BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[ЯɘvlveR]

i don't think the film was without it's faults. it could have been the greatest cbm ever, but it wasn't and that's okay. it is my favorite cbm ever though.

 

[STARMAN]

I like the film but don't love it. It has it's flaws. Considering how I felt leading up to the film, I'm disappointed.

But what usually happens with these films is they're either the best of all time or the worst of all time. I believe this film, like most other comic book movies, falls somewhere in-between.

 

[marvelrobbins]

if the word of mouth on Man of Steel was mediocre at best, f then why is it the case that the film grossed more than Superman Returns, which supposedly had a better RT score? That should tell you right therethe critical reviews don't translate into popularity.Despite the criticisms, Man of Steel what's the best Superman film ever made.

Adjusted for inflation Superman returns would be at 246 million.Yes being more action packed got more money but it's not like Superman returns was Batman &Robin.

The original Superman film remains the best.Adjusted for inflation it would be in 400 Million range.Just like Goldfinger and thunderball adjust would be In Skyfall
terrority,and original Star Wars would be over a billion domesticly adjusted.

 

[Marvin]

Adjusted for inflation Superman returns would be at 246 million.Yes being more action packed got more money but it's not like Superman returns was Batman &Robin.

The original Superman film remains the best.Adjusted for inflation it would be in 400 Million range.Just like Goldfinger and thunderball adjust would be In Skyfall
terrority,and original Star Wars would be over a billion domesticly adjusted.

If Superman Returns had to follow superman returns, it might have made less. Then again it might have made more. Who knows.
MoS' money doesn't simply come from the fact that it's more action packed. There are alot of differences which could factor in.
Plus Returns had plenty of action.

 

[Marvin]

Well, then, I retract my earlier statement. It's an iteration of Superman I really like, I just think it was executed horribly as a movie. Take Superman out and replace him with Alien Joe and the problems are still there.

Like I said "a fickle game"

 

[marvelrobbins]

If Superman Returns had to follow superman returns, it might have made less. Then again it might have made more. Who knows.
MoS' money doesn't simply come from the fact that it's more action packed. There are alot of differences which could factor in.
Plus Returns had plenty of action.

Superman returns had to be first superman In almost 20 years and was following Superman III,and IV.And not everyone hated returns.That Is just vocal Internet people

Some also need to accept just as some didn't like returns there are some who
didn't liked man of steel.And it's not expecting It to become copy of Donner Superman.

The star wars prequels made tons of money yet you will find many online who bash them.

Batman/Superman's batman may be improvement on Batman by having a batman who can't quit.Just because some love batman begins and the dark knight doesn't mean they can't like another version of batman.

Come 2015 some might call batman/Superman the better film but avengers makes more money

 

[Marvin]

My point, Marvin, is that his so called intention to evoke a mythological feel with the battles is silly. Maybe he wanted something along those lines, but it's not what he delivered. Like you aptly said, intention and execution are two different things. And for what it's worth, I didn't once say he was going for a metaphor of any sort. The metaphors in the film were more the judeo-christian allegories peppered in by David Goyer along with the cursory hallelujah Hans Zimmer threw in for Clark's birth.

Imagery alluding to other imagery and symbolism of one object into another are things I personally categorize in the family of metaphor. Sorry for the confusion. Never meant to imply you said metaphor.

As for his quote, for the record:

"I wanted the movie to have a mythological feeling," said the director. "In ancient mythology, mass deaths are used to symbolize disasters. In other countries like Greece and Japan, myths were recounted through the generations, partly to answer unanswerable questions about death and violence. In America, we don't have that legacy of ancient mythology. Superman is probably the closest we get. It's a way of recounting the myth."

