And so the anti-Superman clowns come out from under there rocks

[R0NIN]

Put it this way...Let's say you have a son that's like maybe 9 and he's been going for KArate lessons. One night your neighbour is getting robbed and your son says he wants to go and try out his karate lessons on the robbers, what will your reaction be like? MAy the force be with you?
Every father would have said the same...well, I would have

Is my son bullet proof and can lift a tractor? Go ahead son. Try not to hurt them too bad. You're comparing apples to oranges.

[R0NIN]

Thor is lame and outdated. I mean when did they come up with that crappy character? In the Viking times? Besides Thor is one of the most overpowered character ever. Superman gets beaten up all the time by other members of the Justice League whilst the only guy who beats Thor is Hulk, the most overpowered character ever.

I'm not sure if you're serious or not....

Thor gets his butt whipped ALL the time. He's Marvel's resident jobber. There are quite a few threads on it in the Marvel boards.

[kakitamike]

I think the point for him is the the Justice League came first, and for that matter, the Justice Society.

Yeah, it wasn't a huge deal, but the writer could of been bothered to google justice league and realize if one was based off the other, it was the other way around. It's a little sad to see movies rewriting the written history. I'm perfectly fine with what they're adding to the comics industry.

[listenuscrewheads]

Exactly.



Sorry maybe Kurosawa was being a bit arrogant, and he often does have a black and white view when it comes to Superman, but this time he's right. I don't always agree with him. But I 100% agree that having Jonathan Kent endorse killing or letting people die by not doing something when you could have is completely out of character. If this is case and the trailer is showing what is actually in the movie, it will be a big fat black mark on the movie.





What does the world changing have to do with Superman? Did morality or ethics change? Is it suddenly ok to kill and maim and murder and rape? Is being a good person somehow different now? Don't kid yourselves. Ethic and Morality don't change? Having manners and being respectful, and being a good person isn't constrained to what time period you live in. You're trying to make a case that because there are ipods now instead of walkmans or even record players that should somehow affect Superman's personality.



See? Perfect example of something I disagree with Kurosawa about. :)



The world isn't going to be interested in him if we keep watering down the idea for the quick mass appeal. Batman and Spider-Man DON'T evolve. They constantly go back to status quo. Hell Spider-Man even lost his marriage to bring him back to his more original single self.
And shame on you for wanting to change a bright golden upstanding and good idea just so other might "like" him more for all 2 hours. You don't change the idea. You change how it's presented. You do you best to make it as engaging and interesting as possible WITHOUT changing it or compromising the ideal.

What is making him appealing to 2012? What moral values changed since the 70s?


And what adults don't understand what it is to stand up for something you believe in? Adults don't understand how to teach their kids to do what's right even if it gets you in trouble? Pa Kent would never say that period point blank. Pa and Ma Kent are the ones who instilled the moral and ethical values that Superman holds to this day. It's because of them that Clark is the way he is. It's because of them that despite being from a cold scientific alien world, that Clark is able to empathize and understand human emotions and morality. Jonathan Kent's morals don't waiver. That's the character. He showed Clark through word and deed and Clark carried that and made it a part of him forever. Anything else is just wrong. The End. Uncle Ben doesn't say With Great Power comes Great Responsibility...unless it cause you trouble. Pa Kent doesn't say maybe you should've let them die.

The question is more complex than that, the question ultimately is, that in risking revealing himself to have such powers to the world, when he is still a child, will that ultimately snowball into a far more dangerous situation? That is what we are supposed to take away from the clip.
We see the adult Superman being arrested by the military in the trailer right? So it's obvious what question Pa Kent is raising here, what if the military got ahold of Clark when he was a kid, would the kid panic and grow up to be some kind of enemy of humanity in the long run?

Pa Kent is still being a good man when he asks that question, it's just that he is smart enough to know that you have to weigh up some risks which raise some complex moral questions, when dealing with a situation that will ultimately change the future of the human race. Which is another concept mentioned in the trailer, as to *how* Clark will change the world, it's not whether he will, it's a question of in what way, how he handles it, and whether he becomes a good man or not.

When someone is elected to be a world leader, they are faced with questions and decisions that are far more complex than the simple morality that ordinary people adhere to, and will have to make decisions that might horrify ordinary people, but prove ultimately to be the correct decisions, the lesser of two evils. Here, Pa Kent is a 'world leader', in as much as he is the caretaker of the most powerful force on Earth.

edit: and Pa Kent isn't in actual fact telling Clark he shouldn't have, by asking the question he's trying to open Clark's eyes to the potential ramifications of his reveal to the world, and I guess we will see that in the full context of the scene, but still, Pa Kent is asking the question seriously it seems, as in, he is not sure if it was such a good idea, and I'm sure he himself would be horrified by the fact of having to confront such a question, but it is the most responsible way of thinking.


btw, in that edit at the end of my last post when I was talking about how Pa Kent would ask these questions if he had 'half a brain', I was only talking about Pa Kent, I wasn't doing that internet thing of sneaking in an insult to a poster

[Namtab]

Is my son bullet proof and can lift a tractor? Go ahead son. Try not to hurt them too bad. You're comparing apples to oranges.

How would you even know your son is bullet proof unless you, or someone else, fires a couple of rounds at him?

Jonathan Kent knows his son has special abilities, but he has no reason to think that his son may be invulnerable.

[House of Rao]

It's the first real trailer for a movie and is a popular icon. Of course people will be trolling it and ignorant about it. 10 years ago I might have been surprised by some of those comments, but not today. It still bothers me and it's not something I can approve of, I'm just used to it.

[AJBopp]

How would you even know your son is bullet proof unless you, or someone else, fires a couple of rounds at him?

Jonathan Kent knows his son has special abilities, but he has no reason to think that his son may be invulnerable.

