BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[Mjölnir]

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

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

Because the movie keeps going on about how Krypton is doomed because people are locked into a certain order by genetic design, while at the same time shows us that it's not. I don't know how you can't get that saying one thing and then showing something different is really bad writing, and this thread is about discussing Goyer's work. You'd think that old George Lucas wrote this thing.

And please stop with the apologetic approach of saying that we still understand that Kal-El is special. How does that excuse that they put in some completely contradictory elements to specifically explain how Kal-El is special?

What we're talking about isn't dumbing things down. Writing a consistent script means making the movie far less dumb than it turned out. Saying that everything is locked in place by genetics and that they are bred to be the best possible in their fields, and then have the optimal solider fail at every military thing and even get beaten by scientist in a fight, is really dumb. Goyer dumbed things down, we aren't.

If you really want to defend the writing, the only thing you can do is to explain how the optimal soldier gets beaten soundly by a scientist. Your argument about Jor-El fighting for the future of Krypton makes no sense because Zod does that as well. They have the exact same conviction, only different goals. Not that fighting for ideals is enough when you're a genetically bred scientist fighting a genetically perfect soldier.

 

[Marvin]

Because the movie keeps going on about how Krypton is doomed because people are locked into a certain order by genetic design, while at the same time shows us that it's not. I don't know how you can't get that saying one thing and then showing something different is really bad writing, and this thread is about discussing Goyer's work. You'd think that old George Lucas wrote this thing.

No, the JorEl problems krypton is doomed for a number of things.

And to correct you on the issue, he asserts that they are doomed due to a way of thinking. Aggressive expansion and lack of free will. That's far more indicative of a societal state of mind about it's philosophy on choice than it is "our genetic tempering is killing us".

And please stop with the apologetic approach of saying that we still understand that Kal-El is special. How does that excuse that they put in some completely contradictory elements to specifically explain how Kal-El is special?

You are confusing contradictory with one note.

What we're talking about isn't dumbing things down. Writing a consistent script means making the movie far less dumb than it turned out. Saying that everything is locked in place by genetics and that they are bred to be the best possible in their fields, and then have the optimal solider fail at every military thing and even get beaten by scientist in a fight, is really dumb. Goyer dumbed things down, we aren't.

You can breed a dog to be fast, You can bread a dog to be large. To assume you can breed a soildier that never fails in spite of any situation is dumb.

Secondly I wasn't aware that Zod had failed at every military thing? That's a long career of failures. I mean every single one over his tenure as a private up till general..
Like superman in this film, some situations are beyond him. Lest we start counting Captain America's short list of failures. It happens, sometimes people lose. You guys are being far too literal.

If you really want to defend the writing, the only thing you can do is to explain how the optimal soldier gets beaten soundly by a scientist. Your argument about Jor-El fighting for the future of Krypton makes no sense because Zod does that as well. They have the exact same conviction, only different goals. Not that fighting for ideals is enough when you're a genetically bred scientist fighting a genetically perfect soldier.

When you say "exact same" I assume you mean that Zod has a child in the room as well?

Like I said before some of you are missing the forest for the trees when it comes to how you assess what you are given. In one breath you assert that Zod is a perfect, flawless machine, in another you ask how he can lose to another perfect creature for counting numbers....
Here's the answer, you're wrong. These people aren't machines and the plot is in fact showing you thus in his defeat at the hands of another adaptable creature.

But if we must:
What is implied by genetic perfection when it comes to "breeding" a scientist? A mind capable of large capacity, dynamic learning, higher functions...I am wrong? Let's take this scenario to it's logical conclusion since you seem eager to throw the idea around...
[YT]XSc_pRWkegg[/YT]
The mind is capable of alot. Which begs the question what are you guys are asserting by this genetically optimal scientist stuff? A geek in a lab coat. I fear the film just didn't go that way.
ps. I'm not at all confirming jor is doing what sherlock does.

 

[BlueLantern]

If say some small actor was playing a normal father role, there wouldn't be an reason to spend so much time on Krypton.

Again, you're wrong. Mainly because the simpler way to look at it is they chose a big actor because they knew the role was important. As opposed to making the role important once they got a big actor in.

 

[slumcat]

Again, you're wrong. Mainly because the simpler way to look at it is they chose a big actor because they knew the role was important. As opposed to making the role important once they got a big actor in.

Happens all the time in Hollywood. Not surprising at all.

 

[Mjölnir]

No, the JorEl problems krypton is doomed for a number of things.

And to correct you on the issue, he asserts that they are doomed due to a way of thinking. Aggressive expansion and lack of free will. That's far more indicative of a societal state of mind about it's philosophy on choice than it is "our genetic tempering is killing us".

But if it's not a part of the genetic manipulation, why is it important that Kal-El is born naturally? If they were genetically free to choose but just locked in by society you could send anyone to Earth. You have fugitives from dictatorships all the time and they of course don't continue to live like they did before. Jor-El also says that he and Lara couldn't have come to Earth because they were products of Krypton, but they clearly didn't subscribe to any of the ideals that were the problem.

I guess we could discuss this a long time since it's actually too inconsistent. Jor-El shows that he was free to choose but still he's bound so he can't come to Earth.

You are confusing contradictory with one note.

In what way is the script telling us contradictory information in position to be confused with being one note? If it was one note it would have been consistent.

You can breed a dog to be fast, You can bread a dog to be large. To assume you can breed a soildier that never fails in spite of any situation is dumb.

Secondly I wasn't aware that Zod had failed at every military thing? That's a long career of failures. I mean every single one over his tenure as a private up till general..
Like superman in this film, some situations are beyond him. Lest we start counting Captain America's short list of failures. It happens, sometimes people lose. You guys are being far too literal.