He basically said superman and comic books are the closest thing to america's version of mythology such as we are lacking in what countries like Greece and Japan have inherent to their cultural tradition.
America has old comic books(for one) and Superman in particular. For all the myths of demi god sons taking on giants and monsters, superman is ripe for the allusion.
He then said he wanted the film to feel like a myth. From the epic and epithetical nature of the visuals, locations and characters that's all present, to priest/muse/wizard figure on the side of the road handing out advice on the heroes journey.
Lastly in traditional mythology, epic events are used to explain all sorts of concepts such as the world around us or how nature works. The story of Demeter being used to explain both the seasonal changes and how Hades operates...The iliad teaching lessons on violence. If superman was a myth than the destruction would symbolize death(as very little actual death was actually seen) and in snyders myth of superman death is large part of the story. As are other things.

That's my essay explaining the deeper meaning through rose tinted glasses bit. Feel free to disagree. Cause you are correct in using my words(for once). Intent and execution are not the same thing, and more over we all take different thing away.

peace

 

[Marvin]

The other issue is that it's the one joke in the film that works. It is perfectly fine for a movie to have only one funny joke... but not when it has many failed jokes.
...
So, one successful jokes and two failed jokes is actually a negative.

Who do you speak for exactly?
I'm just curious cause I personally found the various humor throughout film to be pretty funny.

I just don't see how the concept of MoS was a great one at all. A lot of people are crediting Goyer's ideas, I think they're being apologetic for his poor execution. There are a huge number of bad ideas in MoS, as many as there are good ideas:
- No Fortress of Solitude;
- Jor-El gets more lines than Martha and Jonathan combined;
- Jor-El beats up Zod in a fight;
- Clark becomes a hero because Jor-El tells him it's his destiny to lead humanity into the light in a movie where the theme is supposed to be choice;
- Jor-El saves Lois and Clark on the ship;
- Jor-El saves the Earth by telling Lois to tell Superman to use Superman's cradle, his baby ship, as a weapon... oh my what incredibly imagery;
- Jor-El comes back as a ghost but not Lara;
- Pretty much everything to do with Jor-El;
- The Lois and Clark relationships skips the prologue and skips Chapter 1;
- The military first names Superman rather than Lois;
- Carol Ferris as the audience surrogate for stupid people;
- The codex;
- The world builder splits into two in order to create two fight scenes;
- Zod and Jor-El make more choices in the script than Kal-El does even though they come from a world without choice and he is supposed to symbolise choice;
- A complete lack of agency for Clark even though he's supposed to symbolise choice;

Would you care to pick anyone one of these and explain how it's a "bad idea."
You don't have to, but you can if you want.

 

[Mjölnir]

Whatever you made of her words, Jon made this of them. It's right there in the script and his dialogue. So...character motivation locked and loaded.

Jon isn't a real person, this is about the script and it has a woman talking about something wonderful and then tries to tell us that she's afraid and that everything is bad.

It's plausible, but the bigger point is that the bottom car(door) is less affected. I'm simply looking at what's in the scene. I do think there is a certain level of stylization though.

I don't care that the bottom car isn't blown away, I care about that Jon gets out and it seems like it's suddenly just a bit of wind going on.

I see what you are saying now. Enhanced Kryptonian physiology has been interpreted and explained many different ways over the generations. That being said the The superman source material is at it's core derivative or rather inspired by the Edgar Rice; Jon Carter mythology in which dude get's powers from a gravity discrepancy. If MOS is being faithful to it's source material in explaining it's powers I can't see that as anything but respectful. Moreover, environmental changes such as gravity would actually explain a few of his powers imo. Living in lower gravity might make you weaker depending on how strong you are to begin with but that doesn't mean you can't jump twice as high on the moon.

I can't fault someone for being true to the source material, but it was something that just made me go "what?". Not a big thing though. As for explaining powers, the gravity on Krypton didn't seem to be any different. Things seemed to fall at the same speed as normal.

His powers have always been plot controlled imo. Considering we are made privy to his super hearing at least once in this film(see zod vs martha kent or with pete's mom), and that he told us he needs to and can focus on what he wants, it's a safe bet he can hear what's up with his dad in that car if he wants. Being followed by lois does seem like a convenient oversight, very much in the vain of the source material though.

