Was MOS a good introduction to Superman for younger kids?

[Ultimatehero]

he lets his father die?????????

He didn't "let" his father die, as simply stated before. When you are in a real situation like this where more than one life is at stake you do think about all of the outcomes. And he was caught between what was happening to his father and what might happen to his mother. I know, I know, you're gonna say "but I was --" as said dude you're not the only one who went through something like that. I was around twelve and still then I at least had some thinking power, despite being a kid - I could still think.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

KALMART, I must be the one person on the planet that has no love for the Spielberg classic that is E.T. Not because I think it's bad or not entertaining. I get it's appeal. But when I saw it as a young child it felt spooky to me for some reason, and E.T.'s look was very unsettling to me for some reason (I had no problem with some really disturbing looking movie monsters but poor gentle E.T. was unnerving). And during the screening my family went to, when the part of Elliot finding E.T.'s body all white and lifeless in the woods, I just had a giagantic freakout! I mean uncontrollable screaming and crying. And not because I was like emotionally connected to him. Something about the whole scene was scary to me. My mother had to take me out sidr to calm me down. Tried seeing it again and had the same reaction. So I have no sense of nostalgia for what is a film classic. Before anyone says it: Boy was I a wuss. It's something my mom and dad still joke about.

 

[Ultimatehero]

There was nothing realistic about this Superman movie.

edit: which is a shame because I would have loved to have seen that.

It was realistic in the subjects it tackled. It was the first film about the struggles the adoption triad goes through. It isn't the overly happy "sun will come out tomorrow" version that you guys think it is. How do I know this? Well, realistically, I'm as close to Superman as you get -- adoptee sent away from a war-torn third-world so that I might have a chance at survival.

When you do come that close to taking a life or actually taking it, it does devastate you even if you are doing it to save a life. It isn't this, "cool, the bad guy is gone, I saved the day and everything is great now!" It actually does leave a major stain on you that you're never able to get rid of.

Why did Clark look into the bus? Really? Have you never been frozen with shock before then realize it? It was quite evident that that is what happened.

If evidence of an alien did come, we would be looking at a 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' scenario of the military not really trusting the alien even if it was Superman.

Jonathan had to have known that in this world if Clark's secret was found out he and Martha would similarly be in danger. Clark would be seen as a threat, therefore they would be seen as harboring a potential threat to mankind and would probably waterboard them to find out all that they know and can tell them if they didn't offer it up. That is the real world.

As per Jonathan easily saying let a bus filled with kids die -- did no one really hear his voice quivering and shaking when he said that? He wasn't 100% sure in what he was telling Clark. If he was, he'd sound a lot more convinced.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

"Pschopath"? Thank you for proving that it'.s not just the film's defenders who are being tactless in throwing around implicit insults. I understand you have a strong emotional reaction because of your experience as a child. But that does'nt give you a free ride to be insulting. I liked the film and got it's reasoning, both on an emotional and rational level. So, as someone who perhaps does maybe too much thinking about superheroes and Superman in particular, and has used the character to shape my moral outlook MY WHOLE LIFE, I am now just a psychopath? Thank you for my daily dose of unthinking internet rudeness sir. Namaste.

 

[robot]

He didn't "let" his father die, as simply stated before. When you are in a real situation like this where more than one life is at stake you do think about all of the outcomes. And he was caught between what was happening to his father and what might happen to his mother. I know, I know, you're gonna say "but I was --" as said dude you're not the only one who went through something like that. I was around twelve and still then I at least had some thinking power, despite being a kid - I could still think.

See, I don't agree with you on Matha's life... To me, it's a no brainer.. if you think the US gov will execute Martha for keeping an alien child, that's also illogical to me... Some people already know who Clark is... (remember the school bus?, and it doesn't seem like it was a problem... and there's no reason to think that saving his dad would endanger his mom to the same extend as losing her life... one is 'he'll die for sure, the other, some iffy, maybe, problematic future that we'll cross to bridge when we get to it'... no brainer as far as i am concerned.. and that is if you were to think thru it logically.. there were no time to think.. it's only an emotional and gut reaction... i repeat, i do not see anyone NOT saving his own father in that sort of situation... if you disagree, then you disagree... i have no problem with it...

And we have been thru this argument.. and i don't think we'll change each other's opinions... and i never intended to change anyones'... it's just my opinion.. and i am holding to it...

