TMOS Review & Speculation Thread (Spoilers) - Part 3

[Charlie The Red]

Saw the movie yesterday at a 4 o'clock matinee. I need to see it again because I didn't hear a lot of the dialogue from the first half of the movie (some mothers brought their toddlers in and weren't controlling them. The kids were taking pictures of people in the audience with a flash and were just being loud and obnoxious. People clapped when they got thrown out of the theater)

Anywho, I liked it, but I see what some of the criticism was about. I don't think it merits a 57% Rotten on RT by any means. That, to me, seems extremely unfair as this is a good movie. It just wasn't a great movie. I have hope that the sequel can be a strong improvement after they read some of the valid criticisms and make notes.

PROS -
- Henry Cavill may be the best Superman yet
- Amy Adams was convincing to me as Lois Lane
- Zod and his misfits were great villains and had a great motivation
- The movie was gorgeous
- The Krypton sequence showed us a Krypton that we're not used to seeing

CONS -
- Some of the action sequences seemed to come out of nowhere (the tentacle)
- Cal-El/Clark didn't really have enough lines
- Lois going onto the ship seemed way too convenient.
- Did we really need to hear Chris Cornell "Seasons" to understand that Clark was in a slump? It reminded me of when they played Alice in Chains "Rooster" in Terminator: Salvation for no real reason. *shiver* It almost seemed like Zack just liked the song and wanted to shoehorn it in there.
- The movie seemed to jump around a bit too much. I'm not talking about the flashbacks (I actually got the flashbacks, and understood that they were out of order because they were how he remembered them), but generally from scene to scene the film seemed to go from Point A to Point D without ever really showing us Points B and C.

Again, I'm really disappointed that so many critics threw the book at this film. Part of me thinks the reason for the lower RT score is because comic book films are a dime a dozen these days and the formula is long past stale. I also think there's some bias for the Donner vision of Superman. This movie gave a whole new look at Superman that I think some people just weren't willing to digest. In reality though, the film was a solid Superman film, better than Superman Returns, and gave a whole new look at the character that I think was long overdue.

In some ways, the film reminds me of the first Highlander film. There were some amazing action sequences, visually it's incredible, and there's a great concept there, but it piles on so much action and visuals that the strong foundation of the story buckles from the weight. It's less of a problem with the story and more of a problem with the execution.

7/10 for me.

 

[Charlie The Red]

Also, leave it to Zack Snyder to turn Jonathan Kent dying into a video game cut scene. That scene really bothered me. When Jonathan Kent died in the old Superman film, I felt it emotionally. When Thomas Wayne gets shot and just dies right there in an alley way, I felt it.

But when I saw Kevin Costner get sucked into that F5 tornado, I just thought to myself, "Ok, that sucks that he's dead, but is it really necessary to have him swallowed by a giant CGI tornado?" It kind of cheapened his death for me. They should have rewritten that.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Also, leave it to Zack Snyder to turn Jonathan Kent dying into a video game cut scene. That scene really bothered me. When Jonathan Kent died in the old Superman film, I felt it emotionally. When Thomas Wayne gets shot and just dies right there in an alley way, I felt it.

But when I saw Kevin Costner get sucked into that F5 tornado, I just thought to myself, "Ok, that sucks that he's dead, but is it really necessary to have him swallowed by a giant CGI tornado?" It kind of cheapened his death for me. They should have rewritten that.

I can't remember which critic said it but I think they summed it up nicely: Zack Snyder is incapable of living in a simple moment. Something HUGE has to be going on in the background.

Jor-El is having words with the Kryptonian counsel WHILE A CIVIL WAR IS BEING FOUGHT OUTSIDE

Jonathan Kent and Clark share an emotional moment of catharsis WHILE A MEGA TORNADO TEARS UP A HIGHWAY

Clark attempts to destroy the world destructo machine WHILE ENORMOUS METAL TENTACLES ATTACK HIM

 

[BlueLantern]

I wish I could tell ever person who complains about there being TOO much action to rewatch Superman Returns.

The problem with Superman Returns wasn't the lack of action. It was that Superman himself wasn't compelling enough besides bemoaning how much people asked to be saved and how alone he is in this world.

Man of Steel went some way towards addressing that particular issue since the character scenes were fantastic however they weren't balanced alongside the larger than life and horribly detaching action scenes.

