So wait, if there was an article that popped up and said "MOS...still the best CBM of all time" how are people not allowed to get annoyed at that, but annoyed at this? It's just another opinion out there, why all the hate?
Its not hate, but bewilderment at someone doing a "revisit" to a movie and getting wrong a factual event in the movie. They can surely express their dislike and say that indeed, as many say, the portrayed Superman failed to live up to the perfect hero model that to many IS Superman, and THAT is an opinion. But when they explicitly support that opinion by stating and RE-STATING a factual mistake in how things happened in the film, ex: Superman saving or not Jenny when about to get crushed by the gravity beam, and the need for Superman to stop the machine generating the gravity beam, you are supporting a valid opinion with factually mistaken data, which renders the opinion invalid, as well, and undermines what is otherwise a perfectly acceptable article.
And when this is done by posters here or in informal blogs by people whose memories have been changed to better match their distaste its no big thing, but when it is, as
DA_Champion observed "well written and posted on an influential discussion site", then it becomes more bothersome, because it bugs me with the question what are their minds registering while watching a movie.
So I am asking a question here: If MOS had problems of pacing, abridged characterization, forced plot developments, and general tone in both thematic and visual issues, do these make the basic PLOT too hard for a normally non-moronic mind to understand? Really?
I mean, I am not asking if people caught the probable subtext debate between utilitarism and Kantian idealism, or the recursive postmodern elements. I am asking if the movie was too convoluted for people to remember later who did what and how things were achieved, you know, the stuff of how things play out in comics and cartoons, and this movie.
t:
