Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Two of the best contemporary visual directors in the world set out to make the ultimate summer blockbuster. Which film was more entertaining? Which film had a better story, characters, and pacing? Which film had the better visuals and music score? If you had the chance to see only one of them again, which would you choose?

MOS for sure. Pacific Rim has great effects for sure but I think they are less impressive because most of the movie was primarily CGI and blue screens. There wasn't nearly as much CGI integration with real locations and live acting. I don't mean to take anything away from Pacific rim but MOS was just vastly more impressive to me.

IDK about that. MoS may have had more dialogue, but a good portion of it was exposition, and I feel the characters in Pacific Rim were better developed. It's extremely difficult to compare visuals as both films were amazing, but I think PR had a more substantial and better paced story along with more relatable characters to go along with the spectacular action. I also found myself fully engaged throughout PR, whereas I found myself looking at my watch at some points during MoS.

I liked MoS more.

Pacific Rim was cool, but it didn't completely **** my brains in the action scenes compared to MoS

Difficult to say for me. I went in to MoS with high expectations and was disappointed and I went into PR with low expectations and was pleasantly surprised. They both had great action in their own ways. Both had great visual flair. MoS had the far better music score and in fact has easily the best orchestral score of the year so far. Both had average plots with nothing exceptional. Unfortunately they both fall down on characterization. Neither of them had anyone I cared about at all. MoS suffered because all its characters were essentially the same. Grim faced, morose types. PR suffered cos it had the most awful cliches for characters ever. The Russian guy was clearly just Zangeif from street fighter. Both had sub-par acting which was surprising given some of talent in both films. Some people are quick to say that Russell Crowe was good in MoS. He wasn't. Just putting on the Maximus voice again doesn't mean it's a Maximus performance. He was wooden in it. Charlie Hunnam is one of the worst actors ever especially for accents but he fits his character in Sons of Anarchy well so it works. I've never seen him fit any other character well. Iris Eldba seems to be a hit and miss depending on the character and realism. He is truly brilliant as Stringer Bell and Luther but it horrendous in PR. The whole 'cancelling the apocalypse' speech is dreadful. Don't know whether it was the star wars prequel effect that makes great actors seen awful cos of excessive green screen but whatever it was he was terrible.

If I had to choose which I preferred it'd be man of steel. If I had to go see one again it'd be Pacific Rim cos I saw MoS twice anyway.

Man of Steel hands down,,.

better story/acting, etc

Man of Steel was way better. Only competition it saw from a blockbuster type film this summer was Star Trek Into Darkness.

IMO the wait & hype to MOS was worth it. I enjoyed the movie but there was several inconsistent directions with the story that did nag me, especially portraying Clark as a child that never rebelled or questioned against his upbringing. There's no emotional residual of watching his father die knowing he could've saved him...
Overall there really was no WOW factor for me...it was just simply good to see Supes on the big screen again.

Whereas Pacific Rim was simply an epic & simple story of monsters vs robots. It didn't try to be anything more than a fun ride.
I enjoyed it however my 7 yr old son did start to get bored towards the end. His reasoning was, "We've already seen the monsters & robots fight...do we have to stay & watch another fight?"

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
.
however my 7 yr old son did start to get bored towards the end. His reasoning was, "We've already seen the monsters & robots fight...do we have to stay & watch another fight?"

Should introduce him to alot of those Mecha anime, if you haven't already.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Should introduce him to alot of those Mecha anime, if you haven't already.

Honestly I never got into anime of any sort....there's just too many to choose from...I'd just get too frustrated sorting out the good from the bad.

Evangelion has some of the slickest, coolest "mecha" you will find in anime.

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 has some of the coolest designs and best animation/fights you can find.

For the old stuff try Mazinger Z & Getter Robo....More New Getter Robo since that's the only one i've seen.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Evangelion has some of the slickest, coolest "mecha" you will find in anime.



I did try watching Evanelion but I got tried/bored with the constant love triangle angsts & characters needing to bond just to get to the cool action.

I understand. Not to mention the show is really depressing and the plot is one of the most ****ed up shit you will ever see.