Ironically one of the things I felt Superman Returns got right was the rescue sequences, which really showed Superman caring and protecting mankind from danger be it large or small. Those parts were great.

As mentioned, this was one of the places Man of Steel got it wrong. The action and 'superfeats' were all broad strokes with the minutiae ignored.

There was no emotional danger. It was wanton destruction with no consideration from Superman about the safety of innocent civilians.

I remember the Superman Returns video game had an interesting concept to it. Superman himself was invulnerable but it was game over if Metropolis suffered too much damage. That was his Achilles' heel.

So you'd still go around 'punching' and 'flying' etc but you really had to keep the city safe. I'd want that desire to keep people safe explored in the sequel otherwise it'll just be another explosion fest with little room for emotional involvement.

 

[Genesis 1.0]

Saw the movie yesterday at a 4 o'clock matinee. I need to see it again because I didn't hear a lot of the dialogue from the first half of the movie (some mothers brought their toddlers in and weren't controlling them. The kids were taking pictures of people in the audience with a flash and were just being loud and obnoxious. People clapped when they got thrown out of the theater)

Anywho, I liked it, but I see what some of the criticism was about. I don't think it merits a 57% Rotten on RT by any means. That, to me, seems extremely unfair as this is a good movie. It just wasn't a great movie. I have hope that the sequel can be a strong improvement after they read some of the valid criticisms and make notes.

PROS -
- Henry Cavill may be the best Superman yet
- Amy Adams was convincing to me as Lois Lane
- Zod and his misfits were great villains and had a great motivation
- The movie was gorgeous
- The Krypton sequence showed us a Krypton that we're not used to seeing

CONS -
- Some of the action sequences seemed to come out of nowhere (the tentacle)
- Cal-El/Clark didn't really have enough lines
- Lois going onto the ship seemed way too convenient.
- Did we really need to hear Chris Cornell "Seasons" to understand that Clark was in a slump? It reminded me of when they played Alice in Chains "Rooster" in Terminator: Salvation for no real reason. *shiver* It almost seemed like Zack just liked the song and wanted to shoehorn it in there.
- The movie seemed to jump around a bit too much. I'm not talking about the flashbacks (I actually got the flashbacks, and understood that they were out of order because they were how he remembered them), but generally from scene to scene the film seemed to go from Point A to Point D without ever really showing us Points B and C.

Again, I'm really disappointed that so many critics threw the book at this film. Part of me thinks the reason for the lower RT score is because comic book films are a dime a dozen these days and the formula is long past stale. I also think there's some bias for the Donner vision of Superman. This movie gave a whole new look at Superman that I think some people just weren't willing to digest. In reality though, the film was a solid Superman film, better than Superman Returns, and gave a whole new look at the character that I think was long overdue.

In some ways, the film reminds me of the first Highlander film. There were some amazing action sequences, visually it's incredible, and there's a great concept there, but it piles on so much action and visuals that the strong foundation of the story buckles from the weight. It's less of a problem with the story and more of a problem with the execution.

7/10 for me.

We have nearly the same sentiment and the exact same rating.

As I said, it's a good movie that has great moments but that doesn't make it a great movie.

 

[DorkyFresh]

So you'd still go around 'punching' and 'flying' etc but you really had to keep the city safe. I'd want that desire to keep people safe explored in the sequel otherwise it'll just be another explosion fest with little room for emotional involvement.

Well yes...ideally he'd try to avoid crashing into populated buildings, but then how are you supposed to live up to the potential of a Superman action sequence if you don't show massive destruction? It's a catch 22.

 

[ares834]

So you'd still go around 'punching' and 'flying' etc but you really had to keep the city safe. I'd want that desire to keep people safe explored in the sequel otherwise it'll just be another explosion fest with little room for emotional involvement.

I think and hope we do as well. Incidentally, I think something the sequel should explore is having Lex blame Superman for the destruction of part of the city.

 

[BlueLantern]

The point of my post was to say that MOS basically made up for the lack of action by giving us a plethora of it. IMO, this is not a bad thing. I've been waiting to see Superman go all out in a live action movie with modern effects since the 90's. SR didn't deliver....this film did.

That word is the issue. Too much means diminishing returns

Well yes...ideally he'd try to avoid crashing into populated buildings, but then how are you supposed to live up to the potential of a Superman action sequence if you don't show massive destruction? It's a catch 22.

