Spoilers Justice League - Grading and Discussion

[Ovation]

^ I wonder if you're not "reading into" the dialogue a bit. I can't quote it verbatim, but I didn't have any sense watching the scene that Jonathan's concerns included Clark's physical safety, just The Secret.

The two are intertwined. Even if we grant that Jonathan had zero worries about Clark’s safety re: bus incident, it is clear both he and Martha view the exposure of his secret as an existential threat to Clark. As such, it’s not surprising that he/they would want to protect their child—even at the cost of other people’s children. That’s how real (not fictional, idealized “noble”) parents would react.

 

[Anwar]

The scene would've been helped if Jonathan had a "I can't believe I just said that" look on his face right after he says it, making it clear that he realized the horror of what he'd just said.

 

[Tosk]

That's a perfectly valid comparison

The movie scene is about a person risking their secret to save something. Your scene is about a person risking their life to save something. It's not the same unless you feel a secret has the same value as a life.

it's only invalid if you don't wanna hear any viewpoint other than your own

If I didn't want to hear it I wouldn't be engaged in the discussion in the first place.

and just wanna whinge about the same thing over and over again for over 5 freaking years...

Hey, I dunno what to tell ya...if the topic is totally old and boring to you, you could always just ignore it. You don't have to ignore it of course, that's up to you.

---

Edit: A little positivety to balance my negativity. For the record, despite my dislike for the scripting of that Maybe moment, I really like the continuation of the scene, when they are in the barn. Costner's "You are my son" breaks my heart a little.

 

[Ovation]

That's a false comparison, as that's not what happens in the scene...Pa Kent cautions Clark against giving away his secret. That the lives of a bus full of children are maybe less important than a big secret. Which answer makes him a shit parent in that scenario?

If the secret represents an existential threat to the child, as it clearly does in the minds of the parents in this case (and not without reason), then “shit parent” is hardly an apt label to apply to either Kent parent.

 

[dahj]

I wonder if you're not "reading into" the dialogue a bit. I can't quote it verbatim, but I didn't have any sense watching the scene that Jonathan's concerns included Clark's physical safety, just The Secret.

Well revealing "The Secret" itself carries with it the implied threat of being burned as a witch, or at the very least taken away, and being poked, prodded and experimented on which isn't exactly physically safe...

As for "reading thing into it," I honestly think people aren't reading nearly enough. Being too focused on the Superman mythos and what his powers are and all you're ignoring the subtext of the movie, because Clark in MoS is a metaphor for "the other" in our society, people who are different and marginalized for their difference, be it gender, sexuality, color of their skin, religion, nationality... people who don't fit in what society deems "normal." The Kents are blessed with a child who they see is beautiful and special and unique, but at the same time are aware that society shuns and fears difference, which is sadly an increasingly relevant angle to this take on Superman, and they're trying to navigate that reality as best they can and make sure their child has a semblance of a normal childhood.

 

[Ovation]

Costner's "You are my son" breaks my heart a little.

I guarantee that, prior to being a father, that scene would have elicited a “that’s nice” response from me (genuine, not ironic). I have a son about that age now—that moment always chokes me up.

 

[Tosk]

If the secret represents an existential threat to the child, as it clearly does in the minds of the parents in this case (and not without reason), then “shit parent” is hardly an apt label to apply to either Kent parent.

"Shit parent" was me quoting the previous post. I don't see either Kent as a shit parent, I just fundamentally disagree with the "Maybe" moment.

 

[Ovation]

Well revealing "The Secret" itself carries with it the implied threat of being burned as a witch, or at the very least taken away, and being poked, prodded and experimented on which isn't exactly physically safe...

