BvS The Zack Snyder Validation Thread (big rant)

[The Endless]

Superman is the biggest superhero icon there ever was. If his movie wasn't as polarizing, it would have made mega bucks.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

It is... i'm just playing him at his own game lol.

Groot and Rocket Raccoon are more endearing to audiences than bloody Superman. This is a problem. But it is well earned. Gunn managed to dramatize those characters feelings and perspectives better than Goyer dramatized Kal-El's feelings and perspectives.

You've stated this many times as objective fact. How do you measure ENDEARING-NESS objectively? They were endearing to you. And I suppose the BO of the film can say that they were well received by the mass audience. Beyond that, a blanket statement like that's got some holes in it.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Just because Superman is the most known superhero doesn't mean he's the most appealing one, regardless of Snyder's interpretation.

Iron Man and Cap are both equally well known today by the GA, yet Iron Man 3 made twice as much money because a guy in a robot suit is just more widely appealing than America Man. Same with Superman.

Of course quality is a factor when it comes to WOM and repeat viewings, but is that the reason why IM3 made a billion? IM3's opening weekend was nearly double that of MOS.

 

[The Endless]

Age of Extinction made $1 Billion?

@Endless:

GOTG is even more guilty of "tell and not show" than the entirety of MOS. The double standard is baffling as hell. To wit:

[BLACKOUT]We are TOLD about Quill's life in space and his time as part of Yondu's crew. We are TOLD about Drax's loss. We are TOLD about Ronan's problem with Xandar. We are TOLD about Gamora and her relationship with Thanos, and why she's suddenly turncoating on the Mad Titan. We are TOLD about the relationship between Nebula and Gamora. We are told about how now, suddenly, this group of near do wells is now going to act completely altruistic because, ya know, we need the heroes to fight the bad guys at the end.[/BLACKOUT] Maybe the slack is cut cuz GOTG is "fun" but to me, again, the double standard is clear as day.

Yes it does have a lot of exposition heavy dialogue. A lot of it is annoying.

But, the actual perspectives of the characters are shown through their actions and personalities too. And they don't flat out contradict each other.

I mean with Gamora for example. Is there any actual dialogue of her saying "Oh i don't like my dad he's evil!" No? Well the scene in prison shows she hates her reputation and affiliation with Thanos without a single line of dialogue. It's all in her face and reactions.

 

[hafizbat]

The GA isn't so dumb that Marvel still has no reputation with them. This is their 10th movie and they're running a single cinematic franchise. GoTG started with a stronger base than say, Iron Man 1 or Thor 1 did. It's going to get to 550 million or maybe 700 million according to The Endless based on the strength of the Marvel brand name. A lot of better movies (Edge of Tomorrow, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, etc) do less well due to lesser brands.

Would MoS have made more than 668 million if it had been a better movie? We can't say because there is zero correlation between quality and box office

There was nothing in GotG that the audience was familiar with. None of the Avengers were even mentioned, nor was SHIELD, HYDRA, etc. It was an entire new world with new characters that no one had ever heard of before. The only thing that makes it "Marvel 10" is the fact that Marvel made it.

Which was something MoS had as well. "From the people who brought you The Dark Knight Trilogy" was plastered all over MoS. And don't for a second think that the Guardians are anywhere near close to iconic and known as Superman.

And absolutely no one said that there is zero correlation between quality and box office. Obviously, a movie will make more money if it's actually good. Who knows, Transformers might have been able to make Avatar money if it was actually great. What I and others are saying is that box office is not always a good indicator of quality, which makes it somewhat pointless to bring up. But you knew that already.

 

[The Endless]

You've stated this many times as objective fact. How do you measure ENDEARING-NESS objectively? They were endearing to you. And I suppose the BO of the film can say that they were well received by the mass audience. Beyond that, a blanket statement like that's got some holes in it.

The universal praise for them and the distinctly mixed reaction to Superman's portrayal, from audiences and critics alike, is also an indicator.

But whatever. The point is Goyer and Snyder didn't convey what they were aiming for very well. There is a bucket load of lip service in the movie. The whole genetically created Kryptonians we are told about. Well what we are shown is quite different. A genetically created scientists **** stomps a genetically created military leader who has apparently trained all his life to perfect his skills and senses. Jor-El pontificates about Kal having free will bla bla bla. Yet Kal El makes no decisions for himself. He does what Jon tells him... and watches him die. Then he doesn't know what the hell he is supposed to do and becomes a nomad. Then he finds Jor-El and he tells him "You must become a symbol for mankind to follow into the sun!" He even has to get advise from a preacher at one point.

Free will? What free will?

 

[hafizbat]

Yes it does have a lot of exposition heavy dialogue. A lot of it is annoying.

But, the actual perspectives of the characters are shown through their actions and personalities too. And they don't flat out contradict each other.

I mean with Gamora for example. Is there any actual dialogue of her saying "Oh i don't like my dad he's evil!" No? Well the scene in prison shows she hates her reputation and affiliation with Thanos without a single line of dialogue. It's all in her face and reactions.

I'd add that so much exposition was pretty much required. It's just not possible to create a universe as expansive as the one in GotG without some heavy duty dialogue.

And there are 5 main characters, with many important side characters. The fact that there was that much exposition and the movie still managed to have so many character moments is an achievement, rather than something to criticize. By the end of the movie, I felt like I actually knew and cared about those 5 wacky characters. MoS couldn't make me care about just one.

 

[DA_Champion]

There was nothing in GotG that the audience was familiar with. None of the Avengers were even mentioned, nor was SHIELD, HYDRA, etc. It was an entire new world with new characters that no one had ever heard of before. The only thing that makes it "Marvel 10" is the fact that Marvel made it.

There's the fact that they let everybody know it was Marvel movie in the marketing (which was a good business decision), and finally there is plenty in this to buy into if you're an MCU fan. We saw events from The Avengers and Thor 2 mentioned.

GoTG has the same narrative structure and style as The Avengers which will stroke a feeling of familiarity. A lot of scenes are homages to Star Wars and The Avengers, which further strokes a feeling of familiarity. Rocket and Groot may nominally be new characters, but they're explicitly derivative of Han and Chewbacca which people have seen before and this will give the audience an avenue to buy into them.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Yes it does have a lot of exposition heavy dialogue. A lot of it is annoying.

But, the actual perspectives of the characters are shown through their actions and personalities too. And they don't flat out contradict each other.

I mean with Gamora for example. Is there any actual dialogue of her saying "Oh i don't like my dad he's evil!" No? Well the scene in prison shows she hates her reputation and affiliation with Thanos without a single line of dialogue. It's all in her face and reactions.

Actually I believe there is a line of dialog that more or less says just that in the film. Forgive me, I've seen it once and plan to give it another day in court, so I don't have it memorized just yet. But frankly, the specific motivation you just proclaimed for her seems to be your reading, and not something that comes across all that well in the film. There actually seems to be quite bit of noticing how thin Gamora is as a character in GOTG. She TELLS us about how she wants out of her relationship with Thanos, that's for sure. Saying that the prison scenes convey what you say? That's falling on the conjecture side to me. And... That's fine if you saw that. Just as myself and others apparently saw a depth in MOS that you and others don't. Quote all the critics and books on film theory all you want, but as this moment with Gamora would indicate, viewing films is incredibly subjective.

 

[hafizbat]

Actually I believe there is a line of dialog that more or less says just that in the film. Forgive me, I've seen it once and plan to give it another day in court, so I don't have it memorized just yet. But frankly, the specific motivation you just proclaimed for her seems to be your reading, and not something that comes across all that well in the film. There actually seems to be quite bit of noticing how thin Gamora is as a character in GOTG. She TELLS us about how she wants out of her relationship with Thanos, that's for sure. Saying that the prison scenes convey what you say? That's falling on the conjecture side to me. And... That's fine if you saw that. Just as myself and others apparently saw a depth in MOS that you and others don't. Quote all the critics and books on film theory all you want, but as this moment with Gamora would indicate, viewing films is incredibly subjective.

She tells Quill about how Thanos murdered her family in front of her and tortured her, turning her into his weapon.

I don't see anything wrong with that...I certainly don't expect them to show all that. The movie was not about Gamora's upbringing, or Rocket's past, or Drax's family.

 

[hafizbat]

There's the fact that they let everybody know it was Marvel movie in the marketing (which was a good business decision), and finally there is plenty in this to buy into if you're an MCU fan. We saw events from The Avengers and Thor 2 mentioned.

GoTG has the same narrative structure and style as The Avengers which will stroke a feeling of familiarity. A lot of scenes are homages to Star Wars and The Avengers, which further strokes a feeling of familiarity. Rocket and Groot may nominally be new characters, but they're explicitly derivative of Han and Chewbacca which people have seen before and this will give the audience an avenue to buy into them.