That's the whole point. That conflict is what anchors the action sequences but instead they just flat out ignored it. 'Oh jeez, we can't figure out how to balance the big scale with emotional vulnerability so **** the latter'.

I've wanted to see a good Superman film since Chris Reeve had his accident. It's a thing. That means superfeats, good action centered by a strong emotional core and answers the question of what it means to be Superman.

The film explores parts of this but doesn't go the whole hog and I don't buy the 'well they'll look at that in the sequel'. Nolan and Goyer have explicitly stated in the past that they don't do sequel bait.

They just either chose to ignore it or even worse, didn't even consider it.

 

[sf2]

The problem with Superman Returns wasn't the lack of action. It was that Superman himself wasn't compelling enough besides bemoaning how much people asked to be saved and how alone he is in this world.

Man of Steel went some way towards addressing that particular issue since the character scenes were fantastic however they weren't balanced alongside the larger than life and horribly detaching action scenes.

Ironically one of the things I felt Superman Returns got right was the rescue sequences, which really showed Superman caring and protecting mankind from danger be it large or small. Those parts were great.

As mentioned, this was one of the places Man of Steel got it wrong. The action and 'superfeats' were all broad strokes with the minutiae ignored.

There was no emotional danger. It was wanton destruction with no consideration from Superman about the safety of innocent civilians.

I remember the Superman Returns video game had an interesting concept to it. Superman himself was invulnerable but it was game over if Metropolis suffered too much damage. That was his Achilles' heel.

So you'd still go around 'punching' and 'flying' etc but you really had to keep the city safe. I'd want that desire to keep people safe explored in the sequel otherwise it'll just be another explosion fest with little room for emotional involvement.

well, u r not wrong. but the huge destruction mainly is due to the "black zero? - that 2 piling things" and superman has tried his best to destroy them.

 

[BlueLantern]

Superman has two facets to him. Standing up to evil and saving people. Through that, he inspires good in others and is essentially the flag bearer for a bright future.

Both facets are explored to a point but when it comes to the crunch, the film sacrifices those emotional anchors in favor of spectacle. It's just generic action.

The Black Zero situation was the perfect way to explore the catch twenty-two of saving people or standing up to evil.

As mentioned before, there's no element of indecision even. He just goes '**** it, I'll go blow some **** up and defeat Zod'.

It's callous behaviour on his part and ultimately sloppy storytelling. A plethora of action does not in any way forgive or bypass that issue.

 

[sf2]

Superman has two facets to him. Standing up to evil and saving people. Through that, he inspires good in others and is essentially the flag bearer for a bright future.

Both facets are explored to a point but when it comes to the crunch, the film sacrifices those emotional anchors in favor of spectacle. It's just generic action.

The Black Zero situation was the perfect way to explore the catch twenty-two of saving people or standing up to evil.

As mentioned before, there's no element of indecision even. He just goes '**** it, I'll go blow some **** up and defeat Zod'.

It's callous behaviour on his part and ultimately sloppy storytelling. A plethora of action does not in any way forgive or bypass that issue.

i agree with you on this. they should have written better on the Black Zero situation. to me, it is just too much the destruction and we didn't see superman saving people around. it's a bit depressing even though we know that superman is in the other side of the world to save the planet.

 

[DorkyFresh]

That word is the issue. Too much means diminishing returns

Well I certainly didn't receive any diminishing returns. I felt that there was JUST ENOUGH action. When I say plethora, I mean in comparison to the previous Superman films. I felt that all the action in this film was justified.

That's the whole point. That conflict is what anchors the action sequences but instead they just flat out ignored it. 'Oh jeez, we can't figure out how to balance the big scale with emotional vulnerability so **** the latter'.

I've wanted to see a good Superman film since Chris Reeve had his accident. It's a thing. That means superfeats, good action centered by a strong emotional core and answers the question of what it means to be Superman.

The film explores parts of this but doesn't go the whole hog and I don't buy the 'well they'll look at that in the sequel'. Nolan and Goyer have explicitly stated in the past that they don't do sequel bait.

They just either chose to ignore it or even worse, didn't even consider it.

