Spoilers Justice League - Grading and Discussion

[crookeddy]

I still think that scene would make more sense in regards to the rest of the movie if Clark had ignored his father's refusal and saved/tried to save him anyway. Either he makes a mistake and his dad dies after all, which perfectly sets up his conflicting emotions and self-imposed exile, or he actually succeeds and exposes himself to a bunch of people, leading him to go on the run to keep ahead of any problematic questions and as a result isn't around when his dad dies of natural causes.

All the same driving issues but much better logical throughline for the film.

Yup, both of those scenarios would make much more sense.

 

[The Realist]

And I remember Supes killing Zod in Superman II and continuing on his merry way.

...Unless that bottomless crevice in the Fortress of Solitude was actually only a few feet deep.

I'll just leave this here.

 

[Anwar]

Him feeling upset over killing Zod wouldn't be so bad if we didn't follow up with him making out with Lois in the middle of the destroyed city. He forgets about Zod right after the deed.

 

[Skywalker]

Clark and Lois kissed before the final fight with Zod.

 

[Ovation]

Him feeling upset over killing Zod wouldn't be so bad if we didn't follow up with him making out with Lois in the middle of the destroyed city. He forgets about Zod right after the deed.

That happens (very briefly--and not unlike many other such moments in films, as well as in real life, just after surviving a harrowing ordeal) BEFORE the fight with Zod.

 

[Tosk]

And I remember Supes killing Zod in Superman II and continuing on his merry way.
...Unless that bottomless crevice in the Fortress of Solitude was actually only a few feet deep.
Kor

Why would it be bottomless? If nothing else, he'd hit water pretty soon.

And where some (mistakenly) view Jonathan's "I don't know, maybe" when Clark asks "should I have let them die" as a callous response, his hesitant tone clearly indicates the desperate realization of someone who doesn't have the answers, someone who is torn between his fierce impulse to protect his son from the world and all the dangers he imagines it holds and the "noble ideal". I found that a very refreshing take and far more interesting than another "wise old salt of the earth" pontificating.

Pa Kent can not mean to be callous and still manage to be so. Giving even hesitant advice to a child that maybe they should let other children die is pretty much the definition of callous. Everyone has their own opinion on that scene of course, but for my money I would have preferred a slightly different approach. If the intent of the lines are to show that Pa does not have all the answers, and that he worries about his son, (and assuming I have to stick to a similar amount of screen time) I'd replace this:

"Should I have just let them die?"
"Maybe."

With something like this:

"Should I have just let them die?"
"Of course not, but...I don't know."

Edited to fix quote from film.

 

[Ovation]

Pa Kent can not mean to be callous and still manage to be so. Giving even hesitant advice to a child that maybe they should let other children die is pretty much the definition of callous. Everyone has their own opinion on that scene of course, but for my money I would have preferred a slightly different approach. If the intent of the lines are to show that Pa does not have all the answers, and that he worries about his son, (and assuming I have to stick to a similar amount of screen time) I'd replace this:

"Should I have just let them die?"
"I don't know, maybe."

With something like this:

"Should I have just let them die?"
"Of course not, but...I don't know."

I see no material difference here. And the fact that his advice, despite not wanting to be callous, may come off as such anyway is exactly the kind of thing that illustrates a flawed, imperfect person rather than one who neatly avoids such a flaw. I trust I'm not the only parent who has, despite my best intentions, occasionally expressed myself less than eloquently and nobly to my children.

My point is reading the moment as Jonathan being intentionally callous is...just wrong. That it can be viewed as accidentally so only reinforces my admiration for the filmmakers' willingness to present a flawed, imperfect (more realistic) character rather than fall back on the safety net of "wise ole' Pa Kent".

 

[Tosk]

I see no material difference here.

The difference is that one has him allowing for it to be a possibility, the other does not. I personally prefer a Pa Kent who doesn't allow for a bus full of children to die to protect Clark, even as a maybe. My version (in my opinion) allows for a Pa Kent who is struggling to deal with questions that don't have easy answers but still doesn't resort to saying that maybe Clark should let children die. It’s cool that we disagree, it's just how I feel. It’s similar to Superman killing Zod, and the filmmakers talking about how that decision will shape the Superman yet to be, that he’ll never kill again. (Although none of that really ended up on the screen anyway.) Superman is supposed to be the best of us, so the idea that he needs to kill someone to know that he doesn’t want to ever do it again is not something I personally care for.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Isn't he intentionally callous though? Is it not his intention to harden Clark when he says that?

