DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Christopher]

As for the DCEU Johnatan Kent, there is absolutely nothing wrong with his attitude towards Clark's powers in general, I just don't think it's the kind of attitude that the character should have. Through pretty much the entire history of the character he's always been Clark's biggest supporter and the one the people who encouraged Clark, so to see a version of the character go so completely against that feels wrong.

DCEU Pa Kent is the worst Pa Kent ever, no doubt, but I do find it interesting in an Elseworlds sort of way. We're used to stories where Clark gets his moral code from Jonathan and Martha, so it's interesting to see a version where Clark still becomes an intrinsically good and heroic person despite Jonathan. (Although then BvS rewrote history by having Clark say that Superman was his father's dream, instead of Clark's direct repudiation of his father's terrible advice.)

 

[JD]

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

With the caveat that I still don't really care, having a quick glance online



DCEU Pa Kent definitely has impaired empathy/remorse, and I'd bet his death (basically a suicide) could be linked to disinhibited and/or egotistical traits.

Obviously this was not meant to be a thing by the people who made the movie, its just the result of a director who is obsessed with Ayn Rand's philosophy and general shitty grimdark writing. But I'd argue that anyone with the attitudes that Pa Kent has in the DCEU is a nutjob. Maybe not to the level of a Joker or Two-Face, but any answer to the question "Should I have let kids drown" that isn't a resounding "Of Course Not" comes from someone who is not right in the head, whether its literal psychopathy or not.

Anyway, I called Pa Kent a psychopath as basically a short hand for "evil self absorbed piece of shit", anyone who took what I said to mean I was giving the character some literal psychological diagnosis needs to pay more attention to context in a post/conversation and be less literal.

Gotta disagree, he was a father who was trying to protect his son, so his whole motivation was based around empathy for his son.
Like I said, I don't think he was a bad person or a bad character, he's just not how most Superman fans want to see Pa Kent portrayed.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Terms like that have a very specific meaning, and even when talking about fictional characters, it really is a bad idea to just randomly throw them around without really knowing what they mean

Yeah, but that gets in the way of someone wanting to post I-Hate-Snyder-DCEU Rant #4,000,000,000.

As for the DCEU Johnatan Kent, there is absolutely nothing wrong with his attitude towards Clark's powers in general, I just don't think it's the kind of attitude that the character should have.

His father had a realistic attitude. That's how a parent views a child who will face a world of hatred for those who are unlike themselves. That was one of the many reasons Man of Steel was relatable, as opposed to decades of Pa Kent marching his son off to be a child soldier for no justifiable reason. Sensible and loving parents do not treat their children that way, and one must question the motive behind supporting that kind of astoundingly wrongheaded characterization.

 

[JD]

While I do agree with you in general on the MoS Pa Kent, as a parent raising an alien child in a world where the first reaction the government is going to have to capture and study him. I just don't like seeing this particular character portraed that way.
I've said what I have to say on this topic, and I'm not responding to you any more, because if I do we're just going to end in another never end circular debate that pretty much just turns into

and you're probably as tired of that at this point as I am.

 

[DigificWriter]

A father being willing to place the safety of their child first above all else, even to the point of implying that said child should have not taken actions that, in the father's mind, endangered the child even though said actions saved the lives of other children is not actually an unreasonable attitude to have, and it's genuinely disturbing to me to see said attitude vilified.

 

[fireproof78]

A father being willing to place the safety of their child first above all else, even to the point of implying that said child should have not taken actions that, in the father's mind, endangered the child even though said actions saved the lives of other children is not actually an unreasonable attitude to have, and it's genuinely disturbing to me to see said attitude vilified.

Because Kent and Superman are supposed to be above the regular people.

 

[Dee1891]

DCEU Pa Kent is the worst Pa Kent ever, no doubt, but I do find it interesting in an Elseworlds sort of way. We're used to stories where Clark gets his moral code from Jonathan and Martha, so it's interesting to see a version where Clark still becomes an intrinsically good and heroic person despite Jonathan. (Although then BvS rewrote history by having Clark say that Superman was his father's dream, instead of Clark's direct repudiation of his father's terrible advice.)

I saw nothing wrong with Jonathan's advice. Naturally he was worried about how humanity's reaction to Clark would affect the latter's emotional state. As it turned out, he had every reason to be worried. I don't recall Clark having ambitions to be a costumed vigilante.

I think the real problem is that many still want Superman to a one-note hero who always do and say the right things, instead of a complex individual or character. I find that sad.

 

[DigificWriter]

Because Kent and Superman are supposed to be above the regular people.

Nope.

the real problem is that many still want Superman to a one-note hero who always do and say the right things, instead of a complex individual or character.

Exactly.

The problem with that way of thinking, of course, is that it's already been proven that such a character doesn't work in our modern society and doesn't have general widespread appeal.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Nope.

He's LITERALLY named Super Man.

"over and above : higher in quantity, quality, or degree than : more than"

 

[YLu]

Speaking as a minority, I can say my parents never told me hiding my minority status should take precedence over letting a bunch of kids drown. That'd have been weird.

