BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[DA_Champion]

It's amazing how some of the defenders of the film, who are incapable of acknowledging the slightest failing, are performing some tremendous gymnastics to explain away the ridiculousness of Jor-El easily dispacthing Zod in a fight.

We're now reading that a society that has mastery of black holes, that knows how to put people in and out of black holes, that knows how to terraform planets and that has been travelling the Galaxy for 20,000 years, that can transfer people's brains to USB drives, would be completely inept at a genetic optimisation process that is a guiding foundation of their world.

Stop arguing about it. Zod is bred and trained by an advanced society to be the perfect sodier. Jor-El is bred and trained to be the perfect scientist. It simply doesn't make sense for Jor-El to easily beat up Zod.

 

[Vaibow]

It's amazing how some of the defenders of the film, who are incapable of acknowledging the slightest failing, are performing some tremendous gymnastics to explain away the ridiculousness of Jor-El easily dispacthing Zod in a fight.

Stop arguing about it. Zod is bred and trained by an advanced society to be the perfect sodier. Jor-El is bred and trained to be the perfect scientist. It simply doesn't make sense for Jor-El to easily beat up Zod.

i agree, Zod shouldn't even have to try hard to defeat Jor El, the house house should have been covered, stormed under darkness with no chance of escape. He should know all the pressure points and blocking techniques, even be prepared for what moves/actions jor el would do.

I must admit, i did think Jor El won too easily

 

[Mjölnir]

You asked why she brought him if she was scared, I gave you a solid answer. Not much more I can do after that.

Well at least we are beyond the Providence is met with celebration angle. As for clark doing something good and it being met with fear and apprehension, you can read a hand full of xmen books or even watch a couple of episodes of the kids cartoon to see how simple this concept is to get behind.

I haven't read anyone thinking that the X-Men are sent by god when they do something good and then fear them. If anything they are treated like an abomination to God's work.

As I said, there's definitely scenarios where I buy that someone gets afraid of Clark. I just don't think this expressed this well at all.

And as I've said several times, his plan was to let his dad extinguish his opportunity given the stakes of power exposure.
Then when it became absolutely apparent that his dad was going to die, use his powers and save the day. At the last minute he was given no go. His plan was then debunked.

You keep saying why not try when he's not certain that he has to expose himself as if he is tying to save a precious toy that has no chance of freeing itself. That's why he didn't go.
hindsight is 2...

And as I've said several times, that's an interpretation that really lacks in the logic department. Not in efficiency but how someone would reason based on what you have said that he worries about.

And you keep arguing like it's normal to take a gamble when your father is close to dying and you know you can help. It's not just that it's a huge gamble on that he can free himself, he actually couldn't and the accident had injured him (which is a very obvious thing to consider in such a crash). He died because Clark didn't do anything in that first stage. If Clark had come and got him loose (or arrived as he got loose anyway, which is roughly the expected time frame to run that distance normally) he could have carried him to safety just as Jon could have ran to safety if he wasn't injured. A regular human with the fitness level of Clark can run pretty well with a man over his shoulders.

The dog wasn't Jon, that was someone else, not involved in this circle of decision making.

I don't know what this sentence is supposed to say.

You said skill is the most important thing in a fight. I feel I proved you wrong and I felt I needed the point to stick. If you think the worlds greatest fighter(I'm guessing that's Anderson right now) can overcome someone 60 feet tall giant of average skill 10 out of 10 times than stand by your point, if not move on.

Yes, and you're not talking about fighting. That word isn't defined to include a human squashing a fly. Not even me going up to someone and punch him when he's not fighting back is a fight. How you could even think about bringing something like this up is beyond me.

I would describe them as "A guy that can throw and excellent punch."
I'm starting to understand why you read the script a certain way. Not everyone falls into defined boxes I'm afraid.

Oh, so you're connecting this with the script? Then I'm sad to say that this isn't just about someone being able to throw a punch. Fighting is about much more than just having a technique, you need to move properly, have the timing down, react to and defend the opponent's techniques etc.

You come across as someone that gets your information about how things work from fiction. I wouldn't be surprised if you think that people can break someone's neck by just twisting the head, or that when someone gets strangled and falls unconscious they are dead. That's on the level you're arguing when it comes to fighting.

It speaks to their conviction. Given you were going on about how a highly trained zod could go down to talentless Kal, I would think you'd be attuned to accept this. A trapped animal is twice as dangerous as a man looking to arrest an old friend whom himself has leverage over him(important information).

There's no reason to think Zod has less conviction. Both have gone to extreme lengths to do what they think is best for Krypton, including breaking very important laws.

1. Their chance to show why clark is a natural birth doesn't hinge on Zod beating up jor.
2. There chance to show why Zod is a villain to fear doesn't hinge on on if JorEl of all people overcomes him a short struggle(in which he later is killed).
But you are free to believe the script could have made the points clearer to you had it gone another way, that's your right.

1. But it's one in a row of missed opportunities to show really how it works on Krypton.
2. It kind of does. The story doesn't work if Zod's coup succeeds, nor if he succeeds in retrieving the codex. The only success he can have in the Krypton act is to be someone that can't be stopped until other Kryptonian armies arrive. That he cheap shots Jor doesn't make him someone to fear in general, just more of a bad person.

But I'm open to suggestions, where could they build him up in that act?

If it was just and undefined amount of centuries than at least I won't have to keep reading such and such thousands of years of genetic optimization to be the perfect...etc and perhaps something closer to what was actually in the film and not just in your heads.

This is what Zod says
General Zod: "I was bred to be a warrior, Kal. Trained my entire life to master my senses. Where did you train? On a farm!"
-Notice how he didn't say he was bred to master his senses, that's probably because there are somethings beyond genetics.
-Notice how many times he uses he word train? That sort of implies an element to this beyond genetics. One of societal conditioning and pressure. Hows about we now ask JorEl where he trained, ON A FARM(that's be rich).

