)
Torchsong, You're exactly right. Superman has been influenced by "other media" more then any other comic book property. You failed to mention the OTR. The radio show drove the Superman bus for years.
Comments
But how does that square with the scene (unless I am remembering something that didn't happen) where Pa tells Clark that he will change the world someday? It might even be in the "maybe" scene- isn't there a point where Pa is basically telling Clark that he has to wait. That the answer is basically 'not yet', but that someday he will change the world?
Or is it that he wish was for Clark to hide his true nature his whole life?
Honestly, I guess it was unclear. I was left with the impression that Pa believed that someday Clark would change the world, but he kept putting off that day, and was even willing to die to put off that day. But then there is the controlling (even putting the powers aside this would be a controlling thing for a parent to do) 'you WILL take over the family business' argument. So which is it? Given that this is what Pa is willing to die for, I think the film could do a better job of making it clear.
I am also curious, if indeed we are supposed to believe that Pa wished for Clark to hide his powers his whole life, how does that square with their faith? The scene where Clark chooses to seek the wisdom of a priest was supposed to imply, I take it, that he was raised a Christian. And I would guess that was this decision his adoptive family made to raise him that way. Given the Christian teachings on the role of service to your fellow man, how Christian would it have been to hide such gifts an entire life out of fear?
I will agree with all of those that have said that Costner was well cast. He played the hell out of what he had. But I feel like what they gave him did not make for a very clear point of view.
When he shows Clark the spaceship, he says he kept waiting for the government to show up, but they never did.
Being a Christian, Jonathan knows what the authorities have traditionally done to miracle workers.
A man who chooses to help others selflessly, humbly and discretely, rather than make himself more important than his deeds?
I don't know. Maybe?
Also, note my verbs: expected vs. wanted.
Jonathan had no idea what Clark was, but he loved him. And he wanted to be a Man, not a God. Nor a Freak.* Nor a Target.
Can you imagine the Kents, The Rosses and the Langs on Jerry Springer?
Now, of course, Jonathan can still choose protecting his son over wanting his son to protect others. That is a valid, and believable character choice, and tension between parent and child. But it still leaves me a little confused as to what Jonathan meant when he told Clark that he would change the world someday. Was the sentiment meant to be, 'You'll change the world someday. . . when they rip you from my cold, dead hands!'?
A cop, or a gameshow host.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman2012.htm
Its interesting how the majority of people who disliked the movie are comic book fans.
M
M
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/06/man-of-steels-superman-is-not-your-superman
M
Again. Dreaded inevitability. "Someday you'll change the world, but does it have to be today? Once you do, you can never stop. They won't let you. YOU won't let you. Clark will become less important than Superman."
But Clark will never be less important than Superman to his father.
"I kept waiting for the government to show up. They never did."
Imagine that, from the day she was born, you knew "They" could show up any day and confiscate your daughter.
I am not saying I don't understand the motivation, I just think the movie could have done a better job of defining the scope of it. 'Change the world someday' + 'You are almost a man, but let's let this tornado eat me, because you should go to grad school first or something' was a strange mix to me.
All it would have taken to better define Kent's point of view would have been one or two more beats to their conversation in the car. If the Kents did expect the government to come someday, was there a plan for it? Was there some kind of 'you are almost a man now' talk about what his responsibilities would be, as well as what the limits should be, if that were to happen?
I would have gladly traded, say, one falling skyscraper for it.
I suppose it leads to a potentially provocative question-- some have said that Jor-El was the villain of the movie for putting a target on Earth by sending his baby/The Codex to it. And there could even be political readings of Jor-Els intent that are to do with colonialism and 'The White Man's Burden' and all that. Even if his motivation was a father's love.
BUT
Is Pa Kent potentially as much of a would-be villain for attempting to guilt and shame the world's most powerful would-be protector into hiding his gifts? Even if he motivation was a father's love?
Is Pa Kent potentially as much of a would-be villain for attempting to guilt and shame the world's most powerful would-be protector into hiding his gifts? Even if he motivation was a father's love?
YES. THIS.
Honestly I see this as a movie about two bad dads and a son who has to overcome both of their negative influence and screwed up world view in order to become a hero.
As for the second, how many non-comic book fans have you heard talking about he movie positively or negatively? I’m not being snarky, I’m just pointing out that going by the reviews and posts I’ve read about the movie here and elsewhere I could say that the majority of the people who disliked the movie are comic fans, but I could also say that the majority of the people who liked the movie are comic fans, because the majority of the reviews and posts I’ve read were from comic fans. I haven’t seen any exit polls of non-fans. If anyone knows of any, I’d be interested in seeing them. I know Rotten Tomatoes (where it’s impossible to distinguish fans from non-fans) has the movie at 6.3/10 (not a great rating) from the critics, with 82% of the audience liking it.
