BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[DA_Champion]

Herolee,

Most of my suggestions were fan-******* that would require a complete re-write of the script, and this was stated. My only serious suggestion that would require a "minor" rewrite was to remove the stupid squid (send it back to Watchmen), and instead show the military helping with civilian evacuation and rescue in Metropolis.

With respect to the characters, I would have been fine with an origin movie that focuses on Clark's relationship with Jonathan, Martha, Pete, Lana, etc rather than skip over them as fast as possible. It doesn't take away from the future relationship if Clark is a better developed character, it adds to it. If it was destined to be the case that the movie would fail and the franchise would only last one movie, then none of it matters anyway. I realise it may be the case that such a movie is financially impossible, independent of the fact I'd prefer to see it.

 

[Marvin]

I don't think I understand what you're getting at. With that scene he becomes a downright villain.
In practice that's all he does. He thinks about doing something but then allows his father to sacrifice his life to keep up the charade. My issue is that I can't identify at all with doing that if I could have helped. I of course couldn't have helped in that situation but Clark could.

I read it as him being an obedient and (finally)trusting son. Hardly villainous. That seems like an epithet better served for the likes Loki's father day intents.

Jon's is in the "charade" and makes the decision of his own. If jon had no idea of clarks abilities or secret, than I'd be inclined to agree. Just seems you are putting the ownance on the wrong person.

On the scene:
-The arguing part I like. So far it's going good.
-Forgetting the dog in the car is a horrible move. Every pet owner I know sees the pet as a family member. And it's not locked in for safety, they just forget it.

People make horrible moves every day? Are you judging the writing or the humans? And yes, at first the dog was locked in for safety. Easy for people to lose sight of some things when surprised with a natural disaster though.

-I think the protect your mother is iffy, since the bridge is really close and Clark can get the dog faster and safer. That's being protective to the point of stupidity, although people can be stupid with things so it's fine.

It's being protective. Clearly consistent with the writing and characterization of Jon Kent.

-The leg part ties into the weird physics. The wind is strong enough to lift cars and rip down trees juts be hind Jonathan. Even worse, it actually lifts the car that's on top of his car while he's in it, but somehow he can just stand there calmly and look at his family when he gets out (plenty of such inconsistencies in the movie though). Extremely exaggerated drama for the sake of drama.

Kinda impossible to discern how the varying winds play out in maelstroms. For example trees are wide and do nothing but parachute wind, also the lower you are to the ground...also if you are behind something.. etc. I personally put dramatic effect over absolute physics is most fiction I receive. If I didn't I'd probably have to reassess the physics in most of this genre(starting with the web slinging and ending with the original motion picture with everything in between).

-In that part when the car comes flying and lands on their car, Martha is the one wanting to go and help while Clark says "it's OK". His mother isn't an animal, you can tell her to stay put and that you'll fix it (in fact you can do that with a well trained dog).

Don't get what you mean here?

He probably had time at that point to do it at somewhat normal speed (I don't know if he has superspeed, but as strong as he he he should be able to run fast). But no, Jonathan goes back for the dog but Clark doesn't go back for his father when there's an accident.

Nope, no time. Not for "normal speed" anyways The staging makes this much clear(to me anyways).

-Cavil's acting in the end is very good, but it doesn't sink in because most things leading up to it is either illogical, dumb or unsympathetic.

I can see how you might think that now.

The argument before the disaster doesn't really play into it that much since it comes across as Clark saying more hurtful things than he really means. It's not a huge argument and it's obvious that it would be discarded completely in the face of life-threatening danger. If you want to polarize that to actions I'd say that letting his father sacrifice himself is less of a polar opposite than Clark risking everything to save the man that he really considers his dad. Jonathan already said that he's doing everything he can for Clark.

The argument at the start is literally about clark not trusting this man to know what's best for him. By the end of the scene that trust is put into effect and sealed with conviction from both parties.

 

[Tempest]

Oy, I can't keep up. Shame on me for having a life outside of work. Here are a few posts from the past two pages I scooped up to poke at.

Haha, oh how I wish.

If I were in charge of the story, let alone of the final cut of the film, I'd go about making these changes.

1. Instead of Clark just wandering aimlessly around in the middle of nowhere, incorporate the segment from the "Birthright" mini-series where Clark travels to Africa and finds himself in the middle of a bloody civil war going on there.

I love you. But, hell no. There was a lot of race!fail in that comic. That was infuriating. Just. No.

2. I would have placed the World Engine in Metropolis, with Black Zero hovering over the Indian Ocean instead. Superman races off and saves some people from the ensuing chaos caused by the World Engine in Metropolis and ultimately stops the machine like he did in the film. The difference here is that when Superman is laying unconscious on the ground, the people of Metropolis gather to him and help him get back on his footing; something similar to the scene from Spider-Man 2 involving the train, thus showing that people are warming up to Superman.

Ehhhhh. No. Maybe more like the Earth One comic, where Lois and Jimmy save Superman from the gravitational beam.

3. We would have gotten a scene after the Church Scene where Clark dresses up in his superman suit, getting ready to leave and thinking that he may never come back to Earth, thus having a heartfelt goodbye to his mother before he leaves.

Oh yeah. I like that.

4. The running time of this film would have been 2 Hours and 45 Minutes, with the added time being devoted to the character building moments.

Might as well just make it three hours.

5. Have Amanda Waller be in it instead of General Swanick, and the female soldier could have been Carol Ferris instead, thus further establishing the larger DC Universe. She could have been a pilot used to take on the two kryptonians in the battle of Smallville, where Superman ends up saving her from being killed.

Meh. That is all.

This script has so many problems that it's hard to see how it could be fixed. But here is one small change I'd make.

I'm going to put you through your paces here.

Don't have the world builder split into two. That is simply a dumb plot device invented by Goyer to have two action sequences, because more action sequences was his number one priority. Just have it e one piece, one world builder, so that we get one action scene, which is sufficient. Remove the giant metal squid. Redistribute the screen time to Costner, Lane, Adams, Fishburne, and Lennix.

See, I don't think you understand the film at all. The world-builder didn't split in two. The world engine was a piece of equipment that the Black Zero crew picked up while they were exploring the abandoned outposts. That's also where they got the smaller ships that they used in the film.

It's all in the flashback scene, if you pay attention to the movie.