That may be the case but it doesn't mean that it's a good way to write powers.

As for using his super-senses you need to show when that happens. The mantra for movies is "show, don't tell" but we aren't even told that he used anything. Not that I buy that he saw or heard what was in there because if you see someone that's stuck and will die in a matter of seconds if he doesn't get out you don't say that he's OK. It just doesn't make sense to me no matter how I twist it.

Probably why martha panicked. Clark saw that the car impact itself caused no direct injuries...upon first viewing. Dad made it to cover.

Again, someone that's stuck is pretty far from OK. Especially when he has seconds to get away or die. Marcellus Wallace was in a better situation in the basement.

Probably depends on what else the character thinks is at stake. A cheese burger? probably no.

Since he was on his way at a later stage until Jon didn't tell him not to it's contradictory to think he was hindered by any stakes at the first stage.

 

[BlueLantern]

Marvin, I'm quite aware of what the overtone of his message was. However, it's a fair bit of hokum as far as I can see. Sure, it's nice to have such an intention, but let's get real, the film had very little of what he intended going for it. Hell, the Star Wars Saga had more intended and unintended metaphor/allegory/symbolism going for it than Man of Steel did, though that's likely down to George Lucas wanting to and going the whole hog. But I get it. You liked the film. I mean you found the jokes funny.

 

[DA_Champion]

Would you care to pick anyone one of these and explain how it's a "bad idea."
You don't have to, but you can if you want.

I'll do two.

- Jor-El beats up Zod in a fight;

Krypton is portrayed as a sterile, static society. It's lost the ability to evolve because it thinks it reached a pinnacle a long time ago. Zod is the product of countless of generations of genetic optimisation to be the perfect soldier, and he received an upbringing specialised for that task. Later on in the movie Zod tells this to Clark, who he points out was raised on a farm, and we can understand that the only reason Clark can defeat Zod is because Zod wants to die.

Jor-El is the product of countless generations of genetic optimisation to be the perfect scientist. He was raised to be the perfect scientist. How does he beat up Zod in a fight?

As an experiment, visualise 4 guys from the mathematics building of the nearest university. Then visualise 4 navy seals. Who do you think would win a fight? Keep in mind that experiment doesn't involve a thousand generations of genetic optimisation.

It really contradicts and undermines the message(s) that Goyer thinks he is getting through. Maximus-El beating up Zod was completely unnecessary and in fact harmful to the movie.


- Carol Ferris as the audience surrogate for stupid people;

Think back to:
General: They're terraforming the planet
Carol Ferris: What's Terraforming?
Someone: It's changing a planet's structure and atmosphere to make it more like an another planet.

"What's terraforming" was probably the most irritating line in the film for me when watching it, and when I first walked out of the theatre I thought it was a great movie.

There shouldn't be an audience surrogate for stupid people. It's offensive to anybody educated to drill down something so obvious. Alternatively, they could have just had the one "They are changing our planet's atmosphere and gravity to make it more like Krypton" and then have them respond.

If you do have an audience surrogate for stupid people, it shouldn't be a female or a black person. That opens up the movie to obvious criticisms.

Finally, if Lois Lane was the audience surrogate for stupid people in a green lantern movie, I'd be pretty annoyed. I'd imagine Green Lantern fans were annoyed to see a beloved character of theirs portrayed as a ditz.

Overall, a dumb idea from David "ideas man" Goyer.

 

[BlueLantern]

The first would've flown well if it had a certain level of conviction behind it. The sequence just felt like a punching contest and didn't feel convincing. But if they'd played the scene out to stress the emotional stakes, I'd buy it. It's what the Operative said in Serenity about love. It's more dangerous than madness or something similar.

 

[Mjölnir]

- Jor-El beats up Zod in a fight;

Krypton is portrayed as a sterile, static society. It's lost the ability to evolve because it thinks it reached a pinnacle a long time ago. Zod is the product of countless of generations of genetic optimisation to be the perfect soldier, and he received an upbringing specialised for that task. Later on in the movie Zod tells this to Clark, who he points out was raised on a farm, and we can understand that the only reason Clark can defeat Zod is because Zod wants to die.