You breed both physical traits and mentality. It's just extremely unlikely that a lifelong scientist beats a lifelong soldier, even without genetic breeding. Since the movie needs to build him up as a threat it's not very logical to neuter him like that. There are other ways you could prevent Zod from arriving in time to stop the launch, as well as have him seem like a huge threat.

Now you're just trying to misunderstand on purpose. I of course talk about what he's doing during the movie. We are discussing Goyer's writing capabilities so the context is what he delivers in the movie, not what someone could make up about Zod's past. In the movie Zod pretty much fails at everything he sets out to do. The biggest achievement I can remember is him deleting the image of Jor-El.

When you say "exact same" I assume you mean that Zod has a child in the room as well?

Like I said before some of you are missing the forest for the trees when it comes to how you assess what you are given. In one breath you assert that Zod is a perfect, flawless machine, in another you ask how he can lose to another perfect creature for counting numbers....
Here's the answer, you're wrong. These people aren't machines and the plot is in fact showing you thus in his defeat at the hands of another adaptable creature.

But if we must:
What is implied by genetic perfection when it comes to "breeding" a scientist? A mind capable of large capacity, dynamic learning, higher functions...I am wrong? Let's take this scenario to it's logical conclusion since you seem eager to throw the idea around...
[YT]XSc_pRWkegg[/YT]
The mind is capable of alot. Which begs the question what are you guys are asserting by this genetically optimal scientist stuff? A geek in a lab coat. I fear the film just didn't go that way.
ps. I'm not at all confirming jor is doing what sherlock does.

By exact same conviction I mean that they are fighting for something much bigger than themselves. Both for the future of Krypton in their own ways. That particular part of the writing is good, to make them both similar and polar opposites at the same time.

Nothing is ever perfect but someone that's been taught about fighting his whole life will be far better than someone that has primarily studied science even in real life. That goes even more when people are bred to be even more specialized, to have great talent in your field and anything else being irrelevant since you can't be anything else anyway. The way you brush over this part just shows how the movie has failed to make this spectacular thing about this society meaningful. That alone shows how weak the writing is.

So by having that very unlikely win for someone that's going to die in a few minutes anyway, and only come back as a hologram, you both reduce the issues with Krypton and lowers the threat from Zod as a villain. It's kind of like having Obi-Wan beat Vader in A New Hope, only for him to die in another way before they get off the Death Star.

I see your point with Sherlock but he's not dedicated his life to science, he's an extraordinarily restless person that has trained his fighting a lot. He also doesn't straight up beat great fighters (let alone people born to be great fighters).

 

[Marvin]

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

I get it, jon isn't real, his responses and decisions are a result of what the writer wants and that should be something building off of what the script set's in place. Cause and Effect, good basic scripting correct?

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

Doesn't mean she's not scared.
Secondly, as has been said, you weren't privy to the entire conversation, starting from the intial phone call that lead to it. What you do in fact know however is Jon's observations on such, as "She was scared, Clark."
Second hand character exposition isn't anything new, all it require is for an interaction to take place off camera, "dad was pissed". It's nice that you saw this lady in the midst of a reaction, but there's no accounting for her entire reaction. Hinting where it begins and explaining where it ends is not too far removed from "second hand character exposition".

Curious as I don't remember the scene all that well. Did she sound calm or was her inflection something of panic, instability, anxious.. etc.

Explaining a science fiction term in a science fiction movie for all ages isn't indicative assuming your audience isn't going to be thinking. I've actually seen the concept explained on star trek, and that show assumes plenty of thinking from the crowed. They also explain transporters, warp drives...plenty of sci-fi terms. I more vividly remember the concept being explained in the Aliens movie.

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

You lost me with this one. Especially if that window was indeed closed. Either way. The scene starts and clark is sitting on the swing looking in the house clearly dismayed. If you think this isn't indicative of a kid with super hearing using his super hearing...I say nay good sir.

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

More accurately, that's ONE way to handle it. I seem to recall an entire trilogy in which Patrick Stewart didn't use his finger to the temple motion in each psionic demonstration.

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

Simple, a giant car fell on his person and he fell out of view...eliciting the immediate response from the mortal woman. It was only the person with enhanced senses that proclaimed otherwise.

I'm just curious why you think of all times in Clarks entire life, that he would look in a certain direction and not want to use his powers? Because he doesn't want to see?

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

ok

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

Never said you had to read the script, it's in the movie.
Superman: "My parents taught me to hone my senses, focus on just what I wanted to see...without your helmet, you are getting everything"

Two, he clearly isn't using his powers when all logic says he should at several points in the movie. How do you explain him not hearing Lois following him in a completely silent ship when he should be doing everything he can to make sure he isn't caught by the military?

Superman: "My parents taught me to hone my senses, focus on just what I wanted to...."

He should also not have been sneaked up upon by Zod in the final fight since he should have seen him coming through the wall, but he didn't. There are lots of things like these so his powers are clearly not on all the time, they are only on when it's convenient to the writer who can't write consistently.

Superspeed villains are hard to deal with, as seen in the smallville fight.

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

He was willing to break his promise and reveal himself when jon was out of chances yes. (Again, you should love this).
However that only happened at the end. Jon looked like he still had a chance when he escaped the car fall. He just looked like he needed to wrangle himself free. Clark believed he could, ergo why he waited. Clark never said he's out danger.

It's fun to question the logic of a scene, it's even more fun to find said logic based on the said scene.

 

[BlueLantern]

Happens all the time in Hollywood. Not surprising at all.

You're making a gigantic and unfounded presumption, so please stop acting like it's something that's happened here when it hasn't.

 

[TheBat812]

Happens all the time in Hollywood. Not surprising at all.