"Pschopath"? Thank you for proving that it'.s not just the film's defenders who are being tactless in throwing around implicit insults. I understand you have a strong emotional reaction because of your experience as a child. But that does'nt give you a free ride to be insulting. I liked the film and got it's reasoning, both on an emotional and rational level. So, as someone who perhaps does maybe too much thinking about superheroes and Superman in particular, and has used the character to shape my moral outlook MY WHOLE LIFE, I am now just a psychopath? Thank you for my daily dose of unthinking internet rudeness sir. Namaste.

Who called you a psychopath? If you're going to take every opinion of anybody who disagrees with you personally, it's not my problem...

 

[Marvin]

Did/Do they? I could write a thesis on how even Lion King and Beauty&theBeast aren't the best movies for kids either for various reasons, but in the context of our argument, I'll say that they are at least beautifully crafted movies whose violent moments are proportional to the stories they're telling and points they're making. The violence underlines key emotional moments in those stories. There's a point to it.

I'm not arguing that violence itself is an untouchable subject for kids films. But the way it's handled in Man of Steel flies in the face of the message Superman is supposed to be send. It's wanton violent spectacle at the cost of soul, in reality really no different then any fight from shows like Power Rangers.

The effects were just better.

An argument could be written against the bulk of children's programming. From Loony Toons(for obvious reasons) to Batman begins and everything in between(including STAS). The point was this current discussion rarely reared it's head during renaissance disney era pictures and it had levels of violence and death and revenge..etc. But like you said, you're not arguing against violence but rather the way it's handled? And how that's not like Donner? Or the rest of the source material? Not sure I agree.

As for the cost of this spectacle, I also don't agree.
Where you might see this

Spoiler

Others might see this

Spoiler

Perhaps the same thing from a distance...but not to me.
If souls were the price such spectacle, they were already bought and paid for long before nolan and co showed up.

Lastly, if we can get a source material accurate Spiderman/Lizard fight, Batman/Bane fight(minus the uber bats), then I'll be damned if I complain about a source accurate first appearance superman/zod fight. I personally didn't see anything in this film that kids haven't seen in the animated version of the character parents leave kids to watch in the morning. That's really my point.

 

[Ultimatehero]

See, I don't agree with you on Matha's life... To me, it's a no brainer.. if you think the US gov will execute Martha for keeping an alien child, that's also illogical to me... Some people already know who Clark is... (remember the school bus?, and it doesn't seem like it was a problem... and there's no reason to think that saving his dad would endanger his mom to the same extend as losing her life... one is 'he'll die for sure, the other, some iffy, maybe, problematic future that we'll cross to bridge when we get to it'... no brainer as far as i am concerned.. and that is if you were to think thru it logically.. there were no time to think.. it's only an emotional and gut reaction... i repeat, i do not see anyone NOT saving his own father in that sort of situation... if you disagree, then you disagree... i have no problem with it...

I didn't say execute, I said waterboard. And it is very easy for the government to do that. They torture people all the time for information. Granted, I don't have much trust in the government doing what is morally right. The government where I'm from, from the time I was from, were murdering poor people just for being out on the street. And our government while better hasn't exactly had a history of being morally prone as well, what with the witch hunts, communism hunts, Japanese concentration camps, the whole Guantanamo Bay and what have you.

Thing is, Clark was raised by Jonathan to believe that the world was not ready for someone like him and that the powers that be might act back in retaliation. This wasn't just something that was an iffy possibility. This was something that Jonathan clearly drilled into him. So for him, it was a real likely scenario. A kid thought he saw Clark, Pete specifically. The rest didn't, the only other one was Lana who didn't come forward. Here we're talking about fifty people, there's no way all of them are going to just let this go silently.

As to the second point, pay close attention to how he was also shielding his mom and glancing back and forth between them. And how he was taking a step forward and back throughout the whole scene. This was a guy that was fighting against what he clearly wanted to do. That's why Jonathan had to put his hand out and shake his head. The hurricane didn't swoop in with one second to go, it took about thirty seconds to a minute to reach Jonathan and with a guy that has super speed - that's no time at all.

 

[StarvingArtist]

MOS had more heart and gravity than any other film with action in it. This wasn't a man going, "cool lets fight!" "cool I've killed you, let me make out with my girlfriend now!" It was seeing Superman even having the difficulty of stopping the bad guy. Something no other film has ever really done. It is one of the few films that portrays the devastation of violence over how "cool" it is.

Actually I think the former you describe is pretty close to exactly what happened.

