I hear the counter-argument that people would find out that he had special powers? So what? Who cares? What are the local townsfolk going to do with their middle-of-no-where CIA connections...call up The Shop and take him prisoner?
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
More than likely, someone had their cell phone out and was recording the whole thing. Then they'd post it online....
shareYeah, because during the scene we totally saw people holding up their phones . and in this universe, there's no such thing as special effects or camera tricks for a youtube video that will persuade people, otherwise.
ooh the excuses people will make to defend that scene. lawd have mercy...
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
ooh the excuses people will make to defend that scene. lawd have mercy..
no meager, obscure imdb posts will surmount to the paramount of illogical bull' shown in that scene.
The worst that could literally happen from saving his pops would be alienated by some of the townsfolk. But this alienation should strengthen Pop's philosophy of being strong against being different from others onto young Clark. There are so many better justifications for letting him live than die. not just from a pragmatic POV. but from a literary POV, as well.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
When's it supposed to have taken place then? Post it where online? Youtube is founded in 2005, Clark is in his 30's in MoS but the tornado kills Jon Kent... 10, 15 whatever years prior to that. Did a lot of cell phones have cameras in them in the 90's? I didn't even have my own cell phone in 97 or 98. Or does Man of Steel take place in 2025?
Actually I looked it up, Jon Kent dies in 97. Cell phones aren't common in Kansas at the time. Rural areas have almost no cell coverage. No one "recorded" that tornado. And it would have taken someone days at 14.4 modem speed to "post it online."
"Who built this f#(%!^g police station." -- Leon Kennedy
Who the f(ck sh!t in your cheerios?
He merely explained why nobody would have been recording with their cell phones.
shareCell phones, digital cameras, regular cameras, video recorders....what difference does it make?
shareI know its something that millennials don't get, but the "I take selfie of me and my sandwich... post" mentality IS a millennial thing. People didn't carry around video recorders and cameras everywhere they went, unless they were on vacation. And nobody vacations in rural Kansas.
"Who built this f#(%!^g police station." -- Leon Kennedy
Very true. Because as we all know, prior to the millennial generation being born, no one ever had a camera or video camera with them if they weren't on vacation. I mean, the TV show with Bob Saget was "America's Funniest Home Nothings."
And, it is also very true that no one ever took a highway through rural Kansas to get to or from their vacation destination.
Just can't admit a mistake... and now compounding it.
I never said "no one took a highway through rural Kansas" so, you're putting words in my mouth. I actually said no one vacations in rural Kansas... that's another matter all together. One of those things, the one I said, indicates the very very very low statistical likelihood that someone involved in that incident would have had the ability to video record the incident.
Millennial, just admit you weren't around back then and aren't experienced enough to know things were different back then. You learn something everyday, it's ok to be wrong. That's something else you'll learn in time.
"Who built this f#(%!^g police station." -- Leon Kennedy
I didn't make a mistake. You jumped on me about semantics. Whoop-de-f(cking-do. Like I said, Cell phones, digital cameras, regular cameras, video recorders....what difference does it make?
I actually said no one vacations in rural Kansas... that's another matter all together.
Millennial,
No one recorded the tornado, justanick.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
Oh, I didn't realize you were there and saw everyone from every angle and knew exactly what they were doing the entire time.
shareOh, I didn't realize you were there and saw everyone from every angle and knew exactly what they were doing the entire time.
Thanks for admitting that you can't say for sure that no one in all of that mess didn't have a video camera.
Thanks for losing! 👍
Thanks for not admitting that you can't say for sure that people or the media or gov't would even be bothered by it.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
Except that they would, moron. We see the videos all of the time of weird sh!t going on and the conspiracy theories which revolve around them.
For sure, if a guy was about to get swallowed up by a tornado and then we saw a blur, and then he was standing next to the rest of the people, or found, unharmed miles away, people would wonder about it.
I think I'm done here. You can continue to be a loser if you want.
Yes, people would wonder about it. But that's as far as the wonder would go as far as logic and reasoning is concerned. 1. The probability of someone recording the tornado amidst the panic in the late 90's is quite low.