It happens. But not very often. And even more rarely is it actually significant. Last one in recent memory that I know of was terminator salvation.


Anyways, this thread is getting hilarious. There's a difference between there being no thought behind a choice, and it not being one you agree with. None of the 'issues' on that list from the last page are objective issues. They all have a reason for their choice which Marvin has patiently been explaining. Whether you agree with them or not is up to you. But Marvin is certainly not alone in seeing the connections and reasonings.

I find it irritating when people accuse goyer of having no purpose to some of his decisions when they come across quite clearly to many of us. Or to label snyders decision making as simply bein disaster porn, when not only was it very fitting storytelling wise, but the fight sequences probably totaled less than 45 minutes of a 2 and a half hour movie. My biggest issue with them was the lack of dynamics in the sound design which literally put my body to sleep from overload. Or the slightly bizarre pacing, or the fairly contrived execution of the transitions from present to flashback and back. But the story itself was quite interesting and easily the most interesting superman on screen to date for me.

 

[Marvin]

I guess we could discuss this a long time since it's actually too inconsistent. Jor-El shows that he was free to choose but still he's bound so he can't come to Earth.

I took that as JorEl's idealism. He and his wife and everyone in that room outside of his son represent the old ways, perversion. Mostly because of they are products of such but also because unlike clark, they weren't natural births. If Jor lives on, so does krptons perversion For all Jor's talk of a fresh start, him walking around being a product of a such a society would taint that dream and conviction. And Jor has conviction.
You're right though it would require a longer discussion.

In what way is the script telling us contradictory information in position to be confused with being one note? If it was one note it would have been consistent.

That's what I meant. You are suggesting that consistency requires "one note"

Now you're just trying to misunderstand on purpose. I of course talk about what he's doing during the movie. We are discussing Goyer's writing capabilities so the context is what he delivers in the movie, not what someone could make up about Zod's past. In the movie Zod pretty much fails at everything he sets out to do. The biggest achievement I can remember is him deleting the image of Jor-El.

You talk about what he's doing in the movie and how it goes against "what he was bread to be". I simply assert that his losses happened during the course of the plot but that doesn't change what he was "bread to be". The movies history more than makes up for the his title.

-The Character Bullseye. Known for being insanely amazing and "never misses" when he encounters someone else amazing and passionate, such as Daredevil, he kinda loses. That doesn't all of a sudden mean the premise contradicts itself cause he lost and was made to miss during the course of the film's plot. That's equivalent to a man that hit's 99 targets and misses 2, being considered a bad marksmen.
-Lady Shiva worlds greatest martial artist in the DCU. Get's her ass kicked by members of the batfamily. She's still Lady Shiva. "bread to be an ass kicker" and worlds deadliest assassin.

Sucks that Zod failed several times during the course of the film(killed Jor, found Kal like he said, Killed thousands), that doesn't change how great a military figure he was in the breadth of this story. But sure, goyer wrote a script with Zod the villain, that kept losing and because of that, he contradicted his own story premise that "zod was bread to be the ultimate winner".

By exact same conviction I mean that they are fighting for something much bigger than themselves. Both for the future of Krypton in their own ways. That particular part of the writing is good, to make them both similar and polar opposites at the same time.

When you took on the line of reason that said what jor was fighting for was nullified by the fact that zod fighting for the same thing, with the same conviction. I simply had to interject with the facts. Jor has immediate loved ones on the line. Zod is fighting for the military. Which one tends to elicit more passion traditionally?

That goes even more when people are bred to be even more specialized, to have great talent in your field and anything else being irrelevant since you can't be anything else anyway. The way you brush over this part just shows how the movie has failed to make this spectacular thing about this society meaningful. That alone shows how weak the writing is.

I don't brush over anything. I just accept the fact that the better fighter more powerful individual doesn't always win. The better man does. I don't think that a more straight forward approach to such a concept equates to a stronger story. If anything I see alot more simplicity there. Kryptonians aren't the borg!

So by having that very unlikely win for someone that's going to die in a few minutes anyway, and only come back as a hologram, you both reduce the issues with Krypton and lowers the threat from Zod as a villain. It's kind of like having Obi-Wan beat Vader in A New Hope, only for him to die in another way before they get off the Death Star.

Ironic you mention Obi Wan dying and coming back And how it ruined things. Like I said krptons problems weren't that a man couldn't spend is free time learning how to defend his home. It was of the greater perversion of life.

I see your point with Sherlock but he's not dedicated his life to science, he's an extraordinarily restless person that has trained his fighting a lot. He also doesn't straight up beat great fighters (let alone people born to be great fighters).

Jor el clearly hasn't dedicated his life to only science either. However the point about serlock was that of how powerful the mind can be and what that means for the mind of jor el and his lab coat buddies.

 

[Mjölnir]

Doesn't mean she's not scared.
Secondly, as has been said, you weren't privy to the entire conversation, starting from the intial phone call that lead to it. What you do in fact know however is Jon's observations on such, as "She was scared, Clark."
Second hand character exposition isn't anything new, all it require is for an interaction to take place off camera, "dad was pissed". It's nice that you saw this lady in the midst of a reaction, but there's no accounting for her entire reaction. Hinting where it begins and explaining where it ends is not too far removed from "second hand character exposition".

Curious as I don't remember the scene all that well. Did she sound calm or was her inflection something of panic, instability, anxious.. etc.

Explaining a science fiction term in a science fiction movie for all ages isn't indicative assuming your audience isn't going to be thinking. I've actually seen the concept explained on star trek, and that show assumes plenty of thinking from the crowed. They also explain transporters, warp drives...plenty of sci-fi terms. I more vividly remember the concept being explained in the Aliens movie.

