The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice > Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

View Poll Results: How do you feel about Goyer writing the script for the first Superman Batman film
His work on MOS was VERY GOOD. He'll do GREAT. 27 20.45%
His work on MOS was OKAY. I am Skecptical. 30 22.73%
His work on MOS was POOR. I feel dread. 32 24.24%
He NEEDS Affleck's help and guidance to deliver a great script 43 32.58%
Voters: 132. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-25-2013, 01:02 AM   #126
Marvin
Side-Kick
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 16,886
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Question View Post
Yeah, because being really angry at the most horrible person you've ever met in your entire life who murdered a good friend of yours and doesn't even give a **** is unreasonable.
1. Superman wasn't just "angry", not sure if you caught the part at the beginning there where he declared darksied was going to die in a few minutes and he was going to make sure it happened.

2. Surely after pages of debating superman's character you aren't about to jump ship and defend this sort of thing?
Few things around here surprise me any more but this, might.

__________________
Stephen Lang for Cable, the most obvious casting in cbm history.
Marvin is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 06:26 AM   #127
DA_Champion
Side-Kick
 
DA_Champion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 6,530
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
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.
One can legitimately argue that Superman can't be adequately defined without defining Smallville at a minimum, and eventually Metropolis (though the latter is probably not necessary for an origin movie). Neither was really defined in this movie, no attempt was made to provide a sense of place to the environment Clark Kent grew up in. We do know that Smallville is very American, due to the product placement for IHOP, Sears, etc and one of the producers implied this was done deliberately (fair enough). We also know that Clark wears Kansas City Royals tshirts (though we never see him play sports) and he also tells us that he grew up in Kansas. In this manner Smallville's definition is delegated to every viewer: Smallville is whatever you the viewer think of as a quintessential American place. No specificities are provided by Goyer and Snyder. It is thus a weaker and more nebulous characterisation.

They did however provide somewhat of a sense of place to Krypton, which is consistent with them giving more lines to Jor-El than to Jonathan and Martha combined, and then treating the adoptive father like a disposable object at the tornado scene.

Contrast #1: the Nolan Batman movies let us know what kind of place Gotham is, and we see the symbiosis between Gotham and Batman, it's not just "a large American city", it's "This large american city" and we're not given the impression that Bruce Wayne would have become Batman if he had grown up in Sacramento, Jacksonville, or Boston. It's Gotham's soul that flows through his blood and vice versa, which allows for a more immersive film experience, and indeed a deeper story.

Contrast #2: I saw another Amy Adams movie, The Fighter, earlier this week. Excellent movie, comprehensively superior to MoS, for reasons too long to get into here. I'll just note that Lowell, Massachusetts is not just "an American town" in that movie, it's "this American town", it's very poignant and detailed rather than nebulous, and it fits the characters of the movie.

I'm having trouble thinking of any great film or TV series that didn't define a sense of place for the protagonist. As a third example, The Wire is broadly considered the greatest television show ever made, and it's often said that the main character in that series was the city of Baltimore.


Last edited by DA_Champion; 09-25-2013 at 06:36 AM.
DA_Champion is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 06:46 AM   #128
Krumm
Beer Snob
 
Krumm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,962
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by DA_Champion View Post
One can legitimately argue that Superman can't be adequately defined without defining Smallville at a minimum, and eventually Metropolis (though the latter is probably not necessary for an origin movie). Neither was really defined in this movie, no attempt was made to provide a sense of place to the environment Clark Kent grew up in. We do know that Smallville is very American, due to the product placement for IHOP, Sears, etc and one of the producers implied this was done deliberately (fair enough). We also know that Clark wears Kansas City Royals tshirts (though we never see him play sports) and he also tells us that he grew up in Kansas. In this manner Smallville's definition is delegated to every viewer: Smallville is whatever you the viewer think of as a quintessential American place. No specificities are provided by Goyer and Snyder. It is thus a weaker and more nebulous characterisation.

They did however provide somewhat of a sense of place to Krypton, which is consistent with them giving more lines to Jor-El than to Jonathan and Martha combined, and then treating the adoptive father like a disposable object at the tornado scene.

Contrast #1: the Nolan Batman movies let us know what kind of place Gotham is, and we see the symbiosis between Gotham and Batman, it's not just "a large American city", it's "This large american city" and we're not given the impression that Bruce Wayne would have become Batman if he had grown up in Sacramento, Jacksonville, or Boston. It's Gotham's soul that flows through his blood and vice versa, which allows for a more immersive film experience, and indeed a deeper story.

Contrast #2: I saw another Amy Adams movie, The Fighter, earlier this week. Excellent movie, comprehensively superior to MoS, for reasons too long to get into here. I'll just note that Lowell, Massachusetts is not just "an American town" in that movie, it's "this American town", it's very poignant and detailed rather than nebulous, and it fits the characters of the movie.

I'm having trouble thinking of any great film or TV series that didn't define a sense of place for the protagonist. As a third example, The Wire is broadly considered the greatest television show ever made, and it's often said that the main character in that series was the city of Baltimore.
I would say that Smallville wasn't terribly defined in S:TM.

I agree, though, that it isn't terribly unique in MOS. Whether or not it was a detriment, I'm not sure seeing as I liked the film.


Last edited by Krumm; 09-25-2013 at 09:33 AM. Reason: I meant to say "wasn't terribly defined"
Krumm is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 07:43 AM   #129
DA_Champion
Side-Kick
 
DA_Champion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 6,530
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

S:TM was more about Metropolis Clark than about Smallville Clark. They did define Metropolis, though they did it in a cheap manner: They defined Metropolis to be New York, most obviously by showing the Statue of Liberty. That is in my view a cheap strategy, it doesn't take as much effort, but it is nevertheless effective. Everybody knows about New York, it's the cultural and financial center of the advanced world, though much less so today than it was in the 1970s.