What's your point? None of the things you mention would have saved GotG from being a major failure if it wasn't a great movie that people loved.

And MoS had all of the same benefits. Marketing related it to the 2 billion+ grossing TDK trilogy, had the most iconic superhero ever, and certainly "stroked a feeling of familiarity" as Cavill is like the fifth actor to portray Superman. Which is far more tangible than the vague relation you make to Chewbacca.

 

[DA_Champion]

Actually I believe there is a line of dialog that more or less says just that in the film. Forgive me, I've seen it once and plan to give it another day in court, so I don't have it memorized just yet. But frankly, the specific motivation you just proclaimed for her seems to be your reading, and not something that comes across all that well in the film. There actually seems to be quite bit of noticing how thin Gamora is as a character in GOTG. She TELLS us about how she wants out of her relationship with Thanos, that's for sure. Saying that the prison scenes convey what you say? That's falling on the conjecture side to me. And... That's fine if you saw that. Just as myself and others apparently saw a depth in MOS that you and others don't. Quote all the critics and books on film theory all you want, but as this moment with Gamora would indicate, viewing films is incredibly subjective.

I accept it when film snobs look down on MoS, and stop accepting it when they point to movies like GoTG as the paragon of good cinema.

I'm done with the GoTG comparisons, they're boring.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

She tells Quill about how Thanos murdered her family in front of her and tortured her, turning her into his weapon.

I don't see anything wrong with that...I certainly don't expect them to show all that. The movie was not about Gamora's upbringing, or Rocket's past, or Drax's family.

But it's still ALL conveyed through dialogue, which I thought was the cardinal sin of cinema, what with all the quoting of "show, don't tell" round here from all the wannabe auteurs and screenwriters? Now, I happen to believe that you can't always SHOW in a film and that sometimes you gotta TELL. Sure. But to me the majority of GOTG is TELLING us stuff, cut with funny interactions (hilarious interactions actually) and so-so action. I wish more had been done like [BLACKOUT]the scene of Quill and Rocket at the Kyln. When Rocket comes in and we see the implants and scares on his back it conveys quite a bit, and added to Rocket's drunken outburst in KNOWHERE (which again had some TELLING in it) was a very good way of getting us into Rocket's head.[/BLACKOUT] It's too bad that's the only part, Rocket, that I can think of that wasn't TELLING us things.

Let me be clear. I don't in any way think GOTG is a bad film. I think it's highly overrated right now. My problem is why does it get a pass for the SHOW DON'T TELL rule all the critics around here applied to MOS which, frankly, didn't have nearly as much.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I think the difference is that in MOS, all the exposition was from long monologues from emotionless kryptonians. The exposition scenes weren't as enjoyable for some.

Anyways, I'm also tired of the GotG/MOS comparisons regarding how audiences connected more with a racoon than Superman, as if having an endearing anthropomorphic character is some sort of new feat (nevermind Toy Story, Wall E, Star Wars, Avatar, Lion King, etc) and that any classic widely-known property/character that isn't as well received as these new characters is some sort of embarrassment.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I think the difference is that in MOS, all the exposition was from long monologues from emotionless kryptonians. The exposition scenes weren't as enjoyable for some.

Which kind of goes to what I'm saying... GOTG got a pass cuz it was a "fun" Marvel Studios film on a lot of it's flaws. From it's TELLING and not showing, to it's underdeveloped villain, thin female lead, and to my mind, pretty quotidian action, it came across as a competent film. No more, no less. The praise it's receiving baffles the hell out of me. I like witty banter in my CBMs as much as the next guy, but if that's all MOS needed to cover it's supposed sins against cinema, well then maybe Snyder should ask Terrio to pepper the script for BvS with enough humor to qualify it as a comedy first, and an action drama second.

 

[LamboMan]

I read an analysis online that the tornado scene would have worked better if Dylan Sprayberry rather than Henry Cavill had played the role of Clark Kent.

ETA: LamboMan, I think that post actually confirms a criticism that I have made of the editing in MoS, Snyder didn't help us understand the right things. A lot of details are in the film but are ultimately missed because of the editing, camera angles, etc. I don't think a lot of people thought about the implications of Jonathan keeping Clark busy to keep him out of danger, a lot of it happens quickly.