2. Even if someone recorded the video, there's nothing the gov't or media could do without proper intel or data. It's just how bureaucracy works. Clark could easily blend in and have the family obfuscate events. He's not a mutant. His humanoid disposition would make an excellent form of deception against journalism. Especially since this was a single freak event and not a consistent pattern of oddity.
This happened in the midwest, middle of no where with just 100 people or less. Not Metropolis in front of hundreds or thousands. If it were the latter, then we could start talking suspicion.
Also, you keep calling me a loser. I'm hoping for your intelligence's sake that you're just disagreeing for the sake of simply trolling.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
1 - Which isn't true since people DID record tornadoes back then. Plus, in addition to armatures recording them, there were storm chasers all over the place. Or, have you never head of 'Tornado Alley?'
2 - No need to draw attention to yourself. That is what Jonathan has been trying to teach him his entire life. How much attention would Clark get if he stood up to a bully as a kid and bloodied his nose? Now, compare that to, "Hey, did you see that video of the tornado a couple miles out of town? Didn't that guy who blurred out of the picture look a lot like Clark?"
This happened on a busy interstate highway with loads of travelers. We don't know if it was within a mile or two of his home or not. He could have easily been recognized.
Also, you keep calling me a loser.
1 - Which isn't true since people DID record tornadoes back then. Plus, in addition to armatures recording them, there were storm chasers all over the place. Or, have you never head of 'Tornado Alley?'
2 - No need to draw attention to yourself. That is what Jonathan has been trying to teach him his entire life. How much attention would Clark get if he stood up to a bully as a kid and bloodied his nose? Now, compare that to, "Hey, did you see that video of the tornado a couple miles out of town? Didn't that guy who blurred out of the picture look a lot like Clark?"
This happened on a busy interstate highway with loads of travelers. We don't know if it was within a mile or two of his home or not. He could have easily been recognized.
Yes. It is quite accurate. You are convinced you are right because you are convinced you are right. You posted the topic as a question, and then IMMEDIATELY, in your very first post, gave your "answers" to your question.
I don't know if I'd bother trying to engage with this guy Pentrazemine, he keeps insisting that he's right and just keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper. He said "have you ever heard of Tornado Alley?"
Well, I have... I live there, I know storm chasers. I know that there are still twice as many tornadoes here than those that wind up on film. And that's NOW with all our cameras and such. Back then, maybe 1 out of 100 or more tornadoes were caught on film, still or motion. And any storm chaser worth his salt back then would not have been as close as would have been necessary to identify Martha and Clark on film, as safety is important to storm chasers most of whom don't want to die. This guy just saw Twister once and said to himself "PWHAOR that was awesome" and didn't even register that even in that very inaccurate movie the only chasers close to the Twister were the ones trying to put the device in the damage path. Everyone else was MILES away.
"Who built this f#(%!^g police station." -- Leon Kennedy
The Poe is strong in this one. I genuinely can't tell if this guy is trolling or actually serious.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
Which is very improbable.
This is a mind numbingly hilarious double standard of suspension of disbelief. Clark goes around in his Superman costume with absolutely no mask and no concealment of his face.
He could easily get away with it from a gov't / media POV.
because I use logic and reason
Which is not impossible, you moron. Ever watch America's Funniest Home videos? There are a multitude of videos shown which are recorded "at the right moment" to catch something. And there is even a greater multitude of videos which never make it to the show.
You're a moron. When Clark is a child and not responsible for his actions, Jonathan IS responsible for him and is trying to protect him from drawing attention to himself around the small area in which they live. When they are having the argument in the truck before the tornado, it is about how Clark is now an adult, yet his father is still treating him like a child.
When Clark, as an adult, CHOOSES to put on the suit without a mask, it is HIS choice. Plus, his suit isn't his disguise. "Clark" is his disguise. His glasses, how he wears his hair. His clothing. His mannerisms.
Again, you weren't looking for a discussion. You posted your 'question' and then proceeded to 'answer' it with your smart-ass comments.
The more things CLARK does to draw attention to himself, the greater the risk of getting caught. It really is that simple.
See what I did there?
Thanks for providing zero rebuttals to my points. You've lost.