In any case, S:TM is hardly one of the great movies of the 20th century. I'm sure that there are countless movies and TV shows out there that don't delineate a sense of place and MoS is hardly unique in this failure. However, the last paragraph in my post stated that I don't think there that many (there may be none) that fail to do so among the truly great work, and thus it is a de facto requirement for a film to be considered a great film.


Last edited by DA_Champion; 09-25-2013 at 07:47 AM.
DA_Champion is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 08:09 AM   #130
Krumm
Beer Snob
 
Krumm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,962
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by DA_Champion View Post
S:TM was more about Metropolis Clark than about Smallville Clark. They did define Metropolis, though they did it in a cheap manner: They defined Metropolis to be New York, most obviously by showing the Statue of Liberty. That is in my view a cheap strategy, it doesn't take as much effort, but it is nevertheless effective. Everybody knows about New York, it's the cultural and financial center of the advanced world, though much less so today than it was in the 1970s.
I took your original post to be more about settings that truly define characters as made evident by your examples of Gotham and The Fighter. Both those settings are what made those men who they are as Smallville should be to Superman. While Metropolis was defined in S:TM, I wouldn't say it is as definitive to the character as Smallville (regardless of what Clark we are discussing particularly because Reeve's Clark is such a facade) and therefore doesn't get you as much mileage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DA_Champion View Post
In any case, S:TM is hardly one of the great movies of the 20th century. I'm sure that there are countless movies and TV shows out there that don't delineate a sense of place and MoS is hardly unique in this failure. However, the last paragraph in my post stated that I don't think there that many (there may be none) that fail to do so among the truly great work, and thus it is a de facto requirement for a film to be considered a great film.
I didn't disagree with this. I was simply keep the conversation Superman centric. especially in term of an origin story.

Krumm is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 08:25 AM   #131
The Question
Objectivism doesn't work.
 
The Question's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hub City
Posts: 39,880
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
1. Superman wasn't just "angry", not sure if you caught the part at the beginning there where he declared darksied was going to die in a few minutes and he was going to make sure it happened.

2. Surely after pages of debating superman's character you aren't about to jump ship and defend this sort of thing?
Few things around here surprise me any more but this, might.
I'm not jumping ship. In the context of the DCAU and the history between Superman and Darkseid in the DCAU that whole sequence makes a lot of sense. I've got no problem with Superman going to that dark and that angry of a place as long as it's executed properly, and in the DCAU in that sequence it was.

__________________
This is what I have to say to everyone who has a problem with Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:
The Question is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 09:10 AM   #132
PacificBoy
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,224
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krumm View Post
I would say that Smallville was terribly defined in S:TM.

I agree, though, that it isn't terribly unique in MOS. Whether or not it was a detriment, I'm not sure seeing as I liked the film.
Agree with your view(s). The character of Smallville didn't come alive as it did in Gotham in Nolan's Batman-verse and The Fighter's Massachusetts as mentioned by DA_Champion, but it's unique because of the lifelong influences the community, the Kents in particular, had on Superman. The people of Smallville helped define who he is.

The Smallville fight was pitch-perfect as it became personal. His mother, his friend, his adopted people attacked. In stark contrast, the Metropolis fight was impersonal. Yes, here he was saving the world, but the world in relation to Superman wasn't as intimately established as it was for Smallville. Unless the world equals Lois since that's the only other non-Smallville relationship established at that point.

While S:TM isn't about the places at all. Metropolis, Smallville and Krypton were no more than backdrops for the magical-realistic portrayal of Superman. "You'll believe a man can fly" -- that's what its tagline said to do, and that's what the movie accomplished I feel.


Last edited by PacificBoy; 09-25-2013 at 09:37 AM.
PacificBoy is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 09:33 AM   #133
PacificBoy
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,224
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Question View Post
I'm not jumping ship. In the context of the DCAU and the history between Superman and Darkseid in the DCAU that whole sequence makes a lot of sense. I've got no problem with Superman going to that dark and that angry of a place as long as it's executed properly, and in the DCAU in that sequence it was.
Not only did Darkseid kill one of his best friends, he brainwashed Superman into turning against humanity; Superman felt violated and powerless for probably the first time in his life. It also caused irreparable damage to the relationship between Superman and the people. Friends and allies such as Professor Hamilton began building defenses and walls against him.

Oh Superman had plenty of reason to get dark and angry against Darkseid in the DCAU!


Last edited by PacificBoy; 09-25-2013 at 09:53 AM.
PacificBoy is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 11:31 AM   #134
Marvin
Side-Kick
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 16,886
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by DA_Champion View Post
In any case, S:TM is hardly one of the great movies of the 20th century.
American Cinema has celebrated this film for 30 years. Not that much unlike jaws and even the Starwars. A high critical consensus and a place in the academy award tributes. Flaws and all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Question View Post
I'm not jumping ship. In the context of the DCAU and the history between Superman and Darkseid in the DCAU that whole sequence makes a lot of sense. I've got no problem with Superman going to that dark and that angry of a place as long as it's executed properly, and in the DCAU in that sequence it was.
Superman deciding to kill another sentient/intelligent creature isn't just him going to "a dark place" as you have described. It's him going against said "no kill rule" to something "superman doesn't do".