The rebuild is better...but Shinji is still so fkn screwed.

Originally posted by Kazenji
For the old stuff try Mazinger Z

I remember Maz Z from my childhood...that's over 30 yrs ago!

^ I had the same problem with it too....regarding Evangelion

fair enough if other people like it.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
I understand. Not to mention the show is really depressing and the plot is one of the most ****ed up shit you will ever see.


Ha ha so thanx for recommending a sh*t show!

Originally posted by Kazenji
^ I had the same problem with it too....regarding Evangelion

fair enough if other people like it.

I'm just saying my local video shop has a huge anime section & I'm forever looking at all the titles & series & wondering which would grab me.

I just find that whether it's Ninja Scroll or a sci-fi series, it's always the same blood & guts ripping apart & bloody tentacles.
Always goddam tentacles.

The only anime that i've watched which had anything close to tentacles was Wicked City.

Originally posted by Kazenji
The only anime that i've watched which had anything close to tentacles was Wicked City.

Ninja Scroll.
Akira
Ghost in the machine.

Yeah i've watched all of those

Wicked City is alot more messed up.

Mos but action in Pacific Rim was better.

I, on the flip side, lean Pacific Rim. In the action, there was more a sense of 'the heroes are fighting to *prevent* this mega damage,' Jonathan Kent's 'don't use your powers to save lives even if it could cost your secret ID!' was silly and I don't think it worked, and overall it trended a bit dark for what I prefer for Superman.


Pacific Rim was straitforward but strong in theme, and it's effects captured a sense of mass in the Jaeger and Kaiju to reflect their scale that's quite impressive.

Superman didn't listen to his dad anyway, exposing himself like 4 times over the course of the movie in order to save people.

True. It's still an element that I don't think worked.

I thought it was ok right until Johnatan's retarded death scene. I just couldn't fkn buy someone being so stupidly stuck up about something.

maybe when I become a father I'll understand, but until then its just awful.

Exactly.

There's no parts of Pacific Rim where I facepalm at like that.

MoS for me. I found it to be an enjoyable film. Pacific Rim, however, was a massive disappointment and just a boring generic film. Ultimately, I'll buy MoS on blu-ray but I'll never feel the need to watch PR again.

How was PR boring and generic?

Boring because I din't give one shit about the story or characters. The action was pretty good but even that wasn't amazing. Generic because the characters were so typical for lack of a better word. Nothing about them was unique.

Your opinion is stupid and so are you.

The characters were definitely straitforward, but I found them good in those roles, and there were some very good scenes in there. Plus, Ron Perlmen as Hannibal Chou!



Also, here's one that may be a plus or a minus- I'd say that Pacific Rim was the more optimistic/positive movie.

Pacific Rim was generic. I wouldn't call it boring though.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
I thought it was ok right until Johnatan's retarded death scene. I just couldn't fkn buy someone being so stupidly stuck up about something.

maybe when I become a father I'll understand, but until then its just awful.

That's also what I found odd & disappointing about Clark's childhood.... No matter how you're raised as a child, no kid has ever done as they're told 100%.I was honestly hoping Clark would've stood up to those bullies as a kid...or at least got them back in a way that didn't implicate him or his powers.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
That's also what I found odd & disappointing about Clark's childhood.... No matter how you're raised as a child, no kid has ever done as they're told 100%.I was honestly hoping Clark would've stood up to those bullies as a kid...or at least got them back in a way that didn't implicate him or his powers. Like he did to the bully when he was an adult.

Anyway, Clark and John were idiots.

IMO, I believe Pacific Rim was better. It was far more successful than Superman at being exactly what it said it was, had far less noticeable flaws, and it's characters had better arcs and sub-plots.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
Man of Steel hands down,,.

better story/acting, etc This.

I was actually a bit disappointed with PR, even going in with modest expectations. I started to find the fights kind of redundant (leap, punch, roar, punch, leap, roar, etc). I think some wrestling moves could've broken up the monotony (hell, even Godzilla and Kong have done judo flips 'n' stuff).