There's a lot of quick cutting in MoS, other examples I've listed before are:
- The ship crash lands into the Kent farm, but only if you're fast enough to notice;
- Pete extends his hand in friendship to Clark at the end of the bullying scene, but only if you're fast enough to notice;
- Clark helps Lois off the helicopter, but only if you're fast enough to notice;
- Zod is the one doing most of the destruction in the final fight, but only if you're fast enough to notice;

I wonder if visual IQ and reaction time correlates with appreciation of MoS.

I think you're onto something here. When I was in the theatre watching MOS for the first time I noticed all of these things above as and when they happened and pointed them out to the people I went with. They may have noticed the Pete and Zod ones themselves, but the first and third points are very quick cuts.

Other than a few such scenes the rest of the more drawn out ones like the tornado, clark's flashbacks the fortress discovery, Jor-el exposition etc. were well detailed and anyone willing to spend a little energy and rub two brain cells together could easily assimilate the information as the scenes took place. I find the complaints about the shots not showing enough, or the dialogues not explaining enough to be baffling. Everything that needed to be shown and explained to bring the story across to the audience was there in the movie.

Have we become that comfortable or lazy that we need every last detail to be spoon fed to us and cannot use our reasoning to understand things by ourselves? Is it really that a movie that requires a little bit of thinking and that challenges one's normal notions of big action movies has to be taken as a threat to the average moviegoer's intelligence? Have the usual popcorn action flicks made us that complacent that we cannot accept anything different or i daresay 'better'?

 

[The Endless]

No, Snyder just needs to dramatize what the characters are feeling, what their aims are, why they are in conflict etc better. It's got nothing to do with comedy. The way in which it is done is just the method. GotG chose a comedic route to do those things. It executed them well. MoS went a more serious route to do those things. It didn't execute them well.

I mean seriously, ask yourself this. Why does Kal want to be mankinds inspiration and saviour? This is the most important question. Does the film actually show WHY he WANTS to do this? Or does it just assume we all know he should do it just because he's supposed to be the hero?

 

[The Endless]

Other than a few such scenes the rest of the more drawn out ones like the tornado, clark's flashbacks the fortress discovery, Jor-el exposition etc. were well detailed and anyone willing to spend a little energy and rub two brain cells together could easily assimilate the information as the scenes took place. I find the complaints about the shots not showing enough, or the dialogues not explaining enough to be baffling. Everything that needed to be shown and explained to bring the story across to the audience was there in the movie.

No it wasn't. Explain to me WHY Kal WANTS to be mankinds saviour, using what was shown in the film.

What was the purpose of Jor bonding the Codex to Kal? Is it to make Kal the ultimate Kryptonian? Or did he actually intend for Kal to be "harvested"?

What was the point of Kal even being a natural birth? We are TOLD it's so he will have free will. But then, all he ever does in the movie is do what he's told. The disconnect between what we are told and what is actually shown is vast.

This is a common problem with Snyder's films. He comes up with interesting ideas but he fails to communicate them, to actually dramatize them.

Have we become that comfortable or lazy that we need every last detail to be spoon fed to us and cannot use our reasoning to understand things by ourselves? Is it really that a movie that requires a little bit of thinking and that challenges one's normal notions of big action movies has to be taken as a threat to the average moviegoer's intelligence? Have the usual popcorn action flicks made us that complacent that we cannot accept anything different or i daresay 'better'?

Rubbish. You can't hand wave poorly dramatized ideas and characterizations with "you just want to be spoon fed".

This film is just as "dumb" as any other decent summer blockbuster. Maybe even dumber.

Read Film Crit Hulk's analysis of this film. He knows more about the art of screen writing than any one of us here. It's his job to study and sometimes "fix" screenplays.

 

[DA_Champion]

The way I read the film, Clark always wanted to be a saviour, but ge didn't know how to go about it.

 

[The Endless]

Yea but WHY did he want to be the saviour? From what the film shows us, Jon is constantly telling him to keep his powers secret. He even suggests that he should have let the kids on the bus drown.