Jor-El is the product of countless generations of genetic optimisation to be the perfect scientist. He was raised to be the perfect scientist. How does he beat up Zod in a fight?

As an experiment, visualise 4 guys from the mathematics building of the nearest university. Then visualise 4 navy seals. Who do you think would win a fight? Keep in mind that experiment doesn't involve a thousand generations of genetic optimisation.

It really contradicts and undermines the message(s) that Goyer thinks he is getting through. Maximus-El beating up Zod was completely unnecessary and in fact harmful to the movie.

I really agree with this one. It completely nullifies everything we've been told about the state of Kryptonians. Apparently you can be something you wasn't born to be (Jor-El being a better fighter than Zod) so what's so special about Kal-El? It's clearly just the society that's to blame, not genetic manipulation.

Zod is in general in a sad state since he doesn't really succeed with anything he attempts to do at any point of the movie. It's more like we're told that he should be a great threat but we're shown that he's a constant failure. Not the best way to build up a villain.


Your second example wasn't something I remembered but it gives some extra context to what I've been arguing in the discussion I've had here. If the movie has to explain what terraforming is then there's no reason to think that we're ever supposed to draw the far less obvious and more complicated conclusions from scenes. If you explain something so obvious then you're not expecting the audience to think.

 

[DA_Champion]

Since I got a positive reaction, here's two more:

- Jor-El comes back as a ghost but not Lara Vor-Van;
This one is just a head-scratcher. I have absolutely no idea how this bizarre decision got made, it certainly doesn't make sense from the perspective of Jor-El and Lara Vor-Van, and it shouldn't make sense from the perspective of David Goyer and Zach Snyder. It's been mentioned by several people as not making sense, I've seen it in reviews, and it is also mocked in "Man of Steel: How it should have ended".

Jor-El can send a ghost of himself, he doesn't include an equivalent ghost or even a message of love from Lara, what? Does the mother not matter? It really undermines the movie, because between this and Carol Ferris, this arguably might be the most pro-feminist comic book movie. Granted, that's like coming in first in a race at the special olympics, but it's still coming in first. However, due to Carol Ferris being the audience surrogate for stupid people, and the weird Lara omission, MoS is among equals in terms of not-pro-feminist comic book movies. Aside from this, Jor-El would probably want his son to know his mother, I presume that he loved his baby and his wife, and he'd want them to have whatever connection was possible.

- Jor-El gets more lines than Martha and Jonathan combined;
This one is more debatable, but if Clark is supposed to represent free will, surely his upbringing (adoptive parents) should matter as much as his genetics (biological parents)?

We know and understand Jor-El's motivations very well in this movie, they are shown to us in great detail, throughout the movie, both in the very long Kryptonian opening sequence, and when he comes back as Ghost-El. Jonathan and Martha, not so much. We see them in a few flashbacks, mostly of traumatic events in Clark's life, no happy events at all. It's a missed opportunity, particularly as Diane Lane was by far the most effective actor of the three main parents (with Ayelet Zurer having less to do).

We get a scene for example where Jor-El justifies having a child out of genesis-chamber to Zod. We don't get a scene where Jonathan and Martha discuss the prospect of raising an alien child between each other, with no Clark in the scene. We see Jor-El and Lara as the baby ship is launched, we don't see Jonathan and Martha find the ship in the cornfield. That's left to our imagination, we're supposed to fill in that blank.

 

[slumcat]

The first one is easily explained. The mother actor was a nobody, Crowe is a massive Oscar winning A list leading man, so he gets more footage. He gets his own suit, a 20 minute sequence and even several fight scenes and action scenes.

Obviously the part was expanded when they got Crowe in it.

 

[Marvin]

Jon isn't a real person, this is about the script and it has a woman talking about something wonderful and then tries to tell us that she's afraid and that everything is bad.

