BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[Gianakin_]

And herein ultimately lies the fail of MOS and TDKR and the triumph of Avengers. If you embalm your narrative, monumentalize and load it with seriousness and pretensions of seriousness have layer it with THIS IS IMPORTANT, any logical fallacy would seem 10 times more jarring. That is why all the plot holes in MOS and TDKR are so ludicrous, because the movie is asking you to take everything in it like life and death, with heart attack seriousness.

Avengers simply from a script perspective is a infinitely superior over TDKR and MOS. Sure Avengers has flaws to but writing is not one of them.

TDKR is nothing like MoS in terms of what it promises and what it delivers. And TDKR's structure is far more efficient than MoS', because it strikes balances for the most part.

And both TDKR and MoS are on a whole other league than TA, they can't even be compared in terms of their sheer ambition and scope.

 

[BlueLantern]

The Avengers reflected on the devastation within the confines of the type of film it was. The film was inherently lighthearted so it focused sufficiently on what came and went. As far as legions of lives are concerned, it was pretty evident that the aliens being killed were quote unquote drones. So sitting there and analyzing the loss suffered on that end can be saved for Ender's Game.

Man of Steel was a flat out serious film, and with that notion in mind, it's way more culpable regarding swatting stuff under the rug. But hey, you're never going to admit to that since it flies in the face of the staunch defense you're launching of a severely mediocre film. I think it's now at the point where you're so eager to be right that you'll make numerous points with very little real support for them. Oh well. Keep going.

P.S. I think the Dark Knight Rises was also culpable of going for scale in some situations and forgetting to focus on the people on the ground. Sure, the main cast got their fair share of reflection and rumination but the average person of Gotham was barely seen apart from montage shots. A pretty stark contrast considering how efficiently they were portrayed in the first two films. I guess it was time constraints or sheer blockbuster fever creeping in.

 

[Gianakin_]

Avengers showed a mourning montage where they showed many many people mourning and candle vigils for those that had died in battle. Even something as minor as that added humanity to it. And far far far less people died in the battle of Avengers.

MOS simply did not acknowledge the death of millions.

While a TA-like aftermath scene would make MoS' finale slightly more bearable to me, MoS at least implied/showed deaths. TA made it look like everyone came out unscathed, despite the aftermath montage. The menace caused by the invasion wasn't shown very well, I think.

 

[slumcat]

I will leave Snyder off the hook for the story problems. When Nolan approached Snyder, he went to Snyder with a locked script! Sure Snyder made some changes, but the blue print, the structure and story were set in stone.

It is the blue print, the structure and the story that are the most problematic things about MOS. So I blame Nolan and Goyer.

Snyder actually has created some very good sequences. So credit to his direction to slightly salvage the material.

 

[Gianakin_]

The Avengers reflected on the devastation within the confines of the type of film it was. The film was inherently lighthearted so it focused sufficiently on what came and went. As far as legions of lives are concerned, it was pretty evident that the aliens being killed were quote unquote drones. So sitting there and analyzing the loss suffered on that end can be saved for Ender's Game.

Man of Steel was a flat out serious film, and with that notion in mind, it's way more culpable regarding swatting stuff under the rug. But hey, you're never going to admit to that since it flies in the face of the staunch defense you're launching of a severely mediocre film. I think it's now at the point where you're so eager to be right that you'll make numerous points with very little real support for them. Oh well. Keep going.

 

[D.P.]

The "filmmakers don't care about what you think" thing is so 1999.

Wasn't what I was saying at all.

But common sense dictates they will expand upon it in the sequel. It's not tantamount to murder to leave some things unsaid until later.

 

[Gianakin_]

I will leave Snyder off the hook for the story problems. When Nolan approached Snyder, he went to Snyder with a locked script! Sure Snyder made some changes, but the blue print, the structure and story were set in stone.

It is the blue print, the structure and the story that are the most problematic things about MOS. So I blame Nolan and Goyer.

Snyder actually has created some very good sequences. So credit to his direction to slightly salvage the material.

I actually loved MoS' overall story, it had the potential of being the best CBM.

 

[Gianakin_]

Wasn't what I was saying at all.

But common sense dictates they will expand upon it in the sequel. It's not tantamount to murder to leave some things unsaid until later.

I was mostly referring to your attitude.

As for your point, I always expected things like the rebuilding of Metropolis to be properly addressed in MoS2 or B/S. MoS' problem was that it didn't deal with it at all, tonally or story-wise.