Other changes, which would have taken a substantial rewrite of the script:
- Have Clark meet Lois at the end of the movie, where she's meeting him as a reporter, she's dressed in a white mini skirt and a purple blazer, and he's giving her an interview to introduce himself to the world. She comes up with the name Superman. Prior to this, have a scene where Clark goes through some of the possible reporters he could give the article, and have him pick Lois based on whatever reason. Lois Lane could then have her own origin movie released three months later.

So you want her to look like her character in the animated series? Are you for serious, or are you just trolling now?

I know you want them to have the boring Lois/Clark relationship, where Clark hides who he is from her, and tries to keep her from finding out when she gets close, but come on.

If they had saved Lois to the end, people would have complained that there wasn't enough Lois and Clark.

- The last scene of the movie should be Martha Kent framing the newspaper clipping from Lois' article on Superman into a scrapbook, and she's in tears of pride. We've also previously seen her putting things into the scrapbook throughout the movie, so the scene has meaning.

Why? What could she be putting into the scrapbook throughout the film?

- No codex, no Kryptonians that kill 100,000 people as the first villains. Have it be a more moderate threat.

What kind of threat? What motivation would the villains have?

- Clark spends a lot of time travelling the world in his twenties. Show him make some friends, show him asking questions. Show him learning journalism. Perhaps he decides to start a blog when he travels the world because he feels that the world he sees is not the world he was taught about.

And how would you tie that into the rest of a movie?

- Jonathan Kent doesn't have to die. It's not a story requirement.

Sure it is. He usually dies. I think he's died no less than at least 5 times so far. This is not new.

- More scenes of Clark developing his powers in childhood, and of loving Clark-Martha-Jonathan moments. Smallville had a good idea that the show mentioned in conversation and never showed, when Clark is a kid, he speeds away. His parents find him a few hours later and he's in tears because he does not know what happened. Martha comforts him.

I wouldn't mind another flashback scene. I did just order the junior novelization about this, so it'll be interesting to see what the writer came up with to tie into the film.

- Some set pieces of Superman stopping reducing the impact of some natural disasters

Why?

Tie it all together for me. Give us an example of a full-out story, start to finish, that would have been superior to what Goyer wrote. Because none of what you gave us is new, interesting, or brilliantly played up. They aren't dreadful ideas, but they don't make for an interesting movie, either.

 

[Mjölnir]

I agree. However I wasn't speaking on the complexity of the MoS movie, but rather the complexity of that particular issue and or element. Relatively speaking. "The greater good and the sacrifice in order to achieve it"

Then I guess we really agree, as I of course think there are complex themes used in movies like this.

Fair enough. Though I personally don't see any sort of box around the (sub)genre, not anymore anyways. I personally find plenty of mental stimulation in some of these new bat films for example. Again it's a relative thing. Compared to what batman was 15 years ago.

As said I do find these movies to have substance, which I meant is more than the average kind of action movie. I guess it often comes from having a rich history to draw from, but there's probably many factors to it. Of course when you see your favorite heroes you're probably also more likely to add things of your own to fill in blanks etc, which will enhance the enjoyment of the movie (unless it's done in a way that goes against everything you know, like how it's extremely hard to enjoy the Fantastic Four movies imo).

Since we already seemed to establish that the character was a definable "hero" at the age of about 12. I would just add that this just seems more like a personal desire to see the source material manifest in a more recognizable way than a flaw or writing.

If it comes across as that there's some miscommunication going on. Perhaps me using a second language causes me to be less clear than I'd like, I don't know. I can only say that I don't have any really strong ties to the source material, as I haven't really read Superman since I was a kid. My biggest hope for this movie was that it would make me a Superman fan again, so I feel that I was pretty open to a reimagination.

 

[DA_Champion]

Tempest,

There are no world builders in this world. The world builder is not rooted in "logic" (in fact it's not logical a all), it's a made-up plot device for the threat of terraforming, and the desire for battle scenes. The only reason it requires two components in the MoSverse, rather than 1, 6, or 6000, is that Goyer/Snyder/Nolan wanted there to be two simultaneous battle scenes at the end. It doesn't matter if it's "supported" by other elements in the plot, as those pieces of support could just be re-written.

That's my only minor change suggested to the story, replace the giant metal squid with character moments or world building moments, such as the military helping civilians in metropolis. Every other change would require a complete script re-write, which I'm not going to do.

And no, it's not a story requirement for Jonathan Kent to die a meaningless death.

 

[Mjölnir]

I read it as him being an obedient and (finally)trusting son. Hardly villainous. That seems like an epithet better served for the likes Loki's father day intents.

Jon's is in the "charade" and makes the decision of his own. If jon had no idea of clarks abilities or secret, than I'd be inclined to agree. Just seems you are putting the ownance on the wrong person.

My comment about being villainous referred to your altered version where Jonathan begged for help and Clark turned his back on him. That was the part I didn't know where you meant to go with it.

And of course it's a tough situation for the character, but my point isn't really there but with the goal of the writing. Not helping your father is something that I find hard to relate to and not very likable, so I would have preferred the writing to have Clark come off as noble rather than just obedient in such a life-altering moment. As said before I'd like to see him in a situation where he tries to save his father but fails for some reason (having to save both parents simultaneously, having him make an understandable mistake, or something different).

People make horrible moves every day? Are you judging the writing or the humans? And yes, at first the dog was locked in for safety. Easy for people to lose sight of some things when surprised with a natural disaster though.

I don't believe in any higher power or destiny so no, I don't judge the writing of our lives. In a movie you piece things together in special ways though, nothing in a movie is accidental.

Martha just goes out of the door and slams the door shut. A normal thing when you get out if the dog isn't supposed to go, but it paints her in a bad light when she doesn't take the dog right away since she's sat with it the entire trip. It's not a huge thing, I'm just listing it as I think the negatives pile up. Had I found the rest of the scene to be good I wouldn't have cared about something like this. Kind of how I don't care about realism in movies that clearly have no ambitions to be realistic I guess. Things feed off each other.

It's being protective. Clearly consistent with the writing and characterization of Jon Kent.

Yes, as I said people act stupid at times so I'm fine with the character doing that. It's just borderline iffy for me since Clark is so special.

Kinda impossible to discern how the varying winds play out in maelstroms. For example trees are wide and do nothing but parachute wind, also the lower you are to the ground...also if you are behind something.. etc. I personally put dramatic effect over absolute physics is most fiction I receive. If I didn't I'd probably have to reassess the physics in most of this genre(starting with the web slinging and ending with the original motion picture with everything in between).

