Your two main arguments so far have been:

1) "There's a reasonable implication that it was the death of his father that spurred that journey."

2A) Grown men leave naturally so the impact of Pa's death should be ignored.
2B) The death of Pa Kent, Clark's "guiding light", wasn't a key, life altering moment in his life. In fact, "There's literally zero reason why his death has to be some life altering event."

Which leads me back to my original question to you, "Why would his death spur Clark to leave?" Why would something that you declare has zero reason to be a life altering event spur him to alter his life?

You claim your reading is "reasonable and plausible" but all you look at are the list of events that happened. It went A and then B so A must have caused B. LOGIC!
But what you completely ignore is the actual situation and emotions involved. When you factor those in, Clark leaving at that moment is anything but reasonable... unless you believe the natural progression to manhood is: father dies, leave mother behind, become a drifter. And I'm sorry but if you think that seems sensible and heroic, then we have completely different concepts of what manhood and heroism are. And no, it doesn't take a momma's boy to think that the optimum time to leave the nest is when your mother has just been widowed.

On top of that, in this latest post of yours, you also argue that 80% of the Pa Kent scenes and most of the events of the first hour plus of the movie aren't important, aren't impactful, yet you still somehow can't understand how critics or people on this board could feel bored or disengaged by the film. As if listening to an hour of shit that doesn't matter is what people want out of a story.

You demand reasons for why people didn't like a movie but then when people look back at the movie and give you the reasons why it didn't work, you argue, "Well, you were just focused on those things and looking for reasons to hate it."
I didn't watch the film looking for all of these things; I watched the film, was bored, and then looked back and tried to figure out why I was bored. And stuff like the first hour not mattering, Clark's key decision being shortcircuited by Zod, the climatic To Kill or Not To Kill/Do I kill the last of my kind moment being something that was barely touched upon during the preceding two hours are the issues that I looked back and saw as why the film wasn't working for me.
Listen, I've liked bad movies before too. I enjoyed "Morning Glory" with Rachel McAdams; but I'm also not so closed minded that I have to say, "You know what, I enjoyed that movie so people who didn't like that movie must have wanted to hate it or are sticking to the rules too much because, you know what, I liked it and that's that." Instead, I can say, "You know, you guys are right, the movie is horribly flawed, but it still worked for me but I understand why you didn't like it and admit it's a pretty poorly told story."

Since you seem incapable of that, I'm going to just make a few more specific notes and tap out of this discussion.
----

>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.

You ignore the fact that when Ma Kent was told by Clark that he had found his dad, she was not swept up in happiness but rather was upset that she might not have a role in Clark's life anymore. The filmmakers presented her fear of abandonment as an issue yet glossed over the fact that Clark pretty much already abandoned her, which made that moment yet another boring, impactless moment in the film.

Also, given the structure of the film, we open up with him as a drifter and then we build to the explanation of how he got to be this lonely traveler, which culminates in Pa Kent's death and then... nope, that's it. It's an hour of a film that ends with, "So, yeah, then he just left and got on a boat. But, uh... OOH LOOK, ZOD!"

Quality storytelling, I tells ya!


>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.

No, it would have been Clark making a proactive decision to out himself as a superhuman and deal with the consequences. Not a reactive decision to someone threatening the world.

And it wasn't the decision that Pa Kent talked about either unless you think Pa Kent wouldn't have drawn the line at the WHOLE WORLD being destroyed. He would have said, "No, son, still keep your secret, even it means everyone you're keeping it from is going to be dead in a few days."


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

The post I first responded to was your response to Frank's and it was about a specific point Frank had made.

And with that, I'm out.