Whether it's "executed well" or not that doesn't change that superman is actively being debated and forced out of homicide.
A superman movie where he begs and pleads with a mad man not to make him do something after said mad man has killed hundreds of people he cares for not to mention his late father and is in the process of killing a little girl and her siblings, then immediately falls to his knees (and hands) and sobs over the act only to be consoled, on what is his first day out. In contrast to this other creature being pushed to anger and revenge and needing another hero to trip him out of it and not showing a single regret in the world?
I find this disingenuous to be honest. What exactly was executed so well about it? The fact that Darkseid is a very very bad guy and he got under superman skin(as batman later explains). The idea that it's for the greater good? The idea that the heroic Dan Turpin antagonist was killed on a whim? Superman, a self righteous killer when very angry, someone let Goyer know. Perhaps then he can start talking about story execution and less about "rules".

Gone is the discussion of superman always finding a way out.
Gone is the discussion of superman holding himself to a higher standard.
Gone is the discussion of superman not needing batman of all things to play moral compass, the hero with the established no kill rule funny enough.
What we are given here a clear interpretation of just another man doing what men pushed to violence do, nothing more, nothing heroic, just ugly humanity.
My point again, would "fans" accept this in a superman film. Then again, these are more or less the same fans that are seemingly ok with superman punching through animated buildings but not with said character being punched through real buildings...
Would Mark Waid be writing another letter about his heart being broken I wonder.

__________________
Stephen Lang for Cable, the most obvious casting in cbm history.
Marvin is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 11:56 AM   #135
PacificBoy
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,224
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Superman deciding to kill another sentient/intelligent creature isn't just him going to "a dark place" as you have described. It's him going against said "no kill rule" to something "superman doesn't do".
But the crucial difference is that Superman doesn't do it in the very end. The motivations for killing are one big theme in itself, Superman actually doing the deed is another.

The DCAU portrays a Superman that's just one step away from being "a self righteous killer". Superman the Justice Lord is what happens when Superman crosses that line.

PacificBoy is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 11:58 AM   #136
The Question
Objectivism doesn't work.
 
The Question's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hub City
Posts: 39,880
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Superman deciding to kill another sentient/intelligent creature isn't just him going to "a dark place" as you have described. It's him going against said "no kill rule" to something "superman doesn't do".
Yeah, and they did it in a way that made sense and was genuinely engaging and interesting.

My complaint with Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel was never that they should have never done it, it's that they didn't do it well.

I'm not nearly as dogmatic as you think I am.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Whether it's "executed well" or not that doesn't change that superman is actively being debated and forced out of homicide.
A superman movie where he begs and pleads with a mad man not to make him do something after said mad man has killed hundreds of people he cares for not to mention his late father and is in the process of killing a little girl and her siblings, then immediately falls to his knees (and hands) and sobs over the act only to be consoled, on what is his first day out. In contrast to this other creature being pushed to anger and revenge and needing another hero to trip him out of it and not showing a single regret in the world?
I find this disingenuous to be honest. What exactly was executed so well about it? The fact that Darkseid is a very very bad guy and he got under superman skin(as batman later explains). The idea that it's for the greater good? The idea that the heroic Dan Turpin antagonist was killed on a whim? Superman, a self righteous killer when very angry, someone let Goyer know. Perhaps then he can start talking about story execution and less about "rules".
It was well executed because it was build on established history and characterization, it took Superman to a very interesting and genuine place emotionally, and the narrative engaged the events and their implications and didn't half ass it. Superman's hate for Darkseid wasn't just there for a moment and gone, it was the emotional thru line for that entire story. And Superman being brought to a point where he's faced with someone so horrible, someone who he hates for reasons that are so personal, and having him go to that wrathful place, it's built up so well that the reaction it elicits is "holy ****!" and not "... wait, huh?"

Man of Steel brought it up with no build up and immediately dropped it. It was, to quote the bard, "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

If you're going to take Superman to that dark of a place, you've got to follow through with it and really get to the emotional meat of it. Justice League did that, Man of Steel did not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Gone is the discussion of superman always finding a way out.
Gone is the discussion of superman holding himself to a higher standard.
Gone is the discussion of superman not needing batman of all things to play moral compass, the hero with the established no kill rule funny enough.
Funnier still, none of those things are arguments I ever made about why I don't think the ending to Man of Steel is very good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
What we are given here a clear interpretation of just another man doing what men pushed to violence do, nothing more, nothing heroic, just ugly humanity.
Yeah, and they actually engaged that notion and didn't trivialize it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
My point again, would "fans" accept this in a superman film. Then again, these are more or less the same fans that are seemingly ok with superman punching through animated buildings but not with said character being punched through real buildings...
Yes, because what you seem to not understand is that it isn't just about content, it's about the way content is executed. There are certain standards of morality that Superman is suppose to live up to, but if you do it right, bringing him to the breaking point, bringing him to a place where he can't live up to those standards, that can be exciting and gripping and serve to reinforce those standards and give us an even greater appreciation for them and for the challenges Superman faces.

A lot of folks can't really articulate it well, but even if they can't find the words to say it, most folks who disliked Superman killing Zod wasn't simply because they had Superman kill a dude. It's they had Superman kill a dude and they didn't pull it off well.

__________________
This is what I have to say to everyone who has a problem with Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:
The Question is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 12:21 PM   #137
PacificBoy
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,224
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Question View Post
A lot of folks can't really articulate it well, but even if they can't find the words to say it, most folks who disliked Superman killing Zod wasn't simply because they had Superman kill a dude. It's they had Superman kill a dude and they didn't pull it off well.
Yup, that's my issue with the killing. Not the act itself but the ahem execution of the circumstances which gave rise to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Would Mark Waid be writing another letter about his heart being broken I wonder.
Marvin, you seem to be misunderstanding Mark Waid's stance on Superman killing Zod. It's precisely for the reasons The Question gave, the execution. Here's Waid's elaboration on this.

