Man of Steel vs Pacific Rim

Started by ares8346 pages
Originally posted by Mindset
Seriously, that was the worst characterization of Johnathan in any medium I've ever seen. That has never been what he was and it should never have been. I was more ok with Clark killing Zod than Johnathan wanting him to hide his powers to the extent that he'd let a bus full of kids die. Clark's parents were the ones who taught him how to be a hero.

I'd agree. Easily my biggest problem with the movie.

I have no investment in the "Jonathan Kent character" so I'm not angry at them 'ruining' him like others are.

I don't think anyone actually cares about Jonathan Kent, it's just that they made him such an unlike SOB yet we are supposed to agree with him somewhat.

I do think he somewhat had a point in that Supermans presence was a big deal and they needed to tread carefully. Were it not for the alien invasion taking place and his part in averting it, I think its safe to say the military would likely have come after him.

Having said that I think he was dead wrong, Kal thought he was wrong and the movie showed that he was too.

But the thing is, his parents were the reason he turned out to be Superman, without their guidance he isn't the "hero's hero". They're a very important part of the Superman mythos, whether you care about them or not. He is Superman because they instilled into him those characteristics, without that he'd just be another guy with powers.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Wait wait, since when did MOS fail?

It's made $648mill WW coming close tripling it's budget despite having already made up it's marketing costs through sponsorships. And has like a 77% rating by general audiences.

If that's a failure then I guess anything short of Avengers, Batman, Spider-Man and Iron Man 3 is a failure for superhero movies.

LOL at how you think Box Office=movie quality. A movie can fail at many things, not just box office grossing. In the case of MoS, it was characterization and pacing.

Well, of course, that's just like your own opinion. For many others, including me, the pacing and most of the characterization is fine.

Here's a riddle for you: If the Kryptonians captured both Clark and Lois, and Clark passed the Russell Crowe chip onto Lois, why didn't the Kryptonians get it off of Lois during a patdown, or discern it's location during their telepathic invasion of her mind (she even tells Clark that she couldn't resist and told them everything)?

Because every character in the movie was stupid.

The hallmark of good characterization.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Here's a riddle for you: If the Kryptonians captured both Clark and Lois, and Clark passed the Russell Crowe chip onto Lois, why didn't the Kryptonians get it off of Lois during a patdown, or discern it's location during their telepathic invasion of her mind (she even tells Clark that she couldn't resist and told them everything)?

Neither of those are plot holes. Instead, you are just creating your own problems about the movie. I mean, why would they pat down Lois? She is no threat to them. As for your second point, she was likely referring to Superman being Clark and stuff to do with that; it's not like they probed her mind for literally everything. Unless, you believe she told her life story...

The movie isn't perfect but these are just laughable reasons to attack it.

He slipped it to her less than 5 minutes beforehand. It's not a memory that would be buried deep. You think she didn't have enough willpower to tell them about Clark and all of his secrets, but had jusstttt enough to avoid telling them about yet another secret she knows about Clark that she learned 5 minutes ago? Lulz.

Why would she tell them that? It's not like they were probing her mind for what Clark just gave her. Once gain, you making plot holes where none exist.

Why would they not be, considering their main goal was to find the Codex? You think they would be interested in everything she knows about Clark's secret past, but not about anything Clark may have given or shown to her? Again, lulz.

lol

Sorry but your argument makes absolutely no sense. They were, presumably, probing Lois's mind for what she knew about Superman; not looking for shit like a command key. Once again, you're projecting your own problems into the movie where none exist.

Superman giving her a command key isn't something she knows about Superman? Again, the lulz sir.

superdur

Originally posted by Lestov16
Superman giving her a command key isn't something she knows about Superman? Again, the lulz sir.

😂

You're hate is showing. We don't know exactly what they were searching for. And yes, the fact that he gave her something, isn't exactly something she knows about Superman's past.

If they are scanning for all Superman-relevant information in her mind, why wouldn't Superman giving her a command key 5 minutes earlier be Superman-relevant information. You think the first thing they would be looking for is any info on where the command key may be, and wouldya know? She has it. Why would they want to know anything about Clark's past when they already telepathically scanned him. The only thing they didn't get out of him was the location of the codex, and so you would think that would be the first thing they ask Lois. Again, the lulz is high.

Where is it said they searched her mind for everything concerning Superman?

And why would they care where the command key is? And why would they know Superman even has one? The funny thing is, your supposed "plot hole" has plot holes in it.

The movie is far from flawless, but this isn't a flaw in the film.