_______________________
PDBPO LEADER
You just got owned! I bet you're around 22 and still live at home with your mother. No father, though.
shareLove MOS but this scene is downright stupid. No way in hell would I ever let my father die in that situation. It's even worse that he kept doing his heroics after his fathers death.
1. BVS 2. TWS 3. Avengers
This. Even if they recorded something it would be just a blur (like in Smallville).
shareExcept if they were recording it and Clark was at one moment clearly visible in the scene, then the next was a blur and gone, and then he's standing there again with his father who wasn't there two seconds ago.
Even if he didn't return to the same spot, it is still going to be a question of what happened and how was it only one person was affected by the tornado and got sucked into it from under the overpass?
Seriously? That's as far as your logic takes you in the possibilities?
--End Transmission: Code 350--
Seriously? That's as far as your logic takes you in the possibilities?
You sound very quick to dismiss possibilities that have very little probability of fruition. This seems to neglect the quite extreme consequences of those possibilities.
Personally, I think the tornado scene could have been done differently to be a much more effective scene. The shortcomings of the scene seem to easily overshadow what I consider two of the most important aspects of it.
1. JK knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that his own life is merely a pittance compared to the impact of Clark's existence on the planet.
2. By having JK's death be a culmination of choices, rather than something unavoidable, Clark must now learn to live with the consequences of choices, that is to say: responsibility. Along with that, he must also learn to live with the never-ending questioning of "What if I would have done [x] instead." This is very powerful.
But as for the possibilities - Although it isn't part of the direct topic, I'd like to call into the discussion how many people also harp on this version of JK because of his answer of "maybe" when younger Clark asks about letting the bus full of school children die. I feel this is important and significant because it illustrates that JK recognizes that Clark's very existence changes something for virtually everybody on the planet in some way or via 'ripple effect'. A stark cognizance of this has never been been so strongly portrayed to any Superman movie to-date. And this negates even addressing Clark's abilities.
But moving on to Clark's abilities - can you name a single government or military organization that wouldn't gladly murder a bus full of children at the chance of recruiting an agent with Clark's abilities? Obviously, the more ruthless the organization, the more morbid a price they'd willingly pay - but along with that, the more extreme measures they'd employ with Clark once they control him. Or, barring controlling him, unlocking some secrets about him.
As for negating the possibilities of Clark's existence because he may have taken action during the tornado...
As far as I can tell, the first stupid choice was to have somebody go for the dog in the first place. After that, the next was for JK to go himself. During the scene, he was handing a young child off to Clark at the time. What's more, although WE and the Kents know about Clark, nobody else did. So, consider; what father would let his teenage son go into danger when he could do it himself? I feel that moment in the scene could have been better if they done a better job of JK considering this and also telling Clark to keep his mother - to keep everybody safe.
There's been debate about whether or not Clark, once he realized his father was in trouble, could have effectively aided him without his powers. I contend that he could not have - the timing in the clip suggests that he was debating internally for a few seconds, but the moment he actually started to move and was waived off - no, he couldn't have helped JK without super speed.
So, clearly others would have seen this. It's absolutely expected that there would be news coverage of this event to at least a small human-interest degree on the local channels or newspapers - if there were an accompanying tidbit of the miraculous heroism of a farm boy saving his father - then undoubtedly there'd be reporters knocking on the Kent's door. Perhaps the Kents are able to brush it off and keep everything hidden - perhaps not. But the notion of Clark's secret getting out on a perhaps of that nature? Not acceptable, at all.
--End Transmission: Code 350--
1. JK knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that his own life is merely a pittance compared to the impact of Clark's existence on the planet.
2. By having JK's death be a culmination of choices, rather than something unavoidable, Clark must now learn to live with the consequences of choices, that is to say: responsibility. Along with that, he must also learn to live with the never-ending questioning of "What if I would have done [x] instead." This is very powerful.
But moving on to Clark's abilities - can you name a single government or military organization that wouldn't gladly murder a bus full of children at the chance of recruiting an agent with Clark's abilities? Obviously, the more ruthless the organization, the more morbid a price they'd willingly pay - but along with that, the more extreme measures they'd employ with Clark once they control him. Or, barring controlling him, unlocking some secrets about him.
What father would let his teenage son go into danger when he could do it himself?