I can tolerate some breaches of physics (especially when superheroic stuff is going on, of course) but this is a case where Jonathan is trapped in a car because another car flew and landed on top of his. The maelstorm wind then reaches his area to the point that it actually lifts the top car again and carries it away, which means that the wind is pretty much full force over where Jon is. That's far too much of a breach of physics to have him get out and the wind does little more than to rustle his clothes a bit.

Don't get what you mean here?

I mean that the script gives Martha the instinct to help her family member when she sees an accident, while the one that actually could do something doesn't get to show that at all.

Clark had protected his mom by getting her to the safest place. He could just have told her to stay there and that he would fix it, and then ran off to help his dad. That's what I both expect from a hero in general, and from the kid that couldn't help saving other kids despite his father's words. I think "what is he doing?" rather than feeling sad for the noble guy that tried his best but found out that there's a limit to what everyone can do.

Nope, no time. Not for "normal speed" anyways The staging makes this much clear(to me anyways).

It takes like 45 seconds from that the car crashes down on top of Jonathan's car to him being sucked up in the wind. The car isn't that far so Clark could easily run there in 10 seconds without it being even near superheroic. Then just yank his father free with is strength as no one can see into the car, carry his dad and run back. If he has to run fast with his dad (he would have to), just refer to the same adrenaline that causes mothers to lift cars to save children.

Even if it's borderline I don't think you can let it be borderline in this scene. It makes Clark make a clear decision not to help his father when he could (and before he was told not to). I don't think the script does the character any service without having him try and fail. He shouldn't be what was wrong, the circumstances should.

The argument at the start is literally about clark not trusting this man to know what's best for him. By the end of the scene that trust is put into effect and sealed with conviction from both parties.

It's also him making it clear that Jonathan isn't his father so him risking things to save him would be just as much a turnaround on the initial argument. Either he trusted Jonathan to know what's best all along, or he loved him as a father all along (the latter thing is actually in there as he shouts "dad" during the scene, but it lacks weight as he remains passive). The idea to go from the argument to a death that references it is good, but I think all the choices in between removed what could have been gotten.

 

[Tempest]

Tempest,

There are no world builders in this world. The world builder is not rooted in "logic" (in fact it's not logical a all), it's a made-up plot device for the threat of terraforming, and the desire for battle scenes. The only reason it requires two components in the MoSverse, rather than 1, 6, or 6000, is that Goyer/Snyder/Nolan wanted there to be two simultaneous battle scenes at the end. It doesn't matter if it's "supported" by other elements in the plot, as those pieces of support could just be re-written.

That's my only minor change suggested to the story, replace the giant metal squid with character moments or world building moments, such as the military helping civilians in metropolis. Every other change would require a complete script re-write, which I'm not going to do.

My dearest DA_Champion,

They are logical. Otherwise you would have to change the type of ship Zod and his crew were on. Remember that the Black Zero was a prison ship, nothing more. That is one of the main reasons they sought the old outposts -- to get supplies.

It would make no sense for the ship to have terra-forming abilities. I suppose the writers could have allowed Zod to retrofit the ship to do that, but why do that, when it would make sense for him to find a machine that can do it for him?

You gotta remember, despite the advances in technology, Zod and his people had limited resources. It makes more sense that they would scavenge pieces of equipment. Besides, having them change the ship too much would have been awfully similar to the Star Trek reboot from a couple of years ago.

The world engine may have been a choice made simply because their original idea was too similar to what happened in Star Trek.

And no, it's not a story requirement for Jonathan Kent to die a meaningless death.

I don't think Jonathan's deaths have ever been all the meaningful (except for MOS). Gut-wrenching for Clark, yes. Meaningful? Hardly.

 

[Marvin]

And of course it's a tough situation for the character, but my point isn't really there but with the goal of the writing. Not helping your father is something that I find hard to relate to and not very likable, so I would have preferred the writing to have Clark come off as noble rather than just obedient in such a life-altering moment. As said before I'd like to see him in a situation where he tries to save his father but fails for some reason (having to save both parents simultaneously, having him make an understandable mistake, or something different).

In the context of this situation, I would argue that the greater nobility isn't saving a loved one but doing what you think is right for the greater good, no matter the pain it brings onto your being. I wouldn't ask that of a child but I would a hero.

There is an issue of JLA where batman mentions that if he could go back and save the lives of his parents but at the cost of all the good he as has done as batman would he. He says something along the lines of he doesn't know. lol he might have actually said "maybe".
Point being, it's not as simply as saving daddy.

You are right however, a different situation may have be received better, but I'm not yet convinced that this approach isn't worthwhile. Especially with an 80 year old property.

I don't believe in any higher power or destiny so no, I don't judge the writing of our lives. In a movie you piece things together in special ways though, nothing in a movie is accidental.

What you are implying is that just cause a movie is written that characters can't make "accidents".
When you are writing about normal human characters..."accidents" or rather mistakes shouldn't be off the table, if anything films live off of them(half of our superhero orgins for example).

Martha just goes out of the door and slams the door shut. A normal thing when you get out if the dog isn't supposed to go

But the dog wasn't supposed to go initially. That would imply they knew what they were doing(and dealing with) when they left the car. Clearly they didn't. That came shortly after. And because they didn't know, keeping the dog safely in the car is arguably the safer move. Lest we have the dog running around when we don't have to.

Yes, as I said people act stupid at times so I'm fine with the character doing that. It's just borderline iffy for me since Clark is so special.

You may think jon taking the risks instead of sending his son in to be stupid but much to the son's chagrin, Jon would put his own life at risk to protect what his son is to become. Call that stupid, but to me it's a sign of conviction and consistent character writing. If jon get's swept up in the storm and dies that sucks. If clark get's swept up in the storm and walks out like the terminator, that's a disaster in jon's mind. One he'd rather die that let happen. I don't know that much about fatherhood but that seems pretty understandable.

You have a special son, you act accordingly. No accounting for how anyone would act. To simply say it's not you is wrong. I wouldn't do anything peter parker does, doesn't make any sense.

I can tolerate some breaches of physics (especially when superheroic stuff is going on, of course) but this is a case where Jonathan is trapped in a car because another car flew and landed on top of his. The maelstorm wind then reaches his area to the point that it actually lifts the top car again and carries it away, which means that the wind is pretty much full force over where Jon is. That's far too much of a breach of physics to have him get out and the wind does little more than to rustle his clothes a bit.

