Amph Waiting For Superman: Gunnverse DCU/Elseworlds (New Trailer!)

(just to show you the badness in Hebrew)

 

How was Henry doing all these years? Most of the Superman actors have faced role difficulty after their portrayal because the character is so iconic.

 

He never said that. He said maybe you shouldn't lift a bus out of the water with your bare hands. Which, frankly, was unnecessary anyway. There were only abut 10 children in their anyway. He could have swam to retrieve them all and achieved the same results without any of the notoriety.

I understand why, in character, he didn't think of that. I also understand why his father would be very frustrated given that set of facts.

 

For any human being with basic morality, the only logical answer should be a solid "NO".

 

You realize there are other ways to save everyone?

 

Clark Kent at 13: What was I supposed to do? Just let them die?

Jonathan Kent: Maybe;

 

Unlike us, he didn’t have an HD video recording showing a second by second breakdown. He can’t comment on exactly what to do.

But he is trying to make the point that what Clark did wasn’t the safest way to handle it, and encourage him to think of other solutions. He’s saying what not to do and admitting pretty honestly that he has no guarantee an alternative works.

 

The Man of Steel Jonathan Kent served his purpose, which is to be the physical embodiment of the fears of an alien landing earth. And within the context of the film, it made sense for the character to be that way. Moreover, Jonathan didn't need to serve as Clark's moral compass as Clark did what was right despite Jonathan. Clark saved a bus load of kids. Even after Jonathan died to protect Clark's secret, we see a bearded Clark Kent save workers from a burning oil rig.

So again, in terms of the story telling, Jonathan Kent served his purpose of being a representation of fear. Sure, it's a break away from the traditional Pa Kent, but it doesn't change Clark's/Superman's instinct to save people; well, at least, until he floats over a tanker truck and allows it to explode in the amid a good amount of innocent bystanders.

Jonathan serves as the "voice" as why Clark should remain hidden, whereas Jor El serves as the opposite. It's like Yoda and Qui-Gonn in The Phantom Menace. These characters are speaking for Clark in this deconstructive third person narrative.

 

No, he was saying Clark should let those kids die to hide his power, which makes him a very selfish jerk.

Let's say, if there is no other "safer" way, should Clark let those kids die?

Which was NOT what the character should have represented, Jonathan Kent was meant to lead Clark into realize his power and encourage him to use the power to do good instead of the opposite way. He was meant to teach Clark what does a good man do with his own action. This is what Superman's father should have been.

The MoS one went the exact opposite way, and the bus incident was a extreme scene, it pretty much ruined the character.

 

Jonathan Kent was not meant to encourage Clark to realize his power and encourage him to use it, that role was filled by Jor El. Jonathan and Jor El are opposite sides of the same coin and provide a Yin and Yang balance. You're obviously note catching on the literal use of metaphors and simply narrowed minded in thinking Jonathan SHOULD be a certain way.

 

He was, Jor El was to let Kal El knew his true identity and learn to stand above humanity, after Clark learned to be a good person and use his power to help ppl.

There are not opposite sides of the same coin, they are both great father figures to teach Clark in different stages. Not some jerk saying a bus full of kids should die to ensure his son's safety.

 

In Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, we learn that Clark wonders the Earth like a nomad, helping people in secret, and also wrapping a car around a telephone pole if he wants. He's off the grid like John Connor in Terminator 3. But as it always happens, plot/destiny will find you. Plot finds Clark with Lois, Zod, the ship that's found buried or crashed or something, and in the meantime, to ENHANCE the story, we get some flashbacks to help us understand why Clark lives the life he does.

He knows he's an alien. He knows he can't let people find out his secret. He takes odd jobs and is paid under the table using fake names and if the need arises that someone is in trouble - he saves them. He doesn't let them die. He honors his father's wishes, but he can't sit back and do nothing with his powers so he does something as anonymously as possible.

So Clark learned his lesson from his father regardless if you think Jonathan did a good job or not.

Now there's Richard Donner's Superman, where his Clark and Jonathan are VERY different. You can't compare Richard Donner's Jonathan Kent to Zack Snyder's Jonathan Kent. And if you're saying Zack Snyder is wrong because he didn't copy Jonathan from a past movie to his movie then I can't help you there because it's two totally different stories.

It's like you're arguing that Michael Bay is wrong for putting flames on Optimus Prime because he never had flames before. Well unfortunately, we got flames and you can love them or hate them, but it doesn't change anything about the plot.

 

Yeah, the SlowPoke King is proving time and time again how narrow minded and limited his view is regarding Pa Kent. That Pa Kent is pigeonholed to being one a certain way.

Within the storytelling of Man of Steel Jonathan and Jor El serve as opposite sides of the same coin, as well the metaphoric characters to tell why Clark secrets should remain hidden and why it should be revealed. The way Man of Steel tells its story, the two fathers of Clark were the best characters to embody the opposing point of view; there's one to protect and teach him the world of mankind and the other to guide him to his destiny.

 

This is pretty much against Superman's core value. Sure he needs another identity, but the world doesn't hate or fear Superman, they ask for help.