I think it’s safe to say that non-fan viewers will vastly outnumber fan viewers. And I think it’s also safe to say that a majority of the non-fan viewers liked the film, but just based on pure statistics, it wouldn’t take a large percentage of non-fan viewers who dislike the film to outnumber the comic fan viewers who dislike the film.
I know it’s a bit nitpicky, but you strike me as one who is usually very careful with how he presents facts. And I agree with you on the doesn’t/shouldn’t issue for the most part, but I would also point out that I thought it was a bad idea when Byrne had Superman kill, and when Donner did. But, then, I also think The Incredibles is the best superhero movie ever made.
Well, my gallop pole consisted of a dozen non-comic fans and 11 of 12 liked it. The majority of the positive reviews came from reviewers not known to be fans. Aside from the people on this forum, the majority of negative reviews have come from comic fans. That's not to say these are universal.
It has also fallen into play with the different feedback I've seen about Star Trek: Into Darkness. I theorize these types of movies are being done more for the enjoyment of the general public & less the niche of the diehards.
M
I understand now.
Yes.
It could absolutely have been better handled/clarified/etc.
And no, Pa Kent saved the world by keeping Clark out of the government's hands until he was able to stand up to its agents and be independent.
M
Heck, as in the middle and end of the movie, even when the government decides they want to do something about Superman, it turns out they have no ability to contain or even properly monitor him.
I think the emotional center of Jonathan Kent is believable, but the writing does him few favors. At best, he comes off as loving, self-sacrificing. . . and quite wrong in his fears.
Yes the government comes across as completely incompetent, But Jonathan Kent doesn't see that part of the movie ;)
Want to go see it again. But trying to force myself to wait a week or two or three. Probably one of the few movies I'm looking forward to seeing an extended cut. Hope there is one.
Makes me wonder if the National Guard (in our real world) got their money's worth for their participation in the film.
I’m not going to lump all comic book-based movies into the same category as Man of Steel or Avengers or Star Trek though, because Del Toro made the first Hellboy movie with the goal of appealing primarily to an audience of one—Mike Mignola—trusting that if it satisfied him, it would also satisfy a larger audience. And, sure enough, there was enough audience response to generate a sequel. It wasn’t the blockbuster the three aforementioned movies were, but it did just fine.
There are many different Superman stories they could have told—including many light-hearted (not slapstick—light-hearted; there’s a difference), fun stories—that would have had just as much appeal to a general audience as Man of Steel, and I have to admit it galls me a bit when I see someone (not you, Matt) post in threads like this, and they imply, or outright scream, that this “realistic” approach was the only way to go. And I use quotes because this is a fantasy story at its core, not a courtroom drama, and you can only take the realism so far before it impedes on the fantasy.
DC could be going for a more realistic approach. Even though its a different universe, the Dark Knight trilogy has proven to be successful with that. I want to see their movies continue to be JUST out of range of reality. That's why I really like this movie.
M
Warner Bros. (DC has no say in the films really) has most assuredly gone for a more realistic approach, and I’m sure they’re trying to ride the Batman wave for all it’s worth. I’m truly glad you liked the film. And I’m glad you’re not alone. And I hope even a fraction of whatever success the film garners carries over to DC.
As for me, I find that the older I get, the more I look for escapism, fantasy, and a sense of wonder not just in the movies I watch, but in the books I read (though I still read a lot of biography and history), and the comics I read. That’s not to say I no longer enjoy darker, serious, or realistic fiction, I’m just a lot pickier about that stuff than I used to be.
I wouldn't say I'm convinced... but I don't think its impossible either.
I don't know that we can necessarily consider Superman a comic-book only property anymore (in re: comics fans vs. non-comics fans liking the movie). If I go up to a non-comic fan and ask them who B'wana Beast is, they're probably going to look at me funny. But I can go up to a lot of non-comic fans and ask who Superman is, and they'll know...
George Reeves. Christopher Reeve. Lois and Clark. Smallville. Superman:TAS. Justice League Unlimited. Yes, we all know that his origins began in Action Comics #1, but that may not be how all of us were brought to the table.
Given that, I think a Superman movie (this one or otherwise) will always have appeal to a large audience, whether or not they are devoted comic geeks or not. Superman isn't just "ours" anymore...he belongs to a lot of different mediums.
Now that it's been about a week since I saw the movie, in my mind it's held up well (because I know you're all hinging on what Al thinks about this movie, right? :) ). Ultimately, I think I would like to have seen a middle ground between this and the Reeve movies - less campiness, but more heroism; he can kill Zod, but spend more time showing anguish about making the decision; when you do bring Lex Luthor into it, don't make him a dork (with all respect to Gene Hackman, one of my favorite actors). Stuff like that. I can see myself more willing to re-watch this in 10 years than any of the Salkind movies, and I liked those. Even IV. :)