Jon is a real person, and he interprets his everyday experiences like a real person should. Intrinsically. That's what should be expected from a story about real people. If you sat and watched every movie in history and pointed out the amount of times a character responded to a bit of news in a way you firmly disagree with, you'd need more fingers.

Spiderman:
Take the fact that Peter doesn't tell Mary Jane about his powers immediately. Here we are saying why doesn't he let her in on this "something wonderful"? I mean the script said his powers are wonderful right?
He thinks it's a bad idea because...He, thinks it's a bad idea, even if the script "told us" the powers are "something wonderful". I could give him 10 reasons why it's "something wonderful" and I'm sure based on his over protective responsible nature, he could give me 10 reasons why he thinks it's something else. Probably cause he's being written as a dynamic human being with thoughts beyond your own.

Point being, Jon isn't you. If he said she was scared, it's because he thought she was scared. In a discussion about why Jon does what he does(and not one about what "Mjölnir" would do), this much should be obvious. Moreover, the conversation clearly had a beginning and an ending you didn't see, but that's far beside the point.

I can't fault someone for being true to the source material, but it was something that just made me go "what?". Not a big thing though. As for explaining powers, the gravity on Krypton didn't seem to be any different. Things seemed to fall at the same speed as normal.

If we do continue this line of discussion on conveyed source material tradition(pertaining physics no less), it will no doubt end up with us arguing what the effects of gamma radiation on a person, and why people can talk under water in the little mermaid. I'd rather not. Movies are movies.

As for using his super-senses you need to show when that happens. The mantra for movies is "show, don't tell" but we aren't even told that he used anything....

When 13 year old Clark sat outside his own house and Mrs. Ross had a conversation with the kents. I'm going to assume you knew that clark could and was using his enhanced senses to take notes. If you did assume this(like alot of other people did), may I ask why? I mean I know unlike other interpretations of the material(smallville) they didn't go into vfx mode but much to the chagrin of posters here, Snyder had his subtleties here and there.
Again, how did you know clark was listening in? Perhaps his immediate emotional response? Perhaps the fact that it was something he would be interested in?

Anyways you say show don't tell, and the movie clearly conveyed how his powers work up until that point. Technically that need is met. What you are asking for under the guise of this popular phrase is that the film make it obvious in the moment. I for one don't think the audience need be explained element A in every moment element A is used. All they need is, how it works and that the character has motivation to employ it. See Totems in Inception. See Xavier is half of his scenes.

Again, someone that's stuck is pretty far from OK. Especially when he has seconds to get away or die. Marcellus Wallace was in a better situation in the basement.

Like I said, Martha thought Jon was one thing, Clark let her know that he wasn't. Clark didn't say relax mom the situation has been diffused, rather that daddy avoided a fatal injury due to the dynamic sub-event you just witnessed. Somehow, Clark may have had more insight into what was going on during that scene, but given you will not concede that clark has demonstrated any such powers or has the specific need to use said powers in this of all moments, though he pretty much never looks away and the script in fact tells us explicitly that that powers are always on and actually need to be turned off. We'll just have to disagree on this, cause that's the angle I'm going to stand by.

Since he was on his way at a later stage until Jon didn't tell him not to it's contradictory to think he was hindered by any stakes at the first stage.

He was on his way after the "wait and see" scenario ran it's course. Let's not confuse the issue here(see the post this responded to).

 

[BlueLantern]

That is the dumbest suggestion ever, slumcat. I'm sorry, but no. It's even sillier when you consider that actresses like Julia Ormond and Connie Nielsen were previously attached to the role and they're well known as accomplished actresses. This isn't a star vehicle film where a name actor gets given more dialogue and scenes because he's an Oscar winner. It's just down to silly plotting as opposed to pandering to an actor's ego and suppressing one character's presence over another.

 

[slumcat]

Actresses routinely get the shaft in Hollywood productions, its neither new or surprising. Even big name actresses often get and do love interest roles or girlfriend/wife roles.