MARK WAID: I understand, and I didn’t see him stopping either, but what I’m saying is this: it could have been sold to me much better by reminding me that Zod is using people against Superman. Because by the time he gets to the final fight, all he wants to do is punch Superman, and there is no reason in the world that Superman at that point can’t take the fight anywhere in the galaxy. No reason at all. There’s no reason why Superman just didn’t give a flying flip about collateral damage and about the people.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: I have to admit, that point did bother me. I was watching Superman IIthe other day, actually, and in the middle of battle with the Kryptonians he’s catching **** and still managing to save people.

MARK WAID: And I get that that can come off corny, but it’s all delivery. Instead of having him take a moment to not only save a baby in a carriage but also smile and nod and wink and wave, just play it as a guy multitasking and losing. Play up the frustration

http://voicesfromkrypton.net/man-of-...ith-mark-waid/


Last edited by PacificBoy; 09-25-2013 at 12:28 PM.
PacificBoy is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 12:49 PM   #138
Marvin
Side-Kick
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 16,886
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Pacific boy,
Waids stance was primarily grounded in the idea that he wasn't shown that superman cared all that much about people, the lack of saving as he saw it. He was further put off by the act of killing. Your first quote is on the matter of saving innocents. I can see how this falls into the discussion of execution but it sidesteps the issue I brought up about how waid the loud fan, feels about the issue of superman killing and if he would accept it in a non cartoon film.

-this excerpt is clearly an issue of innocent lives lost.
Quote:
MARK WAID: I understand, and I didnít see him stopping either, but what Iím saying is this: it could have been sold to me much better by reminding me that Zod is using people against Superman. Because by the time he gets to the final fight, all he wants to do is punch Superman, and there is no reason in the world that Superman at that point canít take the fight anywhere in the galaxy. No reason at all. Thereís no reason why Superman just didnít give a flying flip about collateral damage and about the people.
-this excerpt is a better example on his thoughts about who superman is.....notice he's not talking about if the story built up his killer rage or not but rather on the issue of characterization/direction alone.
Quote:
Iím not articulating this well, but in other words I think to some degree our criticism of, ďThatís not what Superman does, thatís not how he is,Ē
-this excerpt, seemingly made in jest establishes what he considers a deal breaker and about what kinda tone he would rather see in a superman film...how do you think he would feel about a superman pushed to revenge killing due to seeing his friends killed?
Quote:
Iíve talked over and over to the people at DC over the last ten years, and I know what WBís feeling is about Superman, which is that heís stupid, heís corny and why canít he be more like Batman? Well, because heís not Batman, but thereís nothing Hollywood loves more than safe bets. So that certainly always informs the tone and direction that this movie was going to have. We always knew once they got serious about it that it was going to be a darker, more brooding take, but I kind of thought there would be a little wiggle room there and, my hand to God, the first and last words out of my mouth were, before we walked in that theater, was I turned to my girlfriend and said, ďLook, my expectations are moderate, Iím good, as long as he doesnít kill anybody.Ē I swear to God I said that, but in jest, because who would have thought?

and one of my favorites
Quote:
Right, but if I wanted to see Boy of Steel I would have seen Boy of Steel Ėand that slips into the category of personal preference rather than intelligent critique...

__________________
Stephen Lang for Cable, the most obvious casting in cbm history.
Marvin is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 01:00 PM   #139
PacificBoy
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,224
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Fair enough, Marvin. Mark Waid is definitely not big on Superman taking a life, for whatever reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
but it sidesteps the issue I brought up about how waid the loud fan, feels about the issue of superman killing and if he would accept it in a non cartoon film.
Do you mean in a cartoon film?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
this excerpt, seemingly made in jest establishes what he considers a deal breaker and about what kinda tone he would rather see in a superman film...how do you think he would feel about a superman pushed to revenge killing due to seeing his friends killed?
I'm guessing he'd probably be heartbroken and write another letter, but it's a non-starter because the deal wasn't broken in the DCAU's Superman's case. He was pushed to nearly revenge-kill, and boy did he teeter, but the fact remains he wasn't pushed over the edge. The question of "Will Superman kill?" still lingers.

We can only know his response for sure when Superman does kill again in a major medium.


Last edited by PacificBoy; 09-25-2013 at 01:22 PM.
PacificBoy is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 01:09 PM   #140
The Question
Objectivism doesn't work.
 
The Question's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hub City
Posts: 39,880
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Pacific boy,
Waids stance was primarily grounded in the idea that he wasn't shown that superman cared all that much about people, the lack of saving as he saw it. He was further put off by the act of killing. Your first quote is on the matter of saving innocents. I can see how this falls into the discussion of execution but it sidesteps the issue I brought up about how waid the loud fan, feels about the issue of superman killing and if he would accept it in a non cartoon film.

-this excerpt is clearly an issue of innocent lives lost.


-this excerpt is a better example on his thoughts about who superman is.....notice he's not talking about if the story built up his killer rage or not but rather on the issue of characterization/direction alone.


-this excerpt, seemingly made in jest establishes what he considers a deal breaker and about what kinda tone he would rather see in a superman film...how do you think he would feel about a superman pushed to revenge killing due to seeing his friends killed?



and one of my favorites
Yes. So he's not a fan in general of this kind of depiction of Superman, but he's willing to accept it and even enjoy it if it's pulled off well and he doesn't think they pulled it off well. That seems to be what he's saying to me, that sounds completely reasonable, and that doesn't sound like he'd be a hypocrite if he liked the way Superman's hatred of Darkseid was handled in the DCAU. Because, as he stressed, how well it's executed, how well it's sold, is a huge factor.

__________________
This is what I have to say to everyone who has a problem with Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:
The Question is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 01:41 PM   #141
Marvin
Side-Kick
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 16,886
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Question View Post
Yeah, and they did it in a way that made sense and was genuinely engaging and interesting.