Well then you and I just fundamentally disagree. I felt that this film covered all the bases that makes Superman the figure of authority that he's come to be known as. Pa Kent guides him to be a good person, Jor El supports that notion and Ma Kent nurtures all of that with her love and support. They got all the character development and emotional storytelling done before the climactic battles so I didn't need to see him question himself while he's fighting Zod and his cronnies. He already knew who and what he wanted to be! No, he might not have been able to save every life in Metropolis. Yes, he might have caused some accidental deaths by fighting with Zod.....but if the dominoes are falling, you have to sacrifice some of them to stop the REST from falling. If there's a threat that is not going to stop, then you need to stop the threat before any further damage is done. If you're too preoccupied with keeping everyone safe, then that threat will just continue to wreak havoc. To me that's just common sense...and maybe that's why I'm perfectly fine without seeing Superman worrying about the people who are dying in the path of the battle. If anything, Zod threatening to kill the family at the end was meant to signify the collateral damage. Zod and Superman's battle surely killed dozens of people, but Superman had to stop Zod despite the consequences.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Well I certainly didn't receive any diminishing returns. I felt that there was JUST ENOUGH action. When I say plethora, I mean in comparison to the previous Superman films. I felt that all the action in this film was justified.


Well then you and I just fundamentally disagree. I felt that this film covered all the bases that makes Superman the figure of authority that he's come to be known as. Pa Kent guides him to be a good person, Jor El supports that notion and Ma Kent nurtures all of that with her love and support. They got all the character development and emotional storytelling done before the climactic battles so I didn't need to see him question himself while he's fighting Zod and his cronnies. He already knew who and what he wanted to be! No, he might not have been able to save every life in Metropolis. Yes, he might have caused some accidental deaths by fighting with Zod.....but if the dominoes are falling, you have to sacrifice some of them to stop the REST from falling. To me that's common sense. If there's a threat that is not going to stop, then you need to stop the threat before any further damage is done. If you're too preoccupied with keeping everyone safe, then that threat will just continue to wreak havoc.

See, I didn't get that. I didn't see one scene that SHOWED me that. I saw a Pa Kent that told Clark he's destined for greatness but at the same time he shouldn't help people because he'll be an outcast and taken away from them. There wasn't even an allusion to a "do the right thing" mentality. Truly think about the movie, and see if you can name one.

I think many people are going into this movie with the canonical story preconceived. Like: Pa Kent teaches him morality. Because they showed it in the movie? No, because that's just part of Superman's story.

Just my 2c

 

[Sharkboy]

Clearly Faora and Hardy are out in the phantom zone..."working out their rivalry"

 

[Sharkboy]

See, I didn't get that. I didn't see one scene that SHOWED me that. I saw a Pa Kent that told Clark he's destined for greatness but at the same time he shouldn't help people because he'll be an outcast and taken away from them.

I think many people are going into this movie with the canonical story preconceived. Like: Pa Kent teaches him morality. Because they showed it in the movie? No, because that's just part of Superman's story.

Just my 2c

I think it's less what Pa Kent told him and more what Pa Kent did that added towards Clark's altruism. He sees his father sacrifice himself in an heroic attempt. An older man with no powers and he still doesn't use that as an excuse to be a hero, that has got to do something to the young impressionable clark kent.

 

[BlueLantern]

Yes, he might have caused some accidental deaths by fighting with Zod.....but if the dominoes are falling, you have to sacrifice some of them to stop the REST from falling.

That is not Superman. This is the thing. The conflict concerning Superman is the pain that comes from NOT being able to save people.

He's ALWAYS struggled with that and it's an intrinsic part of his character.

Bypassing that with the concept of 'well it's common sense to let people die' just contradicts everything that made Superman what he was.

This might be some new iteration of the character but I can't say it's a version I like. Snyder kept saying Superman is the grand-daddy of superheroes but this version is just another superhero and nothing unique.

I've said ad hominem, I liked parts of the film, but it just fell over on its way to becoming a truly great film about Superman.

We disagree on the action front. There was too much. By the end it was just another big CGI fest, which is a pity since the Zod vs Superman fight was the only one that really got me interested. The rest were just more of the same.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I think it's less what Pa Kent told him and more what Pa Kent did that added towards Clark's altruism. He sees his father sacrifice himself in an heroic attempt. An older man with no powers and he still doesn't use that as an excuse to be a hero, that has got to do something to the young impressionable clark kent.

Again, I don't see how. Pa Kent died so Clark wouldn't reveal his powers. Sure you can perceive that as heroic if you want to because it's subjective. but never once during Clark's upbringing does Pa give him a lecture/speech/advice that doesn't center around: Don't get caught / you're destined for greatness.

