View Single Post
Old 09-30-2013, 02:21 PM   #296
Tempest's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,729
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Originally Posted by DA_Champion View Post
That's not it. The consensus of legitimate criticisms against the film and the script among professional critics, a lot of forum posters, people who work in the industry, et cetera is not due to people being less intelligent and less wise to you. If you see someone wiser than you, like Mark Waid, state a point of you that is different from your own, you should pause and reflect, really seriously reflect, rather than say "fallacies spouted by a fanboy who should use his brain".
Who said Mark Waid is so 'wise'? My cousin is a highly published, well-known political commentator, and we only agree on a very thin line of beliefs. Just because someone is published, well-known, or has won an accolades for their work doesn't make them always right.

Doesn't mean that they're necessarily wrong, but I'm not going to allow their opinions to run my life.

In particular, I find Mark Waid and Grant Morrison's comments about Superman to be silly, simply because the comics don't support their statements. If Superman had NEVER EVER killed before, I might be more in line with them, but since he has killed before, I pretty much dismiss what they have to say.

I came out of the theatre liking the movie. I looked up Mark Waid's review. I didn't know who he was. I thought "dumb arguments"... then I looked up who he was, I decided to read the arguments again and pay more careful attention. I understood that his opinion was worth more than mine, and that if there was a disagreement, it was probably my failure to understand and not his failure to explain. He wrote one of the most celebrated Superman novels, surely if I was dismissing his views so casually, the problem was with me and not with him. You, on the other hand, simply assume he's making dumb arguments.
Mark's dramatic "review" of MOS is enough for me to believe he's a complete tosser. I don't care if he wrote the Superman series start to finish; he's a complete nut. No way am I basing any opinions on what he thinks.

If you liked MOS, you shouldn't have let some guy you don't even know influence you. Don't ever go to meetings about multi-level marketing. I fear for your money and livelihood.

By the way, out of curiosity, if you read a review by someone who is into theology, and they liked MOS's Jesus references, would that change your opinion too? After all, if someone who studies theology appreciates MOS, they're wiser than you, and you should defer to their opinion, correct?

What about if you come across any positive review, or a mix of positive and negative? How does that shape your opinion on MOS?

Originally Posted by DA_Champion View Post
By "creative" you mean plot devices.
Yes and no. Every situation in every film or story is a plot device. If it's done well, it won't feel like one (even though we're aware that's what it is). Superman has killed in the comics before. And he's managed to not kill every enemy afterwards. Is that too plot devicy for you as well?

Why couldn't he be creative when fighting Zod? Answer: he couldn't, he was in a no-win situation.

What they;ve effectively done is that they can no longer write no-win situations for Superman, there's always going to be some plot device to save the day.
Superman has killed at least twice in the comics before. They could do another no-win situation. I suspect though, that what will happen in the next 'no-win' situation, is a major sacrifice on his part. Either Superman dies, or he appears to die, or he becomes depowered in some manner.

I'm only guessing, of course, but that's how I would go about it. There are still plenty of stories to be told, or retold in the films. Killing Zod is not an end to that creativity.

That's not terrible I guess... but it means they lose the ability to kill a villain in the future. For nothing really. Of all the stories they could tell... killing Zod as the origin of the no-kill rule is hardly the most interesting.
It doesn't bother me. I'd rather have the killing of a bad guy done in the first film, and use the other films to explore any potential emotional fall-out from it, than to establish Superman as a guy who doesn't kill, who, in the last film of the franchise, suddenly has no other option. And then we wouldn't get a satisfactory amount of time to deal with all the implications and problems that could bring.

Now, we've already had a death. Now we get Superman to figure out how he won't kill again. Maybe he vows to never kill again, and then he's pushed to the point where he has not other option again. How would he deal with that? Will he be able to avoid killing again? Should he avoid killing again? Should he have killed Zod sooner? Could he have done things differently? How is he handling the immense power he weilds over pretty much any threat he faces?

These are all interesting questions that can now be explored in the next few films. Or ignored, at the whim of the writers/directors/studio. We'll see what happens.

Originally Posted by DA_Champion View Post

1) They wanted a "deep" backdrop of a Krypton without choice, so that Kal-El could be a special birth, a special baby, and the movie's theme could be choice, and it could set up Planet Earth as a foil and thus make viewers feel good, because viewers like Earth;
2) They wanted Jor-El to be one of the most ultimate badasses in the history of science fiction films, and they wanted Zod to be a rebel against his society;
3) They never realised or cared that "1" and "2" contradicted each other.
You've confused choice with free will. A Kryptonian's occupation is decided at birth. They receive special enhancements so that they may fulfill their particular jobs.

There is nothing in the film that suggests that Krypton took away free will from people. So they can still murder, fight, and learn other skills as they choose. It's just that Zod could never be a farmer, and Jor-El could never be a king, and Lara could never be a warrior. Those aren't their occupations, they aren't allowed to be anything else.

And what's interesting here is that there is a contradiction in what Jor-El has planned for Clark, and in his own beliefs. He wants Clark to be a leader, and a bridge for the Kryptonian people. I don't know that he wants Clark to rule Earth, but I do think he has his ambitions for Clark to be in a position of power.

Jonathan Kent has smaller ambitions; he knows Clark will probably be a leader some day -- although I get the sense he doesn't want Clark to be a leader at all. He wants Clark to remain anonymous, and find a more 'human' way to help people.

What's fun is that Clark ultimately embraces both desires of his fathers, but at the same time, he does it on his own terms. He chooses how he will help, and what life he's going to lead.

Originally Posted by TheFlamingCoco View Post
But what CAN be interesting is how he heals emotionally. That would probably mean a film with Batman/Bruce not taking up a chunk of screentime.

But that being said, if he kills again (barring something extreme like Darksied/Doomsday), it would make Superman seem like he slaughters his way out of conflicts. Likewise, if he doesn't, it will expose the bloodlust the director/writer had for Superman. It shows how easy it would have been for the franchise for Superman to not have BLOOD on his hands.
Eh. I think that people are over-stating how it will be impossible for Superman to not kill again. He's killed before and come back from it just fine. I think he'll be all right going forward in this as well. :-)

They say… "What an unusual person. What a smashing bonnet!"

Come play at Fallen London, Delicious Friends!

Tempest is offline