The way Hollywood works. And scripts are many time tinkered with to incorporate stars. Again as old as Hollywood. Blockbusters are not like tight bound-scripts projects, there's room to wiggle. It ain't art they are producing, just a commodity.

 

[BlueLantern]

That's all fair and fine but your insinuation that they made a suit for Jor-El to wear just because it was Russell Crowe is baseless and highly unlikely considering this wasn't a film starring Russell Crowe. Furthermore, the reason for Lara not being present is a plot oversight as opposed to some egodriven script change.

 

[STARMAN]

When filming STM, Sussanah York once asked why Brando had all the lines and she had virtually nothing. They said it was because they were paying him much more money.

 

[Marvin]

Marvin, I'm quite aware of what the overtone of his message was. However, it's a fair bit of hokum as far as I can see. Sure, it's nice to have such an intention, but let's get real, the film had very little of what he intended going for it.

Instead of my arguing why I think he in fact achieved the simple thing he addressed in this soundbite. I'd rather take solace that you have turned around on your initial fervent stance of "It's about as disingenuous as Zack Snyder trying to explain that he went disaster porn on Man of Steel to evoke a mythological feel to it. No you didn't, Zack. You did it because you like big explosions."

At least he's not as disingenuous as he was 3 pages ago

Hell, the Star Wars Saga had more intended and unintended metaphor/allegory/symbolism going for it than Man of Steel did, though that's likely down to George Lucas wanting to and going the whole hog.

A tempting discussion I assure you. I suppose one worth revisiting after the superman "saga" is over.

 

[Marvin]

I'll do two.

- Jor-El beats up Zod in a fight;

Spoiler

Krypton is portrayed as a sterile, static society. It's lost the ability to evolve because it thinks it reached a pinnacle a long time ago. Zod is the product of countless of generations of genetic optimisation to be the perfect soldier, and he received an upbringing specialised for that task. Later on in the movie Zod tells this to Clark, who he points out was raised on a farm, and we can understand that the only reason Clark can defeat Zod is because Zod wants to die.

Jor-El is the product of countless generations of genetic optimisation to be the perfect scientist. He was raised to be the perfect scientist. How does he beat up Zod in a fight?

As an experiment, visualise 4 guys from the mathematics building of the nearest university. Then visualise 4 navy seals. Who do you think would win a fight? Keep in mind that experiment doesn't involve a thousand generations of genetic optimisation.

It really contradicts and undermines the message(s) that Goyer thinks he is getting through. Maximus-El beating up Zod was completely unnecessary and in fact harmful to the movie.

I think Blue's retort covers this(as doubled handed as it is). It's like he said, passion, love conviction..etc. Two grown men fight and it often times comes down to who wants it more and any number of other circumstances. I do recall Jor was fighting not just for his life but that of his son and also kryptons future, I've seen lesser men do greater with far less on the line. That's point one: The younger jedi beating the upper classmen paridigm regardless of the empirical

But that's just it, you aren't looking at this beyond the empirical and the science. With this point you seem like the type that questions the empirical's of Gypsy Danger coming out of retirement and outclassing the more advanced sibling robots or creatures. Or the loser robot in realsteel overcoming the training and design of it's opponents. But I digress, that's point one.

I am curious what you think the film means when it says bread for purpose? -Genetic Optimization? I don't even recall that term being uttered.
-To be the perfect scientist? What does that even mean outside of what I assume is a stereotype.
I suppose you have issue with the ultimate scientist diving off of an animal 40 feet into the water or whatever, I mean athleticism of any sort is no doubt beyond "the ulitimate scientist"
Jokes aside, the man obviously has martial experience, not only does the film SHOW us this(funny enough), but it alludes to it by his personal armory. What's more, unlike Zod's right hand scientist, jorEL isn't characterized to be one to simply follow in what society expects of him. He seems to have educated himself(with that big brain of his) in some forms of martial combat. Perhaps even to the surprise of his pal Zod there, effectively giving him the upper hand surprise(Zod obviously thought as you did seeing as he left his crew outside as he went in to deal with the "ultimate scientist"

As for your little scenario, it depends of a few things. Particularly, how much fight training do the math guys have have? And how fit are they.
See what I'm getting at?