Probably the fact that Clark has never had a scratch, or a blister, broken finger, cut or any other injury in his life is probably a pretty good indication. Also, when you can't get hurt I would think you're more likely to do things, by accident or on purpose, that would seriously injure a normal person. Such as putting your hand on a hot burner, being on the underside of a dropped bale of hay, falling off a silo (assuming he doesn't learn to fly till his late teens). There are all kinds of ways that they could be assured he is invulnerable to conventional (as in, daily farm life) technology. They might be somewhat less certain he could survive cutting lasers because they are out of their experience and they probably don't understand lasers all that well to begin with.

[Namtab]

Probably the fact that Clark has never had a scratch, or a blister, broken finger, cut or any other injury in his life is probably a pretty good indication. Also, when you can't get hurt I would think you're more likely to do things, by accident or on purpose, that would seriously injure a normal person. Such as putting your hand on a hot burner, being on the underside of a dropped bale of hay, falling off a silo (assuming he doesn't learn to fly till his late teens). There are all kinds of ways that they could be assured he is invulnerable to conventional (as in, daily farm life) technology. They might be somewhat less certain he could survive cutting lasers because they are out of their experience and they probably don't understand lasers all that well to begin with.

That's still a bit of a leap, though. We all know Clark/Superman's power-set, but Jonathan doesn't. We can guess, based on the trailer, that Clark saves those kids using super-strength to possibly lift/move the bus and probably to tear the door off -- all remarkable feats, but still nothing to suggest that Clark is invulnerable. Not even we know what level is powers are at when he's 12 (or so) in the MoS universe.

[misslane38]

How would you even know your son is bullet proof unless you, or someone else, fires a couple of rounds at him?

Jonathan Kent knows his son has special abilities, but he has no reason to think that his son may be invulnerable.

On Smallville, Clark and his parents didn't know he was bulletproof until he was shot multiple times in the first season episode, "Hug." Clark was almost 15 years-old in that episode whereas Sprayberry's Clark in Man of Steel is only 13 years-old. Welling's Clark didn't get the first clue that he was more than just fast and strong until he was hit by Lex Luthor's Porsche in the pilot. He was 14 years-old.

[Namtab]

On Smallville, Clark and his parents didn't know he was bulletproof until he was shot multiple times in the first season episode, "Hug." Clark was almost 15 years-old in that episode whereas Sprayberry's Clark in Man of Steel is only 13 years-old. Welling's Clark didn't get the first clue that he was more than just fast and strong until he was hit by Lex Luthor's Porsche in the pilot. He was 14 years-old.

Thank you, misslane38.

You'd never just assume that someone is bulletproof, until you actually see the bullets bounce off their chest. Fast & Strong doesn't equal impervious.

[R0NIN]

Thank you, misslane38.

You'd never just assume that someone is bulletproof, until you actually see the bullets bounce off their chest. Fast & Strong doesn't equal impervious.

Being so fast that bullets barely move to you equals bulletproof.
Being so fast that even if a bullet touched your body you'd still have time to back up and move away from it while only receiving a small cut or bruise equals bulletproof.

[BYC]

First thing I reacted to when I saw the trailer was Jonathon Kent saying what he said. I was shocked. In my mind, he was suggesting Clark let people die to protect himself. To me, that's as bad as Uncle Ben saying "with great power comes lack of responsibility". I certainly don't read every Superman title other there, but Jonathon Kent in my mind was an average guy with great morality. He taught Clark to help those who need help.

As an audience, we only got a few seconds of that exchange, but if the finished product suggests Jonathon Kent was a man who had average morality, that would disappoint me greatly.

[Mr. Holmes]

First thing I reacted to when I saw the trailer was Jonathon Kent saying what he said. I was shocked. In my mind, he was suggesting Clark let people die to protect himself. .

You made it too easy to make a joke about your mind, but I don't want to risk getting banned.

So I'll just say that...that's not what was being said at all.

[misslane38]

First thing I reacted to when I saw the trailer was Jonathon Kent saying what he said. I was shocked. In my mind, he was suggesting Clark let people die to protect himself. To me, that's as bad as Uncle Ben saying "with great power comes lack of responsibility". I certainly don't read every Superman title other there, but Jonathon Kent in my mind was an average guy with great morality. He taught Clark to help those who need help.

It is a great responsibility. It's a great responsibility that an older teenager or young adult might be able to handle (i.e. draft age), but it's not a responsibility for a kid who is still in middle school.

As an audience, we only got a few seconds of that exchange, but if the finished product suggests Jonathon Kent was a man who had average morality, that would disappoint me greatly.

Someone has got to explain to me how it is immoral for a father to protect his 13 year-old son. How is it immoral for an adult to consider, for example, the possibility that Clark may not yet know how to control all of his powers so using them to save people may do more harm than good? How is it immoral for an adult to understand better than his adolescent son that the responsibility of saving everyone is too great a burden to bear for a child? How is it immoral to essentially encourage a child to do something that will put him in terrible danger? It is moral and ethical for Jonathan Kent to teach his son that all actions have consequences -- good and bad -- that need to be taken into account before rushing off to save every endangered life.

[R0NIN]

First thing I reacted to when I saw the trailer was Jonathon Kent saying what he said. I was shocked. In my mind, he was suggesting Clark let people die to protect himself. To me, that's as bad as Uncle Ben saying "with great power comes lack of responsibility". I certainly don't read every Superman title other there, but Jonathon Kent in my mind was an average guy with great morality. He taught Clark to help those who need help.

As an audience, we only got a few seconds of that exchange, but if the finished product suggests Jonathon Kent was a man who had average morality, that would disappoint me greatly.

I said something similiar. That's exactly what it's like.