>>and then, with his secret still
>>safe due to his father's sacrifice, abandons his now-widowed
>>mother so he can go out and find himself while hiding from
>>people.
>
>Please, explain why that's such a stretch.
>Please, explain how it's unheroic and nonsensical.

Abandoning your mother when she just lost her husband so you can go out and find yourself while hiding from people seems heroic to you? It seems sensible?

You think when most men deal with the loss of their father, they all just think about themselves and leave their mother behind without a thought?

And then, to add salt to the wound, you come back to the mother you left behind to gush about how you found your real father and how life's awesome now?

Great guy that Superman.

>Worse, you're conjecturing what Pa envisioned. Pa told him
>he'd have to make a choice one day. Pa told him he'd have to
>choose a side one day. Did you think that would be some moment
>free of any preceding conflict?

LOL. You're entire stance is based on what you feel was implied and you brag about how you don't need things explained yet when I conjecture it's some grave sin.

You think Pa Kent thought, "Son, I'm hiding your secret from all of these people right now so you can abandon your mother and go be a drifter!"


>So, in other words, he behaved the exact same way the entire
>time... which pretty much deads any thought of him doing it
>after Pa's death as nonsensical, since he did the same things
>as a child.

Uh, no. The point is that the key moment that changes Supermans life doesn't change his life at all. He acts the same way he did before his dad died. The only impact his Dad's death had was that he decided his mother being widowed was the best time to leave Kansas and head out into the world.

He lets his father die because that was his father's wish of how he acted... and then he goes back to acting the same way he acted every moment of his life besides the time he let his dad die. (except now he's on the run when his secret was still safe in Kansas and his dad's sacrifice allowed him to not have to leave his mother and home.)

>Tell me again where the fault is in my logic, because I
>haven't actually seen it yet.

Once again, if Pa Kent's death was some important event, why did it do nothing to actually change Superman's view of his powers, humans, or anything?


>His father knew the day would come! He didn't want him to hide
>forever. He acknowledged that course simply wasn't in the
>cards repeatedly.
>
>So, please explain exactly when an appropriate moment would
>have been for him to do that?
>Please, detail a scenario sufficient to make this acceptable.

AT ANY POINT. When he saved the oil rig would have been a nice time. They could have shown him helping out in pretty much anyway in a manner. Just a situation in which HE MADE A DECISION to own his power.
You're so busy trying to disagree that you are ignoring the fact that the choice that was discussed for half of the film was never the choice he had to make!
It went from a difficult choice: Do I follow my beliefs and try to make a difference but at the same time making myself an outcast? to a fairly easy choice: Do I keep my secret and let Zod kill millions of people?

Seriously, if you can't see how this was a terrible handling of basic story element of Active Decision Making, then you're just not willing to have an honest discussion.


>>This isn't about what people want. Or what people expect.
>
>Sorry, but that just means you haven't been reading all of
>these reviews. It's not really up for debate.

I'm talking about this specific discussion. I could give a shit about critics.


>It's
>>about basic storytelling and character development.
>
>Yes, and this was well done in the movie. The lack of them
>spelling out the moment he left home, as though that's not a
>normal part of damn near every mans life in this country,
>isn't an example of poor development. For all this talk about
>that being a key part of the story, it's something so common
>and standard in the lives of everyone that it's minutiae to
>fret over the lack of a precise explanation.

If it's such a standard part of everyone's life, then you don't spend an hour of a movie on it when it then doesn't really impact the key decision, the hero's character, or pretty much everything.


>No, it's merely the course of events. They didn't "need" any
>of that to get him in that bar. He could have heard that
>anywhere. He could have heard that on the news. This is
>grossly over thinking this in a bad way. No, I'm not going to
>stop that, because it's true.

LOL. Yeah, Clark living in Kansas would have heard about it. Clark on a deep sea vessel would have heard about it. "Merely the course of events" like it's based on a true story or some shit. C'mon man. Now you're just being silly.


>>And then the big climatic moment is about Clark killing
>>someone (which I agree is a stupid complaint because it was
>>never brought up as much of an issue, especially during the
>>destructive fights beforehand. The only people who think it
>>was a moment are Superman fans) and that he might have
>killed
>>the last of his kind (which is never an issue for Clark
>>throughout the movie and is more about Zod vs. Jor-El).
>
>Sorry, you meandered like crazy here. What's the actual point?

That the first hour of the film has nothing to do with the end of the film. It's basic storytelling.


>Ahem: his actions were always a snap decision prior to turning
>himself in. It's not a dismissal, it's what actually happened.
>The school bus was no less a snap decision than the rig was.
>It's not a dismissal, it's what happened.

Now you're just lying. They made a point to show that Clark was weighing his options on the school bus. It didn't go into the water and he just jumped to help out. He thought about it. It wasn't a snap decision at all.


>>My point was that everywhere he went, he just went back to
>what
>>he believed. The drifter Clark Kent's sense of duty was
>pretty
>>much exactly the same as the grade school Clark Kent, except
>>now he flies the coop when he does something rather than
>>having his parents try to dismiss it as the other kids
>seeing
>>something.
>
>I'm not seeing a point being made here. What are you saying,
>exactly?

OK, you're just being dense. A hero's journey requires change. Clark doesn't change at all.


>Nah, some people just aren't very smart and need everything
>spelled out to the nth degree while others need to nitpick the
>smallest detail. That's the bulk of the reviews I've read on
>this.

Again, I don't give a fuck about reviews. It's also laughable how you keep saying you're so smart and don't need thinks spelled out but when I've spelled out my argument, you keep saying you don't understand it.

The core of the film's first hour had nothing to do with the main conflict. That's bad screenwriting. If this was a spec script, it would have been ripped to shreds.

EDIT: Oh, and the idea that people can find who they are while by themselves is nonsense to me. Who you are is defined by how you act amongst/towards others. If you're hiding from people, you're not finding who you really are. Clark's struggle was figuring out how to fit in this world; he's not going to find it while hiding from the world.