There's been debate about whether or not Clark, once he realized his father was in trouble, could have effectively aided him without his powers. I contend that he could not have - the timing in the clip suggests that he was debating internally for a few seconds, but the moment he actually started to move and was waived off - no, he couldn't have helped JK without super speed.
So, clearly others would have seen this. It's absolutely expected that there would be news coverage of this event to at least a small human-interest degree on the local channels or newspapers - if there were an accompanying tidbit of the miraculous heroism of a farm boy saving his father - then undoubtedly there'd be reporters knocking on the Kent's door. Perhaps the Kents are able to brush it off and keep everything hidden - perhaps not. But the notion of Clark's secret getting out on a perhaps of that nature? Not acceptable, at all.
His existence is just as much important on the micro level to Clark as it's insignificance relative to the cosmos, itself.
What a repugnant view of free will, then. So the opportunity of choice masquerading in the consequences of death and destruction means he should encourage his own responsibility for future actions? Why not encourage responsibility or, encourage freedom of choice, through moral fiber and not a cut-throat suicide?
Except nothing would suggest such a thing unless this were a Stephen King novel.
A father who'd acknowledge his son was a near-invincible alien with super-human speed, endurance, and strength who could easily withstand a tornado if you used basic deductive logic while nurturing your son all these years.
You contend he couldn't have. Provide me evidence that suggests this. As in evidence that states or implies he did not have his powers back then.
No matter how many reporters knock on Kent's door...the chances of a Gov't agency trolling them would be highly improbable. Possible? Absolutely. But highly improbable. No one recorded the tornado. It would be nothing but a folk story or legend at most amongst the local people for years to come.
I would agree with this statement more if Clark were much younger. I'm not going to say that JK wasn't important to Clark - of course he was. I will say, however, that JK is NOT as important to humanity as Clark could be. I will say that JK's life is less important than ensuring that Clark's powers aren't used for nefarious things.
Repugnant how? The handling of responsibility is a hugely important characteristic. The ability to make choices is something that separates those in charge from those who follow. Had JK not lectured Clark on the importance of his existence on the planet? Of course he did - not only did we see him do it, but we also heard him reference the fact that they've talked about it a lot. You make it sound like the only lesson JK ever attempted to teach his son was at the expense of his own life.
Is that really the extent of what you conceive?
But JK COULDN'T acknowledge that in public could he?
Sure...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j7lezDWh4M
It's difficult to say exactly how far away Jonathon was. I would have said that, judging by the shot over Clark's shoulder at time 0:41, it was about 100-150 yards of uneven terrain.
Later, we see Clark hold back Martha a couple times, but it's really about time 1:25 that he starts to make an actual move to help JK. And it's time 1:40 or so when JK's washed away. So, could Clark have reached him in 15 seconds to knock him to the ground? Perhaps.
As for his powers, while they didn't SHOW younger Clark being able to move at super speeds - I'm not going to say he couldn't. I think its perfectly logical to assume he could.
THANK YOU!
You've said what I said - Highly improbable, yet possible. That's it.
The odds of winning the $500,000,000 lottery aren't much worse than the odds of winning the $5,000,000 lottery - yet many people won't bother buying a ticket for the lower jackpot - instead they'll drop $10-20 on the larger one. Why? Odds are still astronomically against them... it's the payoff (or consequences) that change their minds, isn't it?
Do you not agree that the consequences of ANY government finding out about Clark's existence, let alone powers, are HUGE?
I wasn't speaking on the basis of his importance to humanity, hence the 'micro level' part. I was saying he was an important transitional aspect to Clark's nurture in order to solidify his principles of prominence onto humanity. HE wasn't important to society. but what he instills in his son is, indirectly.
It's repugnant because it's a false dichotomy predicated on melancholic fatalism. This isn't about Pops teaching selfishness through selfless opportunity; but selflessness through selfish opportunity.
Hence them being in the middle of no-where with virtually no recorded devices taking capture of the Tornado. And even if the public acknowledged you can't flat-out say that X or Y will happen.
No excuse. Or unfalsifiable. Clark always had his uber-kryptonian powers since puberty(?). Nothing in the film suggests he has no super-speed and given that he's faster than a speeding bullet, I see no topographic reason why he couldn't zip his way only 150 yards to get Daddy. Don't most bullets travel way faster than that range, anyway?
