>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?

First: There's literally zero implication she felt abandoned. If that's not an example of nitpicking the smallest detail to have something to complain about, I don't know what is. That's a shining beacon of nitpicking if there ever was one. There's not a solitary shred of evidence in the movie to indicate any sense of abandonment.

Second: yes, it seems sensible, because as I already said... He's a grown ass man. Grown men leave the nest. I dunno what world *you* live in, but that's the natural order of things.

>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?

Are you a momma's boy or something? You're so intensely focused on that element I have to ask. It's a very sensible action, actually, but in you're world people are a monolith who always act and react the exact same way. In the real world, we all deal with tragedies, among other things, in different ways. I hate when people hold storytelling to that standard because it's unreasonable to expect people to always react in ways we expect them to.

>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?

LOL. Yes, Maw Kent was so hurt by that. OH WAIT, SHE WASN'T. Didn't look like salt on an open wound at all. But hey.... you're obviously making this up as you go along.

>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.

Key difference in the two: my premise is a reasonable, plausible point to assume he left home. For one, all of the other flashbacks with his parents predate his leaving. It's literally the ONLY logical conclusion to arrive at when considering the timing of him leaving. You're just kinda jumping on a menial detail of next to no significance.

>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!"

Yikes. You're really pushing this abandonment angle HARD. You should call your mom, man. This is clearly bothering you. No, you're right. Clark shoulda been a good boy and worked the soil on pa's farm his whole life, waiting til Maw died before he set out on his own.

Further, the fact that he became a drifter actually fits everything his father told him: The world would reject him. So if he's a drifter, nobody knows who he is, and when he winds up using his powers, guess what? He can bounce and nobody is the wiser. He's just some guy who did some crazy shit once in that town and was never heard from again. No attachments, no strings, no danger of exposure.

But I suppose when you're THIS determined to shit on something, that doesn't make an ounce of sense. Especially since he ABANDONED HIS MOTHER, right?

>Uh, no.

Uh, yes.

>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.

No, the key moment that changes his life was when he found the ship and learned who he really was and where he was from. The next moment was when Zod showed up and forced his hand.

Paw was there as a guiding light. He was there to mold and shape and lead. Without that influence, who knows what Kal does as a child? Raised by another, who's to say he doesn't beat those kids into a coma? There's literally zero reason why his death has to be some life altering event. We saw a man who's life served to instill a sense of the bigger picture in the life of Clark/Kal. That's the importance of his character. Sorry, but his death didn't need to completely alter his adult life. In real life, people pretty much just keep it moving.

In this movie though? Somehow, it has the precursor an earth shattering, mind blowing 180 degree change.

>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.)

Yes, he respected his fathers wish. His father had his own choice to make, and he made it. Oh, back to this insane, creepy abandonment issue you've got. Call your mom, send flowers, do whatever you got to do because that's clearly effected you.

>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?

Losing a parent is always an important event. It does not always lead to some dramatic life change, nor does it need to serve that purpose in a story. That is, unless you're unbelievably rigid on some "screenplay for dummies!" shit.

>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.

Like... when he turns himself into the US government to be handed over to the aliens that just threatened the entire world if they didn't turn him in?

Oh, I'm sure you'll say something about how it should have happened somewhere before it happened. You'll say something absurd about how he should have done that in direct correlation to his father's death while living at home with Maw Kent in Smallville for the rest of his life.

>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!

Yes, it was.

>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?

Except he DID expose himself while keeping his secret (for the most part and) and he DID have to make a DIFFICULT choice in killing ZOD. I guess you missed all that pleading with Zod before doing what was OBVIOUSLY a hard choice. You also missed the primal scream after breaking the mans neck. Clearly, those were easy choices to make. The pleading was for show and the scream was just for kicks.

Having your hand forced doesn't make the choice easy. In fact, it's not hard until that happens.

>Seriousy, 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.