Jor also says this "What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended? What if a child aspired to something greater? You were the embodiment of that belief Kal"
This can suggest:
-That it is a societal pressure.
-Kal's significance laying in the representational embodiment of Jor's beliefs.

But however this is proven to you, you will seemingly go and say that it's just proof the script was weak in it's ideas. When the reality is the script simply wasn't constrained to yours.

What's interests me is that the codex appears to have the genetic codes of everyone ever to be born, transcribed already. That begs the question of when in fact, the designing actually happens and how they can specialize people for societal needs dynamically.

There's really only a semantic difference. Several centuries is an extremely long time to be doing something. Just look at how much we've accomplished since 1713 (the shortest time to be referred to in that way).

And now we're going into less than bright retorts again. No one has said that genetic manipulation replaces training and I don't think anyone but you could think that anyone would think that. Genetic manipulation, especially on the level you'd expect at Krypton, would create people with such talent for what they are supposed to do that the most talented athlete on Earth, that's also roided up with everything we've got, would seem mediocre in his field. I don't think you understand how much you can change if you can alter DNA.

And yes, having no real function of Kal-El being natural born, just having it be an idea, is a very weak thing to write. It's on the level of a family leaving North Korea, but they can only send their newborn child because somehow the parents can't defect because they've lived for a long time in the country and therefor supposedly can't change. That's of course not the case, even senior citizens have escaped dictatorships and gone on to live new lives, so it makes no sense for Jor and Lara not to be able to go with him just because they've lived in a bad culture.

Jor-El mentions the loss of free will when he's talking about the genetic manipulation. If you have that be as powerful as it should then you really have a reason why it's a huge thing for Kal-El to be natural born, why he's so special. It would also at least to a small extent explain why Jor-El and Lara can't come with him (that's always going to be weird though, seeing how they so successfully went against everything Krypton stood for).

I can't say too much about the codex. I never saw that as something that really became relevant in the story, other than as a MacGuffin.

 

[DA_Champion]

Thanks for the (biblical)history lesson but I'm afraid that's not how allegory and or metaphor need be enacted to be effective(imo).
Example: Superman has been seen as a judeo christian allegory for the past 30 years at least, and he has done so without meeting your very specific stipulations as mentioned above. How is that? Because it's not about replicating political unrest or a walking "card board cut out" as you put it. It's about alluding to basic concepts, idea and through lines. You get basic allusions such as self sacrificing idealism and more literal concepts such as emerging from a small town or being sent to earth from the heavens by an all knowing father type...

You then started talking about political unrest and a tribalism fueled war of antiquity then accuse goyer of failing as if he's setting out to adapt the new testament.

The point is you are being too specific and or slavish in your requirement for allegory. When the original creators infused the Moses allegory they did so on a basic level. Such as a family sending a baby up a stream to be escape genocide only to climb up a mountain and embrace his greater destiny when he became of age(all present btw, as is the hebrew meaning of Kal-El). However if I were to apply your same stipulation based critical approach here I would then beg the question: So who did Jerry&Jo use to represent the higher class guilty Egyptian family the son was indoctrinated into but later rejects? Where is the political unrest or greater themes of slavery in Action Comics #1? And the conversation would end there. Until a Marvin type responded as such.

No, it's for those reasons that those two properties allude to christian allegory in different ways than Man of Steel. For example at what point did the Hunger or Matrix films achieve the "crucial" aspect of god sending his only begotten son to earth?(this is me doing the replicating your stipulation approach)

Like I said, different.

You failed to understand that the historical context from which Jesus emerged is fundamental to the Jesus story.

Hint: it's more important than the heavenly ghost. The part about Jesus being a virgin birth, turning water into wine or rising up the dead? That never actually happened. It's a myth put in after the fact, so it's not as fundamental to the fact. There are no virgin births. You can completely change the miracles in the Jesus story and still have a Jesus story.

That Jesus was able to accrue followers, that he lived in a world of tremendous turmoil, and that his teachings would completely change the world, that actually did happen, and it's such a compelling and logically coherent story that it has the power to change the course of history, that part isn't fiction, and is thus one of the greatest stories ever. Both Hunger Games and Matrix adopted the more important elements: the social turmoil amid stagnation, and the lone hero inspiring others to do better. MoS adopted the superficial components, such as the distinct birth method and being 33 years old.

 

[Marvin]

You're thinking about it too logically, as if this is an actual world with its own rules.....

I knew you'd eventually go there.

and that's clearly because Goyer had this irrational desire to build up Jor-El as much as possible. He was the best developed character in the story, and its greatest hero, he gave the longest lines, he made the most spectacular choices

And all that without free will..
I wonder what goyer was smoking.

 

[DA_Champion]

I knew you'd eventually go there.

There is no actual logic to the USB-brains in the story. It's clearly just a plot device used by Goyer to build up Jor-El.

And stop with the dumb gifs, they're not as clever as you think, they merely reveal your total inability to rationally respond.

I notice that you have not responded to Blue Lantern's request that you enumerate your issues with the film. I think it's because you're so trenched in as a defender of this movie that you can't acknowledge any errors. You're even defended Jor-El easily beating up Zod !

It's not that deep a movie. It's got about as much depth as Star Trek into Darkness, Pacific Rim, etc. Give it up, you'll feel better later.

 

[Marvin]

There is no actual logic to the USB-brains in the story. It's clearly just a plot device used by Goyer to build up Jor-El.

And stop with the dumb gifs, they're not as clever as you think, they merely reveal your total inability to rationally respond.

I notice that you have not responded to Blue Lantern's request that you enumerate your issues with the film. I think it's because you're so trenched in as a defender of this movie that you can't acknowledge any errors.