I haven't seen it in a while but I was under the impression that a second car knocked the first one off, or at least provided the momentum window for the wind to do the rest. Again given the elevation difference it's a safe bet wind is more intense the higher you are, especially when you have that many cars shielding the wind on the ground.

I would add that gale winds come in gusts. Wind isn't sun light, there are pockets and paths of highs and lows. Safe to say that given the door to the van wasn't being slammed shut behind jon that he was in a spot that was between gusts. Still this all seems rather pointless given this is the same (source)material that had a black hole open over metropolis.

I mean that the script gives Martha the instinct to help her family member when she sees an accident, while the one that actually could do something doesn't get to show that at all.

The first time Martha feels the urge to intervene, Clark assures her that Jon's "ok". Seemingly cause he was.

The second time Martha feels the urge to intervene, Clark is all for it and begins to do what you seem to to think is beyond him. It's only that the one person with any real choice in the matter offers up their life and clark trusts that his decision is the right one. Let to his own devices clark already made his decision, this was jons. Clark owed him that much.

Clark had protected his mom by getting her to the safest place. He could just have told her to stay there and that he would fix it, and then ran off to help his dad. That's what I both expect from a hero in general, and from the kid that couldn't help saving other kids despite his father's words. I think "what is he doing?" rather than feeling sad for the noble guy that tried his best but found out that there's a limit to what everyone can do.

Due to character development, clark isn't the exact same (reckless)kid at 19 as he was at 12.
Moreover he didn't have his dad there on the bus insisting he not do it. Also prior to the bus clark thought he was just odd, never knew he was walking first contact. Maybe he'll take jons warning to heart in the future given that intel.

Imagine if you will that the victim in this tornado wasn't Jon kent but lana lang and she didn't tell clark not to save her.
Things might go differently. Ergo, perhaps the rational you should be questioning is that of jon.

It takes like 45 seconds from that the car crashes down on top of Jonathan's car to him being sucked up in the wind. The car isn't that far so Clark could easily run there in 10 seconds without it being even near superheroic. Then just yank his father free with is strength as no one can see into the car, carry his dad and run back. If he has to run fast with his dad (he would have to), just refer to the same adrenaline that causes mothers to lift cars to save children.

Even if it's borderline I don't think you can let it be borderline in this scene. It makes Clark make a clear decision not to help his father when he could (and before he was told not to). I don't think the script does the character any service without having him try and fail. He shouldn't be what was wrong, the circumstances should.

According to the script, Jon was fine at the point you are insisting clark run in(his foot was stuck but he appeared to still be in control of the situation). Moreover, Clark was already told "not to," jon explicitly told him to say with the mother. It's only when jon couldn't stand that he was lost.

The audience such as we are, with full intel into the circumstances and the final result can sit here and make better decisions. What you are in fact doing is telling us the best course of action to diffuse a situation you know full well isn't going to end well. However, what the script gives us is a family doing their best and coming up with a plan that very well could have gone smoothly but for last minute unforseen variables. If you wanna see "bad logic" come into play, have jon kent do a couple of kartwheels before he get's to the dog.

And to be honest, it's fickle tying film timespace to your own. Unless there is a timer on the screen you really have no way to tie down how long anything takes in reality. For example, every time the film cuts between characters, how do know if that's additional time or the same time...etc.

It's also him making it clear that Jonathan isn't his father so him risking things to save him would be just as much a turnaround on the initial argument. Either he trusted Jonathan to know what's best all along, or he loved him as a father all along (the latter thing is actually in there as he shouts "dad" during the scene, but it lacks weight as he remains passive). The idea to go from the argument to a death that references it is good, but I think all the choices in between removed what could have been gotten.

You initially said "Clark saying more hurtful things than he really means. It's not a huge argument and it's obvious that it would be discarded completely in the face of life-threatening danger." So I'm not sure what you mean now when you infer that anything clark said during the argument was then status quo.
Not sure what you mean.

 

[Tempest]

You may think jon taking the risks instead of sending his son in to be stupid but much to the son's chagrin, Jon would put his own life at risk to protect what his son is to become. Call that stupid, but to me it's a sign of conviction and consistent character writing. If jon get's swept up in the storm and dies that sucks. If clark get's swept up in the storm and walks out like the terminator, that's a disaster in jon's mind. One he'd rather die that let happen. I don't know that much about fatherhood but that seems pretty understandable.

Yes to this. Jonathan couldn't take the chance that Clark's secret would get out. While it's possible that no one would believe "a bunch of hicks" (as if the only people on that road were hicks -eyeroll- ), someone could have believed them. The idea of the world knowing who Clark was, and the potential for hurt on his son's part, and the belief that Jonathan held that Clark needed to be ready before he revealed himself, must have all run through his mind.

You have a special son, you act accordingly. No accounting for how anyone would act. To simply say it's not you is wrong. I wouldn't do anything peter parker does, doesn't make any sense.

Jonathan even admits just moments before his death that he and Martha may have been doing things wrong. All they've done is the best they can. I can't look at how well Clark turned out and fault them for trying their best to love and protect a child the rest of the world might fear or abuse.

I haven't seen it in a while but I was under the impression that a second car knocked the first one off, or at least provided the momentum window for the wind to do the rest. Again given the elevation difference it's a safe bet wind is more intense the higher you are, especially when you have that many cars shielding the wind on the ground.

Who cares? It's a fictional movie. Of course they're going to exaggerate and bend the law of physics to suit them. Look at all the movies where cars blow up when they collide, for pete's sake. We are very fortunate that that doesn't actually happen in RL, or a lot more of us would be toast.

I still get weepy over this scene. It's one of my favorite moments from the film.

 

[Mjölnir]

In the context of this situation, I would argue that the greater nobility isn't saving a loved one but doing what you think is right for the greater good, no matter the pain it brings onto your being. I wouldn't ask that of a child but I would a hero.

There is an issue of JLA where batman mentions that if he could go back and save the lives of his parents but at the cost of all the good he as has done as batman would he. He says something along the lines of he doesn't know. lol he might have actually said "maybe".
Point being, it's not as simply as saving daddy.

You are right however, a different situation may have be received better, but I'm not yet convinced that this approach isn't worthwhile. Especially with an 80 year old property.

I don't think there's really a greater good in that sense. I never get the impression that the problem with the world not being ready is that the world will suffer but that they can't know if the world will react negatively to Clark so he'll suffer. I don't see anything negative in the greater sense coming out of Clark unless he starts behaving like a villain, which is never an issue.

