Remember that Tornado scene from Man of Steel (spoilers)?

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Pa kent in the movie wasn't really good or inspiring like he was on smallville.

A lot of people seem to recall Jonathan on Smallville as this noble figure, and I think that's mostly because of Schneider's terrific performance. Smallville Pa was a dick: he laid the seeds for Clark's self-loathing of his alien nature that would psychologically cripple him for years, and straight-up was responsible for pushing Lex away from Clark back into the arms of his super-evil father, putting him on the path of becoming a tyrant and mass-murderer. He wasn't the paragon that gave the world its greatest hero, he was the self-righteous, pride-driven, spiteful judgmental ass who delayed said heroes ascendancy and guaranteed the existence of its greatest villain.

Jon's role was building a reason for Clark not to automatically trust people, which was one of the main cruxes of the film.

I can't entirely argue against that in context, but isn't unconditionally trusting people and putting their lives over his own self-interest a huge part of Superman's deal? Even the morality aside of Jonathan teaching his son that aside, even within the movie that makes him someone who teaches the narratively wrong lesson whose sole purpose is to hold Clark back from his destiny--unless you agree that it wasn't "time" for Superman to reveal himself until everyone on Earth would die if he didn't.

I'll grant it was OTT, but it's much better than Jon just having a heart attack and teaching Clark he can't save everyone. That leson should just lead to him not trying.

How does it teach that lesson at all? The whole "you can't save everyone=it's not worth bothering to save anyone" quandary is so played out and shallow, which is why I think its used much less these days.

[UltraWoman]

What makes me mad is the movie saying we earthlings are too stupid and ignorant to understand "special" people. I rolled my eyes at the mom whose child almost drown. Clark SAVE the kid's life. What does the mother do? She gets upset and runs to Ma Kent to complain. If a kid saved my child's life, I would think he is a gift from god.

She wasn't complaining. The mother was in awe that this "Miracle" happened. She didn't have anything she knew of to explain it (would you have if it had happened in RL?). She was both thanking and admiring what happened. That the Kents didn't want her to know frightened them all, however. It's not that she was too ignorant, it was she didn't have any paradigm that would explain how a teenager could get a bus out from the middle of a river (that I imagine being like either the Mississippi or the Missouri rivers in strength and depth). That's just something happening outside of the norm and trying to explain it. In THIS particular case, she decided to grasp onto the faith possibility (anecdotal evidence-usually later explained scientifically- has been around for a long time).

[Captain Haddock]

They should have let the dog die. Clark learns his lesson (you can't save everyone!) and Johnny doesn't need to commit suicide to make a rather hamfisted point in the first place. Sorted.

[MikeMC005]

I thought it was ridiculous that he went back for a dog and died for that dog... It would have been better if it was a kid or something. But a dog... ITS A DOG. I have 2 and I love them but if it was between my life and theirs... easy decision its not even a decision.

[exile001]

A lot of people seem to recall Jonathan on Smallville as this noble figure, and I think that's mostly because of Schneider's terrific performance. Smallville Pa was a dick: he laid the seeds for Clark's self-loathing of his alien nature that would psychologically cripple him for years, and straight-up was responsible for pushing Lex away from Clark back into the arms of his super-evil father, putting him on the path of becoming a tyrant and mass-murderer. He wasn't the paragon that gave the world its greatest hero, he was the self-righteous, pride-driven, spiteful judgmental ass who delayed said heroes ascendancy and guaranteed the existence of its greatest villain.

Got to agree here. he was built to be a strong father figure, but he called so much wrong he almost turned Clark into the problem.

I can't entirely argue against that in context, but isn't unconditionally trusting people and putting their lives over his own self-interest a huge part of Superman's deal? Even the morality aside of Jonathan teaching his son that aside, even within the movie that makes him someone who teaches the narratively wrong lesson whose sole purpose is to hold Clark back from his destiny--unless you agree that it wasn't "time" for Superman to reveal himself until everyone on Earth would die if he didn't.