I actually didn't see his request. I was kinda in the middle of responding to 2 people in page long retorts. Didn't see the point in adding to it with a post that wasn't of the retorting purpose.

I wrote down my qualms with the film in the appropriate thread however(complaints thread), complaining about stuff in threads outside of those is isn't something I make a habbit of. He can dig them up if he wants.
Also, anyone that knows me know I usually don't frequent message boards for films I have problems with. I have more fun in the sections for films I have positive experiences with. Something about that makes little sense to me.
If he really want's to know he should pop up and ask again. It's not all that complicated.

You're even defended Jor-El easily beating up Zod !

Some perspective

Spoiler

But the gif's are a hit at all the parties

 

[DACrowe]

I think Goyer gets WAAAAY too much flack for MOS.

Honestly, everything wrong that film that I can think of, story and editing wise (save for perhaps the flashbacks) was Nolan's fault and/or goes back to him in some way.

It was Nolan's decision to take the grounded take on Superman in a more action oriented direction, cutting the story waaay down in favor the action, as well as excerbating this by shortening the runtime. And all of that that was, arguably, the main issue people had.

The story and ideas Goyer crafted were fantastic for what little we saw.

I really feel that if we were able to have more of what was cut featured, it would made ALOT more sense and been seen as a much better film.

I kinda see this being a Daredevil situation where, should we get a directors cut, the directors cut will be favored over the original version.

Did Nolan say ape his fractured flashback narrative from BB? No, that was Goyer.

Did Nolan say make the third act nothing but death and destruction. No, that was Snyder.

Did Nolan say for Superman to kill Zod? No that was Snyder AND Goyer.

Now these two are running without any third voice of common sense? Be afraid.

 

[DA_Champion]

Did Nolan say ape his fractured flashback narrative from BB? No, that was Goyer.

Did Nolan say make the third act nothing but death and destruction. No, that was Snyder.

Did Nolan say for Superman to kill Zod? No that was Snyder AND Goyer.

Now these two are running without any third voice of common sense? Be afraid.

I have a hypothesis as to how people are blaming Nolan even though Goyer and Snyder are clearly responsible.

Blaming Nolan does have its however weak justifications. There are elements of "Nolanism" in MoS: the film pretends to be realistic, the movie takes itself very seriously, the film begins with an action sequence, the narrative is non-linear, there is cross-cutting in the climax, the movie never has time to breathe, the plot is constantly escalating and nobody ever relaxes, everybody's always in danger in every scene. When you reduce MoS to this superficial extent, it looks like a Nolan film, with the caveat that Goyer peppered the script with his sense of humour.

Here's my hypothesis. David Goyer has unsuccessfully picked up several elements of Nolan from years of working with him. Goyer is a nerd of slightly above average intelligence who knows a lot of trivia, he's capable of doing good work but never great work. Nolan is a genius, is obsessive and a visionary... imagine the power imbalance when those two were working together. Goyer must have been in awe to see someone so dedicated and so talented implement something so well. He'd probably end up trying to emulate a lot of Nolan's habits and methods. However, because he is not up to par intellectually... we end up with what we saw in MoS.

ETA: As a perhaps key example, one of the artistic signature of Nolan is obsessive characters. Think of Inception, Prestige, Dark Knight, etc.... those characters will stop at nothing to achieve their aims. Goyer might have adopted that as well: General Zod. Zod is obsessed with building a better Krypton and later bringing it back. He gives us a speech "I exist only to protect Krypton. That is the soul purpose for which I was born. And every action I take, no matter how violent or how cruel, is for the greater good of my people. And now, I have no people. My soul, that is what you have taken from me!" This is an element of Nolanism that Goyer might have picked up. Does it work as well? I'd say no.

 

[Marvin]

I haven't read anyone thinking that the X-Men are sent by god when they do something good and then fear them. If anything they are treated like an abomination to God's work.

No I was expressing how people respond to good deeds in that world. But I see we are back to providence again....
You are correct, people treat some of the xmen as gods work and yet they are afraid of something beautiful that they don't understand. It makes sense there and it makes sense here.

And you keep arguing like it's normal to take a gamble when your father is close to dying and you know you can help.

Who said anything about this being a normal situation? Not me.
"Jonathan Kent: Maybe. There's more at stake here than just our lives, Clark, or the lives of those around us. When the world..."

Just you.

I don't know what this sentence is supposed to say.

I mean to say that the dog being left in the the car wasn't jon's doing, and thus that act is irrelevant in his body of decisions.

Yes, and you're not talking about fighting. That word isn't defined to include a human squashing a fly. Not even me going up to someone and punch him when he's not fighting back is a fight. How you could even think about bringing something like this up is beyond me.

It was partially metaphorical. Partially what I assumed I'd find in websters:
"to use weapons or physical force to try to hurt someone, to defeat an enemy, etc. : to struggle in battle or physical combat"
And yes, I'm pretty sure your scenario would qualify.

Oh, so you're connecting this with the script? Then I'm sad to say that this isn't just about someone being able to throw a punch. Fighting is about much more than just having a technique, you need to move properly, have the timing down, react to and defend the opponent's techniques etc.

You come across as someone that gets your information about how things work from fiction. I wouldn't be surprised if you think that people can break someone's neck by just twisting the head, or that when someone gets strangled and falls unconscious they are dead. That's on the level you're arguing when it comes to fighting.

...um
no, I'm not connecting it to the script. Just commenting on the way you seemingly use definitions to categorize and limit individuals, it's not much different than you hearing that jor is a scientist and after that you put him in a box.

As for how I get my information, you'd be wrong.

There's no reason to think Zod has less conviction. Both have gone to extreme lengths to do what they think is best for Krypton, including breaking very important laws.