What you are implying is that just cause a movie is written that characters can't make "accidents".
When you are writing about normal human characters..."accidents" or rather mistakes shouldn't be off the table, if anything films live off of them(half of our superhero orgins for example).

When you're writing a story you don't throw in random events that don't mean anything. Whatever accidents happen they are there because the writer deliberately put it there for a reason.

But the dog wasn't supposed to go initially. That would imply they knew what they were doing(and dealing with) when they left the car. Clearly they didn't. That came shortly after. And because they didn't know, keeping the dog safely in the car is arguably the safer move. Lest we have the dog running around when we don't have to.

Shutting the door is normal in that situation as that's what you always would do when you get out of the car and the dog isn't supposed to go with you. Seeing danger and forgetting about the dog that's right next to you (and now trapped since you shut it in) is a horrible move by a dog owner though, and not very in line with the loving and considerate small family they are.

You may think jon taking the risks instead of sending his son in to be stupid but much to the son's chagrin, Jon would put his own life at risk to protect what his son is to become. Call that stupid, but to me it's a sign of conviction and consistent character writing. If jon get's swept up in the storm and dies that sucks. If clark get's swept up in the storm and walks out like the terminator, that's a disaster in jon's mind. One he'd rather die that let happen. I don't know that much about fatherhood but that seems pretty understandable.

You have a special son, you act accordingly. No accounting for how anyone would act. To simply say it's not you is wrong. I wouldn't do anything peter parker does, doesn't make any sense.

I don't think the scene gives off that vibe, I just see Jonathan being the protective father that he always is and takes the risk of getting the dog himself.

The other explanation just sounds like trying too hard to me. The storm wasn't that close (over a minute to play with) and the overpass was right there.

But to comment on the point, people do survive in extremely severe accidents at times in our world. That doesn't make me believe for a second that those people had superpowers or even that a higher power was at work. People could commonly believe the latter though but what sane person would think the former? I don't buy that as soon as something odd happens people will think "it's a superpowered alien!!!". The movie showed that the likely scenario is that people will call it divine intervention even when Clark did something that de facto requires superpowers. This takes place in a very religious country.

I haven't seen it in a while but I was under the impression that a second car knocked the first one off, or at least provided the momentum window for the wind to do the rest. Again given the elevation difference it's a safe bet wind is more intense the higher you are, especially when you have that many cars shielding the wind on the ground.

I would add that gale winds come in gusts. Wind isn't sun light, there are pockets and paths of highs and lows. Safe to say that given the door to the van wasn't being slammed shut behind jon that he was in a spot that was between gusts. Still this all seems rather pointless given this is the same (source)material that had a black hole open over metropolis.

It's something like that but the wind does move the car off, and it takes an extreme amount of wind to move something as heavy as a car even blowing against the widest surface of it. Jonathan's head is at the same level as the car was and his hair is just tussling around a bit. Wind pockets in a tornado don't work like that so a car is flying past and suddenly there's just a strong breeze. Even half the wind required to move a car would throw Jonathan off his feet. There's just no way that's even remotely close to how such a situation would be.

For me it's easier to buy that you break physics when you do superheroic stuff. In fact the mundane should behave normally so the superheroic stuff stands out even more, in my opinion. For example, I don't have any problems with Superman flying through some impossible means. That's the character. Just don't put it in the script that Jor-El talks about Earth having lower gravitation since that obviously has nothing to do with it and gravity is something everyone knows how it works (you get more wiggle room with advanced physics that few viewers understand). Leave it at the Sun causes magic to happen in you, you can now fly, period.

The first time Martha feels the urge to intervene, Clark assures her that Jon's "ok". Seemingly cause he was.

The second time Martha feels the urge to intervene, Clark is all for it and begins to do what you seem to to think is beyond him. It's only that the one person with any real choice in the matter offers up their life and clark trusts that his decision is the right one. Let to his own devices clark already made his decision, this was jons. Clark owed him that much.

First of all, no he wasn't. A frigging car crashed on top of his car and caused him to both get stuck and injure his leg. Pretty far from being OK.

Secondly, even if he was OK Clark didn't know that. He clearly didn't use his x-ray vision since then he would have known that Jon wasn't OK (just like his super hearing didn't hear Lois in the silent space ship until she got in a fight). Martha saw an accident happen (in an already life threatening environment) and wanted to help, Clark brushed off for some inexplicable reason.

I think we've already gone over the second part enough. I don't know what I can say other than the same things phrased differently. We just disagree there.

Due to character development, clark isn't the exact same (reckless)kid at 19 as he was at 12.
Moreover he didn't have his dad there on the bus insisting he not do it. Also prior to the bus clark thought he was just odd, never knew he was walking first contact. Maybe he'll take jons warning to heart in the future given that intel.

Imagine if you will that the victim in this tornado wasn't Jon kent but lana lang and she didn't tell clark not to save her.
Things might go differently. Ergo, perhaps the rational you should be questioning is that of jon.

Jon didn't insist that he didn't help him at that point, he was busy being stuck inside a car and being out of sight. He had only told Clark to protect his mother, which Clark had already done because all he could do was to make sure she got to the safest place. He could easily have tried to help his father, but somehow he apparently doesn't even get the idea into his head until the storm itself helped Jon get out of the car. Then he's thinking about going to save him (when there's less time to do it) but Jon signs to not do it.

According to the script, Jon was fine at the point you are insisting clark run in(his foot was stuck but he appeared to still be in control of the situation). Moreover, Clark was already told "not to," jon explicitly told him to say with the mother. It's only when jon couldn't stand that he was lost.

The audience such as we are, with full intel into the circumstances and the final result can sit here and make better decisions. What you are in fact doing is telling us the best course of action to diffuse a situation you know full well isn't going to end well. However, what the script gives us is a family doing their best and coming up with a plan that very well could have gone smoothly but for last minute unforseen variables. If you wanna see "bad logic" come into play, have jon kent do a couple of kartwheels before he get's to the dog.

No offense but how in the hell are you fine if you're stuck in a car with a tornado that's throwing and smashing cars is about to reach you? The only reason Jon got out was due to pure luck that a third car hit the second, otherwise he'd be stuck in there when the storm hit and he'd be just as dead. If that's being fine I don't ever want to be fine. And again, how did he appear to be in control of the situation to Clark? He couldn't see into the car (well he could, but...), the dog came out running and Jon didn't come out after him.

