MovieChat Forums > Metallex
Metallex (9)
Posts
Replies
You can read them if you want. Want me to write them again?
If you're pretty good with logic, why do you still didn't get it and assumed them as flaws?
If you're so good at logic, are you one of those who got why in Riders Of The Lost Ark Indy tells Marion -for no apparent reason- not to look at the ark? Seemed pretty much like a Deux Ex Machina considering the previous and later absence of (at least, explicit) explanation of it. Because most of the "flaws" alluded in this post are more evidently explained in the film.
Many good movies had poor reviews. Plus, it had also good ones. It just crashed financially because it was very expensive, because in terms of basic numbers, 660Millions is a very good box office (do you catch the point of view element?)
The facts are that it underperformed at the box office (again, just considering its cost), but the quality rating is, well, not objective, it depends on the taste element, that's why artistically you can find several different or even opposite opinions, and all of them are usually valid, and it changes with time, see Indy 4's RT score, and you'll find a big dicotomy between ones and others. Why? Because it's not science, there are no absolute answers for artistic stuff, it's a matter of taste.
the very quality rating of a good movie/bad movie is essentially subjective. Blade Runner had once very poor reviews and was considered a bad film, and look at it today. Van Gogh himself was considered a talent-less artist, and look at his art is considered now. So yes, the quality rating of an artistic product is essentially subjective. Objectivity can't be applied in stuff like arts, because it basically stimulates personal, spiritual, and taste values, not absolute ones.
Of course, this film is not a relevant artistic product, don't get me wrong, I'm not putting it at Van Gogh's or Blade Runner's level, but it was treated as a terrible mess, mainly because expectations and other stuff you can compare it with, but it's not that mess, it's pretty much an enjoyable film that reached much lower than it should, both artistically and financially. A mess could be Catwoman, which not only didn't get as much audience and attention as JL, but faded to nothing months after it premiered, and today almost nobody remembers it.
And, to be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't say it's a f**king mess, just saying that opinion is as valuable as saying it's a nice film, and no matter if a majority supports one opinion or the other, because, well majorities... A majority voted for Brexit, a majority chose Trump as president, a majority of critics said once Blade Runner was rubich, or in the 30's, a majority decided a guy named Hitler should be Germany's chancelour.
Yes.
But we could be this way all day long, it's a matter of opinion. In terms of arts and taste, it's always subjective! :)
They're not plotholes at all, pal. Those not specifically explained in the film are easy to understand with info provided in the very film and/or simple logic...
Superman didn't kill him, we don't know if that warlord's body was affected directly by the impact of the walls, or Superman's arm acted as a shield.
Plus, Clark himself says he didn't kill any of those men, so...
* It's not so easy to track, and even when it was, Lois can't even prove it, the only confirmation she had was unnoficial by A GENERAL who still was afraid of losing everything for telling it to Lois. Plus, Lex himself says those evidences will vanish like sand in the desert.
* Nobody suspected that, the corpses were incinerated to look burned by the heat vision, and a biased forensic analysis would point the accusations to Superman
* Ahem, Lex is the one who wants Bruce to take the kryptonite from him, he even says so: "I gave the bat the weapon to destroy you". He just acts like a fool, while manipulating both Clark and Bruce. Even in their faces (when he introduces one to the other, he already knows who's who, and makes jokes about Clark's strength) but everybody underestimates a guy who acts like a fool. It's one of his tools.
* Superman didn't save Martha, he was needed in the ship against the creature. Batman decided to fight from down to upper for technical reasons a 20 years career crimefighter would understand (I mean, Alfred sugests the second floor as if it was something they've tried before!)
Jor-El told World Engines were used to adapt atmospheric environments, not to create atmospheres, and even when Kal-El asks why Earth, Zod says "Foundations must be build on somerhing", as if it's necessary some kind of "valid sustract". Plus, we can suppose the world engine doesn't work on any environment, as the previous users perished even having one, and considering Zod's crew were almost out of power (they an't even switch on the world engine alone, but using the ship as a slave supplier) and hadn't used the machine yet.
All that elements and facts might tell that the world engine doesn't work magically everywhere, or if it would, most of its users were kind of unprofessional in obtaining results with it.
My conclusion: It's pretty evident the world engine has its limitations, and can adapt existing habitable environments to optim conditions for krytponians, but can't create habitable ambients from nothing.
View all replies >