See I know you are joking about this cause we talked about JorEl's precious son being in the room and how his hopes and dreams are embodied...etc
Unless that's really Zod son Whoa, Lara's got some explaining to do. lol Sorry but I honestly don't see Zod having even half the conviction as JorEl in that moment. I know a few fathers(jon kent being one). The minute Kal is launched, Jor probably stopped fighting, but that's my opinion.

There's really only a semantic difference. Several centuries is an extremely long time to be doing something. Just look at how much we've accomplished since 1713 (the shortest time to be referred to in that way).

Conversely, imagine what could be accomplished in thousands of years...
Like I said, as long as I don't have to hear that line of argument in that way any longer, I'll be content.

And now we're going into less than bright retorts again. No one has said that genetic manipulation replaces training and I don't think anyone but you could think that anyone would think that. Genetic manipulation, especially on the level you'd expect at Krypton, would create people with such talent for what they are supposed to do that the most talented athlete on Earth, that's also roided up with everything we've got, would seem mediocre in his field. I don't think you understand how much you can change if you can alter DNA.

I understand roids fine. I also understand people talking and talking about how Zod "had thousands of years of genetic optimization and how that's all that matters. While people like me argued for the role training played in all of this. Surely you understand how much skill is involved in such things and how skill isn't inherited as much as it's trained. Surely given your tirades in above posts?
Well given your respect for skill derived from training you will concede that if jor was given access to training than this entire genetic optimization discussion needs to be re-accessed. Zod seems to think it's his training that has played a part in honing his fighting skill, not simply his genetics as you keep asserting

See this guy on the left here?

That's perhaps where your roided up rhetoric belongs. Zod and Jor don't seem to fall into such trappings as slavishly, seeing as they don't look all that physically different. To the point where they can wrestle for the gun. Again, I guess that means the movie is inept.

And yes, having no real function of Kal-El being natural born, just having it be an idea, is a very weak thing to write. It's on the level of a family leaving North Korea, but they can only send their newborn child because somehow the parents can't defect because they've lived for a long time in the country and therefor supposedly can't change. That's of course not the case, even senior citizens have escaped dictatorships and gone on to live new lives, so it makes no sense for Jor and Lara not to be able to go with him just because they've lived in a bad culture.

Who said anything about can't change being the reason?
Whether they can change or not, they represent a perversion of krypton that needs to die according to jor. Kal El doesn't not.

I can't say too much about the codex. I never saw that as something that really became relevant in the story, other than as a MacGuffin.

That doesn't mean you can't understand how it works.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I have a hypothesis as to how people are blaming Nolan even though Goyer and Snyder are clearly responsible.

Blaming Nolan does have its however weak justifications. There are elements of "Nolanism" in MoS: the film pretends to be realistic, the movie takes itself very seriously, the film begins with an action sequence, the narrative is non-linear, there is cross-cutting in the climax, the movie never has time to breathe, the plot is constantly escalating and nobody ever relaxes, everybody's always in danger in every scene. When you reduce MoS to this superficial extent, it looks like a Nolan film, with the caveat that Goyer peppered the script with his sense of humour.

Here's my hypothesis. David Goyer has unsuccessfully picked up several elements of Nolan from years of working with him. Goyer is a nerd of slightly above average intelligence who knows a lot of trivia, he's capable of doing good work but never great work. Nolan is a genius, is obsessive and a visionary... imagine the power imbalance when those two were working together. Goyer must have been in awe to see someone so dedicated and so talented implement something so well. He'd probably end up trying to emulate a lot of Nolan's habits and methods. However, because he is not up to par intellectually... we end up with what we saw in MoS.

ETA: As a perhaps key example, one of the artistic signature of Nolan is obsessive characters. Think of Inception, Prestige, Dark Knight, etc.... those characters will stop at nothing to achieve their aims. Goyer might have adopted that as well: General Zod. Zod is obsessed with building a better Krypton and later bringing it back. He gives us a speech "I exist only to protect Krypton. That is the soul purpose for which I was born. And every action I take, no matter how violent or how cruel, is for the greater good of my people. And now, I have no people. My soul, that is what you have taken from me!" This is an element of Nolanism that Goyer might have picked up. Does it work as well? I'd say no.

And yet, Goyer gave Marvel its first hit. As far as "never being able to do great work" that's a terrible accusation to say about anyone. I don't think anyone should be put in a box like that.

 

[DA_Champion]

And yet, Goyer gave Marvel its first hit. As far as "never doing great work" that's a terrible accusation to say about anyone. I don't think anyone should be put in a box like that.

Very few people are capable of doing great work. I try and use the word "great" to mean something.

*****

You missed the central point of my post, which is that Goyer might have tried to emulate many of Nolan's practices, but that it didn't work due to Goyer's lesser artistic aptitude.

 

[Mjölnir]

No I was expressing how people respond to good deeds in that world. But I see we are back to providence again....
You are correct, people treat some of the xmen as gods work and yet they are afraid of something beautiful that they don't understand. It makes sense there and it makes sense here.

I think you misread what I wrote. I said I haven't read anything like that so I can't comment on how it works there. I can do it in MoS though as I've seen it and I find it poorly structured.

Who said anything about this being a normal situation? Not me.
"Jonathan Kent: Maybe. There's more at stake here than just our lives, Clark, or the lives of those around us. When the world..."

Just you.

Not what I said. But what you said is that it's fine that he doesn't act when he might be able to do it normally, because he's afraid of exposing himself, but he's ready to act when he definitely has to use his powers, despite that he will expose himself. I see that as a really poor way to write it, but then again I don't see anything in the entire scene that's of passable quality when it comes to writing. Only the acting works.

I mean to say that the dog being left in the the car wasn't jon's doing, and thus that act is irrelevant in his body of decisions.

Forgetting the dog is on all of them.

It was partially metaphorical. Partially what I assumed I'd find in websters:
"to use weapons or physical force to try to hurt someone, to defeat an enemy, etc. : to struggle in battle or physical combat"
And yes, I'm pretty sure your scenario would qualify.