And he doesn't tell Clark not to help him. He just tells him to get his mother and the little kid to the overpass instead of getting the dog, nothing more. He did that and she's not a dog so he doesn't have to stand there and watch her, he can go help out when the accident happens.

And no, I'm not using audience intel. Let's put it this way. One of your parents is inside a car, trying to get something before a storm will hit in 40 seconds and kill them. A car smashes down on top of that car and you can't see inside. Do you:

A: Calmly assume everything is fine.
B: Get really worried and think about helping.

You initially said "Clark saying more hurtful things than he really means. It's not a huge argument and it's obvious that it would be discarded completely in the face of life-threatening danger." So I'm not sure what you mean now when you infer that anything clark said during the argument was then status quo.
Not sure what you mean.

I mean that Clark is sitting and saying that Jonathan isn't his father, which is a hurtful thing to say. It's obviously not what he really feels but he's a teenager and they sometimes say stupid or hurtful things. When the storm threat comes such disputes are thrown out of the window as it's then about survival. If you then have Clark try to help and call him "dad" you're back to the status quo of the relationship, showing that deep down he of course loves his foster parents and considers them parents.

 

[Marvin]

I don't think there's really a greater good in that sense. I never get the impression that the problem with the world not being ready is that the world will suffer but that they can't know if the world will react negatively to Clark so he'll suffer. I don't see anything negative in the greater sense coming out of Clark unless he starts behaving like a villain, which is never an issue.

I'll let the script make the point for me then:
Jonathan Kent: Clark, you have to keep this side of yourself a secret.
Clark Kent at 13: What was I supposed to do? Just let them die?
Jonathan Kent: Maybe; but there's more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world... When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything; our... our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human... everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark.
Clark Kent at 13: Why?
Jonathan Kent: People are afraid of what they don't understand.
Clark Kent at 13: Is she right? Did God do this to me? Tell me!

When it comes to character motivation(what we are discussing here), it's all right there on the page. "Greater good".

When you're writing a story you don't throw in random events that don't mean anything. Whatever accidents happen they are there because the writer deliberately put it there for a reason.
Shutting the door is normal in that situation as that's what you always would do when you get out of the car and the dog isn't supposed to go with you. Seeing danger and forgetting about the dog that's right next to you (and now trapped since you shut it in) is a horrible move by a dog owner though, and not very in line with the loving and considerate small family they are.

You are right, goyer's didn't write the kents as perfect and incapable of a single short sighted mistake in the confusion of a natural disaster, one they didn't fully understand the minute they stepped out of the car...
Shame, he was doing so well too. Hopefully that didn't do to much damage to your enjoyment though.

But to comment on the point, people do survive in extremely severe accidents at times in our world. That doesn't make me believe for a second that those people had superpowers or even that a higher power was at work. People could commonly believe the latter though but what sane person would think the former? I don't buy that as soon as something odd happens people will think "it's a superpowered alien!!!". The movie showed that the likely scenario is that people will call it divine intervention even when Clark did something that de facto requires superpowers. This takes place in a very religious country.

I'm inclined to agree with this. Infact I argued for it a few pages back. Humans tend to rationalize things in the realm of believability before thinking someone is a superhero. That being said, again we are talking about the character motivation. I'm sure if you explain your thoughts here to jon he might reconsider his action, but in the context of this story his motivation is consistent with his character thus far. He thinks people are going to lose it, that's why he does what he does, and that's why what he then does, make perfect sense within the context of his character.

It's something like that but the wind does move the car off, and it takes an extreme amount of wind to move something as heavy as a car even blowing against the widest surface of it. Jonathan's head is at the same level as the car was and his hair is just tussling around a bit. Wind pockets in a tornado don't work like that so a car is flying past and suddenly there's just a strong breeze. Even half the wind required to move a car would throw Jonathan off his feet. There's just no way that's even remotely close to how such a situation would be.

The cars that fly past are being sent from a point closer to the storms power. But whatever, it's moot.

For me it's easier to buy that you break physics when you do superheroic stuff. In fact the mundane should behave normally so the superheroic stuff stands out even more, in my opinion. For example, I don't have any problems with Superman flying through some impossible means. That's the character. Just don't put it in the script that Jor-El talks about Earth having lower gravitation since that obviously has nothing to do with it and gravity is something everyone knows how it works (you get more wiggle room with advanced physics that few viewers understand). Leave it at the Sun causes magic to happen in you, you can now fly, period.

I missed the part where JorEl said clark can fly do to lower gravity.
Did he really?

First of all, no he wasn't. A frigging car crashed on top of his car and caused him to both get stuck and injure his leg. Pretty far from being OK.

Here is where the script asks you do deduce the situation based what you know.
1-Martha thought jon was finished(helping himself) or at least gruesomely injured or maimed after the car landed on their truck.
2-Clark using his already demonstrated enhanced sense, assures her that daddy is ok(he's not finished). He can see the man isn't crushed (heart rate seems fine).
3-Jon looks to be wiggling free, "come on old man"
4-Jon get's free and starts his escape
5-"Yay"
6-His ankle isn't functioning properly
7-"Nay"
Must have been the type of injury you can't see with basic enhanced vision and wouldn't be able to understand without a phd or 4 years of superman experience. Must be the type of injury jon himself didn't know was that bad till he stood on it, sprain dulled by adrenaline...etc

Sure, let's just disagree.

And he doesn't tell Clark not to help him. He just tells him to get his mother and the little kid to the overpass instead of getting the dog, nothing more. He did that and she's not a dog so he doesn't have to stand there and watch her, he can go help out when the accident happens.

You do remember why jon sent him away right? The real reason I mean

Spoiler

Jonathan Kent: Clark, you have to keep this side of yourself a secret.
Clark Kent at 13: What was I supposed to do? Just let them die?
Jonathan Kent: Maybe; but there's more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world... When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything; our... our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human... everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark.

I'm of the mind that clark get's that. Pretty sure it was less about martha and more about that other thing wink wink. The thing jon made painfully clear and important to him 8 years ago today.

And no, I'm not using audience intel. Let's put it this way. One of your parents is inside a car, trying to get something before a storm will hit in 40 seconds and kill them. A car smashes down on top of that car and you can't see inside. Do you:

A: Calmly assume everything is fine.
B: Get really worried and think about helping.