 

[slumcat]

To hinge the story on some god damned codex, whatever the **** it was, was just preposterous. The entire sequence of Lois snooping about Zod's ship felt like it was supposed to be on Nickelodeon. And that dialog about download the codex and what not felt so silly.

 

[BlueLantern]

Wasn't what I was saying at all.

But common sense dictates they will expand upon it in the sequel. It's not tantamount to murder to leave some things unsaid until later.

I'd say it directly contradicts Goyer's philosophy regarding the Batman films where he poured his all into one film at a time and didn't leave stuff around for the sequel outside of the odd easter egg. Sure, there was stuff like the ending of the Dark Knight which directly lead into a sequel but Batman Begins was absolutely treated as a standalone picture, just in case they didn't proceed with a sequel. That attitude would've been very much appreciated with Man of Steel, where the Prometheus approach was taken instead. Not really my cup of tea on that front. A complete story is much more appreciated, Empire Strikes Back excluded. That film gets a free pass.

 

[slumcat]

MOS had a scene in the end, everybody happy and smiling. Even the office was undamaged when apparently a high rise fell on top of it.

 

[Gianakin_]

To hinge the story on some god damned codex, whatever the **** it was, was just preposterous. The entire sequence of Lois snooping about Zod's ship felt like it was supposed to be on Nickelodeon. And that dialog about download the codex and what not felt so silly.

I'm talking about the overall story, aka the whole in-vitro approach for Krypton, even the principle of the Codex itself was fine. How they executed it, how long they stayed with it, the dialogue, that was pure Goyer.

 

[slumcat]

The Avengers reflected on the devastation within the confines of the type of film it was. The film was inherently lighthearted so it focused sufficiently on what came and went. As far as legions of lives are concerned, it was pretty evident that the aliens being killed were quote unquote drones. So sitting there and analyzing the loss suffered on that end can be saved for Ender's Game.

Man of Steel was a flat out serious film, and with that notion in mind, it's way more culpable regarding swatting stuff under the rug. But hey, you're never going to admit to that since it flies in the face of the staunch defense you're launching of a severely mediocre film. I think it's now at the point where you're so eager to be right that you'll make numerous points with very little real support for them. Oh well. Keep going.

P.S. I think the Dark Knight Rises was also culpable of going for scale in some situations and forgetting to focus on the people on the ground. Sure, the main cast got their fair share of reflection and rumination but the average person of Gotham was barely seen apart from montage shots. A pretty stark contrast considering how efficiently they were portrayed in the first two films. I guess it was time constraints or sheer blockbuster fever creeping in.

Full of win!

 

[D.P.]

I was mostly referring to your attitude.

As for your point, I always expected things like the rebuilding of Metropolis to be properly addressed in MoS2 or B/S. MoS' problem was that it didn't deal with it at all, tonally or story-wise.

That's not my attitude. Actually, one could argue that some fans harbor that arrogant attitude more than the filmmakers themselves. They are pretty attentive to what we want, as they should be. They just can't afford to live and die by it.

Clark released an outburst of emotion after killing Zod. The movie jumps forward in time to him working at the Planet with a lighter tone.

Had they ended the film right after he killed Zod, people would have complained even more about the movie being a downer and "too dark". Snyder and co. can't really win for losing.

Also, saying that because The Avengers was light it deserves a pass for glossing over it's destruction while MOS must be held accountable for not dealing with it immediately in a way that is considered satisfactory is flawed as all hell.

 

[Gianakin_]

I'd say it directly contradicts Goyer's philosophy regarding the Batman films where he poured his all into one film at a time and didn't leave stuff around for the sequel outside of the odd easter egg. Sure, there was stuff like the ending of the Dark Knight which directly lead into a sequel but Batman Begins was absolutely treated as a standalone picture, just in case they didn't proceed with a sequel. That attitude would've been very much appreciated with Man of Steel, where the Prometheus approach was taken instead. Not really my cup of tea on that front. A complete story is much more appreciated, Empire Strikes Back excluded. That film gets a free pass.

Just for argument's sake, I'd say Batman Begins left the matter of Batman's growth in the "kill-don't kill" department for it to be addressed and/or resolved in TDK (and, arguably, TDKR). Plus, the Joekr card can be considered a teaser as well as a simple Easter Egg.

On the other hand, I don't think MoS' finale is of the Prometheus kind, it's not that sequel bait-y at all, imo.