It doesn't even work on a metaphorical level. Calling squashing a fly a fight is so extremely dumb that nothing relevant can come out of it.

It's so dumb that I have to question my own mental faculties for keeping on with the discussion after reading that.

...um
no, I'm not connecting it to the script. Just commenting on the way you seemingly use definitions to categorize and limit individuals, it's not much different than you hearing that jor is a scientist and after that you put him in a box.

As for how I get my information, you'd be wrong.

It's as simple as that I know what the word "average" means. After the debacle with the word "fight" I'm not so sure I can get that through though.

See I know you are joking about this cause we talked about JorEl's precious son being in the room and how his hopes and dreams are embodied...etc
Unless that's really Zod son Whoa, Lara's got some explaining to do. lol Sorry but I honestly don't see Zod having even half the conviction as JorEl in that moment. I know a few fathers(jon kent being one). The minute Kal is launched, Jor probably stopped fighting, but that's my opinion.

Trying to save Krypton in it's entirety isn't less of a motivation than to save your child. You mean to say that every man who's a father has more conviction than people that devoted their lives to make the world a better place? I'd the contrary. It's only the latter group that consistently shows conviction on a very high level.

I give Jor equality because he's also trying to save what can be saved of Krypton. Both he and Zod have higher goals than just the survival of one person.

Conversely, imagine what could be accomplished in thousands of years...
Like I said, as long as I don't have to hear that line of argument in that way any longer, I'll be content.

In the context of the discussion the difference is irrelevant. Both are something that would go beyond the development of anything we have in our world, and you treat it as it's nothing special.

I understand roids fine. I also understand people talking and talking about how Zod "had thousands of years of genetic optimization and how that's all that matters. While people like me argued for the role training played in all of this. Surely you understand how much skill is involved in such things and how skill isn't inherited as much as it's trained. Surely given your tirades in above posts?
Well given your respect for skill derived from training you will concede that if jor was given access to training than this entire genetic optimization discussion needs to be re-accessed. Zod seems to think it's his training that has played a part in honing his fighting skill, not simply his genetics as you keep asserting

See this guy on the left here?

That's perhaps where your roided up rhetoric belongs. Zod and Jor don't seem to fall into such trappings as slavishly, seeing as they don't look all that physically different. To the point where they can wrestle for the gun. Again, I guess that means the movie is inept.

No one has said that it's all that matters, what was said is that it's enough to make someone a being with completely different potential. You just made a straw man, and a bad one at that. Since I haven't said that genetic potential is everything, but I have said that skill is the most important factor in a fight (which you even show that you remember while writing that paragraph), what could ever make you draw the conclusion you just did?

And even if we disregard how wrong you were about my position, your counter argument is downright funny since who do you think gets the most, and the best, combat training? The soldier or the scientist? On Krypton the soldiers should be so suited for that job that it makes LeBron seem like a talentless oaf in his job. On top of that they are probably trained for their jobs from a far earlier age than any of us, because they only have one role in society and that's already determined at birth. But of course the person that was never meant to contribute to society as anything but a scientist can easily top that, right?

That Jor and Zod looks fairly different has to do with casting. Looks wouldn't need to be that important though as they could easily say that the genetic alteration of soldiers made their muscles more efficient, so even Faora would be far physically superior to a normal man. That would be a logical way to design the people that's supposed to protect your planet.

Who said anything about can't change being the reason?
Whether they can change or not, they represent a perversion of krypton that needs to die according to jor. Kal El doesn't not.

And the movie is terribly unclear on why. They are a product of Krypton. Ok, but what does it mean. According to people like you it's not because they are genetically altered, so I'll rule that out. Then it's because of cultural flaws, but those are obviously not shared by Jor-El, as he managed to break seemingly every law surrounding that. It's also a nonsense reason as the North Korea example shows. Cultural habits are not impossible to cast aside, especially not if you already are fighting the power. It's said that House El stands for that everyone can be a force for good, but still Jor and Lara don't deem themselves worthy to be that on Earth for some reason.

The reason why Kal-El had to lose his parents and why the glorious hero Jor-El feels he and his wife needs to stay and die is a pretty important thing, especially given how much weight they give to Krypton and, especially, Jor-El. Not even people that loved the film seem to be able to point to an obvious and irrefutable answer. Poorly done imo.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

It's amazing how some of the defenders of the film, who are incapable of acknowledging the slightest failing, are performing some tremendous gymnastics to explain away the ridiculousness of Jor-El easily dispacthing Zod in a fight.

We're now reading that a society that has mastery of black holes, that knows how to put people in and out of black holes, that knows how to terraform planets and that has been travelling the Galaxy for 20,000 years, that can transfer people's brains to USB drives, would be completely inept at a genetic optimisation process that is a guiding foundation of their world.

Stop arguing about it. Zod is bred and trained by an advanced society to be the perfect sodier. Jor-El is bred and trained to be the perfect scientist. It simply doesn't make sense for Jor-El to easily beat up Zod.

Considering that Kryptonians are described as an advanced civilization, thousands of years ahead of us, it would actually make more sense to have certain inhabitants belong to a top tier of sorts -- one that encompasses the very best traits of multiple classes/types. Jor-El himself, as depicted in MOS, could very well be a member of this multifaceted tier. It's a bit of a stretch (I know), but such is the nature of science fiction, which, in itself, centers on the extrapolation of modern-day propensities.

Certainly, if Batman is reinvented in this new cinematic universe as a character on par with his peak human comic book counterpart, i.e, the scientist/detective/martial artist we all know and love, I find it hard to believe that an alien species from countless light years away would be devoid of their own peak level, "well-rounded" defenders, favoring only those who are well-specialized.

 

[DA_Champion]

Mjolnr,

Let's try and raise the level of discussion from debating the narrative merits of Jor-El easily beating up Zod.