It was realistic in the subjects it tackled. It was the first film about the struggles the adoption triad goes through. It isn't the overly happy "sun will come out tomorrow" version that you guys think it is. How do I know this? Well, realistically, I'm as close to Superman as you get -- adoptee sent away from a war-torn third-world so that I might have a chance at survival.

When you do come that close to taking a life or actually taking it, it does devastate you even if you are doing it to save a life. It isn't this, "cool, the bad guy is gone, I saved the day and everything is great now!" It actually does leave a major stain on you that you're never able to get rid of.

I completely agree and it would have been great if the movie had depicted this. It didn't.

Why did Clark look into the bus? Really? Have you never been frozen with shock before then realize it? It was quite evident that that is what happened.

Apologetic explanation. If Pa Kent had made Clark THAT afraid of exposing his powers, I could just as easily imagine he'd take more care to not be seen. He stood there and made eye contact because the writers wanted him to in order to provide a pretext for Pa Kent to preach.

If evidence of an alien did come, we would be looking at a 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' scenario of the military not really trusting the alien even if it was Superman.

Completely agree, I thought that was great.

Jonathan had to have known that in this world if Clark's secret was found out he and Martha would similarly be in danger. Clark would be seen as a threat, therefore they would be seen as harboring a potential threat to mankind and would probably waterboard them to find out all that they know and can tell them if they didn't offer it up. That is the real world.

I would have liked to have seen a conversation happen in the movie. Instead Jor-El rode a dragon.

As per Jonathan easily saying let a bus filled with kids die -- did no one really hear his voice quivering and shaking when he said that? He wasn't 100% sure in what he was telling Clark. If he was, he'd sound a lot more convinced.

I didn't really have an issue with him saying that.

I think it's more so that YOU have the gravity and heart, not this film. I can see why you identify with the movie, but that still doesn't mean the movie delivered. I think you want it to be better then it actually was.

The point of this movie was to feature as much destruction as possible with a few speeches ranging from sentimental to pure exposition and a swiss cheese plot as its foundation.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

A stament was made that anyone who found the scene where Pa Kent lets the twister take him " real" was a psychopath. I found it rang true. What would that imply? Being imlpicitly insulting is as insulting as if it were done with explicit intent. Those that foind the scene real and heart wrenching and comiserated with the characters affected are'nt "psychopaths". Namaste.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

The plot's going to be lost on a great fraction of kids.

Kids are smarter than western culture gives them credit for, sure, but there are grown intelligent adults who find this film convoluted, vague, and/or poorly written.

If the younger crowd were going to enjoy it on any level, I think it would only be "Superman flies, punches, fights".

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Conversely, as a kid, I understood everything that was going on in the Reeve films. Heck, the Terminator 1 and 2 were easy to follow. I would've been left scratching my head at MoS's plot.

 

[Marvin]

The point of this movie was to feature as much destruction as possible with a few speeches ranging from sentimental to pure exposition and a swiss cheese plot as its foundation.

The fundamental difference between MoS and Avengers
my opinion.

 

[StarvingArtist]

An argument could be written against the bulk of children's programming. From Loony Toons(for obvious reasons) to Batman begins and everything in between(including STAS). The point was this current discussion rarely reared it's head during renaissance disney era pictures and it had levels of violence and death and revenge..etc. But like you said, you're not arguing against violence but rather the way it's handled? And how that's not like Donner? Or the rest of the source material? Not sure I agree.

I'm arguing that the violence was excessive and served no purpose other then eye candy for the sake of eye candy vs. something like Bambi's mother getting shot as an allegory that growing up is painful especially if you're a deer, or Gaston falling to a death unseen by viewers because he couldn't overcome nor see past his own vices unlike the Beast. Man of Steel was an hour and a half of "let me see how many structures I can drag your face across even though we're both invulnerable + since the writers aren't creative enough to handle this conflict otherwise, my solution is to break your *****ing neck after which I will yell and cry at taking a life but ultimately will be fine with it."

As for the cost of this spectacle, I also don't agree.
Where you might see this

Spoiler

Others might see this

Spoiler

Perhaps the same thing from a distance...but not to me.
If souls were the price such spectacle, they were already bought and paid for long before nolan and co showed up.

Lastly, if we can get a source material accurate Spiderman/Lizard fight, Batman/Bane fight(minus the uber bats), then I'll be damned if I complain about a source accurate first appearance superman/zod fight. I personally didn't see anything in this film that kids haven't seen in the animated version of the character parents leave kids to watch in the morning. That's really my point.

Nolan and company re-injected the soul back into Batman.

And I'm not really getting the comparison between those two pics, explain.