My complaint with Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel was never that they should have never done it, it's that they didn't do it well.

I'm not nearly as dogmatic as you think I am...

..Funnier still, none of those things are arguments I ever made about why I don't think the ending to Man of Steel is very good.
Funnier still, the matter here as I initially brought up was how "fans will respond to bruce tim's superman characterization". Your dogmatism or lack thereof is a collateral discussion, I can see how you would think it was on trial but this was always a matter of if the fan and ga would accept Bruce Tims superman for all it is(see my post on previous page).

Quote:
A lot of folks can't really articulate it well, but even if they can't find the words to say it, most folks who disliked Superman killing Zod wasn't simply because they had Superman kill a dude. It's they had Superman kill a dude and they didn't pull it off well.
If that was true, then discussion of whether or not supreman kills or doesn't wouldn't have even been brought up and put into the public/fanboy discourse for the past few months, but rather only that of story structure. Obviously it's not true.
(This is me avoiding the superman 2 reception contrast)

Point being, your detraction for the film may or may not be based on how well it was executed but you surely can't speak for the larger community, purists or otherwise. I point to waid because I can recall him speaking on what superman is supposed to represent(to him when he's not collecting royalties on his most famous maxi), and not so much about if this action tone and action was built up over the course of a story or series in TAS. Plainly put, from what waid tells, a series that properly set's up that tone(one with lots of pain and anger) probably wouldn't be his cup a tea on this material. Seemingly speaks to my point.

That all being said, what you are suggesting is that Tim and his writers built an emotional through line over multiple stories leading up to a big moment with little follow up(this incident of superman the willing killer was never addressed after the fact, only followed by more threats). Superman was pushed to revenge over the course of a series of different stories, this was hardly a thematic construction and deconstruction of what killing and revenge mean or what it would do or mean to him, if you want to see that look to the justice lords stuff where the thematic issue of superman killing luthor is painted over a series of different stories and resolved when he himself comes to the greater moral conclusion.
All I got from this arc is Superman "justifiably" hates darkseid and everyone that has been following the series can understand why as opposed to being shocked when "it" happens.. I suppose this is one of the benefits of serialized story telling. If that's what you have been arguing for this entire time then I need to change my retorts.


Pacific boy,
The issue is hardly whether or not superman actually achieves killing or not. That's simply not honest. That wouldn't be too far removed from me insisting that kryptonians can't really die under a yellow star as implied in the source material and that zod is probably still alive....
This is a matter of intent and superman wanted darksied's head, only to be stopped by the one superhero would could stop him from doing anything.

__________________
Stephen Lang for Cable, the most obvious casting in cbm history.
Marvin is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 01:44 PM   #142
Marvin
Side-Kick
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 16,886
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificBoy View Post
Do you mean in a cartoon film?

We can only know his response for sure when Superman does kill again in a major medium.
No I mean in a film that's not cartoony, as waid referenced superman 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Question View Post
Yes. So he's not a fan in general of this kind of depiction of Superman, but he's willing to accept it and even enjoy it if it's pulled off well and he doesn't think they pulled it off well. That seems to be what he's saying to me, that sounds completely reasonable, and that doesn't sound like he'd be a hypocrite if he liked the way Superman's hatred of Darkseid was handled in the DCAU. Because, as he stressed, how well it's executed, how well it's sold, is a huge factor.
You can't speak for him any more than you can speak for what the detractors are supposedly failing to articulate.

__________________
Stephen Lang for Cable, the most obvious casting in cbm history.
Marvin is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 02:12 PM   #143
The Question
Objectivism doesn't work.
 
The Question's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hub City
Posts: 39,880
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Funnier still, the matter here as I initially brought up was how "fans will respond to bruce tim's superman characterization". Your dogmatism or lack thereof is a collateral discussion, I can see how you would think it was on trial but this was always a matter of if the fan and ga would accept Bruce Tims superman for all it is(see my post on previous page).
And my point is that I think they would because the Tim/Dini characterization that we've seen so far is much better executed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
If that was true, then discussion of whether or not supreman kills or doesn't wouldn't have even been brought up and put into the public/fanboy discourse for the past few months, but rather only that of story structure. Obviously it's not true.
Not very obvious to me.

Yes, people have an ingrained notion that "Superman does not kill," but the thing is that the negative reaction would not be nearly as strong if Zod's death had been better executed. When you're working against a pre-conceived notion like that, then the job of the filmmaker is to do a good job selling your reinterpretation to the audience. Yes, a lot of folks are inherently bothered by Superman killing someone, but they wouldn't be bothered by it if the filmmakers did a better job of selling it.