ESB and TDK's finales are exactly the same: They wrap up themes and storylines and characters and leave the story open for continuation. Ok, TDK was a bit more stand-alonish, mainly because if we hadn't gotten a TDKR you could see Batman go on fighting crime while being considered a "Public Enemy no1", whereas in ESB the Empire wins, Vader is alive and there's the Emperor and the huge father revelation (not to mention Han).

 

[BlueLantern]

For what it's worth I don't think Man of Steel has a lot of sequel bait either. To me it's just poor writing where so many things are left unresolved. I was being relatively lenient to the film and foregoing the offensive regarding the 'THEY'LL DEAL WITH (placeholder) IN THE SEQUEL' mentality that many fans of the film have.

 

[Gianakin_]

That's not my attitude. Actually, one could argue that some fans harbor that arrogant attitude more than the filmmakers themselves. They are pretty attentive to what we want, as they should be. They just can't afford to live and die by it.

It's not arrogance, except for those posters who have an attitude. Many of us just feel this way about the film and express it in a public forum. And, yes, filmmakers aren't Gods. They are people who were once not filmmakers, just movie fans who one way or another managed to become pros. Doesn't necessarily make them special or infallible.

Clark released an outburst of emotion after killing Zod. The movie jumps forward in time to him working at the Planet with a lighter tone.

And? How does that address what we've been talking about the last 2 pages?

Had they ended the film right after he killed Zod, people would have complained even more about the movie being a downer and "too dark". Snyder and co. can't really win for losing.

There are degrees of light-heartedness. It's the writer's job to strike a balance. Goyer, imo, didn't. He didn't end it like a comedy, but he ignored what came before, tonally.

Also, saying that because The Avengers was light it deserves a pass for glossing over it's destruction while MOS must be held accountable for not dealing with it immediately in a way that is considered satisfactory is flawed as all hell.

No, it's all about faithfulness to the premise, promise and tone of the film. TA was a film that promised you jokes, action and stupidity. The ending wasn't dishonest with regard to that promise. MoS' was.

 

[Gianakin_]

For what it's worth I don't think Man of Steel has a lot of sequel bait either. To me it's just poor writing where so many things are left unresolved. I was being relatively lenient to the film and foregoing the offensive regarding the 'THEY'LL DEAL WITH (placeholder) IN THE SEQUEL' mentality that many fans of the film have.

Yup, agreed.

 

[D.P.]

It's not arrogance, except for those posters who have an attitude. Many of us just feel this way about the film and express it in a public forum. And, yes, filmmakers aren't Gods. They are people who were once not filmmakers, just movie fans who one way or another managed to become pros. Doesn't necessarily make them special or infallible.

I don't feel they are infallible. Do I feel some fans are overreacting and doing their best Chicken Little impression? Pretty much. Is the sky falling? No. They went a slightly different direction than a lot of you had hoped for, so you condemn the movie as flawed completely.

I just don't take issue with Goyer or Snyder like the majority here do. The opposite end of the spectrum has to exist in order for their to be a debate.

And? How does that address what we've been talkig about the last 2 pages?

A lot. It shows the pain and anguish he experienced from the battle of his life, the collateral lives lost, and the destruction. It was an emotional release.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't need a montage of all parties involved grieving while heavy machinery tries to remove rubble and rebuild Metropolis. I don't need to see that right away in order for the film to work for me. I have the imagination and patience to kind of see where they are going with this.

I won't consider it a failure by the MOS creative team unless it goes completely unaddressed in the sequel.

There are degrees of light-heartedness. It's the writer's job to strike a balance. Goyer, imo, didn't. He didn't end it like a comedy, but he ignored what came before, tonally.

I think "ignored" is extreme. As I said, he jumped forward in time to Clark working at the Planet. Obviously these were brighter times, people have mourned etc.

The entire movie wasn't this super haughty melodrama front to back. It definitely had it's moments, but it was still a popcorn movie by design. It was made to make money at the end of the day, and had action, comedy, and seriousness sprinkled throughout.

It's kind of weird to say that final scene was such a huge departure from the feel of the entire of movie when it really wasn't.

No, it's all about faithfulness to the premise, promise and tone of the film. TA was a film that promised you jokes, action and stupidity. The ending wasn't dishonest with regard to that promise. MoS' was.

Again, I disagree. If you're going to let Avengers off the hook for being this fun, family-friendly affair, then they shouldn't have leveled Manhattan to the ground if they weren't prepared to deal with the consequences no?

If it's acceptable in Avengers, why not MOS?

Next you would have me believe Tony's watered-down PTSD symptoms in IM3 sufficiently dealt with the aftermath of The Avengers final battle...

