> I think both of you have missed the point.

Well, considering that I made no stance on the issue you discuss here (I merely made reference to a better example of implausibility in the Superman movies), I wonder why you're trying to read my mind on it.

> The whole (and only) purpose of such movies is to entertain.

I somewhat agree. It's usually to make a profit, an end which mostly entails trying to entertain as best as possible, fortunately.

> 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.

Now you're jumping from the motivations of the moviemakers to those of the audience. I *ought* to be able to enjoy a movie using whatever criteria I decide. If you don't judge a storyline on its plausibility, fine, and to some extent that's true for me as well. If you go beyond implausibility (judged by real physical laws and history) into incoherence, that's where I have a problem. The example I gave previously goes beyond implausibility in our universe to implausibility in ITS OWN universe by employing utter nonsense for a deus ex machina.