> I think both of you have missed the point. The whole (and only) purpose of such movies is to entertain. If you can suspend disbelief enough to even watch a movie that includes non-existent elements, then you ought to be able to just sit back and enjoy the story line, regardless of the degree of plausibility. The degree of plausibility is totally irrelevant to the story of such a movie that so obviously impossible in the first place.


I agree to some extent. But I do think that continuity should be maintained regardless of how plausible the movie itself is, and Rifty's criticism about Luthor on the boat and the crystals seems to be a continuity error.

I ALSO think that, even if the premise of a movie is completely implausible, the events within the movie have to be plausible within the world that the writers have created. It may be completely ridiculous for Superman to exist in OUR world, but in the world of the movie, just because he DOES exist doesn't mean that we can throw all need for plausibility out of the window. In the rules of the movie world, kryptonite severely weakens Superman. Therefore, (SPOILER WARNING) it is implausible that within that world, Superman would be able to lift a large landmass loaded with kryptonite and fly it any significant distance (END SPOILER WARNING). When I go to see a movie, even if the events of the movie wouldn't hold up in the real world in which I live, I like to see some continuity in the world of the movie and some plausibility in what happens. I can accept a little more implausibility (e.g., things happening that have extremely little probability (but still a non-zero probability) of actually happening in that way) in movies because they are fictions, but I can only accept so much. If something is too blatantly implausible within the world of the movie and the rules that have been set up for that world, I'm annoyed rather than entertained. I can't enjoy incoherence, which is what blatant implausibility amounts to in my book.

~Chrysanthemum~