 

[Tosk]

Say what you will about Costner Kent, but at least he walked the walk. He didn't just think that maybe Clark should let kids die to protect his secret, he even let himself die to protect Clark's secret.

I give him points for not being a hypocrite.

What an idiot though.

 

[Set Harth]

(Although then BvS rewrote history by having Clark say that Superman was his father's dream, instead of Clark's direct repudiation of his father's terrible advice.)

"I have to believe that you were sent here for a reason."
"You are my son. But somewhere out there you have another father, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark."

 

[Tosk]

"I have to believe that you were sent here for a reason."
"You are my son. But somewhere out there you have another father, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark."

But he never says what that reason might be. You even left out the bit where he finishes up with "And even if it takes you the rest of your life, you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is."

Good thing that reason wasn't to enslave the planet. "Rule them with strength" and all that.

 

[Christopher]

Say what you will about Costner Kent, but at least he walked the walk. He didn't just think that maybe Clark should let kids die to protect his secret, he even let himself die to protect Clark's secret.

I give him points for not being a hypocrite.

What an idiot though.

He forgot that Clark has superspeed and could whoosh him out of there too fast for anyone to see what happened.

Although the really unforgivable thing is that the filmmakers perpetuated the dangerous myth that you should hide from a tornado under an overpass, which concentrates the wind and debris and is the least safe place to be. That scene may have endangered real people's lives by getting that wrong, which is grossly irresponsible and far worse than any character assassination. Worse, Superman & Lois made the exact same mistake in its season 3 finale.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

A father being willing to place the safety of their child first above all else, even to the point of implying that said child should have not taken actions that, in the father's mind, endangered the child even though said actions saved the lives of other children is not actually an unreasonable attitude to have, and it's genuinely disturbing to me to see said attitude vilified.

Its vilified because some continue to buy into the ever-ridiculous notion that a child is born to be some propagandized soldier / daddy figure from birth, completely ignoring that any loving, real world father warns children who are different than the dominant society about the abuse and expected evil he would face from said society. As a member of a minority group, I have and always will find that conscious shoving aside of the meaning behind Jonathan's advice patently offensive. Any other advice is cartoony, PSA nonsense which makes the character impossible to relate to with what should be his core identity ans how he faces humans.

I saw nothing wrong with Jonathan's advice. Naturally he was worried about how humanity's reaction to Clark would affect the latter's emotional state. As it turned out, he had every reason to be worried. I don't recall Clark having ambitions to be a costumed vigilante.

Well put. Some are still bending at the knee to Weisinger, who--in endless retelling of Superman's origin--had Clark as an out-of-the-box "hero" who lacked a lived identity (which is not those 50,000 "tales from Krypton" / the ghost of Superman's parents" published voyages into inanity) to the degree which would give Pa Kent pause before sending his son out as some idealized weapon.

I think the real problem is that many still want Superman to a one-note hero who always do and say the right things, instead of a complex individual or character. I find that sad.

Exactly, and its that lack of realistic complexity that played a role in the quick fall of the Salkinds' Superman films, and the worshipful Singer film.

 

[fireproof78]

Nope

In popular perception, yup. The Kents are to be paragons of virtue who imbued Supes with moral certitude.

 

[DigificWriter]

In popular perception, yup. The Kents are to be paragons of virtue who imbued Supes with moral certitude.

There's absolutely nothing morally uncertain or non-virtuous about a parent putting the personal safety and well-being of their child first and foremost even if securing said safety and well-being might involve inaction - either on their part or on the part of their child - that potentially puts other lives at risk.

 

[fireproof78]

There's absolutely nothing morally uncertain or non-virtuous about a parent putting the personal safety and well-being of their child first and foremost even if securing said safety and well-being might involve inaction - either on their part or on the part of their child - that potentially puts other lives at risk.

Yes, I agree.

The key point in my statement was "in popular perception."

 

[Kai "the spy"]

You know, it's now been ten years.

That's right. Ten years.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten years.

A whole decade.

The big 1-0.

Ten.

Fucking.

Years.

And none of you is new to this discussion, either. We all, each and everyone of us, has had this debate before. Several times.

Over the last. Ten. Years.

Will you, please, all of you, not one side over the other, but all of you, for the sake of everybody else and your personal mental health MOVE THE FUCK ON!

And this one goes to everyone here to reflect on individually. If you read somebody here posting their opinion about MoS and the creative choices that movie made, and it is contrary to your own? You don't need to chime in again. We all know where each of us stand. It's not like "this time, they're bound to realize they're wrong". That will not happen.
And, goddammit, it is so tiring.

I'm a massive DC fan, my love for DC and Superman in particular might even eclipse my love for Trek, but for years now I almost dread coming in this thread that by all rights should be my happy place because best chances are that the same people will make the same points in the same argument.

So, I am pleading, please, agree to disagree, or if some on the other side of the argument don't want to, then you individually, just accept the disagreement. And move on. PLEASE!

 

[kirk55555]

So, I guess this thread should now be titled DC Movies - From 1941 to 2012 and From 2021 Onwards ONLY Well, I guess thats what we all get for posting on what is apparently one person's personal social media page. What did we think TrekBBS was, a public discussion forum? What a ridiculous notion.