View Single Post
Old 09-24-2013, 10:24 PM   #124
The Guard
The Guard's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 31,723
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

That's a pretty cheap debate tactic.
I wasn't aware that there was a sarcastic version of the strawman. I'm kind of amused that you think that's a debate tactic, as that implies that I put actual thought into that response.

That's not why people don't like the way the movie did it. You know that's not why.
Eh. There are definitely people who do believe that since it could have been done, that the film failed in not presenting this element in MAN OF STEEL.

You yourself call it a flaw later on.

Stories need to actually dramatize their content to have a meaningful emotional connection with the audience. Yes, it's obvious that people are dying by the thousands, but if the movie doesn't actually dramatize that then at best it feels false and hollow and and worst it feels cynical, disrespectful, and cold.
Dramatize how, exactly?

I don't think it IS obvious that people are dying by the thousands. I think what's obvious is there's a lot of destruction going on, and that people are likely in danger. I'm not sure there's any way to really determine how many people are dying. Nor do I think that's the point. I think the point is that people are in peril, and likely some lives were lost, and the destruction from the battle is massive. All things that can be easily inferred based on what we can see.

Nor do I see why it has to feel false, hollow, cynical or disrespectful just because we're not told how many people died, or had it repeated to us that people did, in fact die, and that there was destruction. Does the destruction and what happened suddenly not exist?

You say that you assume that Superman mourned all of it after killing Zod. But the movie doesn't show us this.
I'm pretty sure the movie does, in fact, show Superman mourning after killing Zod. Quite intensely.

You can see why that feels really weird and makes people uncomfortable, right?
Nope. Life goes on. Life goes on without everyone dwelling on the bad things that happened sometimes. That's pretty clearly the intent of the scenes at the Daily Planet.

You can see why that feels like the movie is completely disregarding the very serious and very obvious implications of what happened, right?
No. I don't feel that way at all. I can see why the movie moves on. It is not a movie about the impact Superman and Zod's battle had on Metropolis anymore than it is a movie about the impact Superman and Zod's battle had on Smallville.

It is a a movie about Superman himself. Once the final conflict between he and the antagonist is over, the focus moves back to Superman himself, and his place in the world.

It all boils down to the old adage of "show, don't tell." The saying's as old as dirt that in a story, you have to show your audience what's happening and what it means, not just tell them about it. Having all of that destruction without dramatizing the seriousness and implications of it is telling, not through words per-se but through a very basic visual shorthand.
Hmm. I'm fairly certain that the visual shorthand you refer to is called "showing", actually.

We see all of this destruction and we're supposed to feel that there are serious stakes and these are serious things, but they don't show us the emotional and psychological toll it takes on our characters
Well, in the case of Superman, that's simply not true. He's on his knees crying at the end of the battle.

Nor does it show us the effect these events are having on the lives of the people of Metropolis.
And again, that isn't the focus of this movie, and is likely the focus of the next film.

They give us images of buildings falling down and basically tell us to feel sad about it.
I don't remember being told to feel sad about it. I don't remember being told to feel anything. I made my own inferences about what was likely happening based on the events of the movie. I don't remember being asked to focus on anything but what Superman is going through in this movie.

And, sure, on an intellectual level we know it's sad, but we don't feel it in our gut the way we're supposed to, the way a movie is supposed to make us feel.
You assume it's supposed to make you feel sad, though. The sequence is inherently about the power of these two clashing Gods. Not about the deaths that are being caused. Or I would imagine that they would have, you know, referenced the deaths being caused somehow, instead of focusing on the two Gods and the damage they were causing.

I really don't think it's a failure on the part of the audience if the filmmakers don't ground the events of their climax emotionally, and instead just throw images at us and expect us to feel things. That doesn't seem, to me, to be very effective storytelling.
The filmmakers did ground the events of their climax emotionally. They just chose to focus on their main character's emotions, instead of those of the people of Metropolis.

I don't see where the filmmakers expected you to feel things at all. I don't see why we should have to feel certain things at every step along the way. Seems to me that putting true emotional stakes throughout an action sequence would muddy the focus a bit. When the filmmakers want us to feel something, at the end of the battle, we do.

To me, it's a clear case of focus. MAN OF STEEL is not a movie about Metropolis. It is a movie about Superman, first and foremost, and the impact this man's appearance has on a couple of key players in the mythology.

Could they have shown the aftermath of the damage? Yes, but they arguably did anyway. What they didn't do was tell us how many people died, or show the people of Metropolis dealing with it, and with the implications of Superman's appearance. And again, that is likely going to be seen in the sequel, which is a pretty normal structuring of dealing with such concepts.

I don't think that's an excuse. If you leave something absolutely vital out of your movie and then say "we'll get to it in the sequel," you still have a movie with a huge missing piece.
Why is it vital in this film? Sure, it would have been nice to see, but why is it a "huge, missing piece" given the focus of the film? What makes it vital?

Film series are fine, but each installment has to be self contained to an extent.
Then why can't an aspect like dealing with the aftermath of a disaster and a public sentiment toward Superman be self contained in the second film?

The plot doesn't necessarily have to be wrapped up in each film but they still have to address things, especially things of this magnitude.
Where is that written, exactly?

Making it the focus of the next film doesn't change the fact that we cut from a destroyed metropolis to Superman smiling and joking with his mom and then cut to Metropolis where everything looks fine and like it's business as usual.
Superman isn't just smiling and joking with his mom. He's having a very somber moment about his deceased father and his place in the world.

I apologize for continually making this comparison, but The Avengers didn't save addressing the destruction in their climax for the sequel and it only made the film stronger.
No, but the AVENGERS did rush through addressing the destruction in a reaction montage, which, by your own standards, seems to violate the whole "show, don't tell" thing, since showing something in a visual shorthand is just another form of "telling" according to you.

"Perception is the enemy of reason."


Last edited by The Guard; 09-24-2013 at 10:28 PM.
The Guard is offline