- Carol Ferris as the audience surrogate for stupid people;

Spoiler

Think back to:
General: They're terraforming the planet
Carol Ferris: What's Terraforming?
Someone: It's changing a planet's structure and atmosphere to make it more like an another planet.

"What's terraforming" was probably the most irritating line in the film for me when watching it, and when I first walked out of the theatre I thought it was a great movie.

There shouldn't be an audience surrogate for stupid people. It's offensive to anybody educated to drill down something so obvious. Alternatively, they could have just had the one "They are changing our planet's atmosphere and gravity to make it more like Krypton" and then have them respond.

My friend didn't know what terraforming was. It's offensive to then call a simple and key exposition element designed for this very such person, "for stupid people".
Period.

We don't all watch sci fi channel. Moreover you do know there are 13 years olds watching this film right? You being offended is duly noted. It's funny, for everyone of you, there is someone else out there than moans when an escape plan to china needs to punctuated by the extradition policy.

...it shouldn't be a female or a black person. That opens up the movie to obvious criticisms.

Fairness and equality works both ways.

 

[Marvin]

I really agree with this one. It completely nullifies everything we've been told about the state of Kryptonians. Apparently you can be something you wasn't born to be (Jor-El being a better fighter than Zod) so what's so special about Kal-El? It's clearly just the society that's to blame, not genetic manipulation.

How is that any less of an issue and when did the movie say otherwise when pertaining to Jor's stance?

If you can't see the special significance of the first natural birth to an intergalactic society, in many hundreds of years(beyond the genetics), than this film may have indeed needed even more dumbing down than it is already accused of.

 

[slumcat]

your insinuation that they made a suit for Jor-El to wear just because it was Russell Crowe is

non-existent. The gist of my post was it was an extended sequence partially helped by the fact that they had a big star to shoulder it. If say some small actor was playing a normal father role, there wouldn't be an reason to spend so much time on Krypton.

And Lara being absent is not necessarily a plot oversight. If say Julia Roberts had been in that role, you bet your ass that she would be back and have some lines in the modern day sections.

What I am saying actually happens in Hollywood and is easily done. Say Jor-El has 50 lines in the sequence where he explains Clark's legacy to him. They could have easily split it between 2 actors had they wanted. Wouldn't change the purpose of the script or that scene in any way.

 

[Mjölnir]

Jon is a real person, and he interprets his everyday experiences like a real person should. Intrinsically. That's what should be expected from a story about real people. If you sat and watched every movie in history and pointed out the amount of times a character responded to a bit of news in a way you firmly disagree with, you'd need more fingers.

Spiderman:
Take the fact that Peter doesn't tell Mary Jane about his powers immediately. Here we are saying why doesn't he let her in on this "something wonderful"? I mean the script said his powers are wonderful right?
He thinks it's a bad idea because...He, thinks it's a bad idea, even if the script "told us" the powers are "something wonderful". I could give him 10 reasons why it's "something wonderful" and I'm sure based on his over protective responsible nature, he could give me 10 reasons why he thinks it's something else. Probably cause he's being written as a dynamic human being with thoughts beyond your own.

Point being, Jon isn't you. If he said she was scared, it's because he thought she was scared. In a discussion about why Jon does what he does(and not one about what "Mjölnir" would do), this much should be obvious. Moreover, the conversation clearly had a beginning and an ending you didn't see, but that's far beside the point.

No, Jon is a fictional person. He doesn't exist and every single thing he does is due to how he's written. Therefor how he interprets a situation isn't due to synapses in his brain and compared to his experiences, it's because the writer wants the plot to be that way.

