View Single Post
Old 09-23-2013, 12:18 PM   #60
Beer Snob
Krumm's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,993
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Originally Posted by The Question View Post
Well, what I hand in mind was:

1: Superman crashes into the scout ship (like in the movie).

2: Superman wrecks the cout ship (like in the movie).

3: Instead of just leaving Zod for no apparent reason, Superman tackles Zod out of the scout ship and forces him into the event horizon with the others.

How much a fight there should be between 2 and 3 is debatable but I honestly wouldn't mind if there wasn't much of one. For one, I don't really see why a sufficiently big/long fight between the main hero and the main villain is necessary (a lot of great action movies don't play out that way), and for one I kind of like the idea that Superman beats Zod by doing something clever like using the Phantom Zone drive instead of using his powers and raw brute force. If a central theme in the movie is Superman defining himself as a person in contrast to what Zod stands for, using his intellect which is a result largely of his upbringing to save the day instead of his Kyrptonian inherited powers for brute force the way Zod would is a little more thematically effective.

And, ultimately, does the number of punches thrown between the scout ship and the event horizon really matter? We end up in the same place anyway. As long as the pace is slow enough that people can take in what's happening (and really, Man of Steel's single biggest flaw is that they didn't do that throughout most of the film), then I'm all fine with making Zod's exit from the movie pretty quick.
I could dig all that but it still doesn't bother me the way it is.

Originally Posted by The Question View Post
I don't think it does. The central conflict, while not very well defined I think, was already resolved by that point. Superman stopped the invasion, Superman had already decided to stand with humanity instead of against it, Superman destroyed any hope of using the codex to repopulate Krypton on Earth. Thematically, the conflict was resolved. Killing Zod was a loose end of the plot.
I wasn't arguing whether or not the conflict was resolved by that point. I was saying that the final fight is tied to the the central conflict, which you said it had nothing to with (or at least agreed with someone who said that). Is it a bit extraneous? Sure. I've already agreed that it could have been better integrated into the main narrative. This would be the second time.

Originally Posted by The Question View Post
There's also the bit were Superman slams Zod's face into the side of a building and then drags it along at high speed, completely wrecking the outside of the building. And there's the fact that Superman doesn't even make a token attempt to force the fight to a less populated area.

And, really, the "it's his first outing" defense doesn't hold water for me. If you're going to pull that off, you then have to have Superman actually acknowledge that he made a lot of mistakes and has to do better when it comes to being Superman.
I think that is the only moment where Superman flat out causes direct damage to a building. It didn't bother me much because the buildings are empty and I've similar action in the comics. As for taking Zod to a less populated area, I'm not sure Zod's tenacity or tactical knowledge would have allowed that. Also, Zod wasn't after Superman as he was in SII, he was after all of humanity -- he would find his way back to a populated area.

Originally Posted by The Question View Post
But why wouldn't it have been enough? What constitutes "enough?" Why is "enough" something that's needed in the first place. What makes a good action sequence in your mind?
"Enough" would be necessary because "enough" is what satisfies the conflict. For me a good action sequence would both satisfy the conflict and also have a personal and emotional element. Superman v the World Builder has no personal interaction and therefore rings hollow. It satisfies a plot point but for that to be the penultimate action it would have been personally and emotionally flat.

Now, if it end plays out how you listed above, then I think that is satisfactory but again, I don't have a real problem with how it is now.

Overall, I think we've gotten a bit away from my original challenge to your post. All I was saying was was that the final conflict is tied to the main conflict of the film and I still stand by that. We seem to agree, on some level, with most everything else.

Last edited by Krumm; 09-23-2013 at 12:29 PM.
Krumm is offline