I didn't think so. I just thought he was worried about his son's safety and grasping for answers. I never interpreted the line as actual 'lesson' at all, but simply as an admission that he doesn't know what to do, but still prefers Clark be safe even over others being safe (which is what parents are for).

 

[Tosk]

I didn't think so. I just thought he was worried about his son's safety and grasping for answers. I never interpreted the line as actual 'lesson' at all, but simply as an admission that he doesn't know what to do, but still prefers Clark be safe even over others being safe (which is what parents are for).

Edit: Eh, either way. I realize now that I fumbled the ball, as intention wasn't originally mentioned and my response was only to claim that he was callous, intentional or not. Proving he did it intentionally wasn't my aim.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

First, for everyone, I would make a distinction between the Cavill Superman and the Snyder Superman. Henry Cavill is a great fit for the role, and I see it in scenes (such as in Justice League). But Synder (or Goyer, or whoever wrote it) sabotaged some good stuff in it, or didn't build up for the payoff.

So Superman killing Zod -- there's nothing n the movie to show that Superman has a self imposed rule of not killing.

Yes, his killing Zod was by necessity--it was not a "He killed, so that makes his entire personality dark!" as some of the dead-horse beaters claim.

I hope we will see some better changes in the sequel (it is still on the books right??)

I would hope so. Cavill's Superman is one of the strongest representation of a superhero in this era of comic book movies (dating back to 2000), and sells the character with ease.

 

[dahj]

Okay, if not hardening, then how about insensitive? If a bus full of kids is too low a number, how many others would (maybe) have to die to protect Clark's secret before the idea is insensitive?

If your child ran into a burning building to save a puppy, would you say "Great job, do that all the time!" or would you say "You're just a kid, maybe don't expose yourself to that kind of danger?"

One of those answers makes you a shit parent (hint: Pa Kent's answer isn't the one).

 

[The Realist]

Cavill's Superman is one of the strongest representation of a superheroin

Cool to see you embracing gender fluidity this way, TREK_GOD_1.

 

[F. King Daniel]

So we're still not over Man of Steel? Can't wait for someone to bring up Delta Vega over in the reboot Star Trek forum!

 

[Tosk]

If your child ran into a burning building to save a puppy, would you say "Great job, do that all the time!" or would you say "You're just a kid, maybe don't expose yourself to that kind of danger?"

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?

 

[dahj]

That's a false comparison

That's a perfectly valid comparison, it's only invalid if you don't wanna hear any viewpoint other than your own and just wanna whinge about the same thing over and over again for over 5 freaking years...

 

[Anwar]

Yes, his killing Zod was by necessity--it was not a "He killed, so that makes his entire personality dark!" as some of the dead-horse beaters claim.



I would hope so. Cavill's Superman is one of the strongest representation of a superhero in this era of comic book movies (dating back to 2000), and sells the character with ease.

It isn't that he killed, it's that he killed and isn't all that changed by it. He has no problem smashing that warlord through the wall in BvS (no, I don't care if Snyder says he didn't kill him. It doesn't respond to what we see) or interfering in situations that could easily escalate to bloodshed due to his very presence destabilizing things.

Cavill's Superman is too wishy-washy. A real representation of a properly done modern Superhero is Chris Evans as Captain America.

 

[EnderAKH]

If your child ran into a burning building to save a puppy, would you say "Great job, do that all the time!" or would you say "You're just a kid, maybe don't expose yourself to that kind of danger?"

One of those answers makes you a shit parent (hint: Pa Kent's answer isn't the one).

If my little girl was immune to all of the harms from the burning building (fire and collapsing debris) I would tell her it was her responsibility to go save the puppy, since she was uniquely qualified to do so.

 

[Ovation]

If my little girl was immune to all of the harms from the burning building (fire and collapsing debris) I would tell her it was her responsibility to go save the puppy, since she was uniquely qualified to do so.

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.

 

[The Realist]

^ 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.