That's what I mean when I say that a lot of folks might be having a hard time articulating their problem with the film. Because Zod's death was poorly executed and poorly presented, it wasn't satisfying to many people in the audience. So, their initial reaction to the film not successfully convincing them that this plot point was appropriate or believable is "I don't think Superman would do that."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Point being, your detraction for the film may or may not be based on how well it was executed but you surely can't speak for the larger community, purists or otherwise. I point to waid because I can recall him speaking on what superman is supposed to represent(to him when he's not collecting royalties on his most famous maxi), and not so much about if this action tone and action was built up over the course of a story or series in TAS. Plainly put, from what waid tells, a series that properly set's up that tone(one with lots of pain and anger) probably wouldn't be his cup a tea on this material. Seemingly speaks to my point.
I disagree with your reading of what he said, and I think what he said very much speaks against your point. Yes, he clearly isn't thrilled by the idea of Superman killing somebody, but he also flat out says that part of the problem is that the filmmakers could have sold it better. And yes, you can argue that he's not talking about Zod's death when he says that and he's only talking about the collateral damage and Superman not having time to stop and save people, but it reads to me like he's talking about both. Remember, this isn't a carefully worded public statement, this is an interview. Sometimes people bounce back and forth between different related thoughts over the course of a sentence. That's how it reads to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
That all being said, what you are suggesting is that Tim and his writers built an emotional through line over multiple stories leading up to a big moment with little follow up(this incident of superman the willing killer was never addressed after the fact, only followed by more threats).
It was addressed in the moment. That whole sequence was about Superman brought to his breaking point when facing a villain who's hurt him and the people he cares about more deeply and more savagely than anyone else he's ever faced. And that moment is a piece of Superman's overall character growth throughout the Justice League series. You say that it's never addressed again, but Superman's capacity for going to far and the burden of the responsibility he caries is seen throughout the entirety of the cartoon. It's absolutely picked up on later. Heck, you even go on to talk about when they picked up on it later:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Superman was pushed to revenge over the course of a series of different stories, this was hardly a thematic construction and deconstruction of what killing and revenge mean or what it would do or mean to him, if you want to see that look to the justice lords stuff where the thematic issue of superman killing luthor is painted over a series of different stories and resolved when he himself comes to the greater moral conclusion.
I don't see how that's unrelated to the stuff with Darkseid. It's all about exploring Superman's emotional and moral limits. With his conflict with Darkseid we see a glimpse of the dark and scary place Superman can go to when facing someone who absolutely disgusts him and who wounded him very deeply and very personally in a number of monstrous ways. Then we explore that notion and how he reacts to that potential within himself throughout the entirety of the stuff with the Justice Lords and the Cadmus arc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
All I got from this arc is Superman "justifiably" hates darkseid and everyone that has been following the series can understand why as opposed to being shocked when "it" happens.. I suppose this is one of the benefits of serialized story telling. If that's what you have been arguing for this entire time then I need to change my retorts.
It kind of is, yeah. The point of that sequence is to see what Superman is potentially capable of, and we see it played out in a way that makes total sense from an emotional standpoint. Then, later on, with the Justice Lords and Cadmus, we explore it much more in depth. That is the big b enefit of serialized storytelling, you can set things up and leave the audience wondering because you will come back to it later in a timely manner. Something that really doesn't apply to movies, which need to be at least somewhat self contained even if they are in a series, so you can't just leave things for the sequel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
You can't speak for him any more than you can speak for what the detractors are supposedly failing to articulate.
I don't think it counts as speaking for him if I'm paraphrasing a public statement that he made.

__________________
This is what I have to say to everyone who has a problem with Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:
The Question is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 02:30 PM   #144
PacificBoy
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,224
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Pacific boy,
The issue is hardly whether or not superman actually achieves killing or not. That's simply not honest.
Yes it is. The very act of killing takes the discussion of 'should Superman kill or not' to a whole new level; it's the chicken (or egg) of the very discussion. Would Waid have voiced out his dismay if Superman didn't kill Zod in Man of Steel? Would we even be having this conversation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
That wouldn't be too far removed from me insisting that kryptonians can't really die under a yellow star as implied in the source material and that zod is probably still alive....
That's plenty far removed. Because Zod clearly died and we have no definitive evidence of the yellow sun's properties in MoS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
This is a matter of intent and superman wanted darksied's head, only to be stopped by the one superhero would could stop him from doing anything.
What's Superman's intent at that juncture? His primary motive was to stop Darkseid from leaving the asteroid and destroying the universe with Brainiac's program. Revenge might be on his mind, and there's plenty of rage on show (by Superman's standards) but we didn't hear him articulate "I'm gonna murder you for murdering Dan Turpin!" so we don't how much of it was occupying his thoughts.

When Batman stopped him and uttered "Don't be a fool!", I read it as 'don't be a fool and give up your morals and your life at the same time'. Because when Superman said "I'm finishing this", he seemed intent on killing Darkseid to save the universe at the cost of his own life by staying behind. There's revenge and there's self-sacrifice mixed into it. Great little scene.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
No I mean in a film that's not cartoony, as waid referenced superman 2.
Waid didn't say Superman II was cartoony. He said Superman in reply to the interviewer's "in the middle of battle with the Kryptonians he’s catching **** and still managing to save people" that it "can come off corny, but it’s all delivery"


Last edited by PacificBoy; 09-25-2013 at 02:39 PM.
PacificBoy is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 02:49 PM   #145
The Question
Objectivism doesn't work.
 
The Question's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hub City
Posts: 39,880
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
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.
It's still pretty disingenuous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
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.
Well, no. Because people don't think that the film failed in not presenting it simply because it could have been done. They think it failed in not presenting it because it should have been done, and would have been superior to what we got.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
Dramatize how, exactly?
Well, first of all, give the characters actual emotional responses to all of the destruction happening around them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
I don't think it IS obvious that people are dying by the thousands.
It's obvious that people are dying by the thousands because when that many buildings are completely destroyed over the course of half an hour in a major American city then there's no way people don't die by the thousands. Just one of those buildings is likely to have well over 1,000 people inside when it collapses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
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.
But if a film doesn't pay some measure of reverence to loss of life on that grand of a scale then it feels very cynical and very emotionally cold and disinterested. And if it doesn't seem to matter to the movie that all of those people are in peril, if that loss doesn't actually carry some kind of meaning, then the audience is much less inclined to care about how things turn out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
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?
I never suggested that the movie do any of those things. At no point during anything I've written in this thread did I make those suggestions.