Clark clearly had a better "visual" than Martha so I assume he could at least see inside, that jon wasn't knocked out and still had a chance. No accounting for if he knew if Jon was permanently stuck though(not sure how well his vision powers work in that scene). Considering the theme of the entire scene is trusting another....the closest scenario from another movie I can think of is the ending of Armageddon, when Harry's crew urges the Captain(Will Fitchner) not to turn the ship around(no matter the stakes), the old man will pull through, they trust him to pull through.

But to answer your question sure, I pick, get worried and "think about helping" for 500 plz.

 

[DA_Champion]

I hadn't even realised that Martha left the dog in the car. WTF? Goyer went out of his way to force Jonathan's death into the plot, and he didn't even know how to do it. The inclusion of such dumb elements proved. It's understandable that people laughed in theatres.

But hey, at least the movie franchise doesn't need to waste screen time on Jonathan Kent anymore ...

 

[DA_Champion]

My dearest DA_Champion,

They are logical. Otherwise you would have to change the type of ship Zod and his crew were on. Remember that the Black Zero was a prison ship, nothing more. That is one of the main reasons they sought the old outposts -- to get supplies.

It would make no sense for the ship to have terra-forming abilities. I suppose the writers could have allowed Zod to retrofit the ship to do that, but why do that, when it would make sense for him to find a machine that can do it for him?

You gotta remember, despite the advances in technology, Zod and his people had limited resources. It makes more sense that they would scavenge pieces of equipment. Besides, having them change the ship too much would have been awfully similar to the Star Trek reboot from a couple of years ago.

The world engine may have been a choice made simply because their original idea was too similar to what happened in Star Trek.

Whether the world engine attaches to black zero, or splits up into 600 pieces, is again something completely made up by Goyer to suit the plot. Stop with the mental gymnastics, it makes you come off as a dim.

There is in fact no logic to the terraforming process. They fire an energy beam through the Earth which increases the Earth's gravity? Sorry, no. That is not how gravity works, and even if it were the Earth would have responded with untold number of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. It made for some horrible science in this movie... all this to add a pointless action scene against a giant metal squid, in a movie with too many action scenes.

As for being too similar to Star Trek, that ship has sailed. I was thinking about Star Trek the entire movie. Zod's ship had the same design as Nero's.

I don't think Jonathan's deaths have ever been all the meaningful (except for MOS). Gut-wrenching for Clark, yes. Meaningful? Hardly.

So then don't bother writing scenes that are meaningless. There are plenty of good deaths on television and in film, to pick three completely different examples:
- Buffy's mom dying in season 5 of buffy
- T-800 dying at the end of T2
- Mufasa dying at the end of the lion king

Jonathan Kent dying in MoS was not one of them, it was closer to how the father died in Green Lantern, in that people in theatres laughed because they saw a poorly executed cliche happening on the screen.

Even Smallville, an extremely poorly written show, managed a more meaningful death for JK.

 

[Mjölnir]

I'll let the script make the point for me then:
Jonathan Kent: Clark, you have to keep this side of yourself a secret.
Clark Kent at 13: What was I supposed to do? Just let them die?
Jonathan Kent: Maybe; but there's more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world... When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything; our... our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human... everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark.
Clark Kent at 13: Why?
Jonathan Kent: People are afraid of what they don't understand.
Clark Kent at 13: Is she right? Did God do this to me? Tell me!

When it comes to character motivation(what we are discussing here), it's all right there on the page. "Greater good".

I guess the script is even worse than I remembered then because Pete's mom is definitely not talking about anything to be scared of, she's talking about one of the most wonderful thing that could ever happen to a Christian.

You're of course right in that the writer is trying to point to him changing the world. Again I don't think he succeeds well in supporting this though, but I'll keep the intent in mind as it's at least said right out.

You are right, goyer's didn't write the kents as perfect and incapable of a single short sighted mistake in the confusion of a natural disaster, one they didn't fully understand the minute they stepped out of the car...
Shame, he was doing so well too. Hopefully that didn't do to much damage to your enjoyment though.

I've already stated that things like this become problems when the scene is overall bad. When you get annoyed by the big things the flawed small things just add on.

I'm inclined to agree with this. Infact I argued for it a few pages back. Humans tend to rationalize things in the realm of believability before thinking someone is a superhero. That being said, again we are talking about the character motivation. I'm sure if you explain your thoughts here to jon he might reconsider his action, but in the context of this story his motivation is consistent with his character thus far. He thinks people are going to lose it, that's why he does what he does, and that's why what he then does, make perfect sense within the context of his character.

I agree that it's too much for him to consider, but as you could see I don't buy that he in that instance is thinking about avoiding any shred of possibility that Clark is exposed. There's just not that kind of risk. To me it seems like it's just his normal protective personality that comes out, which makes him take the big risk and have Clark lead the others to the safe place. That's the interpretation that's the most likely to me.

When I wrote that which you responded to here I did so just to comment on your point after I've said I don't believe it's valid for the scene. It's just a general comment on that the risk is lower than it might seem to the viewer who just has "superhero movie" all over his brain because he's bought a ticket to see Superman.

The cars that fly past are being sent from a point closer to the storms power. But whatever, it's moot.

But the biggest point was that the wind actually does move the car that's on top of the Kents' car, so the wind has caught up.

I missed the part where JorEl said clark can fly do to lower gravity.
Did he really?

No, what I meant is that him flying (which I just used as an example of an impossible power) is something I can take and they should not try to explain powers with science when it doesn't work. That the Earth has lower gravity isn't helpful to him in any way. Spending time in lower gravity makes you weaker.

I can't say that it's wrong that Kryptonian skin cells can have these "magical" powers since they are made up. That's the kind of thing I'm willing to buy when I watch a superhero movie.

This is just a bit annoying though, it's not mindbogglingly stupid like when the writer of 2012 tried with mutated neutrinos.

Here is where the script asks you do deduce the situation based what you know.
1-Martha thought jon was finished(helping himself) or at least gruesomely injured or maimed after the car landed on their truck.
2-Clark using his already demonstrated enhanced sense, assures her that daddy is ok(he's not finished). He can see the man isn't crushed (heart rate seems fine).
3-Jon looks to be wiggling free, "come on old man"
4-Jon get's free and starts his escape
5-"Yay"
6-His ankle isn't functioning properly
7-"Nay"
Must have been the type of injury you can't see with basic enhanced vision and wouldn't be able to understand without a phd or 4 years of superman experience. Must be the type of injury jon himself didn't know was that bad till he stood on it, sprain dulled by adrenaline...etc

Sure, let's just disagree.

