That's irrelevant, but I'm fairly certain that Lorus was speaking in the context of people who didn't like the movie in the first place. Needless to say, people who do like it wouldn't find it unconvincing.
Tru dat !
Lorus has some points there. I loved MOS, and still have to admit there are some flaws in the writing which could have been tightened up. Maybe Superman's choice could have been made more difficult, or Zod a more sympathetic character. But was that really necessary ?
The real story of the film is in two parts 1) Clark discovering who he is, and then 2) deciding who he's going to be
for the first part the key moment is the Flight sequence. That's when Clark really comes to terms with his identity. It's reflected in the scene when he comes home to Smallville, to tell Martha that he's finally discovered his origins, and as a result he's a changed man.
part 2) The choice between Earth and Krypton is part of this, but Lorus is right. It's not Krypton, but a bunch of eugenics-crazed mutinists. In fact, they represent everything that was wrong with Krypton, while Jor El was hoping that Kal would grow up to embody everything that had been great about it. The underlying point is that Krypton is dead, Jor El's AI says as much to Zod, when he's begging him to stop his genocidal madness (he might be pleading for Zod's life, not for humanity's as he knows that Kal will stop Zod, one way or another).
As for the choice. Really, we already know what choice Superman is going to make. If you know anything about Superman, you know that before you walk in the cinema door. Does the movie need to even bother to try and convince us it's a hard choice ?
The movie sets up Kal/Clark's character that he's a good guy who tries to help out, we know he's not going to go along with genocide.
In fact, I think that choice is made when Kal meets Jor El for the last time, on Zod's ship. When Jor El tells him that his original plan was for him to be a bridge between two worlds, the way he says it suggests that that's no longer an option. And when Jor El says "You can save all of them" he's referring to humanity. That's when the choice is made. From that point on Superman does nothing but oppose Zod.
The imagery was a bit heavy handed (e.g. in the mind-probe sequence the world engine specifically destroys Clark's home in Kansas to recreate Krypton, that could have been more balanced, perhaps if it had shown alongside the skulls, the majestic towers of a Krypton reborn -might have made the choice a little more balanced).
As an audience we do ask ourselves why Zod couldn't be reasonable - like go off and terraform Mars, or the Moon, or somewhere else ? But that's the point about his character, he can only see things one way, which was the fatal flaw in Kryptonian society and its eugenics program - the very thing Jor El was trying to avoid, via Kal's natural birth. The reason Superman says "Krypton had it's chance" before frying the scoutship controls (effectively removing Zod's chance of repopulating the Earth with Kryptonians) is that he's acknowledging that Krypton is dead and gone (as Jor El said). Even if Zod could restore it, it would only collapse on itself in time, as the original Krypton did, because of its flawed social engineering.
Well, that's my take on it anyway.
Maybe the choice isn't whether to abandon Earth for Krypton, but whether Krypton even should live again, having destroyed itself once already.
That's a key element of MOS, unlike the Donner films, the destruction of Krypton was a direct result of mistakes by the Kryptonian people (rather than a natural disaster).
And after all this, you might not be convinced. It still might not be logical or psychologically complex, or interesting for you. However, rote conclusion it might be, but IMHO it's still exciting as hell.
This is a Superman film, not Shakespeare, so that choice probably doesn't need the degree of psychological complexity or plotting that Lorus is ascribing to it. With respect, that's reminiscent of Ang Lee's Hulk (which I liked ) but MOS still works without it.
None of the analysis I've done is necessary. To be honest, we don't go to superhero films to have our intellects challenged. The Dark KNight is about as psychologically complex and challenging as super-hero films get anything more than that and you're in a different genre ( sorry, can't get past my dislike of IM 3, no disrespect to Visualiza or those who liked it).
If this aspect of MOS was so troubling for Lorus, he must have hated Avengers, because there's zero character depth, development or even a particularly deep story. Yet still it's tremendous fun, you just get swept away with the sheer good time feel of it.
I can accept people not liking MOS, that's fine. Particularly amongst Superman fans. I also freely admit it's not without its flaws, not so much in overall execution, but a couple of scenes stand out as being poorly written/thought out.
Visualiza and I had an epic discussion about IM3, and I'm still not convinced, despite very well reasoned and logical arguments against my criticisms. Still, sooner or later I'm going to see it again, and I'll keep all that in mind, who knows I might change my opinion (no argument that Sir Ben was flat out hilarious as Trevor, that was great !). BTW Visualiza, an unforgivable gripe about IM3, no ACDC, come on man, in IM it really helped with the feel of the film, and when IM shows up and blasts Loki in Avengers, with ACDC blasting out in the background, that's simply one of the coolest super-hero entrances ever (on a par with Batman's gun-bending entrance, but certainly more flashy). Sorry, off on a tangent there.
However, in respect of MOS, I think that Lorus' particular criticism is a bit like complaining that a sushi bar doesn't sell hot dogs. You're looking for something that's just not going to be there, and never has been, and the fact you're looking there means you're in the wrong restaurant in the first place. No disrespect, if you didn't like it, that's cool, I just disagree with your criticism on this particular aspect of the film.