How could Krypton have been portrayed? It needs to be a world with limited choice, but even if we remove a lot of our complaints, there's a choice necessary to the plot:
Jor-El, a man of privilege, makes the revolutionary choice of sending his son elsewhere. He is the head of a noble house, and he goes against the norms of his society in that manner... which is really incredible. To give an analogy... imagine if Warren Buffet thought the US was doomed, and sent his kid to be educated in boarding school in China... it would simply be an incredible thing, as this doesn't happen.

Looks like something that's hard to write. Explains why Goyer phoned it in.

 

[DA_Champion]

Considering that Kryptonians are described as an advanced civilization, thousands of years ahead of us, it would actually make more sense to have certain inhabitants belong to a top tier of sorts -- one that encompasses the very best traits of multiple classes/types. Jor-El himself, as depicted in MOS, could very well be a member of this multifaceted tier. It's a bit of a stretch (I know), but such is the nature of science fiction, which, in itself, centers on the extrapolation of modern-day propensities.

Certainly, if Batman is reinvented in this new cinematic universe as a character on par with his peak human comic book counterpart, i.e, the scientist/detective/martial artist we all know and love, I find it hard to believe that an alien species from countless light years away would be devoid of their own peak level, "well-rounded" defenders, favoring only those who are well-specialized.

We can debate whether it's possible to be a master of trades, I say it's not, but what you're saying is not supported by the plot that says nobody on Krypton has choices, it needs to be added in.

I think it's the case of nearly every movie ever made that the plot holes can be explained away by adding in world building elements that are not there at all.

Example: Perhaps Jor-El was able to defeat Zod because Zod was suffering from a viral infection that weakened him, and Jor-El somehow knew about the infection, but since Zod did not realise he was infected he did not ask his soldiers to go inside instead. That would explain Jor-El confidently beating up Zod.

However, that's not in the script. It's a mental gymnastic that is added in externally, which should not be necessary.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Goyer phoned it in because Nolan was too busy working on TDKR to perfect MOS' script

And before you think this is a diss on both Goyer and Snyder, I think Goyer's a pretty good ideas person, and I think Snyder did rather well with the script he was given. But imagine if both Chris AND Jonah were there to essentially rewrite MOS, and handed it off to Zack? I think there would still be pacing problems, but I think the final product COULD have rivaled Begins.

 

[jonathancrane]

Goyer is a fine ideas person, but the studio should hire Tom Stoppard to polish the dialogue.

 

[TheBat812]

Bat812, Earth has very little to offer Kal-El. That is not my interpretation of the film, that is Zach Snyder's interpretation of the film.


http://screenrant.com/zack-snyder-interview-man-steel-superman-metropolis-destruction/

So when some of us say that the lack of warmth and happy times for Kal-El in the movie make it look like he has no reason to save humanity, we're not just simply failing to see what Snyder and Goyer were clearly alluding to have taken place off-screen. It was the director's vision of the film that humanity should have little to offer Clark. That's what they wanted to show: that humanity has very little to offer Clark. From that perspective, it makes sense that they didn't really show a happy childhood for Clark, and that the viewer might think he hasn't had a friend in 15 years other than his mother. I'm not missing any crucial info, my interpretation is backed by the director of the film.


You're thinking about it too logically, as if this is an actual world with its own rules. It's not that complicated.

The USB-brain is a completely made up concept, and the rules are exactly what Goyer wants them to be. As it is, Goyer didn't explain the rules. What we have is that Jor-El sent a copy of himself but not of his wife, it simply looks mean-spirited on the part of both Goyer and Jor-El.

If we need to know about Clark's "nature", then we certainly need to know about his mother contributes half his genes, but all of his mitochondria, early immune system, and various bacteria. We don't learn much about Lara in this movie... and that's clearly because Goyer had this irrational desire to build up Jor-El as much as possible. He was the best developed character in the story, and its greatest hero, he gave the longest lines, he made the most spectacular choices, he showed the greatest smarts across several dimensions, and that's just odd for a Superman story. Superman (or Lois!) should be the most developed character.

1. Humanity doesn't really have much to offer Clark in that he's a God. What is humanity going to do for him? He doesn't really need them at all, in a physical sense. All it has to offer him are the few people he is close to. But he can do alot for humanity. Which is why he chooses Earth. And why he's a superhero.

2. Dude. Even in a 'world without rules', we're talking about a sophisticated computer system. Not to mention, even if she could devise is in like 5 minutes, Clark would already be gone. Are you saying could have had time to create it, mean it up, and initiate in the 2 minutes it takes the ship to leave the atmosphere? now THAT is ridiculous.


Once again, there are quite a few issues with the film, but none of them have really been discussed in the last few pages. Some actual issues are pacing related, some involve the overwhelmingly monotonous and loud sound mix during the fight sequences, some involve bad dialog, etc. But overwhelmingly, the positive outweighs the bad for me. This is the best Superman film I've seen (STM is close, but the character depth and thematic exploration is much better in MOS imo), and probably my favorite encarnation of the character. Granted I don't read that many comics, I'm just a huge fan of the character and loved SI and SII when I was a kid, Smallville, STAS. Please, recommend me some, it won't affect my view of MOS, but I'd love to read some great Superman comics.

I'm genuinely curious if you (either of you) liked the film at all, or if you're just now getting caught up in some relatively unimportant minutia just to discuss what bugged you. Sometimes I think people just get caught up in all the negatives, and focus so intently on it that they can't enjoy the things they actually liked in it. Or maybe you really did just hate it all, lol.

 

[DA_Champion]

2. Dude. Even in a 'world without rules', we're talking about a sophisticated computer system. Not to mention, even if she could devise is in like 5 minutes, Clark would already be gone. Are you saying could have had time to create it, mean it up, and initiate in the 2 minutes it takes the ship to leave the atmosphere? now THAT is ridiculous.