I dunno. I saw the movie only once. We'll see what happens the second time around.

I feel Man of Steel took greater risks that didn't didn't pay off while Pacific Rim used a more tested and true method but polished it up the best they could. I'd vote Pacific Rim.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
I feel Man of Steel took greater risks that didn't didn't pay off while Pacific Rim used a more tested and true method but polished it up the best they could. I'd vote Pacific Rim.



Man of Steel had some great visuals, but it failed at telling the story it was attempting to. Pacific Rim, while "simpler" in it's plot (debatable) told it's story perfectly and more fluidly. I also liked the character arcs in PR better, as Clark Kent's, while taking up a bit of screentime, was confusing and missed it's mark. The one's in PR were simple, but substantial and perfect for the story.

Like I said, I feel Pacific Rim was far more successful at just being what it is. MoS feels like a disjointed mess that is trying to explore several concepts but hitting upon neither.

Even as far as visuals go, seeing Superman wrestle some tentacles is sorta cool, but seeing an underwater dome caused by a nuclear explosion is cooler IMO.

Superman vs Tentacles was the lamest action sequence in the entire movie.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Superman vs Tentacles was the lamest action sequence in the entire movie.

Yeah that should've been cut. However more Faora action would've been well received in its place.

I'd say Man of Steel was better despite the stupid stuff like Pa Kent's death and the forced Lois and Clark romance on top of the repetitive action. Pacific Rim was a generic blockbuster that just happened to be made with an A-list movie budget. I mean the actors were good but nobody really stood out...except Ron Perlman of course.

Same can be said about the actors and characters in Man of Steel. Even Russel Crowe didn't bring much to the table. Costner's Pa Kent was clearly a low point of the film. Unlike MoS, however, the characters in PR had character arcs and backstories that were actually likable and plausible. Only person with a plausible backstory in MoS was Zod IMO. Everybody else had about as much characterization and emotion as a plank of wood. As generic as the characters in PR were, at least they showed some emotion and were actually enjoyable to watch(and in the case of Hunham and Mako, I'll forgive their subdued performance because the characters themselves were brooding by nature)

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Superman vs Tentacles was the lamest action sequence in the entire movie.
Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
Yeah that should've been cut.Maybe not cut: shortened. I liked seeing Supes fighting something other than a person-type. But definitely, it could've been shortened. I didn't need another whole rendition of Perseus fighting the Kraken.

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
but nobody really stood out...except Ron Perlman of course. Indeed.

I disagree. True there was less characterization in PR, but the focus of the film was it's plot, not it's characters, and the backstory they did give the characters was just perfect to drive the plot. Unlike MoS where the focus was Clark's character arc....which failed horribly. I could relate to everybody in PR. The only relatable person in MoS was the genocidal Zod. Everybody else was a bland stick.

Neither movie had enough tittyballs imo.

You got to see Kaiju boobage. Does that count?

Did for me, giggity

Originally posted by Lestov16
I disagree. True there was less characterization in PR, but the focus of the film was it's plot, not it's characters, and the backstory they did give the characters was just perfect to drive the plot

I did like the characters seemed like professionals there to put their lives on the line, which is what you'd expect. It didn't have the 'heroes journey' refusing the call/being overcome with doubt moment, and I found that lack refreshing rather than bad. Mako had the most character arc, and I liked hers.




There were at least three throws in the Hong Kong fight, and in the underwater battle there was some cool use of the swords to hook onto foes to position for an attack. They were brief moments, but it wasn't all just punching.

Honestly I could've really gone for more Crimson Typhoon fighting, it's style was pretty cool, what with the leap-flip and stuff.

Originally posted by Lestov16
It was far more successful than Superman at being exactly what it said it was, had far less noticeable flaws, and it's characters had better arcs and sub-plots. What was Superman pretending to be that it failed so hard at?

Originally posted by Darth Martin
What was Superman pretending to be that it failed so hard at?
Batman

Pacific Rim curb stomps. Only an american would refuse to see it uhuh

The fairest answer I can give here is that Pacific Rim was more successful in what it tried to do. It was simple and straight forward, an action packed summer blockbuster, and it succeeded wonderfully with that.