I'm talking about what I can see. It's the writers job to write something that's consistent on screen. Having a non-scared reaction on screen and then have someone say that she was afraid is blatantly bad writing. You show her afraid and then talk about her afraid, or vice versa. You don't do two different things.

No, she never sounds scared. She talks about providence as something positive (which it by definition is for a Christian) and then she sounds annoyed when the Kents try to invalidate her by saying that she's blowing it out of proportion.

It's nothing wrong with explaining it, it's just very obvious so it doesn't come across as a writer that gives a lot of subtle hints.

You lost me with this one. Especially if that window was indeed closed. Either way. The scene starts and clark is sitting on the swing looking in the house clearly dismayed. If you think this isn't indicative of a kid with super hearing using his super hearing...I say nay good sir.

There are other windows open in that room. But that a normal kid could possibly have overheard it isn't my point. My point is that Clark is off screen when he potentially uses his hearing so you don't need to give any cues with visuals or audio.

More accurately, that's ONE way to handle it. I seem to recall an entire trilogy in which Patrick Stewart didn't use his finger to the temple motion in each psionic demonstration.

It's always completely obvious when Xavier uses his powers in that trilogy. Examples are that we hear his voice when he speaks to someone telepathically, when he's controlling someone he talks as they talk, if there's no direct cue then the dialogue is about what he's doing. You never have to make a wild guess.

Not that I'm criticizing Snyder on this issue as I don't believe Clark used his powers there, for reasons I've explained.

Simple, a giant car fell on his person and he fell out of view...eliciting the immediate response from the mortal woman. It was only the person with enhanced senses that proclaimed otherwise.

I'm just curious why you think of all times in Clarks entire life, that he would look in a certain direction and not want to use his powers? Because he doesn't want to see?

That's assuming she would only be very worried if he died, which I don't agree with. I'd say that she's worried that he was injured or worse, fearing for his safety.

There's two reasons for it. First of all his conclusion makes no sense in my opinion as Jon was in great danger. Second he had just as much reason to listen and look for people following him in into the space ship, as he was basically spying on a military site. He didn't as he otherwise would logically have heard Lois far earlier as she was making noise.

Never said you had to read the script, it's in the movie.
Superman: "My parents taught me to hone my senses, focus on just what I wanted to see...without your helmet, you are getting everything"

I thought you meant something else. This I actually think is just what I was saying. He's learned to shut his powers out in the sense that he's not constantly hearing what everyone within a mile is saying, or not constantly seeing inside people etc. Therefor I'd call it that the powers aren't "on" all the time, it's just a theoretical difference of constantly focusing on not using them compared to turning them on.

Superspeed villains are hard to deal with, as seen in the smallville fight.

I'm referring to when the fighting stops for a while because he loses track of Zod, who's inside a building. He should naturally both listen (Zod has to crash himself into the building so that would make a ton of noise) and use his x-ray vision when he's looking for someone. He's clearly just getting normal human efficiency out of his senses there though.

He was willing to break his promise and reveal himself when jon was out of chances yes. (Again, you should love this).
However that only happened at the end. Jon looked like he still had a chance when he escaped the car fall. He just looked like he needed to wrangle himself free. Clark believed he could, ergo why he waited. Clark never said he's out danger.

It's fun to question the logic of a scene, it's even more fun to find said logic based on the said scene.

We disagree here since if you get stuck because a car twists the car you're in, there's certainly a good chance that it's not easy to get out. Time was something Jon did not have and as the wind had to get so close that it could move the car on top it was logically too late for him to escape on his own when he got out.

 

[Mjölnir]

I took that as JorEl's idealism. He and his wife and everyone in that room outside of his son represent the old ways, perversion. Mostly because of they are products of such but also because unlike clark, they weren't natural births. If Jor lives on, so does krptons perversion For all Jor's talk of a fresh start, him walking around being a product of a such a society would taint that dream and conviction. And Jor has conviction.
You're right though it would require a longer discussion.

I can't say that you're wrong, but I find that motivation a bit blurry as the biggest thing about the character seems to be that he goes against the Kryptonian way.

You missed the question I found the most important in that part though; if the genetic manipulation isn't a relevant factor, why is it important that Kal-El is natural born?

That's what I meant. You are suggesting that consistency requires "one note"

Not at all. You can have as many notes as you want, but you're writing something bad if you have those notes contradict each other.

You talk about what he's doing in the movie and how it goes against "what he was bread to be". I simply assert that his losses happened during the course of the plot but that doesn't change what he was "bread to be". The movies history more than makes up for the his title.

-The Character Bullseye. Known for being insanely amazing and "never misses" when he encounters someone else amazing and passionate, such as Daredevil, he kinda loses. That doesn't all of a sudden mean the premise contradicts itself cause he lost and was made to miss during the course of the film's plot. That's equivalent to a man that hit's 99 targets and misses 2, being considered a bad marksmen.
-Lady Shiva worlds greatest martial artist in the DCU. Get's her ass kicked by members of the batfamily. She's still Lady Shiva. "bread to be an ass kicker" and worlds deadliest assassin.

Sucks that Zod failed several times during the course of the film(killed Jor, found Kal like he said, Killed thousands), that doesn't change how great a military figure he was in the breadth of this story. But sure, goyer wrote a script with Zod the villain, that kept losing and because of that, he contradicted his own story premise that "zod was bread to be the ultimate winner".

This is "show, don't tell" all over again. They say how he's the greatest military they have, but they actually don't show him as a threat of that magnitude as he constantly fails.

So you're now saying that Jor-El is to Zod what Daredevil is to Bullseye? Lets just say that I have a completely different view of what it means to be born to be a scientist.

