No, Jonathatn Kent in that movie is a man who realises that something like a superpowered alien life form living among us being revealed to the public will have huge, world changing implications, greater than any person's life, and that Clark must first be ready to shoulder that responsibility.

An ideal of perfection is boring and unrealistic and worthless. A hero needs to have shortcomings or doubts to overcome. If being a hero is not a challenge then it's not heroic.

As for destroyin the city... how else is a fight between to such powerful being supposed to go? Zod outright says he is now going to kill everyone on the planet. He is not going to follow Superman somewhere else to have this fight - his only goal at this point is to inflict as much death and suffering on the populace as he can. He has to be fought there and then. And with the powers the two of them have - that's what it looks like. And still, if you actually watch the movie instead of whining you'll see that pretty much all collateral destruction is done by Zod, not Superman. Also, from that collateral damage and people in immediate danger come high stakes for the fight, higher than almost any big superhero movie fight. It really feels like serious shit is going down, like the super powered monster can actually wipe us out and Superman is the only thing in his way. And such a sense of true evil and danger is necessary if a hero is supposed to shine standing against it.

It never ceseas to amaze me just how completely people fail to get this movie simply because they are so fixated on Superman having to be stuck in the 70's, even though the very best and most beloved stories about him in both comics and animation have for decades been nothing like that. And yet there people embrace that. But suddenly in live action it has people having total mental meltdown.

And that's why he doesn't mentoring him, nor prepares him for that responsibility or using his powers. Serionsly, I forgot to insert <sarcasm> tag in my previous comment, but I still thought people would get it.

Clark already IS a superpowered alien, living on earth, which is itself implies that there can be great threats for humanity out there. And Jonathan doesn't do anything (however small, since he is just a simple earthling) to even set Clark in rightful direction.
Yeah, and that's the point - this movie is just about a "monster comes to Earth" cliche. The fact that the "monster" is just religious zealot doesn't change much. In fact it just shows, how forced the conflict is. Zod simply refuses to get all benefits of being superpowered due to his zeal. Clark fights with him causing huge collateral damage due to his lack of training.

Say what you want about Smallville, but Zod there is far more developed character. And pretty much everyone else.

The stuff with Clark's dad in Man of Steel is so misunderstood, but so are a lot of things in Zack Snyder movies it seems. He just has a style of storytelling that either works for you or doesn't. For one thing he doesn't go for long and blatant exposition about themes; He trust the viewer to understand, which is rare now-a-days. Batman v Superman never spells out that Batman and Luthor are both the bad guys until Batman's redemption toward the end. Man of Steel allows Johnathan Kent to say "maybe" about the school bus, his frustration coming out. It doesn't mean he actually thought that, it means it's a complicated issue.

Most other comic book movies are more surface level genre entertainment, which is fine. Snyder's stuff was going for a deeper analysis and deconstruction of the genre, which isn't what a lot of people wanted. Same thing happening with The Last Jedi, funny enough.

If by "understand" you mean to think up what author was unable to put in the movie due to lack of screen time or just didn't care, than I agree. But that's not a good thing. If author want's to convey some message, like Batman is a bad guy, it's on the author to make viewer (or reader or player) to make it believable. He at least should put clues that unambiguously show how or why a character acted one way and not the other. "Maybe" and J. Kent's frustration are not enough to show how being alien on earth is complicated.

As for Last Jedi I don't even want to look, what message author was trying to convey, as he failed even to make the story logically coherent.

For the record, I agree.

I don't particularly like Zach Snyders stuff and wish the whole DC universe went a different way. But the things people say often show that they didn't interpret the movies the same way I did.

I just finished justice league yesterday. Not bad. Not good. But it was fun and it showed some glimmers of depth.

That said, they still don't have characters that I really care about. They're going to make a battle of the gods Greek tragedy with hollowed out characters. And it can be fun, but people won't invest into it like they would with the far more developed marvel characters.

It feels like DC is making movies for 13 year olds and marketing them to adults. It's not working.

But that said, they're not nearly as bad many people say. And many of the plot holes or the unusual actions of characters subtle clues that point to the reason.

I liked justice league way better than avengers 2,which was a critical success and folks just loved it. But it was a complete mess in storytelling.

I'm hoping they get a great flash movie out of it and wonder woman was really good, too. Batman is a tough market to improve, but I think it'd be fantastic to get a late-life Batman failing movie and moving toward Batman Beyond or just a Bruce Wayne dealing with life after the cape.

We'll see. They can making them. If they really really good, I'll go a theater. If they're decent, I'll rent a blu-ray. If they're bad, I'll pass.

Right, let's move away from the dreadful goody two shoes pant wearing weirdo section and point out that Gotham new series starts this Tuesday on E4!! Now that's worth watching!