You're also confusing the point of the issue. The issue is that Jon thinks that Petey's mom is afraid, but the movie shows us her talking about how she thinks it's divine intervention, which is the most incredible thing that a true Christian could encounter. The script is poor when it comes to consistency when it comes to building upon itself. A writer needs to be a better communicator than that and there's no way a guy that thinks he has to explain "terraforming" thinks that the crowd will be thinking much when they watch. In fact, scenes like this depend on not thinking much.

When 13 year old Clark sat outside his own house and Mrs. Ross had a conversation with the kents. I'm going to assume you knew that clark could and was using his enhanced senses to take notes. If you did assume this(like alot of other people did), may I ask why? I mean I know unlike other interpretations of the material(smallville) they didn't go into vfx mode but much to the chagrin of posters here, Snyder had his subtleties here and there.
Again, how did you know clark was listening in? Perhaps his immediate emotional response? Perhaps the fact that it was something he would be interested in?

Anyways you say show don't tell, and the movie clearly conveyed how his powers work up until that point. Technically that need is met. What you are asking for under the guise of this popular phrase is that the film make it obvious in the moment. I for one don't think the audience need be explained element A in every moment element A is used. All they need is, how it works and that the character has motivation to employ it. See Totems in Inception. See Xavier is half of his scenes.

Jon looks out of the window during the conversation and sees an empty swing just outside, indicating that Clark had been there and then left, which is the reason Jon went outside at that moment. Any child could have overheard the conversation. It's also far less relevant to show something that happens off screen than it is to show something when it's currently happening on screen.

To have Clark look into the car, or hear what's going on inside, and not give any visual or audio cues to the audience is a horrible way to handle those powers. And don't compare it to Xavier since he has his thing with putting his fingers to his temple as a clear visual cue what's going on. That's how you handle it.

But again this isn't actually criticism against Snyder handling the powers in that scene since it doesn't happen there. The reason is of course that you don't think that a man that's stuck and going to die in 20 seconds is OK unless you're severely mentally handicapped or you lie because you want the person to die without help. Clark isn't either of those.

Like I said, Martha thought Jon was one thing, Clark let her know that he wasn't. Clark didn't say relax mom the situation has been diffused, rather that daddy avoided a fatal injury due to the dynamic sub-event you just witnessed. Somehow, Clark may have had more insight into what was going on during that scene, but given you will not concede that clark has demonstrated any such powers or has the specific need to use said powers in this of all moments, though he pretty much never looks away and the script in fact tells us explicitly that that powers are always on and actually need to be turned off. We'll just have to disagree on this, cause that's the angle I'm going to stand by.

How do you know that Martha necessarily thought Jon had had a fatal injury? And Clark says "he's OK", which he clearly wasn't.

I'm not conceding that he's using his powers because it makes no sense. Jon was not OK. Not even close. But it doesn't matter, I could concede that Clark was using his powers and the script has him act in a way that makes Forrest Gump seem like Stephen Hawking in comparison when it comes to drawing logical conclusions.

The only thing you might be convincing me of is that the scene is perhaps even worse than my interpretation said.

And I don't care if the script says his powers are always on, for two reasons. One, the movie should tell everything I need to know, I should not have to go read the script as the script is what the director is supposed to get on film. If it doesn't tell me it's always on then that has no relevance to me.

Two, he clearly isn't using his powers when all logic says he should at several points in the movie. How do you explain him not hearing Lois following him in a completely silent ship when he should be doing everything he can to make sure he isn't caught by the military? He should also not have been sneaked up upon by Zod in the final fight since he should have seen him coming through the wall, but he didn't. There are lots of things like these so his powers are clearly not on all the time, they are only on when it's convenient to the writer who can't write consistently.

He was on his way after the "wait and see" scenario ran it's course. Let's not confuse the issue here(see the post this responded to).

He was on his way when it finally got to the point where he could no longer save Jonathan at normal speed. Therefor he was clearly willing to break his disguise at first, which invalidates the argument that his disguise was a hindrance at the first stage when the car came crashing down.