It is when he is Superman, until then he is often depicted (Post COIE) as hiding his true nature up until the big reveal. He has revealed himself for much lesser reasons, true, but in this film it made sense. Once he found himself and where he came from, he was a lot more comfortable in being open about who and what he is. As for the timing, it's a movie, they're going for drama and suspense. We all know he'll don the tights and save the world, but a little tension before hand is fine.

We'll see the full, trusting, hero to all Superman in later movies.

How does it teach that lesson at all? The whole "you can't save everyone=it's not worth bothering to save anyone" quandary is so played out and shallow, which is why I think its used much less these days.

The problem is that he has to learn it at some point. I honestly believe that this is the lesson learned from MOS in it's entirity, including killing Zod. It pushes him to fight to save everyone but ultimately knowing he can't.

I find the doing something else while dad dies of a heart attack angle to be incredibly forced and, frankly, any normal person would have to question why they should bother if they can't save those they care about the most. I'm fairly certain any hero, be they police, fire servce, paramedic would ask themselves the same question in a similar situation. It's not shallow, it's human nature and expecting Superman to be above that, having been raised on Earth by humans, is simply unrealistic.

His Kryptonian herritage doesn't give him 'Super-Morality', that's not a power. Well, maybe for an issue in the 50s, man were those crazy times!

[LoneNecromancer]

They should have let the dog die. Clark learns his lesson (you can't save everyone!) and Johnny doesn't need to commit suicide to make a rather hamfisted point in the first place. Sorted.

I thought it was ridiculous that he went back for a dog and died for that dog... It would have been better if it was a kid or something. But a dog... ITS A DOG. I have 2 and I love them but if it was between my life and theirs... easy decision its not even a decision.

Hey guys? Supes isn't a human. He's a far more advanced alien.

By this reasoning, why should he care about them at all? They're just humans. Why risk himself to save them?

(and fyi, moviegoing audiences tend to get far more upset over seeing a dog die on-screen than seeing a human die. Killing a dog is kind of like a rule not to do in Hollywood)

[neonrideraryeh]

In the film, Clark becomes Superman because he's defying what his father told him. Jonathan didn't want him to show himself to the world, but Clark proved him wrong and became Superman. This is kind of a problem. Clark is supposed to be Superman because of his parent's raising him to be good and use his powers, not become Superman because he wanted to defy his parents and do the opposite of what they wanted. It misses the point by taking away an integral part of what made Clark good. While the end point is the same; Clark shows himself to the world and is a good guy, the circumstances are not what they should have been. I liked the film and liked his Superman portrayal, but I found this part to be a problem. Jonathan was the worst part of the film (the let them die bit is major facepalm). I like defying my parents as much as the next guy, but Superman is supposed to be who he is because of what his parents taught him, not because he did the opposite.

[DCCoolness]

She wasn't complaining. The mother was in awe that this "Miracle" happened. She didn't have anything she knew of to explain it (would you have if it had happened in RL?). She was both thanking and admiring what happened. That the Kents didn't want her to know frightened them all, however. It's not that she was too ignorant, it was she didn't have any paradigm that would explain how a teenager could get a bus out from the middle of a river (that I imagine being like either the Mississippi or the Missouri rivers in strength and depth). That's just something happening outside of the norm and trying to explain it. In THIS particular case, she decided to grasp onto the faith possibility (anecdotal evidence-usually later explained scientifically- has been around for a long time).

Thanks for correcting that. I only saw the movie one time lol.

I thought it was ridiculous that he went back for a dog and died for that dog... It would have been better if it was a kid or something. But a dog... ITS A DOG. I have 2 and I love them but if it was between my life and theirs... easy decision its not even a decision.

I understand Pa Kent wanted what's best for his son, but would you really sacrifice your life? Seriously?? There are dads out there that would make his wife a widow and his kid fatherless just to teach him a valuable lesson?
If my wife pulled some crap like that and survived, I would be angry. I wouldn't be cool with that.