Killing Jor wasn't his goal, getting the codex (and killing the child, when he found out) was. He failed. But while it's a side thing, killing Jor as a cheap shot after having had his ass handed to him doesn't make him come off as much of a threat either.

He did find Kal, that I give you. That's really only step 1 in the plan after he got out though, nothing that makes us go "wow, he's dangerous".

Yes, he kills thousands but his goal was to terraform the entire planet and either kill all humans or let some be servants. That's a failure.

Having the villain constantly fail his every goal makes him lose his aura as a threat.

I don't brush over anything. I just accept the fact that the better fighter more powerful individual doesn't always win. The better man does. I don't think that a more straight forward approach to such a concept equates to a stronger story. If anything I see alot more simplicity there. Kryptonians aren't the borg!

I haven't seen you say anything that supports that the genetic modifications were important. You don't think it makes people superior in their fields (why even do it?), you seem to think society is more of an issue despite that they make a big deal out of that Kal is outside the genetic system, etc.

Controlling societies are fairly common, but ones that actually breeds their population is not. From everything I see you write the movie failed to emphasize the most unique aspect of Krypton.

Ironic you mention Obi Wan dying and coming back And how it ruined things. Like I said krptons problems weren't that a man couldn't spend is free time learning how to defend his home. It was of the greater perversion of life.

That makes no sense at all. I made an altered version of a scene in Star Wars and you choose to react to the part that I didn't change? You're arguing like I've said it's bad that Jor-El comes back, but I haven't mentioned that at all.

The change I wrote was Obi-Wan defeating Vader and the obvious effect of that would of course be that Vader doesn't seem nearly as menacing anymore. That's a failure when you're building up the main villain.

Jor el clearly hasn't dedicated his life to only science either. However the point about serlock was that of how powerful the mind can be and what that means for the mind of jor el and his lab coat buddies.

Clearly not, so apparently you can become something greater than what you were born to be. Jor-El became a greater warrior than Zod.

 

[Marvin]

I'm talking about what I can see. It's the writers job to write something that's consistent on screen. Having a non-scared reaction on screen and then have someone say that she was afraid is blatantly bad writing. You show her afraid and then talk about her afraid, or vice versa. You don't do two different things.

The irony is that your full parameters would be met if only one could prove to you that her reaction was in fact perceivable as scared. An observation you yourself have put it place imo.

Providence isn't by definition a good thing. Only the extreme zealots see that as an absolute. Ignoring all the crazy/mean/ugly providence in the old testament. The idea that the world is going to end and and rapture will be upon can also be defined as divine intervention. I'm assuming not every single christian is about that. Just saying. I'm also almost certain that Jon is adverse to the bible at this point. Clark disproves alot of it's scripture. Just another fringe element to consider in his response.

Just have to disagree on this. We're clearly held up on if Goyer having Jon perceive Mrs Ross as scared, a thing of contrivity or validity.

It's nothing wrong with explaining it, it's just very obvious so it doesn't come across as a writer that gives a lot of subtle hints.

Not as obvious as you might think. Especially when you are looking at an international release for all ages. Not sure kids in vietnam can hang(no offense). Subtlety can come on other fronts beyond scientific exposition. Again see star trek.

There are other windows open in that room. But that a normal kid could possibly have overheard it isn't my point. My point is that Clark is off screen when he potentially uses his hearing so you don't need to give any cues with visuals or audio.

If you replace the living room with the car and replace the swing set with the under pass....same difference.

It's always completely obvious when Xavier uses his powers in that trilogy. Examples are that we hear his voice when he speaks to someone telepathically, when he's controlling someone he talks as they talk, if there's no direct cue then the dialogue is about what he's doing. You never have to make a wild guess

.
Not always.
-First class, Mystique constantly accuses him of poking in her head, never confessing till the end.
-X1, he stares both at magento and logan to read them early in the film.(its the reading which is often used in this subtle manner).
This is a tangent however.

That's assuming she would only be very worried if he died, which I don't agree with. I'd say that she's worried that he was injured or worse, fearing for his safety.

Like I said, agree. Only there is a level of injury assumed from a falling car. On of incapacitation. Clark assured her that didn't happen as it would only be natural do assume the worst....unless of course you could see for yourself.

There's two reasons for it. First of all his conclusion makes no sense in my opinion as Jon was in great danger. Second he had just as much reason to listen and look for people following him in into the space ship, as he was basically spying on a military site. He didn't as he otherwise would logically have heard Lois far earlier as she was making noise.

I asked why you thought clark wouldn't want to explicitly track his fathers progress in a moment that both has his full attention and that he is eager to participate in?
The question is what motivation can you see for that? Outside of goyers bad scripting..

I'm referring to when the fighting stops for a while because he loses track of Zod, who's inside a building. He should naturally both listen (Zod has to crash himself into the building so that would make a ton of noise) and use his x-ray vision when he's looking for someone. He's clearly just getting normal human efficiency out of his senses there though.

I assume you mean that moment when zod disappeared and Superman flew out into the city to find him? If so, like I said, super speed is a hell of a thing. Especially when the hero has only been forced to use your powers in combat for a few hours and when you aren't dealing with an utter failure of a combat professional
-A megacity is a big place to hide and search.

We disagree here since if you get stuck because a car twists the car you're in, there's certainly a good chance that it's not easy to get out. Time was something Jon did not have and as the wind had to get so close that it could move the car on top it was logically too late for him to escape on his own when he got out.

Hindsight is 20/20

 

[super-t]

I don't think it's because of genetic mutation as opposed to choice. They didn't say that Kryptonians couldn't become something else its just that their occupations were chosen for them and they did not want to upset the system by differentiate from the plan. So having 2 parents who CHOSE to work outside the system have a baby who is going to grow up with the mentality that he will have a choice in his fate, not that he has to have it decided for him. For example, take racism. People blindly followed it because they were brought up by it. ALOT of people had no idea WHY they were being racist. It was just apart of the system. At any point they could have CHOSE not to be racist but did not want to upset the established order.