And you might be right about there being nothing new in this movie that kids haven't seen before. But the question was whether or not this movie is a good introduction to Superman for small kids. It isn't. Plus, cartoon violence is different then violence meant to look as realistic as possible, especially if it's Superman breaking a villain's neck who's about to murder a family with heat vision.

Honestly, the fact that people are so split on this movie is a testament to the notion that maybe there's something to people's gripes. It's not my place to argue you out of liking the movie. Go ahead and like it. And I acknowledge the reality that finding a metric on which to judge a movie's quality that eliminates personal bias is virtually impossible. But I'll just say this: if this movie accomplished everything you say it did, then people would not be this divided. This movie will make ***** tons of money because of the cool action scenes, but movies like those are a dime a dozen. I was hoping for something more.

 

[Ultimatehero]

If you're talking about the Lois kiss. He had just saved her, for all he knew everything was over, adrenaline was high and was happy that it was done. In that rush of adrenaline that is what happened. And then it quickly became grave and serious after that. In Avengers they were smiling the whole way through and ate Swarma afterwards (and this is coming from a guy who has that as my third favorite superhero film).

Name one time where they made the complications of the triad seem like a completely happy thing. Just one time. Exactly.

Wait, so Superman appeared happy to you after he killed Zod? He was utterly devastated and crying and holding onto Lois for support. I don't know about you, but to me that doesn't show a character who happily kills. Being happy generally doesn't lead to you looking broken, screaming in despair and crying but maybe that is "happy" to some people.

I thought that whole issue was rather obvious and that they didn't need to dive into it because it was already there in the context of the whole thing and Jonathan's fear of Clark being discovered because he didn't believe the world was ready yet. And this was further shown how at first the government viewed him as a threat.

Actually, having seen two to three movies every week at the theater, and thirty library tapes every week to two weeks (not to mention internet, tv, etc. viewing) for all of my life. Readily searching out adoptee & finding one's roots films. Working in and writing in the film industry with a top studio. And this being my favorite movie of all time because it finally got what I wanted in all terms -- the adoptee angle was finally there and finally right, the science fiction element that I wanted to see in the Star Wars prequels like I did in the original was finally there, a real approach to the devastation of violence was finally there, the action also felt like something I've never seen before was there. I'm an accurate judge and no bias is going into it (if it was just bias from experience, I also wouldn't be so hard on TASM).

"The point of this movie was to feature as much destruction as possible"

So that explains why in a movie with a 132 minute run time, having one fight that's 11 minutes and another that's 25 minutes in the finale. Or if you want to include the fights in the beginning you're looking at what can't be any more than a total time of 40 minutes total of action (and 43 at most). Or would you truly/honestly classify a movie that only has 30% of it action and 70% of it character moments as a film that puts action first and foremost? I mean, you can even check for yourself - the film's online now. Those are the exact time statistics of this. 30% action/destruction, 70% character. THIS COMES UP SO MUCH, THAT I'VE BOLDED IT FOR EVERYONE TO SEE AND USE THESE STATS AS THEY WISH.

 

[Marvin]

Conversely, as a kid, I understood everything that was going on in the Reeve films. Heck, the Terminator 1 and 2 were easy to follow. I would've been left scratching my head at MoS's plot.

Could you describe what it was about MoS' plot that would have left your confused that is all that much more confusing than the time dilation and liquid metal hunting psych ward mother and son send back in time by his future self, judgement day is inevitable contrive(ity) that was t2. From a kids perspective of course.

The flash backs maybe?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I guess as child I would have been oblivious to the themes and nuances of MOS too, but not be able to follow the plot? True story: At my 4th screening of MOS two seats over from me was a mother and her young son under 12-11yrs old for sure. Maybe 9 tops. The mother left her seat twice to take care of something on the phone and to use the restroom. Each time she got back her son updated her on the onscreen action. I think its safe to say he was following the plot.

 

[StarvingArtist]

Conversely, as a kid, I understood everything that was going on in the Reeve films. Heck, the Terminator 1 and 2 were easy to follow. I would've been left scratching my head at MoS's plot.

Yes.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Could you describe what it was about MoS' plot that would have left your confused that is all that much more confusing than the time dilation and liquid metal hunting psych ward mother and son send back in time by his future self, judgement day is inevitable contrive(ity) that was t2. From a kids perspective of course.

The flash backs maybe?

Flashbacks are fine. I can speculate that many of the plot holes we as adults see in MoS would be all the more bewildering to kids, if they paid attention to the dialogue-heavy parts at all. And if they dismissed the story for the action, then that's effectively the same thing. "Too talky."