I'm glad to see such a reasonable response. I can understand how Snyder's style can not be everyone's cup of tea. I (usually) really like it, but that's highly subjective. But I'm really glad to see someone who can make the distinction between "not liking a thing" and "thing being bad" which is something people very rarely are capable nowadays.

I liked it, but not as much as Man of Steel and BvS. I agree it's much better than Age of Ultron, but I think that without the extensive reshoots by Joss Whedon it likely would have been much better, if it truly was a Zack Snyder movie and the final chapter in his sort of informal Superman trilogy. Alas, we'll never know. But it's still a fun superhero flick.

I feel that it's more like they make movies for adults, and then at some point they try to course correct and make them accessable for 13 year olds too. And the marketing is similiarly confused. It all comes from the weird moment of origin for DC movie universe - their greatest success was Nolan's Batman trilogy, but they couldn't use that to start a shared universe, but they still tried to model their new universe after that darker, more serious and deeper approach. But in the meantime between Nolan's Batman and BvS Marvel's movies grew to the pop cultural behomoth they are now and completely changed the popular model of superhero movie from Nolan's adult reboot to family friendly colorful action full of jokes.

The same thing happened to The Amazing Spider-Man movies - the first one tried to follow that Nolan-esque approach, but by the time the second one came out Sony was trying to follow the Marvel model, and the result was a terrible mess (much, much worse in fact than anything from DC).

Prove it. Explain me about Jonathan Kent - why he didn't at least tried to train Klark? Point me - where are clues in the "Man of Steel".

When did Jonathan Kent ever "train" Clark in any version of Superman? Train to do what? To fight? He's not a fighter, nor did he intend Clark to be a fighter. He raised him. He loved him. He tried to teach him to be responsible about his powers and mindful of the tremendous consequences revealing those powers and his true nature will have. What more do you want?

Yes. He gave him moral councel about consequences of his actions. He (and Martha) morally supported Clark when he developed his powers and helped him to become accustomed with them (like were for him to talk about X-ray vision). They also gave him advice how to better use his powers without being exposed and even covered up incidents.

At least that's how it was in Smallville. In MoS there is nothing more than "don't use your powers".

The thing about Man of Steel is that it's a superhero origin story from the perspective of an objectivist. Zack Snyder, if he is not outright an objectivist, has at least professed his appreciation of objectivist ideas and Ayn Rand in the past. Objectivism talks a lot about personal freedoms and the virtues of selfishness, and the tyranny of altruism. When critics condemn Objectivism for being cruel, objectivists counter by saying that their ideology does not preclude the existence of charity and altruism, people are still free to act that way if they so wish, and they're merely against being forced, by the government or others, to be charitable. That's what Man of Steel is about. Choosing to be a hero.

While I, and maybe you, may believe in a moral imperative, like in the case of the school bus (If has the power to save them, of course, he must save them), the movie rejects that notion. It's why Pa Kent never says that Clark has a moral obligation to anyone. Why he considers that acting selfishly is acceptable. It's why so much of the movie revolves around Clark running into dickheads, the occasional nice person, and questioning what he should do about the looming threat and whether or not humanity should be saved. It's so that at the end he can choose to become a hero and try to save people.

Now, you may think that Zack Snyder has a 14-year-old's notion of what "deep" is, that he never engages with the philosophical ideas he invokes or the much better stories he has cribbed from past a very surface level, and I would be inclined to agree, but I believe this is what he was trying to arrive at with his movie, however incompetently handled (or morally reprehensible) the result may have been.

Except the movie is not like this at all! Clark wants to help people with his superpowers and does so out of his heart desire, not out of some "moral obligation". It's Jonathan Kent who talks about what Clark should and shouldn't do. He doesn't consider acceptable for Clark to act selflessly if that put's him at risk. And thus the "tornado scene" looks even more rediculous - Kent risks his life to rescue a dog (a dog!) but forbids Clark to risk his... well pretty much nothing as Clark wouldn't be hurt and people are all in the distance, so they wouldn't see if Clark do something extraordinary. And even if they would see (like the wind take Clark in the air) Clark could just disappear just like he did afrer every rescue he pull off during his later life.

P.S. Also, rewatiching those parts of the MoS, I noticed intrersting thing - Jor El put a flash drive with his AI in the crib-ship, but for some reason that ship didn't have AI interface. Why? I mean, I know why Snyder did that - to remove Jor El from Clark's upbringing, but there is no feasible explaination in terms of movie internal logic.

P.P.S. And Clark in MoS looks a hell like Tom Welling (guy, who played Clark in Smallville), so I wouldn't get past Snyder to familiarize himself tv-show.

You literally just described Man of Steel.

>Sigh< I knew talking to you is pointless.

UPD. You right. I apparently missed scene where Kent's discuss with Clark possibility to reveal his secret to his best friends.