 

[Marvin]

You missed the question I found the most important in that part though; if the genetic manipulation isn't a relevant factor, why is it important that Kal-El is natural born?

Jor el could have sent one of his test tube babies to earth to play out this story and imo little would have changed plotwise. But the significance lies in that this is isn't a test tube baby. He actually represents what Jor's idealisim is striving for.

Not at all. You can have as many notes as you want, but you're writing something bad if you have those notes contradict each other.

Agreed, luckily, they don't. They elicit discussion and debate. A good sign.

This is "show, don't tell" all over again. They say how he's the greatest military they have, but they actually don't show him as a threat of that magnitude as he constantly fails.

He's the "greatest military what not for krypton" because of all he did during Krypton's era. Have you ever seen the movie "A few good men?" All Jack Nicolson had to his credit was commendations and power. None of that earned "in film" yet he's a respected and great general.
However, even great villains get thwarted.

So you're now saying that Jor-El is to Zod what Daredevil is to Bullseye? Lets just say that I have a completely different view of what it means to be born to be a scientist.

No, if anything I'm equating he bulk of his defeat at superman's hand to that of the DD analogy.
The Jor el one is just Zod meeting his equal. Both in mind, resource, passion and conviction.

Killing Jor wasn't his goal, getting the codex (and killing the child, when he found out) was. He failed. But while it's a side thing, killing Jor as a cheap shot after having had his ass handed to him doesn't make him come off as much of a threat either.

Having the villain constantly fail his every goal makes him lose his aura as a threat.

I can count on 40 hands the amount of times the joker has failed....dudes a pretty dangerous villain in spite of that.
Not a matter of what you can do that makes you dangerous but rather what you are willing to. See Joker, and OJ simpson for that matter.

I haven't seen you say anything that supports that the genetic modifications were important. You don't think it makes people superior in their fields (why even do it?), you seem to think society is more of an issue despite that they make a big deal out of that Kal is outside the genetic system, etc.

Controlling societies are fairly common, but ones that actually breeds their population is not. From everything I see you write the movie failed to emphasize the most unique aspect of Krypton.

Kal's a big deal to the bad guys cause he represents heresy. A law man might make a big deal out of that.
I just also have a respect for what was achieved in the Jor El character.
Everything about Jor represents ascension from kryptons ways. He is walking show don't tell. The one draw back being as an idealist, he himself fails to represent true meaningful change for he's, at his core still a product of god complex backwards genetics of these people. His son however isn't, ero so the significance.

Krypton probably does what they do to enact control.
And sure, purpose breeding probably has it's advantages, but as I learned in the dreamworks movie antz, sometimes an individual can surprise you.

That makes no sense at all. I made an altered version of a scene in Star Wars and you choose to react to the part that I didn't change? You're arguing like I've said it's bad that Jor-El comes back, but I haven't mentioned that at all.

The change I wrote was Obi-Wan defeating Vader and the obvious effect of that would of course be that Vader doesn't seem nearly as menacing anymore. That's a failure when you're building up the main villain.

I was joking.
As for your point, you're right. Such a thing does nothing to build up a villain. Fortunately MOS never claims to have a perfect villain, just a dangerous menacing one. One capable of underhanded cheap shots to trusted friends. One that was in the in end of the prelude, actually stopped by another kryptonian fleet.

Have you ever seen Gladiator? As superior as maximus is to our villain, I defy anyone to suggest Commodus isn't, a dangerous threat.

Clearly not, so apparently you can become something greater than what you were born to be. Jor-El became a greater warrior than Zod.

On that night, a better man.

 

[Marvin]

I don't think it's because of genetic mutation as opposed to choice. They didn't say that Kryptonians couldn't become something else its just that their occupations were chosen for them and they did not want to upset the system by differentiate from the plan. So having 2 parents who CHOSE to work outside the system have a baby who is going to grow up with the mentality that he will have a choice in his fate, not that he has to have it decided for him. For example, take racism. People blindly followed it because they were brought up by it. ALOT of people had no idea WHY they were being racist. It was just apart of the system. At any point they could have CHOSE not to be racist but did not want to upset the established order.

I tend to agree with this.

It begs the question however, how productive a scientist could a young zod have become?

 

[Mjölnir]

The irony is that your full parameters would be met if only one could prove to you that her reaction was in fact perceivable as scared. An observation you yourself have put it place imo.

Providence isn't by definition a good thing. Only the extreme zealots see that as an absolute. Ignoring all the crazy/mean/ugly providence in the old testament. The idea that the world is going to end and and rapture will be upon can also be defined as divine intervention. I'm assuming not every single christian is about that. Just saying. I'm also almost certain that Jon is adverse to the bible at this point. Clark disproves alot of it's scripture. Just another fringe element to consider in his response.

Just have to disagree on this. We're clearly held up on if Goyer having Jon perceive Mrs Ross as scared, a thing of contrivity or validity.

If I had a child and it was saved by what I perceived as divine intervention I'd be inclined to have a positive spin on it. But we can agree to disagree on this issue.

Not as obvious as you might think. Especially when you are looking at an international release for all ages. Not sure kids in vietnam can hang(no offense). Subtlety can come on other fronts beyond scientific exposition. Again see star trek.

I meant the explanation, not the word.

If you replace the living room with the car and replace the swing set with the under pass....same difference.

No, since what happens in the second scene is all on screen. It's not at all clear that he's using any powers there, which is shown by that I still don't think it's possible that he did given his reaction.