For example, would the average child be able to explain, without adult help, the point of the codex? Or Jor-El's motives? Or the circumstances that led to Kal-El finding his Superman suit (scout ship included)? Or what exactly the world engines were doing?

 

[StarvingArtist]

If you're talking about the Lois kiss. He had just saved her, for all he knew everything was over, adrenaline was high and was happy that it was done. In that rush of adrenaline that is what happened. And then it quickly became grave and serious after that. In Avengers they were smiling the whole way through and ate Swarma afterwards (and this is coming from a guy who has that as my third favorite superhero film).

Name one time where they made the complications of the triad seem like a completely happy thing. Just one time. Exactly.

I don't get what you mean by triad, explain.

Wait, so Superman appeared happy to you after he killed Zod? He was utterly devastated and crying and holding onto Lois for support. I don't know about you, but to me that doesn't show a character who happily kills. Being happy generally doesn't lead to you looking broken, screaming in despair and crying but maybe that is "happy" to some people.

We're going to have a tough time having a discussion if I'm too busy choking on the words you're putting in my mouth.

I never said he appeared happy. Yes, he yelled and cried after he killed Zod. Wasn't enough. The movie just didn't touch at all on what kind of affect taking a life would have on Superman. The last scenes of the movie were Superman knocking out a drone, the "I just think he's hot" thing, and Clark showing up at the daily planet. It all left me thinking "okay... I guess he's gotten over killing Zod." At least in the comic, he's so disgusted with himself for being brought down to that level that he exiles himself from Earth.

I thought that whole issue was rather obvious and that they didn't need to dive into it because it was already there in the context of the whole thing and Jonathan's fear of Clark being discovered because he didn't believe the world was ready yet. And this was further shown how at first the government viewed him as a threat.

Actually, having seen two to three movies every week at the theater, and thirty library tapes (not to mention internet, tv, etc. viewing) for all of my life. Readily searching out adoptee & finding one's roots films. Working in and writing in the film industry with a top studio. And this being my favorite movie of all time because it finally got what I wanted in all terms -- the adoptee angle was finally there and finally right, the science fiction element that I wanted to see in the Star Wars prequels like I did in the original was finally there, a real approach to the devastation of violence was finally there, the action also felt like something I've never seen before was there. I'm an accurate judge and no bias is going into it (if it was just bias from experience, I also wouldn't be so hard on TASM).

lol ok

"The point of this movie was to feature as much destruction as possible"

So that explains why in a movie with a 132 minute run time, having one fight that's 11 minutes and another that's 25 minutes in the finale. Or if you want to include the fights in the beginning you're looking at what can't be any more than a total time of 40 minutes total of action (and 43 at most). Or would you truly/honestly classify a movie that only has 30% of it action and 70% of it character moments as a film that puts action first and foremost? I mean, you can even check for yourself - the film's online now. Those are the exact time statistics of this. 30% action/destruction, 70% character.

I kind of don't care. 40 minutes of a handful of people hitting each other with buildings to no effect is boring.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

The was a child at my screening explaining Zod's plan, the World Engine, ect. just fine to his mom. Still too young for MOS IMHO, but he seemed like a sharp kid.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Adoptee, adoptive parents, biological parents. This is all rather textbook adoption lingo.

To me they didn't need to show any more than they did. Sometimes less is more.

If that was a put down, touche.

Well, to no effect really says why most here give it a 9/10, why most audience reviewers gave it an 8-9, and why it is raking in a lot of money... as said, your opinion, just as this is mine. In your world, you might be right about that - but not in everyone's. World being our own individual spheres of perception. For you it didn't, for me and others - it did in spades.

 

[StarvingArtist]

Adoptee, adoptive parents, biological parents. This is all rather textbook adoption lingo.

To me they didn't need to show any more than they did. Sometimes less is more.

If that was a put down, touche.

Well, to no effect really says why most here give it a 9/10, why most audience reviewers gave it an 8-9, and why it is raking in a lot of money... as said, your opinion, just as this is mine. In your world, you might be right about that - but not in everyone's. World being our own individual spheres of perception. For you it didn't, for me and others - it did in spades.

Forgive me, I'm not adopted nor have I ever thought to ask my adopted friends what the term is for their family dynamic.

I agree, sometimes less is more. Basically my whole problem with the movie.

Wasn't meant as a put down.

People also shovel junk food in their face. More people have issues with this movie then you care to admit.