It's false, hollow, cynical, and disrespectful because it trivializes that loss of life. That entire sequence treats death on a massive scale as nothing more than a set piece It doesn't engage the emotional reality or the human tragedy of what's happening, focusing much more on the spectacle of the action going on, and as soon as that sequence is over it's completely forgotten. As much as the stakes of that whole sequence hinge on the safety of innocent people, the movie never actually takes the time to engage the tragedy of their loss and what it means to the hero.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
I'm pretty sure the movie does, in fact, show Superman mourning after killing Zod. Quite intensely.
Except that was in direct response to having to kill Zod and it only lasted a few seconds and it's completely dropped in the next scene.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
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.
There's a difference between "moving on" and "acting like it never happened." The scenes at the Daily Planet acted like the likely deaths of 100,000 people never happened. It's not dwelling to acknowledge the fact that that's sad and that is in some way meaningful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
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.
Don't you think that his place in the world and the impact his battle with Zod had on Metropolis would be deeply intertwined?

And really, wouldn't all of that death and destruction effect him? If the movie is about him, shouldn't we see how he's been changed, how he's been effected emotionally by the events of the climax? I mean, yes he screams after he kills Zod, but in the very next scene and all of the remaining scenes in the film he acts like he's completely unaffected by what he had to do and the horror and destruction he witnessed. It's pretty sloppy storytelling if you're telling a character study and fail to show how someone is effected by the single most traumatizing and significant moment in his life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
Hmm. I'm fairly certain that the visual shorthand you refer to is called "showing", actually.
No it's not. Showing would involve actually showing the real human, emotional impact these events had on the characters, including and especially Superman. Instead we see buildings fall down but we don't ever see the impact it has on anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
And again, that isn't the focus of this movie, and is likely the focus of the next film.
I'm not asking for it to be the focus of the film. I'm asking that the film actually have significant events like that matter. When everything is dropped and forgotten in the next scene it feels like none of what preceded it mattered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
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 you don't see the emotional disconnect between what Superman goes through and how he reacts to it? You don't think it's weird that Superman isn't left, on some level, haunted by the battle in Metropolis?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
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.
The power of these two gods clashing doesn't mean anything if there aren't any stakes. The damage they cause is meaningless unless we address the consequences of it. The damage the cause and the deaths that result aren't two unrelated concepts, they're deeply intertwined. Without the human cost the damage caused doesn't matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
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've been talking about the emotions of the main characters this entire time. The main characters should still be effected and changed emotionally by what's going on during the end battle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
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.
Putting true emotional stakes throughout an action sequence doesn't muddy the focus, it gives the action meaning beyond simply being spectacle for spectacle's sake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
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.
How is the destruction of the battle not apart of that impact?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
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.
Again, that stuff isn't what I've been talking about when I say the movie didn't address the loss of life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
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?
It can, but we're talking about two different things. You're talking about plot developments as a result of the destruction in Metropolis. I'm talking about addressing the emotional implications of it. There's a world of difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
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.
A big no on all counts.

A montage isn't just showing an image and expecting the audience to feel a certain way, it still explores genuine human feelings and important themes in a meaningful way. There's a world of difference between showing a building collapse and showing a montage of different kinds of reactions people have to the catastrophe that was just averted.

Also the montage wasn't the only thing that The Avengers did to address the destruction and loss and the human tragedy in the final battle. They also showed the reactions and fear of civilians and local emergency services, they showed the heroes actively rescuing civilians and formulating an evacuation strategy, they flat out stated that minimizing loss of civilian life was a part of the battle strategy, and they showed the main characters having emotional reactions to what was going on. Remember that shot of Captain America, where we see him tired and weary and horrified by the destruction happening all around him and the likelihood that The Avengers might lose where he looks at the civilians he just rescued from inside the bank? We never got a shot of Superman giving a look like that. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

__________________
This is what I have to say to everyone who has a problem with Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:
The Question is offline  
Old 09-26-2013, 12:10 AM   #146
The Guard
Side-Kick
 
The Guard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 26,106
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Question View Post
It's still pretty disingenuous.
Well...yeah. It was sarcasm.

Quote:
Well, no. Because people don't think that the film failed in not presenting it simply because it could have been done. They think it failed in not presenting it because it should have been done, and would have been superior to what we got.
I think you know what I meant by that. Not presenting it is considered a "flaw" because it could have been done and it would have improved the film.

And I recognize that.

But that argument is a bit of a slippery slope, honestly. I'm hard pressed to think of ANY film where something couldn't have been added to almost any element of it that would have been superior to what was in the film. I wouldn't consider all those films highly flawed, though.

Quote:
Well, first of all, give the characters actual emotional responses to all of the destruction happening around them.
Well, near as I can tell, based on what we're shown, Hardy, Perry, Steve, Jenny and Lois did exhibit emotional responses to what was going on. So did Zod. Superman certainly seemed to as well.

Quote:
It's obvious that people are dying by the thousands because when that many buildings are completely destroyed over the course of half an hour in a major American city then there's no way people don't die by the thousands. Just one of those buildings is likely to have well over 1,000 people inside when it collapses.
That's all well and good. And yet, if you watch the movie closely, it looks like many of the buildings are empty. At least the ones Superman gets tossed through. There's certainly no way to know for certain based on what we're shown. And again, I think it's a moot point, because the number of deaths involved isn't really the point. Superman kills Zod to save a few people at the end of the battle.

Quote:
But if a film doesn't pay some measure of reverence to loss of life on that grand of a scale then it feels very cynical and very emotionally cold and disinterested. And if it doesn't seem to matter to the movie that all of those people are in peril, if that loss doesn't actually carry some kind of meaning, then the audience is much less inclined to care about how things turn out.
You've lost me here. I can think for myself, and don't need a movie to tell me how to feel about destruction and people being in danger, and what it all means.

Quote:
It's false, hollow, cynical, and disrespectful because it trivializes that loss of life.
No it doesn't trivialize the loss of life. It doesn't make any attempt to make the destruction and likely deaths seem less important. In fact, it doesn't address it at all. Because that is not the movie's focus.