Know what I mean? Assuming Pa instilled a sense of right/wrong is never touched upon.

 

[JAK®]

The conflict concerning Superman is the pain that comes from NOT being able to save people.

Because he can't be everywhere. Not because he lets people die because of some ridiculous moral code that was made-up to justify restrictions made by the Comics Code Authority.

 

[BlueLantern]

Because he can't be everywhere. Not because he lets people die because of some ridiculous moral code that was made-up to justify restrictions made by the Comics Code Authority.

I'm aware of that. It's not a moral code thing. It's along the lines of what happened in the Donner version when Jonathan Kent died.

'All those things I can do. All those powers. And I couldn't even save him.'

Obviously it was concerning his father at the time, but the same logic would apply if he asks himself why he can't be everywhere.

 

[Sharkboy]

Again, I don't see how. Pa Kent died so Clark wouldn't reveal his powers. Sure you can perceive that as heroic if you want to because it's subjective. but never once during Clark's upbringing does Pa give him a lecture/speech/advice that doesn't center around: Don't get caught / you're destined for greatness.

Know what I mean? Assuming Pa instilled a sense of right/wrong is never touched upon.

I do know what you mean, and yes i understand why he did it, that doesn't make it what Jonathan did any less heroic. Was it meant to inspire Clark? hell no...if Jonathan had his way he would just be Clark Kent for the rest of his life, married with kids and working on a farm in Kansas, but the irony is there that his actions that were meant to stop clark from getting exposed (to the point where he has to jump in and be the hero himself) kind of showed clark (not just him but the viewer) the potential of the human spirit, that can't just wash over Clark's head. Kent didn't have to sit his son down and tell him to be a hero, his death was enough to do that. (even if Jonathan didn't want that)

Isn't that what Jor-El wants for Kal-El anyway? for him to see the potential in the human race and be the shining example? I've always taken it that way and from the moments with Jonathan, Perry and Colonel Hardy it only serves to validate what Jor-El is saying.

At least this is just what i personally picked up from watching it.

 

[DorkyFresh]

That is not Superman. This is the thing. The conflict concerning Superman is the pain that comes from NOT being able to save people.

Well then you and I have a different opinion on what Superman is. I see Superman as someone who will do whatever it takes to protect as many people as he possibly can even if that means not being able to protect everyone. If you're in a war, you can't be OVERLY concerned with civilian casualties or else YOU WILL LOSE! Zod started a war on Earth, Superman is the only person able to physically stop him, if Superman loses the war he loses humanity...so if Superman were overly concerned with civilian casualties he would've lost MANY MORE than he already had.

Yes, ideally you would like to protect those precious to you...but if they're being gunned down and you keep losing more and more of them to the gun then eventually you have to neutralize the gun before EVERYTHING that's precious to you is gone. Again....common sense.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I do know what you mean, and yes i understand why he did it, that doesn't make it what Jonathan did any less heroic. Was it meant to inspire Clark? hell no...if Jonathan had his way he would just be Clark Kent for the rest of his life, married with kids and working on a farm in Kansas, but the irony is there that his actions that were meant to stop clark from getting exposed (to the point where he has to jump in and be the hero himself) kind of showed clark (not just him but the viewer) the potential of the human spirit, that can't just wash over Clark's head. Kent didn't have to sit his son down and tell him to be a hero, his death was enough to do that. (even if Jonathan didn't want that)

Isn't that what Jor-El wants for Kal-El anyway? for him to see the potential in the human race and be the shining example? I've always taken it that way and from the moments with Jonathan, Perry and Colonel Hardy it only serves to validate what Jor-El is saying.

At least this is just what i personally picked up from watching it.

I guess I just try really hard not to read into the more subjective allusions of movies. I go in with fresh eyes, like I've never heard of the character before and this is my introduction to their story. It's up to the film makers to show/tell/imply everything I have to know about the characters they are creating. If they don't, I don't add my own stuff to fill in the blanks. I just consider them plot holes.

 

[LostSon88]

Got out just about an hour ago. My thoughts? It was good.

Now I am a HUGE Superman fan and my anticipation was through the roof. But I gotta say, there were a few times where I found myself getting antsy during the course of the film.