As for "reading thing into it," I honestly think people aren't reading nearly enough. Being too focused on the Superman mythos and what his powers are and all you're ignoring the subtext of the movie, because Clark in MoS is a metaphor for "the other" in our society, people who are different and marginalized for their difference, be it gender, sexuality, color of their skin, religion, nationality... people who don't fit in what society deems "normal." The Kents are blessed with a child who they see is beautiful and special and unique, but at the same time are aware that society shuns and fears difference, which is sadly an increasingly relevant angle to this take on Superman, and they're trying to navigate that reality as best they can and make sure their child has a semblance of a normal childhood.

There should be a way to “like” a post more than once. This is an outstanding summary of why the film resonates for me (and others, obviously). I have a daughter with a medical condition that, to casual observers, is invisible but for whom my wife and I have worked very hard so that she suffers as little as possible for her differences.

 

[EnderAKH]

That’s very...Cartesian of you. More to the point, we don’t know, in story, if the Kents know the extent of Clark’s abilities (especially re: vulnerability). Additionally, the emotional impulse to view your child’s safety as a paramount concern above all else, regardless of objective evidence suggesting harm is not a significant problem, is exceedingly powerful, as my own kids know—there are many things I did at their age that did me no harm that I will NOT condone or allow. They may do them anyway, but it won’t change how I feel.

Call it what you will, but the Kents likely knew at least some of those families and/or their children. In Clark's or Jonathan's shoes, I would never be able to look those parents in the eyes knowing that I/my son had the ability to save the lives of those kids and stood by and did nothing. In my opinion, to do nothing would have been the height of wrong, letting children die for your own selfish reasons. And Jonathan advocating that, in my opinion, makes him a HORRIBLE parent and member of the community.

 

[The Realist]

That’s how real (not fictional, idealized “noble”) parents would react.

Allowing for all your arguments and your (well-articulated) point of view, let me just say that I prefer my Kents idealized and noble. The Superman story is not my go-to for psychological realism. It's a fantasy that elevates and inspires, and I don't think that's valueless, or that there's any reason our collective dreams need to be rendered prosaic and morally ambiguous.

 

[Ovation]

Call it what you will, but the Kents likely knew at least some of those families and/or their children. In Clark's or Jonathan's shoes, I would never be able to look those parents in the eyes knowing that I/my son had the ability to save the lives of those kids and stood by and did nothing. In my opinion, to do nothing would have been the height of wrong, letting children die for your own selfish reasons. And Jonathan advocating that, in my opinion, makes him a HORRIBLE parent and member of the community.

Jonathan is not making a cold, reasoned argument in favour of selfishness. However, parents are decidedly "selfish" when it comes to weighing the safety of their own children against, well, just about anything else. It's pretty much hardwired into us. And you are also not considering the wider picture--while the risk to Clark proved minimal in terms of immediate physical safety, the existential threat to him increased. It is that threat that has Jonathan (and Martha) worried--and rightly so. When Clark asks his father what he was supposed to do, Jonathan didn't give a definitive response. He gave a hesitant, contradiction-laden EMOTIONAL response, weighing the reality of the moment with the equally real fear of what would happen to his son if the secret was revealed. I don't endorse, in the abstract, standing by and letting children die when they could be saved. Neither is Jonathan, incidentally. But I fully empathize with his emotional struggle and fear--as just about any parent I've ever met (and, I suspect, most of those I have not) would. I'd be astonished if you could find me a parent (one who is actively in his or her children's lives, at least) would simply adopt a Cartesian conclusion and calmly accept a potential loss of their own child against the saving of other people's children.

Allowing for all your arguments and your (well-articulated) point of view, let me just say that I prefer my Kents idealized and noble. The Superman story is not my go-to for psychological realism. It's a fantasy that elevates and inspires, and I don't think that's valueless, or that there's any reason our collective dreams need to be rendered prosaic and morally ambiguous.

That's fine--and I fully understand that many people were disappointed by the film for that reason, among others. However, since I have watched, read, listened to and seen THOUSANDS of versions where they are "idealized and noble", I was very happy to explore the characters under a quite different angle. YMMV (If this had been the very first on-screen [large or small] adaptation of Superman, I may have felt more like you do--but it is one of a long list.)