 

[Gianakin_]

I don't feel they are infallible. Do I feel some fans are overreacting and doing their best Chicken Little impression? Pretty much. Is the sky falling? No. They went a slightly different direction than a lot of you had hoped for, so you condemn the movie as flawed completely.

See, now you're being unfair to those of us who didn't like the movie's script. This isn't a "slightly different" direction we're complaining about, these are legit disagreements we have about the script. And it's in our right to find it flawed. I don't see where our fallacy is.

A lot. It shows the pain and anguish he experienced from the battle of his life, the collateral lives lost, and the destruction. It was an emotional release.

It was him regretting killing Zod. And you know why I think so? Because if this was a more general remotional release, it would've been done instead of the Lois kiss and the stupid one-liners following that.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't need a montage of all parties involved grieving while heavy machinery tries to remove rubble and rebuild Metropolis. I don't need to see that right away in order for the film to work for me. I have the imagination and patience to kind of see where they are going with this.

Again, you're accusing me (or us) of being unimaginative and impatient, the latter accusation not even making sense. We're asking for a film that addresses and wraps up its own themes, nothing more.

I think "ignored" is extreme. As I said, he jumped forward in time to Clark working at the Planet. Obviously these were brighter times, people have mourned etc.

In my opinion, the movie shouldn't have skipped the "people have mourned" period. Again, that's not me asking for a copy of TA's aftermath montage.

The entire movie wasn't this super haughty melodrama front to back. It definitely had it's moments, but it was still a popcorn movie by design. It was made to make money at the end of the day, and had action, comedy, and seriousness sprinkled throughout.

Yes, they were just sprinkled unevenly. Even the similarly-accused TDKT managed to strike far better balances.

It's kind of weird to say that final scene was such a huge departure from the feel of the entire of movie when it really wasn't.

Well, to a lot of us it really was, so...

Again, I disagree. If you're going to let Avengers off the hook for being this fun, family-friendly affair, then they shouldn't have leveled Manhattan to the ground if they weren't prepared to deal with the consequences no?

If it's acceptable in Avengers, why not MOS?

I don't know how else to put it: I had high expectation for MoS, because it promised something more serious and deep. TA never hid it was brainless. It's all about expectations. Even with adjusted expectations, MoS doesnt' work because it's dishonest to itself.

Next you would have me believe Tony's watered-down PTSD symptoms in IM3 sufficiently dealt with the aftermath of The Avengers final battle...

Seeing as I'm openly stating I find the MCU films mildly entertaining but completely idiotic, no, I will not say that, believe me.

 

[D.P.]

See, now you're being unfair to those of us who didn't like the movie's script. This isn't a "slightly different" direction we're complaining about, these are legit disagreements we have about the script. And it's in our right to find it flawed. I don't see where our fallacy is.

Just like it's in my right to find nothing to really get up in arms about. We are just arguing taste, preference and opinions at this point. Just like every other comic book debate in internet history.

It was him regretting killing Zod. And you know why I think so? Because if this was a more general remotional release, it would've been done instead of the Lois kiss and the stupid one-liners following that.

You just stated that as a fact, then said "I think". Also, one doesn't negate the other.

Again, you're accusing me (or us) of being unimaginative and impatient, the latter accusation not even making sense. We're asking for a film that addresses and wraps up its own themes, nothing more.

Not at all. I'm just speaking for myself.

I guess it's fair to expect that, but it's not easy task to write a film that perfectly and concisely wraps up every little thing in a nice bow for you. Some things are left for sequels, and that's not really unheard of cinema.

In my opinion, the movie shouldn't have skipped the "people have mourned" period. Again, that's not me asking for a copy of TA's aftermath montage.

Ok.

Yes, they were just sprinkled unevenly. Even the similarly-accused TDKT managed to strike far better balances.

To you.

Is there a scale by which we measure these things? A scorecard?

Well, to a lot of us it really was, so...

Well, fortunately, majority doesn't = right.

I don't know how else to put it: I had high expectation for MoS, because it promised something more serious and deep. TA never hid it was brainless. It's all about expectations. Even with adjusted expectations, MoS doesnt' work because it's dishonest to itself.

Well, I mean...sorry you were disappointed by the film. I don't really know what to tell you. I enjoyed it all around.

No point in maintaining the back and forth anymore. This won't be a fun couple of years for those of you who feel this way, and probably even worse following the release of the film. I hope you guys learn a little optimism in the meantime.

 

[Gianakin_]

Just like it's in my right to find nothing to really get up in arms about. We are just arguing taste, preference and opinions at this point. Just like every other comic book debate in internet history.