MOS tried to be more than that, and while it was great in some aspects, it also failed in others. Because MOS tried to be a bigger, deeper movie, it also gave it more flaws.

Pacific Rim was simple, and quite frankly, more enjoyable. MOS was the bigger film, with lots of better moments, but also lots of failed moments.

That's the thing. Pacific Rim was flawed because we wanted more of it. Man of Steel was flawed because there was too much, and they needed to cut down.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
What was Superman pretending to be that it failed so hard at?

An entertaining character arc of Superman.

This is what Brandon Routh brought up

people complained about Superman Returns with it no having enough action, Now we get this Superman movie with lots of action and its still not good enough

Still, you can keep the hopeful tone while adding in more action.

One can argue SR had a better Superman, while MoS had better villains.

MoS didn't fail because of too much action, because it had plenty of time for Superman's character development. It failed because the character arc was written horribly, especially regarding Clark's childhood and Pa "Maybe you should have let a bus full of kids die" Kent.

Seriously, that was the worst characterization of Johnathan in any medium I've ever seen. That has never been what he was and it should never have been. I was more ok with Clark killing Zod than Johnathan wanting him to hide his powers to the extent that he'd let a bus full of kids die. Clark's parents were the ones who taught him how to be a hero.

Wait wait, since when did MOS fail?

It's made $648mill WW coming close tripling it's budget despite having already made up it's marketing costs through sponsorships. And has like a 77% rating by general audiences.

If that's a failure then I guess anything short of Avengers, Batman, Spider-Man and Iron Man 3 is a failure for superhero movies.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

If that's a failure then I guess anything short of Avengers, Batman, Spider-Man and Iron Man 3 is a failure for superhero movies.

Originally posted by Mindset
Seriously, that was the worst characterization of Johnathan in any medium I've ever seen. That has never been what he was and it should never have been. I was more ok with Clark killing Zod than Johnathan wanting him to hide his powers to the extent that he'd let a bus full of kids die. Clark's parents were the ones who taught him how to be a hero.

I'd agree. Easily my biggest problem with the movie.

I have no investment in the "Jonathan Kent character" so I'm not angry at them 'ruining' him like others are.

I don't think anyone actually cares about Jonathan Kent, it's just that they made him such an unlike SOB yet we are supposed to agree with him somewhat.

I do think he somewhat had a point in that Supermans presence was a big deal and they needed to tread carefully. Were it not for the alien invasion taking place and his part in averting it, I think its safe to say the military would likely have come after him.

Having said that I think he was dead wrong, Kal thought he was wrong and the movie showed that he was too.

But the thing is, his parents were the reason he turned out to be Superman, without their guidance he isn't the "hero's hero". They're a very important part of the Superman mythos, whether you care about them or not. He is Superman because they instilled into him those characteristics, without that he'd just be another guy with powers.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Wait wait, since when did MOS fail?

It's made $648mill WW coming close tripling it's budget despite having already made up it's marketing costs through sponsorships. And has like a 77% rating by general audiences.

If that's a failure then I guess anything short of Avengers, Batman, Spider-Man and Iron Man 3 is a failure for superhero movies.

LOL at how you think Box Office=movie quality. A movie can fail at many things, not just box office grossing. In the case of MoS, it was characterization and pacing.

Well, of course, that's just like your own opinion. For many others, including me, the pacing and most of the characterization is fine.

Here's a riddle for you: If the Kryptonians captured both Clark and Lois, and Clark passed the Russell Crowe chip onto Lois, why didn't the Kryptonians get it off of Lois during a patdown, or discern it's location during their telepathic invasion of her mind (she even tells Clark that she couldn't resist and told them everything)?

Because every character in the movie was stupid.

The hallmark of good characterization.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Here's a riddle for you: If the Kryptonians captured both Clark and Lois, and Clark passed the Russell Crowe chip onto Lois, why didn't the Kryptonians get it off of Lois during a patdown, or discern it's location during their telepathic invasion of her mind (she even tells Clark that she couldn't resist and told them everything)?