Yes, we can disagree on this issue.

I will however say that his hearing and vision are completely plot powered in this movie. There are several times where he could either hear or see something and he doesn't because the script doesn't want him to at that time. The most obvious example is when he sneaks into the space ship. He's clearly being very careful because he's going somewhere he's not allowed that's guarded by the military. He should be both trying to make sure he's not being followed and keep his senses out for whatever could be inside. Yet he doesn't hear Lois following him until she gets in a "fight". Plot control.

You do remember why jon sent him away right? The real reason I mean

Spoiler

Jonathan Kent: Clark, you have to keep this side of yourself a secret.
Clark Kent at 13: What was I supposed to do? Just let them die?
Jonathan Kent: Maybe; but there's more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world... When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything; our... our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human... everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark.

I'm of the mind that clark get's that. Pretty sure it was less about martha and more about that other thing wink wink. The thing jon made painfully clear and important to him 8 years ago today.

Nothing then indicated that he would have to use any superpowers. If that was the case the dog was already a lost cause. That's why I feel like I've already written above.

Clark clearly had a better "visual" than Martha so I assume he could at least see inside, that jon wasn't knocked out and still had a chance. No accounting for if he knew if Jon was permanently stuck though(not sure how well his vision powers work in that scene). Considering the theme of the entire scene is trusting another....the closest scenario from another movie I can think of is the ending of Armageddon, when Harry's crew urges the Captain(Will Fitchner) not to turn the ship around(no matter the stakes), the old man will pull through, they trust him to pull through.

But to answer your question sure, I pick, get worried and "think about helping" for 500 plz.

Jon was stuck for 20 seconds, which is a long time in that situation. It's also not very high odds on that if you've gotten stuck due to that a flying car has crashed you might also have gotten injured.

I just think that a father's life is a bit too important to take the "wait and see approach" when it's a matter of seconds.

I never saw Armageddon so that comparison is unfortunately lost on me.

 

[Marvin]

I guess the script is even worse than I remembered then because Pete's mom is definitely not talking about anything to be scared of, she's talking about one of the most wonderful thing that could ever happen to a Christian.

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.

But the biggest point was that the wind actually does move the car that's on top of the Kents' car, so the wind has caught up.

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.

No, what I meant is that him flying (which I just used as an example of an impossible power) is something I can take and they should not try to explain powers with science when it doesn't work. That the Earth has lower gravity isn't helpful to him in any way. Spending time in lower gravity makes you weaker.

I can't say that it's wrong that Kryptonian skin cells can have these "magical" powers since they are made up. That's the kind of thing I'm willing to buy when I watch a superhero movie.

This is just a bit annoying though, it's not mindbogglingly stupid like when the writer of 2012 tried with mutated neutrinos.

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.

Yes, we can disagree on this issue.

I will however say that his hearing and vision are completely plot powered in this movie. There are several times where he could either hear or see something and he doesn't because the script doesn't want him to at that time. The most obvious example is when he sneaks into the space ship. He's clearly being very careful because he's going somewhere he's not allowed that's guarded by the military. He should be both trying to make sure he's not being followed and keep his senses out for whatever could be inside. Yet he doesn't hear Lois following him until she gets in a "fight". Plot control.

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.

Jon was stuck for 20 seconds, which is a long time in that situation. It's also not very high odds on that if you've gotten stuck due to that a flying car has crashed you might also have gotten injured.

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

I just think that a father's life is a bit too important to take the "wait and see approach" when it's a matter of seconds.

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

 

[BlueLantern]

I now remember why my posting became infrequent. Because it's so damn boring trawling through your posts. Here's the thing, people don't like the movie. They have criticisms that don't warrant constant tl;drs where you're trying to re-educate them in their views of the film. But me saying that isn't going to stop you, so whatever.

 

[Marvin]

I now remember why my posting became infrequent. Because it's so damn boring trawling through your posts. Here's the thing, people don't like the movie.

Yet they congregate in the section dedicated to the film and populated with people that feel the opposite, to do what exactly? Speak their peace and claim anyone that expresses a contrarian position a bore or a terrorist... that's nice.

They have criticisms that don't warrant constant tl;drs where you're trying to re-educate them in their views of the film. But me saying that isn't going to stop you, so whatever.

If they weren't interested in tl;drs, they wouldn't do it themselves.

2. Someone doesn't like the film say so. Someone says superman's cape is too short in the movie, it leads to a discussion. My attention is sparked when things analogous to this occur. Or when my name get's brought up, can't help it.

3. If trawling through my responses is the cause of your boredom, I'm sure you know where the ignore button is. Might change your experience around here.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

This thread feels like it's

 

[BlueLantern]

Someone says superman's cape is too short in the movie, it leads to a discussion. My attention is sparked when things analogous to this occur.

That's kinda the problem there. If you notice so far, people's criticisms of the film are relatively basic and don't require a scientific or detailed response. There's one post where you're trying to explain Clark's line of sight with Jonathan's injury and the technicalities of a potential rescue.

Honestly, I don't know what makes you think such an analysis is necessary. 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. It's okay. Well it's not. It was overdone.

I brought you up by name because you're one of the biggest culprits of the political rhetoric being spun in defense of the film. Long posts trying to explain the deeper meaning or technicalities behind certain issues with the film. Ironically enough the problems are so simple and so flawed in a storytelling manner that I guarantee you David Goyer didn't sit there and consider the **** you're considering. And with that in mind you surely should know that your defense is extremely rose tinted and sunshiny.

 

[the last son]

Why a dog though? Have Kent go save a baby or another human. Their dog was just stupid.

 

[BlueLantern]

Dogs tend to elicit a more emotional reaction than an ordinary human. It also meant that the dog could escape by running away whilst a child couldn't. Although that's too sophisticated a reason for Goyer. He probably just went for it because it's cliched.

 

[the last son]

Yea, but it's time to stop this mentality of valuing a dogs life over a humans. Good point though about running away.

 

[BlueLantern]

Well it's time to stop use overdone cliches rather than just valuing dogs over humans. To be fair, I'd save a dog over an injured human. Just because I prefer dogs. :P

 

[the last son]

So, in a situation like MOS, you're running back to save your dog?

 

[BlueLantern]

Oh, totally. I'd absolutely run back to save a dog that my wife locked away like a moron. I'd then divorce my wife should I survive for being an idiot and endangering lives.