NOW, TO EXPLAIN THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF CHARACTER CLARITY HULK IS GOING TO FIRST TURN TO AN OLD SAYING IN STORYTELLING THAT "CHARACTER IS KING." WHILE THAT PHRASE IS SOMETHING A LOT OF PEOPLE HEAR, NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT. THE SAYING IS NOT ONLY MEANT TO IMPLY THAT CHARACTERS ARE "THE MOST IMPORTANT THING" IN YOUR NARRATIVE, BUT WE ARE MEANT TO TAKE THE ANALOGY EVEN FURTHER TO IMPLY: EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR STORY SHOULD BE DICTATED FROM CHARACTER. MEANING THEY'RE NOT JUST IMPORTANT, BUT THAT THEIR ACTIONS SHOULD SPECIFICALLY CONTROL AND SHAPE YOUR PLOT. FURTHERMORE, THE DECISIONS OR ETHOS OF YOUR CHARACTER SHOULD DICTATE ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE MOVIE ITSELF.

Clar/Kal just reacts to the plot. The plot doesn't react to him.

WHEN HE PUNCHES DOWN THE DRONE AT THE END OF THE FILM AND THE SOLDIER ASKS HOW THEY KNOW HE HAS AMERICAN INTERESTS AT HEART, HE JUST SHOUTS BACK "I'm from Kansas!" IT'S DEFINITELY A FUNNY LINE, BUT UTTERLY SYMBOLIC OF THE REDUCTIVE SHORTHAND THE FILM IS CONSTANTLY TRYING TO ACHIEVE. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY HIS REASON FOR SAVING EVERYTHING. HE SIMPLY IS A GOOD PERSON. HE IS SIMPLY FROM AMERICA. WHEN THEY WANT HIM TO PRETEND TO BE CONFLICTED ABOUT THESE THINGS HE SO OBVIOUSLY IS, THEY HAVE HIM SAY THINGS LIKE "I'm conflicted!" AND THEY ASSUME THOSE THINGS WILL SUFFICE. WHEN HULK USES TERM "LIP SERVICE" THAT'S EXACTLY THE MEANINGLESS, EMPTY JABBERING THAT HULK MEANS. IT'S A MOVIE TRYING TO EXPLAIN AWAY A PROBLEM WITH REDUCTIVE STATEMENTS, RATHER THAN DRAMATIZING ONE. RATHER THAN EXPRESSING THOSE IDEAS AS STORY AND CINEMA. WHICH SUCKS FOR US BECAUSE TRUST, CARE AND UNDERSTANDING HAVE TO BE BUILT ON SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL, MOST NOTABLY: A SUCCESSION OF CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS WE EXPERIENCE WITH THE CHARACTER.

 

[The Endless]

WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON WITH PA KENT IN THIS MOVIE?

UNDERNEATH ALL OF PA KENT'S RIDICULOUS BACK AND FORTH AND HIS POORLY DRAMATIZED BEHAVIOR THERE IS AN OBVIOUS INTENTION AND IT IS THAT HE BOTH WANTS TO PROTECT HIS SON FROM THE WORLD, WHILE ALSO WANTING HIS SON TO BE A GOOD PERSON. THESE TWO IDEAS ARE IN OBVIOUS CONTENTION AND THE FILM IS TRYING TO RECOGNIZE THAT DIFFICULTY BY SAYING THAT THE DECISION IS TOUGH. SOUNDS PRETTY FAIR, RIGHT?

BUT THE PROBLEM, LIKE MOST THINGS IN THIS MOVIE, COMES DOWN TO DRAMATIZATION. INSTEAD OF FINDING THE GOOD EXAMPLE OF A MORAL GRAY AREA, THEY HAVE PA KENT JUST OSCILLATE BACK AND FORTH ON REALLY OBVIOUS MORAL CHOICES, RENDERING HIM NOTHING MORE THAN A LIMP NOODLE OF AMORAL, INARTICULATE THOUGHT. THIS IS NOT ONLY WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU "TELL, DON'T SHOW," BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE CHARACTERS SPEAK ON A ETHICAL ISSUE THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY PLAY INTO THE DRAMA AT HAND. AS A RESULT, PA KENT HONESTLY JUST COMES OFF AS KIND OF INSANE. LOOKING JUST AT WHAT THE MOVIE PRESENTS TO US: WHAT ABOUT HIS SON IMPLIES HE'S NOT A GOOD PERSON? WHAT ABOUT THEIR SITUATION IMPLIES A CRISIS? THE STORY DOES NOT DICTATE ANYTHING.

Good ideas, poor execution. I agree with everything here.

 

[LamboMan]

No it wasn't. Explain to me WHY Kal WANTS to be mankinds saviour, using what was shown in the film.