My issues:

The non-linear approach to the storytelling.
I didn't feel this was necessary as they could've played the entire movie straight through and would've made little difference. Just the constant present/cut/flashback was a tad distracting after a while.

The overall editing.
It's quite clear that ALOT of stuff was cut from the movie. Some of the transitions to the next scene were just so quick and came off strange. The scene when Superman agrees to surrender to Zod then straight cut to him in the desert with Lois waiting to surrender was a little jarring as there was really no transition. There wasn't many opportunities to 'breathe' between the scenes, just literally jump cut after jump cut.

Clarks transition into Superman.
Again, take this up to editing. Clark went from exploring the ship and talking to Jor-EL not knowing a single thing about his origins to wearing the suit and flying within 5 minutes. Really? That's it?

There was no buildup. No real sense of weight it was almost like Jor-EL told him, "Hey, so you're Superman. Put on the suit and fly." and Clark was like, "Okay." Nevermind the fact that just 5 minutes earlier he knew absolutely nothing about himself other than being an alien.

Clark watching Jonathan die.
Still don't understand how he could just stand there. That was kind of an issue with me. I just didn't like how that whole scene was shot with Jonathan in slo-mo telling Clark to stay back as the tornado consumed him. That shot lingered for so long I was really lost as to why Clark wouldn't go out there to at least try. Granted fine, storywise if that's what you want to do, so be it but that lingering shot just kills it for me. If they just played it real-time, it wouldn't have been an issue.


Now the things I loved:

Lois figuring out Clark's identity.
Absolutely loved it. Pretty much squashed from the very get-go how or why Lois wouldn't be able to recognize Clark at the Daily Planet. Its so different and adds a whole new dynamic to their relationship by having her know who he is from the very start.

The military's role.
Again, this goes back to the whole idea of plausibility and realism. With a Superman like this its clear that the military has to be involved in some capacity.

The fights.
Exactly what I dreamed up when I think about a Superman battle.

The cast.
Perfect.

Krypton.
I loved how we finally got a sense of the planet krypton and how we were given a full Act of it in the film.

Superman killing Zod.
This was a shocker for me because I honestly didn't see it coming. But I enjoyed it because again, this goes back to the whole idea of realism.

In the end, I give MoS a 7-8 out of 10. The best way I can sum up my overall feelings on this movie is this,

There IS a great film in there somewhere. But as it is now, it is simply good. A directors cut that would allow the scenes to breathe would be I believe the greatest Superhero movie EVER.

 

[BlueLantern]

Well then you and I have a different opinion on what Superman is. I see Superman as someone who will do whatever it takes to protect as many people as he possibly can even if that means not being able to protect everyone. If you're in a war, you can't be OVERLY concerned with civilian casualties or else YOU WILL LOSE! Zod started a war on Earth, Superman is the only person able to physically stop him, if Superman loses the war he loses humanity...so if Superman were overly concerned with civilian casualties he would've lost MANY MORE than he already had.

Yes, ideally you would like to protect those precious to you...but if they're being gunned down and you keep losing more and more of them to the gun then eventually you have to neutralize the gun before EVERYTHING that's precious to you is gone. Again....common sense.

That's more a Super-Soldier than a Superman. Even going back to the Donner films you can see Superman's conflict when Luthor or Zod were putting civilians at risk.

It happens the same way in the comics even. In Birthright for example, Superman's doing EVERYTHING it takes to save human beings and feels pain when they die.

It's an idealistic form of humanity and something that actually sets him apart from the rest of humanity more than his super powers. THAT makes him Superman.

I'm going to try not to be offensive, but Superman's actions aren't driven by 'common sense'. That's just ********. If you had the powers he had, you'd try your damn hardest to save almost everyone you could and feel pain when you couldn't be everywhere.

 

[Sharkboy]

I guess I just try really hard not to read into the more subjective allusions of movies. I go in with fresh eyes, like I've never heard of the character before and this is my introduction to their story. It's up to the film makers to show/tell/imply everything I have to know about the characters they are creating. If they don't, I don't add my own stuff to fill in the blanks. I just consider them plot holes.

I do too, I'm not even a comic book fan outside of vertigo and batman. It's just what I personally saw and read between the lines, I'm used to not having things spelt out for me and I just went by what Jor el says in the film and applied it to different parts of the film...BUT you could be right as well...I could be filling in the blanks myself without knowing it. Either way it could have been better illustrated by Goyer in the script.