Neither of those are plot holes. Instead, you are just creating your own problems about the movie. I mean, why would they pat down Lois? She is no threat to them. As for your second point, she was likely referring to Superman being Clark and stuff to do with that; it's not like they probed her mind for literally everything. Unless, you believe she told her life story...

The movie isn't perfect but these are just laughable reasons to attack it.

He slipped it to her less than 5 minutes beforehand. It's not a memory that would be buried deep. You think she didn't have enough willpower to tell them about Clark and all of his secrets, but had jusstttt enough to avoid telling them about yet another secret she knows about Clark that she learned 5 minutes ago? Lulz.

Why would she tell them that? It's not like they were probing her mind for what Clark just gave her. Once gain, you making plot holes where none exist.

Why would they not be, considering their main goal was to find the Codex? You think they would be interested in everything she knows about Clark's secret past, but not about anything Clark may have given or shown to her? Again, lulz.

lol

Sorry but your argument makes absolutely no sense. They were, presumably, probing Lois's mind for what she knew about Superman; not looking for shit like a command key. Once again, you're projecting your own problems into the movie where none exist.

Superman giving her a command key isn't something she knows about Superman? Again, the lulz sir.

superdur

Originally posted by Lestov16
Superman giving her a command key isn't something she knows about Superman? Again, the lulz sir.



You're hate is showing. We don't know exactly what they were searching for. And yes, the fact that he gave her something, isn't exactly something she knows about Superman's past.

If they are scanning for all Superman-relevant information in her mind, why wouldn't Superman giving her a command key 5 minutes earlier be Superman-relevant information. You think the first thing they would be looking for is any info on where the command key may be, and wouldya know? She has it. Why would they want to know anything about Clark's past when they already telepathically scanned him. The only thing they didn't get out of him was the location of the codex, and so you would think that would be the first thing they ask Lois. Again, the lulz is high.

Where is it said they searched her mind for everything concerning Superman?

And why would they care where the command key is? And why would they know Superman even has one? The funny thing is, your supposed "plot hole" has plot holes in it.

The movie is far from flawless, but this isn't a flaw in the film.

Originally posted by Lestov16
LOL at how you think Box Office=movie quality. A movie can fail at many things, not just box office grossing. In the case of MoS, it was characterization and pacing.

I guess you completely missed this part:


Originally posted by DARTH POWER


And has like a 77% rating by general audiences.




So it's a financial success and has a general thumbs up from audeinces, so how exactly is it a failure?

Because you didn't like it? That's just your opinion. And your welcome to express the reasons why you dislike it, but the Fact is the movie was successful.

Why wouldn't they search her mind for everything regarding Superman? It's the only reason they would search her mind.

They would need the command key because it's the (seemingly) only source of information about the Codex's location. They would know he had one because he had to have used to it activate the beacon which brought them there.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
I guess you completely missed this part:





So it's a financial success and has a general thumbs up from audeinces, so how exactly is it a failure?

Because you didn't like it? That's just your opinion. And your welcome to express the reasons why you dislike it, but the Fact is the movie was successful.

As was the Bayformers series.

I will admit, I enjoyed this film solely as an alien invasion summer blockbuster, but it completely failed as a Superman story, which is a problem when a good chunk of the film is devoted to telling it.

You see, now you're just making up information that wasn't presented in the film.

Why would a command key of Jor El himself not be the last source of info about the Codex? When it was....

Why would they not know he used a command key to send a beacon to them when they know how their own tech works and know one would need use a command key to activate a beacon?

How do they know he has a command key of Jor-el?

The ship was an ancient Scout Ship, not a contemporary one. For all they knew, it might not even operate using Command Keys or perhaps it could have one in it.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
And has like a 77% rating by general audiences.


Since we're talking vs Pacific Rim, PR has an even more impressive 82%, and a critic rating of 72% rather than 56%.

In your face.