What was the purpose of Jor bonding the Codex to Kal? Is it to make Kal the ultimate Kryptonian? Or did he actually intend for Kal to be "harvested"?

What was the point of Kal even being a natural birth? We are TOLD it's so he will have free will. But then, all he ever does in the movie is do what he's told. The disconnect between what we are told and what is actually shown is vast.

This is a common problem with Snyder's films. He comes up with interesting ideas but he fails to communicate them, to actually dramatize them.



Rubbish. You can't hand wave poorly dramatized ideas and characterizations with "you just want to be spoon fed".

This film is just as "dumb" as any other decent summer blockbuster. Maybe even dumber.

Read Film Crit Hulk's analysis of this film. He knows more about the art of screen writing than any one of us here. It's his job to study and sometimes "fix" screenplays.

I can direct you towards the two links at the bottom of my signature that will take you to posts where I have talked about some of these things in detail.

About the free will point, it was ultimately Clark's decision to submit himself to the Kryptonians in order to save earth. He could as easily have wandered off and gone into hiding again.

Jor-El meant Clark to be 'a bridge between two peoples' but he expected Clark to find his own way since he knew he could not come back as force ghost and guide his every step. That's what makes a man ultimately.

The point of Clark having a natural birth is that he is the first in 1000's of generations to be given the freedom to choose what to do with his life, and since Jor knew Krypton was going to explode he knew that had Clark been programmed he would not have survived without Krypton since he would have been without a purpose. He gave him a chance to find his own purpose in life, which in the end is one of life's major victories to be achieved by anyone who does not have a way or purpose in life.

People have given explanation like this one from DA Champion >> http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=29551531&postcount=790

In the end it is up to you to read, reason, mull over and accept our arguments, which one can construe you do not seem to be in a position to let yourself do by the way you call anyone who supports MOS a 'little DC fanboy'.

 

[DA_Champion]

That's a moot point as the movie doesn't even ask why he wants to be a saviour. What the movie shows is that he's naturally empathetic. It's a starting condition. The Earth-portion of the movie opens with him helping the oil rig workers.

Clark's struggle is to figure out how, not why, imo. It goes back to that talk with pa kent. How can he save people without ending up in a government lab?

 

[The Endless]

I can direct you towards the two links at the bottom of my signature that will take you to posts where I have talked about some of these things in detail.

I'll have a look

About the free will point, it was ultimately Clark's decision to submit himself to the Kryptonians in order to save earth. He could as easily have wandered off and gone into hiding again.

Yes but he didn't make the decision himself. He had to go to a preacher and ask for his help to make the decision. This is the most indecisive Superman i've ever seen.

Jor-El meant Clark to be 'a bridge between two peoples' but he expected Clark to find his own way since he knew he could not come back as force ghost and guide his every step. That's what makes a man ultimately.

Well what was the point of bonding the Codex to him then? How does this effect Kal's ability to be a "bridge between two peoples"? What does that quote even mean? And he did come back as a "force ghost" to dump a load of exposition and tell him what to do.

The point of Clark having a natural birth is that he is the first in 1000's of generations to be given the freedom to choose what to do with his life, and since Jor knew Krypton was going to explode he knew that had Clark been programmed he would not have survived without Krypton since he would have been without a purpose. He gave him a chance to find his own purpose in life, which in the end is one of life's major victories to be achieved by anyone who does not have a way or purpose in life.

Of course. But again, does Kal truly make that decision himself? What i see in the movie is very different. Like i said earlier, this is THE most indecisive Superman, maybe superhero, i've ever seen on the big screen.

People have given explanation like this one from DA Champion >> http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=29551531&postcount=790

In the end it is up to you to read, reason, mull over and accept our arguments, which one can construe you do not seem to be in a position to let yourself do by the way you call anyone who supports MOS a 'little DC fanboy'.[/QUOTE]

I don't call anyone who supports MoS a "little DC fanboy". I call people who have to bring Marvel films up and bring them down to raise Man of Steel up "little DC fanboys". If you can't defend the film on it's own merits, but have to slam other films it shows insecurity and your opinions are coming from a more emotionally irrational place.

 

[DA_Champion]

If you can't defend the film on it's own merits, but have to slam other films it shows insecurity and your opinions are coming from a more emotionally irrational place.

Ok, then quit criticizing MoS on the basis that you enjoyed GoTG more