But who's getting up in arms? We're talking the writing in a thread about the movie's writer. I don't get it.

You just stated that as a fact, then said "I think". Also, one doesn't negate the other.

Yes, was there something wrong with the way I phrased it? I don't think that was bad or confusing English. And one may not negate the other, but that's the impression I was given: He didn't mourn for the people, he mourned for Zod.

I guess it's fair to expect that, but it's not easy task to write a film that perfectly and concisely wraps up every little thing in a nice bow for you. Some things are left for sequels, and that's not really unheard of cinema.

Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

To you.

Of course to me. What the hell?

Is there a scale by which we measure these things? A scorecard?

The scale is how I feel after watching the movie, how much of each emotion I felt.

Well, fortunately, majority doesn't = right.

I'm one of the posters who will never cite the majority as any kind of argument. In this case, "us" was referring to me and a couple other posters who feel Goyer's script wasn't good.

The reason I mentioned "us" was because I found your "really wasn't" comment a bit... definitive.

No point in maintaining the back and forth anymore. This won't be a fun couple of years for those of you who feel this way, and probably even worse following the release of the film. I hope you guys learn a little optimism in the meantime.

Actually, as soon as Ben was announced, I look forward to the film. Optimism has to be earned by the people asking for my money. By casting Ben, they earned some from me.

 

[D.P.]

But who's getting up in arms?

Uh, lots of people? Some treat him as a cancer upon comic book movies.

I didn't say you did I?

Yes, was there something wrong with the way I phrased it? I don't think that was bad or confusing English. And one may not negate the other, but that's the impression I was given: He didn't mourn for the people, he mourned for Zod.

Yea, there is something wrong with it actually. You're stating your opinions as definite facts.

For example, you're saying that Clark only mourned for Zod as a fact.

Doesn't mean it's a good thing.


Of course to me. What the hell?

I don't see what's confusing. Again, your opinion isn't fact. Hence "to you".

The scale is how I feel after watching the movie, how much of each emotion I felt.

...which varies from person to person.

There are movies that did nothing for me emotionally, but have made others cry. I don't doubt their validity though.

I'm one of the posters who will never cite the majority as any kind of argument. In this case, "us" was referring to me and a couple other posters who feel Goyer's script wasn't good.

The reason I mentioned "us" was because I found your "really wasn't" comment a bit... definitive.

Fair enough.

Actually, as soon as Ben was announced, I look forward to the film. Optimism has to be earned by the people asking for my money. By casting Ben, they earned some from me.

You say you look forward to the film, but it sounds like Goyer has you worried.

 

[Gianakin_]

Uh, lots of people? Some treat him as a cancer upon comic book movies.

I didn't say you did I?

But you were arguing with me, it felt as if you were including me in that group.

Yea, there is something wrong with it actually. You're stating your opinions as definite facts.

For example, you're saying that Clark only mourned for Zod as a fact.

Which is then followed (like you said) by my justification of why I think so. If that wasn't clear then I'm sorry and I'll keep it in mind for the future.

I don't see what's confusing. Again, your opinion isn't fact. Hence "to you".

I never said my opinion was fact. If you think I did, then I can point out a couple of instances where you're guilty of doing the same. Whenever my subconscious reminds me, I put a "imo" here and there, but I don't believe my general attitude shows I'm a "my opinion is fact" guy.

...which varies from person to person.

There are movies that did nothing for me emotionally, but have made others cry. I don't doubt their validity though.

Yes. And this movie failed to make me connect emotionally AND was executed poorly AND makes no sense, thematically, to me. So I doubt its validity.

You say you look forward to the film, but it sounds like Goyer has you worried.

Of course. Not mutually exclusive. I'm an optimistic guy when it comes to these things. Plus, see my sig to get why I think Ben's casting makes me hopeful.

 

[DA_Champion]

The "filmmakers don't care about what you think" thing is so 1999.

Are you referring to a specific movie that came out in 1999?

Avengers showed a mourning montage where they showed many many people mourning and candle vigils for those that had died in battle. Even something as minor as that added humanity to it. And far far far less people died in the battle of Avengers.

MOS simply did not acknowledge the death of millions.

MoS did acknowledge that the government doesn't know what to do about Superman, via the Predator drone scene. There was a bit of consequence.

I will leave Snyder off the hook for the story problems. When Nolan approached Snyder, he went to Snyder with a locked script! Sure Snyder made some changes, but the blue print, the structure and story were set in stone.