Seriously, I've had an honest, reasonable discussion the entire time. I'm just not flipping through the character motivation 101 handbook while watching the movie so I can hate the whole thing due to minor details not being spelled out to the last jot and tittle.

>>>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.

Except *my* post was mostly about those critics. So, I mean... yeah.

As far as this discussion, it's still pretty clearly about what you and others wanted and didn't get.

>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.

It IS a standard part of everyone's life, not IF, I hate to break it to you. Further, we didn't spend an hour on him drifting. It also doesn't need to impact the key decision and nor 'impact' the character. The point is, it showed us how the character dealt with these situations as a grown man. Young Clark wouldn't have destroyed Jethro's truck, for starters. That's the first and only real example of him lashing out. Young Clark may not have even said anything to him. We saw young Clark grip that fence post until it bent, while adult Clark destroyed a big rig.

But I know; you got that Filmschool Dogma handbook in your hands and can't get past it.

>LOL. Yeah, Clark living in Kansas would have heard about it.
>Clark on a deep sea vessel would have heard about it.

Uh... yeah. Something like that would likely be on the news. Considering a news reporter was there, I'm sure it would have gotten some press at some time, so yes. He could have reasonably heard about it in other ways. LOL@you laughing like it's so far fetched though.

>"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.

No, you're just too dogmattic. You said the only reason he was in the diner was so he could hear about the ship in the ice. Basically, you're not even watching the movie if that's how you receive it. You're scrutinizing and grading and double checking that handbook in your mind. That's a shitty way to watch movies.

It's like when someone talks about a great song and then some douchebag talks about how the song sucks because it was based on a basic chord progression with no challenging key changes. It's a terrible way to receive art. You're too focused on how it follows the rules to even pay attention to the whole of the product.

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

Cool, but you're wrong. I guess all Paw's talk about having to make that choice one day didn't happen, but whatever.

Oh, and without your meandering, this is what you have in that statement:

"And then the big climatic moment is about Clark killing someone and that he might have killed the last of his kind."

You literally just pointed out an event that happened and made no point about it. You just acknowledged some shit happened.

>Now you're just lying.

No I'm not. Sorry.

>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.

Whatever. He had a choice to make and he made it. The point is that he didn't ride that school bus so he could save people anymore than he became a drifter to save people.

>>>My point was that everywhere he went, he just went back to what
>>>he believed.

It had nothing to do with *where* he was. It was about *what* was happening where he was.

>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.

...That's the point. He's limiting his exposure while he's drifting, as opposed to attracting increasing attention in Smallville.

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

Nonsense. This idea that "a hero's journey requires change" is nothing more than dog(mattic) shit. It's a rule that's great to use as a writing tool but it's absurd to cling to it so rigidly.

>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.

No, I said that twice, and both times you just stated some shit that happened without making any actual point about it. Those weren't arguments at all. It's laughable that you can't simply accept your own shitty communication in those moments. Big whoop. I misused snap decision. It happens. And... where have I said I was so smart?

>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.

LOL.

>EDIT: Oh, and the idea that people can find who they are while
>by themselves is nonsense to me.

Not to me, but knock yourself out. Still, he was never by himself. He went to small and even remote places. He left HOME, not human contact. Hiding doesn't mean you're in a damn cave devoid of human contact. Talk about being dense.

>Who you are is defined by how
>you act amongst/towards others.

Oh, like saving them from a burning oil rig or stopping the local slob from further harassing your coworker? Those are good indications of the kind of person you are.

>If you're hiding from people,
>you're not finding who you really are.

That's not true at all. There's plenty of reflection and meditation and revelation that can take place in solitude. The end *result* may ultimately be *measured* by how you interact with others, but it's preposterous to say that a man cannot find himself by himself. But again... you seem pretty dogmattic about such things, because it's easier to approach it from a black and white perspective. Sounds like a flat, two dimensional character to me. You needed a better writer for your character.