What I mean by world without rules, and I'm sorry if this is poorly explained, is that it's not a real world, and it's not a well-designed fake world. It's a fake world completely made up by Goyer, and since that world is thin Goyer can make up whatever he wants. There is nothing organic to the plot that says that only Jor-El should show up. Goyer chose to be quite mean-spirited and confusing as possible by having Jor-El show up and not Lara, that's the completely arbitrary choice he made, and it's made without justification. It annoyed a lot of people, it looks dumb, and the only thing it achieves is building up the great heroic character of Jor-El.

From a story-building view, having only Jor-El show up requires an explanation, having only Lara show up requires an explanation, none was offered either way though many could be made up, ... however, if it had been both of them together with a simple message of love and some backstory no explanation would have been required. As it is, Goyer went for a bizarre option, of having Clark only get to know Jor-El, so the lack of an explanation is damning.

Once again, there are quite a few issues with the film, but none of them have really been discussed in the last few pages. Some actual issues are pacing related, some involve the overwhelmingly monotonous and loud sound mix during the fight sequences, some involve bad dialog, etc. But overwhelmingly, the positive outweighs the bad for me. This is the best Superman film I've seen (STM is close, but the character depth and thematic exploration is much better in MOS imo), and probably my favorite encarnation of the character. Granted I don't read that many comics, I'm just a huge fan of the character and loved SI and SII when I was a kid, Smallville, STAS. Please, recommend me some, it won't affect my view of MOS, but I'd love to read some great Superman comics.

I'm genuinely curious if you (either of you) liked the film at all, or if you're just now getting caught up in some relatively unimportant minutia just to discuss what bugged you. Sometimes I think people just get caught up in all the negatives, and focus so intently on it that they can't enjoy the things they actually liked in it. Or maybe you really did just hate it all, lol.

I saw the MoS film twice, and I'll be buying the blu ray. I rate it a 7/10, I enjoy it, it has its good parts. It's better than the other Superman movies, and it's better than Smallville. I rate Smallville and Superman Returns as the worst representations of the character.

We've spent the past few pages discussing the lack of plot consistency in the film and the related lack of character development. Jor-El beating up Zod is a problem for both issues. It's a major issue for the film. The lack of depth world building. They tell us that Krypton is a sterile society, where everybody is bred and raised for one purpose... well, why not show it? We see it with the Kryptonians when they're on Earth, but we don't see it on Krypton. We see people making choices and going against their programming, Zod starting a revolution, Jor-El having a child out genesis, etc. You know, with better world building, you can pull viewers into the film, and if they're sufficiently pulled in they won't notice the inevitable errors that come up later, because every movie has errors, some are just more noticeable.

As fo my superman recommendations:

1) Death and Return of Superman, an 1100 page comics omnibus you can buy for $65
http://www.amazon.com/Superman-The-...keywords=death+and+return+of+superman+omnibus
It's a good story, and imo, a better representation of the character.

2) Superman Earth One, Volume 1 and 2
http://www.amazon.com/Superman-Eart...1379135962&sr=8-1&keywords=superman+earth+one
I's by J. Michael Straczynski, one of the great creative minds of our time in the realm of scifi, and Goyer explicitly states that he borrowed a lot from this book. I like volume 2 better than volume 1, but you need to read volume 1 first.

3) Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, seasons 1,2, and 4
This is possibly the most popular version of Superman, as it was watched by nearly 20 million viewers every weak and was a pop culture phenomenon. To give you an idea of how popular it was, Teri Hatcher was the most downloaded woman on the internet for six months, for a picture where she reveals nothing.

The limitations of 1990s episodic TV can be seen, as well as the low budget, but the romance aspect and the overall humanity is compelling. At some point Lois learns who Superman is, and a lot had built up to that point which made it a climactic moment. It's got many, many feel-good moments.

4) Of the animated movies, I like Superman/Batman Apocalypse and Superman vs The Elite, but you have to take those for what they are, cheaply made animated movies.

 

[TheBat812]

I completely disagree in regards to Jorel being the only one to show up being organic. I did find it a bizarre concept at first to be able to upload a piece of yourself like that, but once I was accustomed to it it was fine. However, it being solely Jorel simply makes sense to me for multiple reasons. First and foremost for storytelling purposes, they're just not both needed. Neither would be developed and the other would jsut be standing there most of the time. What are they gonna do, interact? It's just weird having your whole pretend family there instead of just a guide in the form of your father. It creates unnecessary complications to something rather simple.

Isn't there an explanation for why Jorel created his ghost self? Almost positive he quickly discusses it. Either way, it's not really a huge point of contention for me. Nor are your other issues with the film. I would consider those minor details that can be harped on, but are not really a gauge of the cinematic or experiential success of the film. Much better movies have had worse or at least equally 'problematic' moments, but still are great stories. They're things that work in my mind, and while I understand why you see them as faults, I simply don't think you're seeing it at all the way it was intended, nor do I believe them to as objectively horrible as you make them out to be. It's not necessarily an issue of lack of thought, just being a bit too broad and trusting of the audience to get it and run with it. I'd rate the film an 8/10, so we're not too far apart, cinematically. I do, still, love the film and think it's my favorite iteration of the comics.

As for the comics, I believe I read the Death and Return of Superman as a kid, but I'll need to check it out now. Definitely have to check out Earth one, it seems to be a fanboy favorite. I've watched a decent amount of Lois and Clark (my bro really got into that show at one point despite him not really being a huge fan of Supes) but I never really liked it all that much. Really enjoyed the pilot, but the rest was just kind of eh. I remember absolutely nothing about the show.

I prefer STAS to most of the animated movies, but I've seen most of them, both Supes and JL. They're pretty cool, despite being rather simple. I imagine BvS will be a melding of those and MOS, which has me pretty excited at the possibilities.