Originally posted by Q99
Since we're talking vs Pacific Rim, PR has an even more impressive 82%, and a critic rating of 72% rather than 56%.

That's impressive although I'm sure a month in MOS was around 80%, so will see if PR sustains the 82% rating.

And honestly what does it matter what critics think when they praised Superman Returns? I for one have never been too concerned for their ratings.

As for critics, the types of critics and why they don't like it matters to me.

Like, someone saying, "It's just giant robots/silly superhero stuff, who cares?" can safely be ignored, but more precise criticism can be useful.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER
That's impressive although I'm sure a month in MOS was around 80%, so will see if PR sustains the 82% rating.

It's got over a hundred thousand user ratings in- it'd be very difficult for it to drop much in the near future.

Fair enough, although I think the bigger box office films like MOS will likely have more people rating them.

Originally posted by Q99
As for critics, the types of critics and why they don't like it matters to me.

Like, someone saying, "It's just giant robots/silly superhero stuff, who cares?" can safely be ignored, but more precise criticism can be useful.
.

Alot of the critics its mostly what they know about the character and what they liked about a previous franchise of it.

Pacific Rim
US Domestic Total as of Aug. 18, 2013: $98,401,000
Foreign $286,000,000.

Total $384,401,000.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Alot of the critics its mostly what they know about the character and what they liked about a previous franchise of it.

Yep. Most the criticisms of MOS were things like Caville is no Reeve.

Critics are the type of people who preferred SR due to it being a tribute to the Donner films.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Why would a command key of Jor El himself not be the last source of info about the Codex? When it was....

Why would they not know he used a command key to send a beacon to them when they know how their own tech works and know one would need use a command key to activate a beacon?

Lois had no idea what Kal had given her. He handed her "something" and she hid it. She didn't know what it was until she looked at it later and put it in the ship. So if they probed her mind for some sort of "key" how would she be able to give them that information when she literally didn't have it? Seems like you are inventing issues where none are

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Yep. Most the criticisms of MOS were things like Caville is no Reeve.

Critics are the type of people who preferred SR due to it being a tribute to the Donner films.

That's like with Amazing Spider-Man, How alot of them were used to Tobey Maguire's and they disliked the snappy comebacks in Amazing Spidey was giving to the villains.

Originally posted by Kazenji
That's like with Amazing Spider-Man, How alot of them were used to Tobey Maguire's and they disliked the snappy comebacks in Amazing Spidey was giving to the villains.

Even though comic book fans have been expecting/wanting Spidey to be like that since the first movie.

It's like I said critics are a very very small percentage of your movie audience. So I really don't see why their opinion matters at all in determining the success of a movie.

If a movie has the backing of the general audience and it's financially successful and critics give it a thumbs up too, then great. But if it has everything except critics approval then that really doesn't matter one bit.

On the other hand if critics like it but the general audience does not (e.g. Superman Returns) then again critics liking it means squat really.

I will concede I may be have been too harsh on Man of Steel. It was a fun film, Superman's arc was understandable, and the action was spectacular. I gave it unjustified criticisms because it may have strayed from the mythos I'm familiar with. That being stated, I still think Pacific Rim was the more enjoyable film. That is of course just IMO and everybody is entitled to their own.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I will concede I may be have been too harsh on Man of Steel. It was a fun film, Superman's arc was understandable, and the action was spectacular. I gave it unjustified criticisms because it may have strayed from the mythos I'm familiar with. That being stated, I still think Pacific Rim was the more enjoyable film. That is of course just IMO and everybody is entitled to their own.

Respect

Originally posted by Lestov16
That is of course just IMO and everybody is entitled to their own.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Fair enough, although I think the bigger box office films like MOS will likely have more people rating them.


Statistically, past a certain point there's little difference. You've got a highly accurate sampling at 1,000, let alone 100,000.


And PR is still a giant box office film! We aren't exactly talking art-house flicks in either case.

Originally posted by ares834
I don't think anyone actually cares about Jonathan Kent, it's just that they made him such an unlike SOB yet we are supposed to agree with him somewhat.