[DochaDocha]

Disliked the scene. Look, I'm not exactly a huge Pa Kent fanboy. I mean, I don't need to see or read about any of his many sagacious speeches he gives Clark to put him on the right path; one is plenty. However, I expect him to put Clark on the right path, and the movie pretty much tells us that Pa is wrong. Now on the bright side, there are some other really nice moments for Pa Costner (Pa-stner?), but the movie doesn't give Pa enough credit for making Superman. At least, I'd rather that Pa's influence was a more positive feedback loop, instead of what we got.

On top of that, there's something annoying about thinking that Pa died to save the family dog.

[RD!]

In the film, Clark becomes Superman because he's defying what his father told him. Jonathan didn't want him to show himself to the world, but Clark proved him wrong and became Superman. This is kind of a problem. Clark is supposed to be Superman because of his parent's raising him to be good and use his powers, not become Superman because he wanted to defy his parents and do the opposite of what they wanted. It misses the point by taking away an integral part of what made Clark good. While the end point is the same; Clark shows himself to the world and is a good guy, the circumstances are not what they should have been. I liked the film and liked his Superman portrayal, but I found this part to be a problem. Jonathan was the worst part of the film (the let them die bit is major facepalm). I like defying my parents as much as the next guy, but Superman is supposed to be who he is because of what his parents taught him, not because he did the opposite.

He's not defying him, as the ending shows that Jonathan always knew Clark was destined for great things.

It's a coming of age movie, even though the protagonist is in his 30's. At the time, Jonathan didn't think Clark was ready. Clark wasn't ready, that's why he was so aimless for over ten years.

I kind of liked that scene.

Also, the Mum of the boy he saved didn't go there to complain. She went there to thank them, I think the movie just focused on the latter part of the conversation.

[The Red Monk]

He's not defying him, as the ending shows that Jonathan always knew Clark was destined for great things.

It's a coming of age movie, even though the protagonist is in his 30's. At the time, Jonathan didn't think Clark was ready. Clark wasn't ready, that's why he was so aimless for over ten years.

I kind of liked that scene.

Also, the Mum of the boy he saved didn't go there to complain. She went there to thank them, I think the movie just focused on the latter part of the conversation.

A couple of forced lines about destiny and whatever doesn't really change the fact that through-out the movie, Pa Kent has pretty much been stifling Clark's growth as a superhero. One moment Pa is saying that Clark will change the world, blah, blah, blah, the next he's terrified how the world will react (which turns out to have been in vain, since the world's reaction to Zod's appearance is pretty much "meh"). Pa keeps alternating between being his own character, and a mouthpiece for Goyer spelling the movie's themes out for the audience. That is terrible writing.

And that was my primary complaint about the whole scene where the mother of the boy goes to thank the Kents. There's nothing about her attitude that spells malice, yet the movie keeps treating it as some horrible thing.

[Francisco]

The children won't do what their parents tell them but what they witness their parents doing.

[Lokimaru]

Keep in mind it's a post 9/11 world, If Clark exposed himself to the world what would the government have done? The Kent's could have been disappeared/renditioned while Clark was at School only to have a guy standing in his now empty home telling him if you don't help us you'll never see your family again. You really want that? You'd ether have a Super-menace tearing up the world looking for his folks, or Super-slave doing the Governments dirty work.

[Monkey Genius]

Loved the movie, hated that scene. It was dumb. Better to have him mortally wounded elsewhere and have a 'Why didn't you call me?!' scene. Then he can have his 'When the time is right...' speech and die in Clark's arms.

[Captain Haddock]

Hey guys? Supes isn't a human. He's a far more advanced alien.

By this reasoning, why should he care about them at all? They're just humans. Why risk himself to save them?

(and fyi, moviegoing audiences tend to get far more upset over seeing a dog die on-screen than seeing a human die. Killing a dog is kind of like a rule not to do in Hollywood)

I just think if you really need to see young Clark learn the very important lesson that not even Superman can save every person, every time, it might as well be seeing a beloved pet die, instead of seeing his father commit death by tornado... pointlessly. And really anyone who gets more caught up about Superman losing his pet than his dad has REALLY weird priorities.