No. Because it would be nothing but a local townsfolk legend. The gov't can't do anything. They won't do anything. Bureaucracies generally need far more intel and data than a mere Midwestern anecdote of mystery.
Stop rationalizing this insipid scene.
Meh... can't say I'm agreeing with this.
As I've said before, mechanics of the scene aside, the notion of JK's death being something resulting from choice is a more powerful notion than it being something unavoidable.
While we could just right this off under that notion of being somewhat sloppy mechanics of the story, I hold that the JK in MOS shows that he understands the importance of Clark's existence more acutely than any other character in any other Superman movie. Because of this, the notion of JK sacrificing himself in support of upholding Clark's anonymity until he's ready to handle things more is keeping with the character. Like I said, the consequences of what could happen (from the characters' points of view, not ours) are dire enough to necessitate extreme measures in doing so.
Like I said, I think it's safe to say Clark had superspeed.
Like I said, perhaps he could have made it there and back without tapping his abilities. There's no doubt that, using his abilities he would have been able to save JK, but JK told him not to. That's really the bottom line, isn't it? His death was the result of a series of choices.
Can't do anything?
Won't do anything?
Two extreme statements negating even the slimmest possibility, yet in your last post you acknowledged that the possibility exists despite the relatively slim chances. Even in this passage, you account for possibility with your 'generally'. I contend that the line exists, but we can discuss where it is drawn. As I said, the existence of even the slimmest of possibilities is justification for extreme measures to keep Clark's existence a secret.
No.
First of all, I'm not rationalizing the scene - please read what I'm posting, not what you want me to post. I willingly acknowledge the myriad faults this scene incorporates, from its inception to its execution. The two things I am rationalizing or defending are: 1. JK shows a better understanding of how much Clark's existence would impact the entirety of humanity either directly or by 'ripple effect' and, 2. If they're going to kill of the JK character, making his death the result of choices is better character development for Clark than making it something unavoidable.
So you don't agree with what I'm agreeing you with.
But it's not from the characters' POV. It's from the screenwriters. If we had a good character's POV, Clark would've saved pops.
I'm pretty sure no one is denying this. What we're criticizing is the sheer idiocy of it from both a logistical and characterization point of view. You can pretty much rationalize and justify every tid-bit of a character's action. And while it may hold technically true from a cinematic POV, that doesn't conflate it to a literary one.
I was speaking on the basis of how bureaucracies and the government work. they can't do anything because they have no solid data or intel to do much of anything. their lack of will is propagated by their can / cannot behavior that you can see entirely within the pragmatics of the CIA IRL. A folk story about a guy with superhuman speed sounds fascinating on the surface; but aggregation of evidence is the meat of operational interest. I never once doubted the possibility of government interest as I've stated clearly, before. But it's quite improbable given the variables. I don't even get why'd you'd quote 'generally'. Yeah, generally. Government Agencies GENERALLY need some sort of proof that X, Y, or Z can get into action. it's how schematics, portfolio's, and documentation stands tall.
If you aren't rationalizing the scene. Then flat-out say that the scene is stupid, it makes absolutely no sense from a character point of view or logistical POV. And we can call it quits, now.
unless you meant that it was a choice between two repugnant options - then I would agree whole-heartedly!
like save Pops or save Martha... then maybe it would have gone over better.
Then again, I wouldn't expect the government to jump into the mix just because of some tall tale in the country's fly-over region. Rather, I would expect a local reporter hungry for some kind of human interest meat to do the digging. And should that reporter happen upon a nugget that the Kents hadn't hidden well enough, then the odds of that little human interest story turning into something larger increase. I would expect somebody in the Gub'ment to cock an eyebrow when something like that grows - gets attention. Ellen/Oprah, etc.
I'm not going to say that because I don't think it is a stupid scene. I think it was effective and I think it could have been done better.
If you want to know what I think is a stupid scene - we can talk about the 'up into space' part of the Kal El/Zod fight! But I gotta warn you that getting me started on that may not end well!
Thanks, mate. Good stuff.
--End Transmission: Code 350--
Are you referring to me or the poster who retorted with a Cheerios ad hominem to a guy who had recently debunked him?