Look at the bigger picture. The interpretation of his character was very powerful. He was Instilling mindfulness in Clark. Instead of taking the responsibility to teach clark to be how he is. He took as much responsibility that was bestowed upon him whilst keeping Clark real fathers intentions in mind. This version of Johnation was deeper, and more thoughtful than any other incarnation I've ever come across. He was still everything I knew about Jonathan just not as one dimensional. He was grooming, be fully aware of his developing consciousness. He showed clark that no matter what decision he made he would always accept him as his own and understand what path he might choose. I never got the impression that, Jonathon didn't believe, Clark would become the hero he chose to be, but instead, preparing him for the perceived Villain he might become.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7kz87XnuQ1rnpgulo1_500.gif

But seriously, when a smallville character is better than your character, you know you did something wrong.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Look at the bigger picture. The interpretation of his character was very powerful. He was Instilling mindfulness in Clark. Instead of taking the responsibility to teach clark to be how he is. He took as much responsibility that was bestowed upon him whilst keeping Clark real fathers intentions in mind. This version of Johnation was deeper, and more thoughtful than any other incarnation I've ever come across. He was still everything I knew about Jonathan just not as one dimensional. He was grooming, be fully aware of his developing consciousness. He showed clark that no matter what decision he made he would always accept him as his own and understand what path he might choose. I never got the impression that, Jonathon didn't believe, Clark would become the hero he chose to be, but instead, preparing him for the perceived Villain he might become.

I totally understand where yer coming from...
However in a real life situation, I know my own 7 yr old son would grow up resenting me if I held him back as much as Jonathon did to Clark.
I also know my son would be screwed up if he was able to save my life & I told him not to.
Yes, I know my son doesn't have super powers but just the same I can't hold him back from being & acting like a kid because I'm paranoid how society will view him...or me, as his father.
Recently he's been bullied at school & I was stumped as to what advice to give him. Either run to the teacher & dob the bully in OR stand up & fight. But if you stand your ground & fight, be prepared to get hurt & get in trouble as well.
Not once did I feel that Jonathon instilled a sense of pride into Clark's upbringing.

I think the problem is that rather than teaching Clark not to abuse his powers, he was trying to teach Clark not to use them altogether. He was more concerned with harboring Kal El, the alien fugitive, than raising Clark Kent, his son. It's like Cairn said. He gave Superman no sense of pride. He practically made him feel ashamed to have his gifts. He was so concerned with preventing Clark from becoming a villain that he never taught him to become a hero.

All I know is, it's a good thing Kryptonian children don't go through a "terrible twos" phase, or rebellious adolescence.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I totally understand where yer coming from...
However in a real life situation, I know my own 7 yr old son would grow up resenting me if I held him back as much as Jonathon did to Clark.
I also know my son would be screwed up if he was able to save my life & I told him not to.
Yes, I know my son doesn't have super powers but just the same I can't hold him back from being & acting like a kid because I'm paranoid how society will view him...or me, as his father.
Recently he's been bullied at school & I was stumped as to what advice to give him. Either run to the teacher & dob the bully in OR stand up & fight. But if you stand your ground & fight, be prepared to get hurt & get in trouble as well.
Not once did I feel that Jonathon instilled a sense of pride into Clark's upbringing.


I can see what you mean and i'm not disagreeing that Kents message was a bit skewered or ambiguous because I felt similar to how you feel the first time I watched the movie. It wasn't until I started questioning why they chose to have kent raise Clark the way he did. It seemed to me That Jonathon was constantly contradicting himself by saying he wanted Clark to be make his own decisions but at the same time to ignore his natural physical gifts. Then I realized that he was only doing that so Clark could develop a sense of self not based on the advantages he had over others.

As far as not instilling any pride in him, i'm not sure if I can see that because he was constantly telling him how proud he was of him and that he would always be proud of him regardless of what decisions he would make in life. I think the one scene where he intervened between the kids that were bullying Clark was a strong example of the pride he had for Clark. He acknowledged how hard it must have been for Clark to hold back and even conveyed that he would have understood if he chose to lash out instead of remain calm.