It is the blue print, the structure and the story that are the most problematic things about MOS. So I blame Nolan and Goyer.

Snyder actually has created some very good sequences. So credit to his direction to slightly salvage the material.

Yes and No, the story may have been locked overall, but Snyder did have some leeway.

- We know that they cut one scene, and it was some sort of flashback scene, a character scene.
- We know that Snyder lobbied to make one change. He added an action sequence, the death of Zod scene.

Thus, he took the script that Goyer/Nolan gave him, and he accentuated the excess of action and the deficit of character-development in the overall story. Aside from that imbalance, he did not realise that Superman killing Zod would have required additional changes than simply having Henry Cavill scream.

I actually loved MoS' overall story, it had the potential of being the best CBM.

I think that's true of many films once you oversimplify to that extent. I'd say it's also true of Captain America, Iron Man 3, etc.

To hinge the story on some god damned codex, whatever the **** it was, was just preposterous. The entire sequence of Lois snooping about Zod's ship felt like it was supposed to be on Nickelodeon. And that dialog about download the codex and what not felt so silly.

LOL, you really hate the codex.

I'd say it directly contradicts Goyer's philosophy regarding the Batman films where he poured his all into one film at a time and didn't leave stuff around for the sequel outside of the odd easter egg. Sure, there was stuff like the ending of the Dark Knight which directly lead into a sequel but Batman Begins was absolutely treated as a standalone picture, just in case they didn't proceed with a sequel. That attitude would've been very much appreciated with Man of Steel, where the Prometheus approach was taken instead. Not really my cup of tea on that front. A complete story is much more appreciated, Empire Strikes Back excluded. That film gets a free pass.

A proper film does not need to set up a sequel. If you make a good film, your world is going to be rich, and a sequel can write itself.

I also don't understand why people are bringing up Empire Strikes Back, I think a lot of issues were resolved at the end of the film, I never thought of the ending as unsatisfactory. At the end of the movie Luke is a better trained Jedi Knight, the Rebels have a new base, Leia has made it out of Bespin... I think they end the movie in a state of temporary equilibrium.

Just for argument's sake, I'd say Batman Begins left the matter of Batman's growth in the "kill-don't kill" department for it to be addressed and/or resolved in TDK (and, arguably, TDKR). Plus, the Joekr card can be considered a teaser as well as a simple Easter Egg.

On the other hand, I don't think MoS' finale is of the Prometheus kind, it's not that sequel bait-y at all, imo.

ESB and TDK's finales are exactly the same: They wrap up themes and storylines and characters and leave the story open for continuation. Ok, TDK was a bit more stand-alonish, mainly because if we hadn't gotten a TDKR you could see Batman go on fighting crime while being considered a "Public Enemy no1", whereas in ESB the Empire wins, Vader is alive and there's the Emperor and the huge father revelation (not to mention Han).

Just for the record, the ending to Prometheus is very poor sequel-bait. Damon Lindelof, one of the two writers of Prometheus, has his background in the show Lost. The point of the show Lost is that it is full of plot holes and continuity errors.

Lindelof had no sequel in mind when he re-wrote Prometheus and made it inferior. He just figured he would make it logical for the sake of making it less logical. If he had a continuation in mind, there would already be a script for a sequel, but there isn't. They are having an incredibly hard time scripting Prometheus 2.

Watch this fan documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSaKxB-8YlE

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't need a montage of all parties involved grieving while heavy machinery tries to remove rubble and rebuild Metropolis. I don't need to see that right away in order for the film to work for me. I have the imagination and patience to kind of see where they are going with this.

A huge swath of the audience does however, and it's sufficient to lead to a lukewarm public and critical reaction to the film.

I won't consider it a failure by the MOS creative team unless it goes completely unaddressed in the sequel.

Which is going to be hard to do now that they have to introduce Batman and his entire entourage, the Batman-Superman relationship, as well as possibly Luthor, and potentially some other villains for them to fight.

I don't think this was their original plan. I think their original vision for world building would have brought in super girl, which I discern from her being the primary focus of the prequel comic, and the fact that the abandoned pod is what Deborah Snyder had mentioned in an interview as the most important easter egg.

As such, I think leave it to the sequel is likely failed, since they might not have complete creative control over where the franchise can go.

Next you would have me believe Tony's watered-down PTSD symptoms in IM3 sufficiently dealt with the aftermath of The Avengers final battle...

Isn't Iron Man 3 broadly panned?

I didn't even bother to see it, as I found Iron Man 2 idiotic.