 

[Marvin]

And I'm not really getting the comparison between those two pics, explain.

First picture is massive city wide destruction set off as a demonstration of power on a less then fictional location.

In the latter I see an image of hope in despair. Reminiscent of the soulful source material.
Just figured with this talk of soulless imagery and spectacle..

And you might be right about there being nothing new in this movie that kids haven't seen before. But the question was whether or not this movie is a good introduction to Superman for small kids. It isn't. Plus, cartoon violence is different then violence meant to look as realistic as possible, especially if it's Superman breaking a villain's neck who's about to murder a family with heat vision.

That cartoon serves at the introduction to the material for many a kid. Some of which are on these boards. It could be argued that Bruce time and his rendering were the perfect introduction to superman. Ergo the comparison, if the cartoon was good enough, why not this film.

A cartoon and a movie might not be as different as you think to a child. For example, and I can technically only speak for myself but everything I saw on my tv at a young age, I considered a documentary of some sort. Sesame street was a real place, Eternia...Krypton...married with children..etc. The subconscious workings of the youth are pretty unpredictable.

If it's in fact the neck snap you are referring to, then again I've seen that level of violence in many a cartoon with far less "split" criticism than I'm seeing here. One could assume that validates the criticism but one can also assume that said criticism isn't wholly objective and honest.(ie this isn't my superman).
Let's be honest, this film would very possibly be received very differently if it was the first anyone ever saw of this character. For better or worse.

Honestly, the fact that people are so split on this movie is a testament to the notion that maybe there's something to people's gripes. It's not my place to argue you out of liking the movie. Go ahead and like it. And I acknowledge the reality that finding a metric on which to judge a movie's quality that eliminates personal bias is virtually impossible. But I'll just say this: if this movie accomplished everything you say it did, then people would not be this divided. This movie will make ***** tons of money because of the cool action scenes, but movies like those are a dime a dozen. I was hoping for something more.

The massive split could be caused by any number of things. From the fact that the originals were a huge part of our culture and this isn't them, to the controversy that is Snyder/Nolan and the fanboy division on that front. We're here to root out the truth of the matter. One could just as easily argue that the 80 plus percent audience rating and all these high cinema scores represent a less spit universal consensus then a group of people arguing in circles on a small forum. Lastly, neck snapping isn't anything new to superman material. Violence shouldn't be measured simply by how far a hero is willing to go to save people. It should be in the film as a whole. When a batman impersonator with a rope around his neck is dropped into the mayors office, I'd say it's time for the critics to start campaigning against the violence in the batman movies, but hey, there is no celebrated donner batman that champions silver age philosophy, and thus no controversy.

I don't care if you like it at the end of the day and I'm sure you feel the same. I hate 2001 and that's not going to change any time soon. Doesn't mean I'm entitled to my own proclamations about it's quality and effectiveness without debate. I only bring this up in light of how poorly that film was received when it was released and the divisions upon which...

Maybe you're right though, perhaps the silver age approach I see in the donner films would be a better introduction to this material. However with that line of thinking one would assume those particular films are a "better" introduction for kids to the material than any cbm of the modern age, a fair assumption.

 

[Marvin]

For example, would the average child be able to explain, without adult help, the point of the codex? Or Jor-El's motives? Or the circumstances that led to Kal-El finding his Superman suit (scout ship included)? Or what exactly the world engines were doing?

1.Macguffin(and what that means to a kid).
2.Same as they've always been
3.He was in alaska and in the bar he heard the army guys talking about it.
4.Destroying the world with a big blue beam(thank you summer of 2011).

Things are probably alot more simple for kids than for us. We like to call things cliche and plot holes and offensive. They just see things in broad simple strokes(speaking from my experience). Zod want's the codex, what more need be understood? When you grow up you can then find out how much more to it there was.

Still, the finer workings of machines doesn't equal plot I don't think. I don't see what's so complicated to follow in this. If anything critics are saying it's all action tied together with a thin plot.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Forgive me, I'm not adopted nor have I ever thought to ask my adopted friends what the term is for their family dynamic.

I agree, sometimes less is more. Basically my whole problem with the movie.

Wasn't meant as a put down.

People also shovel junk food in their face. More people have issues with this movie then you care to admit.

To you it may have been, but to others it was rich food and Avengers was junk food although my third favorite superhero movie. It was a "happy" meal whereas this inspired more thought and darker moments. The very essense that people are talking about their varying opinions on things more than just the movie speaks volumes to me.