When it comes to me judging the writing it's a lose-lose situation though. I think Clark is written poorly regardless of whether he uses his supersenses or not. The reason why I find it to be bad just shifts slightly.

Not always.
-First class, Mystique constantly accuses him of poking in her head, never confessing till the end.
-X1, he stares both at magento and logan to read them early in the film.(its the reading which is often used in this subtle manner).
This is a tangent however.

In First Class the ambiguity is intentional. There's no reason for the audience to wonder whether Clark just assumes or if he actually looks as I don't think we're to wonder about his integrity. It's not the same kind of concept.

I only remember the Logan part and the dialogue makes it pretty clear what he's doing. He's been inside his head with his voice and suddenly he knows things about him and states that it's not only Logan who is gifted, making it obvious that he's gotten the information through gifted means.

But agreed, this is a tangent.

Like I said, agree. Only there is a level of injury assumed from a falling car. On of incapacitation. Clark assured her that didn't happen as it would only be natural do assume the worst....unless of course you could see for yourself.

Which works if it wasn't for Jon not being OK at all, as he's stuck with seconds left before he will die. If Clark could see inside he'd notice that Jon keeps struggling and doesn't get free, and if he does look there's no reason for him to just look for a second and then stop.

I asked why you thought clark wouldn't want to explicitly track his fathers progress in a moment that both has his full attention and that he is eager to participate in?
The question is what motivation can you see for that? Outside of goyers bad scripting..

If I'm to just say what's his logical motivation then he of course looks into the car to see what's going on.

I never meant to say that he didn't have any motivation to do so, I just noted that his actions indicate that he doesn't and that it's consistent with him not using his powers in at least one other major scene when logic dictates that he would.

I assume you mean that moment when zod disappeared and Superman flew out into the city to find him? If so, like I said, super speed is a hell of a thing. Especially when the hero has only been forced to use your powers in combat for a few hours and when you aren't dealing with an utter failure of a combat professional
-A megacity is a big place to hide and search.

Zod crashes through a building to get him, which is something you'd expect him to hear. Superman has super speed as well, which logically means that he can react in that speed.

Super speed is one of the trickiest powers to write though since logically you'd expect such creatures to always use super speed whenever speed is of any sort of importance (including convenience). If they don't it's like we normal people doing important things in simulated slow motion. I don't know if I've ever seen that power used with full logic (and it probably doesn't get very good) so I'm not really blaming Goyer on that one.

Hindsight is 20/20

You don't need hindsight to piece together that it's really bad if someone is stuck and a storm is throwing cars around just behind him, and it's coming closer fast.

 

[Mjölnir]

I don't think it's because of genetic mutation as opposed to choice. They didn't say that Kryptonians couldn't become something else its just that their occupations were chosen for them and they did not want to upset the system by differentiate from the plan. So having 2 parents who CHOSE to work outside the system have a baby who is going to grow up with the mentality that he will have a choice in his fate, not that he has to have it decided for him. For example, take racism. People blindly followed it because they were brought up by it. ALOT of people had no idea WHY they were being racist. It was just apart of the system. At any point they could have CHOSE not to be racist but did not want to upset the established order.

But with that explanation, why was it impossible for Jor and Lara to go to Earth with Kal? If they could just choose to be different it doesn't matter that they are a product of Krypton, they would be open to learn from the humans. In fact Jor said that Kal should guide them so some influence is fine, and it's there anyway since Jor-El's image is there to teach Kal.

 

[Mjölnir]

Jor el could have sent one of his test tube babies to earth to play out this story and imo little would have changed plotwise. But the significance lies in that this is isn't a test tube baby. He actually represents what Jor's idealisim is striving for.

I can't say that you're wrong since the movie is being fuzzy on the subject, but I think that explanation lessens the impact of the natural born baby being a huge deal. I think the plot works better with Kal-El being the only way to break out of the Kryptonian way.

Agreed, luckily, they don't. They elicit discussion and debate. A good sign.

I think they do as they say one thing and show things that point to the contrary. Krypton is supposed to be extremely advanced so the idea that their genetic modification isn't very effective doesn't sit well with me.

He's the "greatest military what not for krypton" because of all he did during Krypton's era. Have you ever seen the movie "A few good men?" All Jack Nicolson had to his credit was commendations and power. None of that earned "in film" yet he's a respected and great general.
However, even great villains get thwarted.

Sure, villains are there to lose in the end most of the times. They don't have to lose all the way through the story though. Especially since the coup needs to fail in order for Zod to get imprisoned (that too undermines him but it's unavoidable when they play this out) he should imo just have been a bad ass that goes to house El and slaughters Kal's parents without anyone being able to stop him, but he just happens to be too late to stop the launch. That way he at least has some strength in defeat.

I can count on 40 hands the amount of times the joker has failed....dudes a pretty dangerous villain in spite of that.
Not a matter of what you can do that makes you dangerous but rather what you are willing to. See Joker, and OJ simpson for that matter.

Not in the same movie he hasn't.

In TDK he succeeds quite a lot (starts out with a bank robbery that goes perfectly for him), and even when he's finally captured he sort of ultimately wins with his ace in the hole (Dent and Rachel).

Kal's a big deal to the bad guys cause he represents heresy. A law man might make a big deal out of that.
I just also have a respect for what was achieved in the Jor El character.
Everything about Jor represents ascension from kryptons ways. He is walking show don't tell. The one draw back being as an idealist, he himself fails to represent true meaningful change for he's, at his core still a product of god complex backwards genetics of these people. His son however isn't, ero so the significance.

Krypton probably does what they do to enact control.
And sure, purpose breeding probably has it's advantages, but as I learned in the dreamworks movie antz, sometimes an individual can surprise you.