 

[BlueLantern]

It's amazing how some of the defenders of the film, who are incapable of acknowledging the slightest failing, are performing some tremendous gymnastics to explain away the ridiculousness of Jor-El easily dispacthing Zod in a fight.

There is no actual logic to the USB-brains in the story. It's clearly just a plot device used by Goyer to build up Jor-El.

And stop with the dumb gifs, they're not as clever as you think, they merely reveal your total inability to rationally respond.

I notice that you have not responded to Blue Lantern's request that you enumerate your issues with the film. I think it's because you're so trenched in as a defender of this movie that you can't acknowledge any errors. You're even defended Jor-El easily beating up Zod !

It's not that deep a movie. It's got about as much depth as Star Trek into Darkness, Pacific Rim, etc. Give it up, you'll feel better later.

High, ****ing five, sir. Finally someone said it. Marvin, you didn't respond to my question because you'd typed a similar response before, yet you've spent the last how many days arguing about previously raised problems in nauseating detail? Dude, let me put it in a polite way here.

Your long and potentially intelligent posts don't detract that you're ridiculously blind about this film, particularly since you've put more thought into your hypotheses than the writers probably put into the film.

Hell, if they'd thought things through as much as you had, they'd have likely made different decisions thinking '****, I have to go through this much to explain a skull with information or a fight between a scientist and a general? Screw it, let's do it another way that's simpler and better'.

I know some self righteous defender regarding freedom of speech and expression is going throw around the 'BUT THAT'S YOUR OPINION AND NOT FACT!' ********, so yes, it's my opinion. But they're a damn sight more rational than how many ever pages Marvin's written about the horrendous plot oversights in the film.

I remember listening to a Michael Hauge interview where he said that if it takes way too much effort to explain a simple scene, then it's potentially full of ****. Don't drown a film in subtleties or subtext that require more explaining than the length of the film itself, it's not worth the cinematic exercise of film-making. Metaphor, allegory and symbolism are all great but they're slaves to a simple master, storytelling. If the storytelling doesn't triumph at the end, none of those things matter. They're just footnotes relegated to being excuses for some parts of the film may or may not have been worth the ticket price. Good luck with this thread, folks. It's not worth it.

 

[TheBat812]

There's also somethign to be said for you guys creating issues where there really are none. I feel like most of the audience got it, understood it and accepted it, and you guys are still here complaining that your misunderstandings don't work. If you honestly think they didn't think this stuff through, you're kidding yourself. Do you not think nolan would have brought this stuff up when they met? Do you honestly think you would put in more effort criticizing than them creating it? It's borderline hilarious. You guys are asking for incredibly detailed explanations of things that don't need (but still has) an explanation. If your questions don't make sense to the story (ie regarding the Kryptonian class lineage), then guess what? You're missing something. You're interpretation of what the characters are saying is wrong. Most of us found the answers to your questions, but you keep dismissing them using facts you've created to justify the problems. But A+B must = the movie. If your interpretation doesn't = the movie, then you've misinterpreted it. Now, you're allowed to dislike the choice, but stop telling us we're seeing things, when the answers are there for us to see. Reminds me alot of some of the minute complaints regarding TDKR. Either way, like your last paragraph talks about, the minutia don't matter as long as the story works. And it does. Clark Kents' story is still great in this movie even IF those are regarded as being without any logical explanation.

Anyways, we've strayed so far off-topic, I think it would be more productive than harping on minute details that will not even be factors in the new film.



I'm truly excited to see where they go with Bruce and Clark here and how their stories will intertwine. There are tons of storylines I can think of, but I really hope they surprise us... In a good way, haha.

 

[BlueLantern]

It's borderline hilarious? Well here's something that's actually hilarious, you not believing that a bad things can actually get made. Whether people put effort into creating something or not, things go bad. People don't setup shop with the intention of creating something not good, it happens due to multiple factors involved. But that's an aside. What's funnier is that you're assuming that 'most' people got it.

Hey, pal, look at the general critical response to the film. It's not good. Audience response? The word of mouth indicated a 65% drop. Sure, you can point to $650 million made worldwide, but Transformers made $709 million worldwide and ****ing sucked. Sure, you're going to throw the 'but critics are morons! even the RT lady said so'. Right...because 120 reviewers and countless others are all balls out wrong about the films' problems.

I noticed people going on about how Rotten Tomatoes doesn't work, well here's a funny one. Even the positive reviews open mindedly acknowledge the film has problems. No one's creating issues. They exist. They're there. There's just more voracious defenders of the film CREATING hypotheses to defend said issues when there's a simple situation. It was not well executed. So you know what's flatout hilarious? Your myopia. Good morning.

 

[TheBat812]

Of course bad things can be made. I just simply don't agree with the 'issues' you guys have brought up.

I literally just discussed the many problems the film has. Them being primarily cinematic issues such as pacing, dialog, etc. These are the problems discussed by actual respected film critics. And they are problems that certainly are warranted and need addressing. Another issue is many younger "critics" who complain about minutia without an actual understanding of storytelling. If they were to judge most great movies that way, there wouldn't be many great movies. ****, you can find these kinds of small problems that 'don't make sense' in great movies from Godfather to Apocalypse Now to Raging Bull. And it's not the small problems that make them great, it's the story and execution. What's lacking from MOS is most of all execution.

And this is getting ridiculous, but you show a very narrowminded view of how the 65% drop was achieved - it's pretty much standard when it's followed by two movies that pulled much of their audience the following weekend - Monsters U (kids), and World war Z (teen and young men). it grossing 650 mil over the long terms after such a drop is actually an example of GOOD word of mouth. But I digress. I don't think any of us is really enjoying this conversation, which is the reason we should be here to begin with. It would be more fun if we had more people's opinions on the matter, but right now it's like four people running in circles, lol.