By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Doc755 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

 

I agree and disagree. I think the characterization of Jonathan Kent was interesting. He doesn't have to be a saint to be a good character. I think there's a lot of dramatic potential there, with a character who cares so deeply about his adopted son that he's willing to sacrifice countless innocent lives to safeguard his superhuman identity.

Where I agree is the execution. It was handled poorly, and then retconned in BvS. And the tornado sequence is just a disaster (no pun intended) of a scene.

That, in and of itself, seemed to be the problem. They wanted something different but had not idea how to use it. The dynamic in 1978 is so powerful in that Superman’s birth father mandates he cannot “interfere in human history” while his adoptive father advocates that Clark is “there for a reason”. Superman ultimately had to decide what to do on his own and it comes down to his perceived “failure” at saving his adoptive father. Man of Steel’s interpretation (while possibly having potential dramatic impact) just has no idea what to do with itself. Clark just does what his father says and he’s not an agent on his own change. And then BvS has him saying he only helps people because it’s what his adoptive father wanted! My brain hurts

Yeah, the whole DCEU is one big experiment on intent vs. execution, and how the first doesn't mean jack shit if you can't make the second work.