And this is not the problem we were arguing about. Jonathan Kent didn't say "maybe you should hide your power a bit better while helping ppl", he was saying "maybe you should let a bus of kids die to keep your secret". THIS is outrageous.

Take a moment and think how selfish and horrible this is. He's just a terrible person that should not even exist in Superman mythos unless as a negative figure.

This isn't just Donner's Superman, it's pretty much how Superman and Jonathan were portrayed for so many years. If you don't like it make your own hero or put it on some other heroes, nobody comes to see a Superman movie with such dark and depressing tone about how the world hate and fear him when all he did was helping ppl. Even DC had recognized their mistake.

 

@Slowpokeking I'm going to humor you and go along with your assertion that the Man of Steel version of Jonathan Kent is a jerk and should have provided better parenting advice. As such, Pa Kent gives Clark a pat on the back and congratulates him for saving a bus load of kids from drowning. Moreover, Pa Kent allows Clark to save him in the tornado scene.

How do you imagine this improves Man of Steel? How does this reveal of Clark's secret affect the Man of Steel story moving forward?

 

I have given my suggestion pages ago:

Bus scene: Jonathan Kent saw it, called for help and swimming down trying to save ppl. He covered for his son's doing and thumb up for Clark's heroic action.

Tornado scene: Superman was absent, Jonathan Kent was badly injurious when help saving ppl. Clark was too late when he came to his father's side. In his last moment, Jonathan told him that don't be too sad when he couldn't save ppl sometimes, but NEVER hesitate when ppl need your help.


THIS is what Jonathan Kent would have done and should have done, this is the man who was able to raise Clark into a good man and a hero. Then Jor El helps him to go to a higher level above humanity.


Again it's not about revealing secret or not, it's about "is Clark's secret more important and 20+ innocent young lives" and "is it right to focus on how the world hates ppl with superpower?". Even DC themselves had admitted their mistake about the tone. And even if you want to show such tone,

DON'T use a bus of innocent kids' lives to compare, this is wayyy over the top, and don't use Jonathan Kent as the jerk who said it.

 

Okay, but does that really improve Man of Steel and solve all of its controversial problems, or more importantly, would have save the DCEU from it's current situation?

 

It surely does a bit, the characterization of Jonathan Kent and the tornado scene were criticized by a lot of ppl. To me, those 2 scenes were the worst part of the movie. Of course it's not all of the problems, Krypton's destruction could have been explained better, and the storytelling was a bit confusing in the movie, too many flashbacks.

DCEU was badly damaged mainly due to 2 major reasons.

1. REALLY BAD overall setup, we got BVS right after 1 movie and Justice League after only 4, when only 2 of the heroes got their own origin movies and nearly 0 setup for the JL villain, also it was a terrible choice to pick Steppenwlf. DC got 5 years between MOS and JL, they got the time to make MOS2, WW, Flash and Aquaman to set everything up. SS serves no purpose in the buildup as well.

2. Overly dark and gritty tone, it doesn't serve all the heroes well and it was executed in a stupid way, the tornado scene was probably the best example of it. Same with "Martha" and a lot more stupid scenes. It can be done well but require a lot of talent and time, certainly it wasn't the best route for DCEU. This had started from MoS and had been a problem of it. It's understandable that they make some mistakes in the first installment but they failed to recognize it and discard it in the sequel.

Wonder Woman was a success because they have learned their lesson through BvS, you can even see the character inconsistency between the BVS WW and WW-JL one. But it was too late for DCEU as a whole. JL wasn't too bad but it suffered a lot from the 2 major problems of DCEU that I've pointed out.

 

Well, see, even your "2 Major reasons" why the DCEU "was badly damaged" didn't include Jonathan Kent. In the bigger picture, Pa Kent, doesn't matter much.

And by your own admission, the changing of the characterization of Jonathan Kent in Man of Steel only improves the film (in your own words) "a bit."

My point being, that the characterization of Jonathan Kent doesn't really make or break Man of Steel nor the DCEU.

 

It does, the overly dark and gritty tone started from MoS, and the most extreme examples were Jonathan Kent's two scenes. It surely is the worst part of the movie to me.Changing them would let me put MoS as the best installment of DCEU.

Sure, MoS itself was a success overall, it shouldn't be blamed too much for DCEU's current situation, but had Zack Snyder realize how stupid those scenes were, things would have been a lot different.

 

Fair enough.

 

Yeah I can't speak for others. Though I'm not the only one criticizing those scenes.

Wonder Woman was "fine" to me, other than Chris' great performance and the amazing characterization on Steve Trevor, nothing was that remarkable. But it doesn't have huge flaws, Gadot's acting was a bit dull in the final battle but not terrible.

MoS' villain characterization, special effect and fighting scenes were mind-blowing. Just some of its flaws were too obvious, as a whole it's not that enjoyable.

 

Nope, you're not. As I posted previously, I found it jarring that Pa Kent said "maybe" when asked if he should let a bunch of kids drown.

 

I really wish to see MoS2 asap, with Geoff Jones overseeing it.

 

Some news bits:
www.darkhorizons.com/harley-quinn-is-an-r-rated-girl-gang-film/
www.darkhorizons.com/peter-jackson-mulls-dc-or-rings-return/