You're an idiot. He didn't debunk anything. It doesn't matter if it was a cell phone with a camera or a digital camera or a regular camera or a video camera.
That is, unless you are a retard who "thinks" that prior to 2000 no one ever posted personal pictures or videos online or gave them to a TV station for them to air.
You think you are right because you think you are right. You have no interest in any kind of discussion because you are convinced your opinion is right, and you will not tolerate any dissension.
You have no interest in any kind of discussion because you are convinced your opinion is right,
Nothing in the film suggested anyone was recording the Tornado.
Clearly you have no interest in any kind of discussion, either
Considering you've ignored pretty much all my response posts in this very thread. Lol.
And nothing says that every last person there was not.
You are the one who started the topic and you are the one who has not accepted anyone having a different view than you.
God dam can you be any more butt hurt? I was the first one to respond to your stupidity and did so more than once. Then I didn't post for a few days and you "think" that I'm ignoring you?
Sh!t you are a moron.
Irrelevant as pointed out, before.
Accepting and tolerating are distinct concepts. I very much tolerate open discussion as I have with the other gentlemen in the thread.
Butt hurt?
As I pointed out, your opinion is right because it is your opinion and if it wasn't right it wouldn't be your opinion because your opinion is always right because if it wasn't it wouldn't be your opinion - and you will not allow any deviance from your opinion because your opinion is right.
Bullsh!t.
Yes. As I said, you are claiming to be right because I "ignored" your BS.
Again, you want no deviation from your opinion. For a discussion to take place, there has to be some give and take, and you've not done any of that. You've not conceded any point which anyone else has made.
No, my opinion is right because it is logical.
Never said or implied such a thing. If I have please quote-mine my past commentary.
Considering you've ignored pretty much all my response posts in this very thread. Lol.
If I never wanted deviation of discussion from my opinion then why am I talking to the other guy in the first place?
You've not conceded any point which anyone else has made.
I'm no etymologist but technically speaking wouldn't a "Tornadocide" be the act of killing a tornado ?
Yeah it's a pointless question but everything has been said about this movie already.
[deleted]
I always hated Tornadocide and thought it was ridiculous. Nor only would no child stand back and let their father die, but its also nonsensical when years after the event he continuously is saving people so much so Lois is able to track him.
1. BVS 2. TWS 3. Avenger
"but its also nonsensical when years after the event he continuously is saving people so much so Lois is able to track him."
THIS. The movie expects us to buy that Clark is afraid that revealing his powers will have negative repercussions on the world, but in the very beginning of the movie he saves a bunch of people on a burning oil rig. What changed his mind? If he was ashamed of how he acted during the tornado he didn't show it. The movie is clear that it wants us to accept Clark's rationale behind letting his dad die and there is no effort to establish his rather remarkable change of character by the end of the movie.
The tornado scene is one of the biggest flaws of the movie and one of the main reasons this Superman just does not work as a character. It's just impossible to accept that a grown ass man would stand by and let their father die unless there was a serious concrete reason for it, like a nuclear bomb would go off if Jonathan Kent lived. Jonathan Kent's vague warnings that something bad may happen if Clark reveals his powers just don't cut it. All this stupidity for the sake of making Superman "darker" or "mature." You know who wouldn't have just stood by in that scene? Batman. The Punisher. Daredevil. The darkest characters in comics. If batman learned about Superman's behavior during the tornado, he would bitchslap him with a kryptonite glove.
The Indians are coming! Quick, put your scalp in your pocket! -Groucho Marx
Just watched MOS again yesterday and found myself chuckling at the ludicrousness of the scene. Clark should have ignored his father and gone in himself to save the dog. I think the scriptwriters were aiming for a heroic death for Jonathan, with a 'you've got to hide your identity' message woven in, but it was such a stupid thing. Eff the dog - or let the super-kid go in. Tornado isn't going to hurt him any, it'll give him some real-life heroing experience, and at that distance, with that much debris flying in the air, nobody's going to see any incriminating anyway.
shareHe didn't go to save the dog. Jonathan got the child and handed him off to Clark, thus assuring that the child would live. He then saw the dog and got the dog and that cost him his life.
share