Representing heresy likely don't mean much to Jor-El. He has a grand and noble cause and isn't out to stick it to the man.

As for Jor being show don't tell, he shows us that he's perfectly capable of casting aside the Krypton way and do something completely different for the sake of the survival of the race (at least part of it). He however says that he's a product of Krypton. To me it seems that if he is so fundamentally a part of Krypton, how could he betray everything that society stood for? I just don't see him showing me anything that indicates that he couldn't have come to earth and been a noble and open-minded person, better than most humans.

I was joking.
As for your point, you're right. Such a thing does nothing to build up a villain. Fortunately MOS never claims to have a perfect villain, just a dangerous menacing one. One capable of underhanded cheap shots to trusted friends. One that was in the in end of the prelude, actually stopped by another kryptonian fleet.

Have you ever seen Gladiator? As superior as maximus is to our villain, I defy anyone to suggest Commodus isn't, a dangerous threat.

He doesn't have to be perfect but he'd be more menacing if they gave him a few stronger moments. A villain can often do more for a story than the protagonist.

Commodus isn't a constant failure. For example, he succeeds with his "coup".

 

[Marvin]

If I had a child and it was saved by what I perceived as divine intervention I'd be inclined to have a positive spin on it. But we can agree to disagree on this issue.

If you had a child that was saved by say, a mutant(in this case) you'd probably be inclined to have a positive spin as well. Some people however wouldn't. Some people might be scared of the larger picture and what it might mean. If I found out tmr that my best friend was destined to be the second coming of christ....there is a chance I could be anxious about it and what it means. Some people can be scared by these things.

I meant the explanation, not the word.

You mean it was too simplified?

No, since what happens in the second scene is all on screen. It's not at all clear that he's using any powers there, which is shown by that I still don't think it's possible that he did given his reaction.

No, you are told clark is on the swing set during the conversation. Infact by the time jon takes a look I bet it's still swinging due to clark having just recently heard enough. Just cause the camera goes inside the house doesn't mean clark is no longer a part of the scene. This is equivalent to the camera going inside the car.

When it comes to me judging the writing it's a lose-lose situation though. I think Clark is written poorly regardless of whether he uses his supersenses or not. The reason why I find it to be bad just shifts slightly.

It's a lose lose until you accept my rhetoric

Which works if it wasn't for Jon not being OK at all, as he's stuck with seconds left before he will die. If Clark could see inside he'd notice that Jon keeps struggling and doesn't get free, and if he does look there's no reason for him to just look for a second and then stop.

He, like Jon, thinks there is still a chance. And clark is ok with taking chances given the stakes. Ask yourself, when was it Jon realized there was no hope? Probably not when he was still kicking himself free. However when did Jon realize there was no hope?
Clark is of the same mind at this point imo.

Zod crashes through a building to get him, which is something you'd expect him to hear. Superman has super speed as well, which logically means that he can react in that speed.

Super speed is one of the trickiest powers to write though since logically you'd expect such creatures to always use super speed whenever speed is of any sort of importance (including convenience). If they don't it's like we normal people doing important things in simulated slow motion. I don't know if I've ever seen that power used with full logic (and it probably doesn't get very good) so I'm not really blaming Goyer on that one.

When dealing with two super speed people, general practice is that it equalizes itself out. Ergo people can get the drop on each other, if say they are fighting in the woods and one looses track of the other.

You are correct in assuming that it's almost impossible to get 100 percent right. The superman/faora fight being a key example. Then again...it's nothing but source material accurate. Even lex puts on a suit and lands punches on superman. Until the day superman lands 490089 and fifty two punches on the hulk and thor at the same time before they even blink, it's just going to have to be accepted for dramatics purposes. Goyer or no goyer.

You don't need hindsight to piece together that it's really bad if someone is stuck and a storm is throwing cars around just behind him, and it's coming closer fast.

Here's the deal, and I dread laying this out but here goes anyways.

We can assume that unlike Jon kent, Clark always had exposing himself to the crowd on the table as a viable option correct? Evidence being:
-It took jon stopping him from doing so in the end.
-and the beginning of scene argument

If you look at the events of the scene though that pretense, it's pretty clear that clark had a worst scenario plan the entire time and he truly thought jon was in ok shape the entire time, thus his telling martha that dads ok/we're ok actually makes twice as much sense than the context I already have it in. Ergo the vision being used to keep track of his fathers progress.

When the time came that he actually had to step in arose, he was met with an unpredictable obstacle. A fathers dying wish.

 

[TheBat812]

I tend to agree with this.

It begs the question however, how productive a scientist could a young zod have become?

Doesn't really beg much questioning: He probably would just never have been a scientist either way.




Btw, these quote-responses are getting ridiculous.

 

[matt47]

I just hope he stops using quote from the dark knight trilogy
"People are afraid of what they dont understand"- john kent
"And you always fear what you dont understand"-valcony

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

And then Luthor says to Superman "You fear..what you don't understand" before pulling out the Special K

Supes says to clark: What?! You don't understand fear.

 

[Tempest]

And then Luthor says to Superman "You fear..what you don't understand" before pulling out the Special K

Supes says to clark: What?! You don't understand fear.

Is this when the chibi JLA comes in?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

To which the entirety of the JLA respond: We understand what we don't fear

 

[slumcat]

You're making a gigantic and unfounded presumption, so please stop acting like it's something that's happened here when it hasn't.

Dude my suggestions seem to have completely upset you but all I am doing is floating a possible theory for the absence of Lara in the rest of the film, as we all are doing in this thread which is meant to discuss why certain script writing choices might have been made.

I will desist from making suggestions as it clearly upset you.