Quote:
That entire sequence treats death on a massive scale as nothing more than a set piece It doesn't engage the emotional reality or the human tragedy of what's happening, focusing much more on the spectacle of the action going on, and as soon as that sequence is over it's completely forgotten.
You're really hung up on this "completely forgotten" thing. It's not forgotten any more than anything that happens in the film is "completely forgotten". The sequences are still in the film. Their meaning remains.

Quote:
As much as the stakes of that whole sequence hinge on the safety of innocent people, the movie never actually takes the time to engage the tragedy of their loss and what it means to the hero.
The stakes of the later sequences actually hinge on Superman's safety. The safety of innocent people is, structurally, a secondary concept within those sequences.

Your argument is that the movie should take the time to show more. Mine is that I don't think the movie has to. The situation, the stakes, are obvious.

And again, while the movie could have taken the time to explore certain aspects during the battle, or at the end of MAN OF STEEL, it is not obligated to do so.

Quote:
Except that was in direct response to having to kill Zod and it only lasted a few seconds and it's completely dropped in the next scene.
No, it was directly FOLLOWING Superman having to kill Zod. There's nothing in the film to suggest that he couldn't have been mourning all that happened, not just what he had to do regarding Zod.

This "completely dropped" thing just doesn't make sense. Eventually the film has to move on.

Quote:
There's a difference between "moving on" and "acting like it never happened."
Yes there is. I'm starting to question whether you recognize the difference.

Quote:
The scenes at the Daily Planet acted like the likely deaths of 100,000 people never happened.
No they didn't. Where does a character in that sequence act like the deaths of a lot of people never happened?

An intelligent film viewer still realizes that they did happen. So what's the issue, exactly?

Quote:
It's not dwelling to acknowledge the fact that that's sad and that is in some way meaningful.
Actually, by the definition of dwelling, it would be. Because the film would be pondering or lingering on the concept in some fashion.

Quote:
Don't you think that his place in the world and the impact his battle with Zod had on Metropolis would be deeply intertwined?
Yes, but dealing with that fallout of all that is a whole separate storyline.

Quote:
And really, wouldn't all of that death and destruction effect him?
Again, I'm not so sure this movie doesn't show that it did.

Quote:
If the movie is about him, shouldn't we see how he's been changed, how he's been effected emotionally by the events of the climax?
In what sense does he need to change?

What did he do wrong in the first place?

How does he need to change as a character as a result of the events?

And why is what the movie shows us about his decisions not changing enough?

Quote:
I mean, yes he screams after he kills Zod, but in the very next scene and all of the remaining scenes in the film he acts like he's completely unaffected by what he had to do and the horror and destruction he witnessed.
No, he's just not still/constantly dwelling on it. It's obvious that he WAS affected by what he had to do. But then, like many of us do, he moved on with his life at some point.

Quote:
It's pretty sloppy storytelling if you're telling a character study and fail to show how someone is effected by the single most traumatizing and significant moment in his life.
I seriously doubt that thisw as the single most traumatizing and significant moment in his life. I'm thinking that was probably the loss of Jonathan.

And they did show how he was affected by it. We haven't seen how it will affect him in his next adventure, or over the course of his career, or what changes it will cause in him as a person, because that hasn't happened yet.

Quote:
No it's not. Showing would involve actually showing the real human, emotional impact these events had on the characters, including and especially Superman. Instead we see buildings fall down but we don't ever see the impact it has on anyone.
"Showing" involves "showing".

I'm not sure if you're referring to the literary version of "show, don't tell", which refers to shading details included in the text, or the film version of "Show, don't tell"

I'm referring to the film one, which involves the concept of visually showing something or showing the character experiencing something, VS telling us how they are feeling, or how others are feeling, etc.

Quote:
I'm not asking for it to be the focus of the film. I'm asking that the film actually have significant events like that matter. When everything is dropped and forgotten in the next scene it feels like none of what preceded it mattered.
I guess if you yourself forget that it happened, and if you need to be told that it mattered for it to matter to you...

I don't get that. It seems like you want to be told how to feel at every step of the way.

Quote:
And you don't see the emotional disconnect between what Superman goes through and how he reacts to it?
No. I don't. Because I see a Superman who is on his knees crying and grieving.

I don't see him talk about how he feels about what happened, but I also don't need him to, because I am capable of rational thought. I would imagine Superman regrets the incident, based on his reaction. Superman on his knees crying about what has happened would seem to back that up.

Quote:
You don't think it's weird that Superman isn't left, on some level, haunted by the battle in Metropolis?
I'm sure he would be. And that would be something we would see moving forward in his story. In the next film.

Quote:
The power of these two gods clashing doesn't mean anything if there aren't any stakes.
Except that there are stakes. The stakes are fairly obvious.

Quote:
The damage they cause is meaningless unless we address the consequences of it.
The consequences of the damage are also fairly obvious. There's a lot of damage. People likely died.

Quote:
The damage the cause and the deaths that result aren't two unrelated concepts, they're deeply intertwined. Without the human cost the damage caused doesn't matter.
You're suggesting that if you don't see the human cost explored, the idea that there was likely human cost somehow doesn't matter, unless the film outright states this. I don't agree.

Quote:
I've been talking about the emotions of the main characters this entire time. The main characters should still be effected and changed emotionally by what's going on during the end battle.
Kind of seems like they are, at least affected emotionally.

Quote:
Putting true emotional stakes throughout an action sequence doesn't muddy the focus, it gives the action meaning beyond simply being spectacle for spectacle's sake.
Depends on the structuring of the action sequence and what the emotional stakes look like. In the sequence as it exists, stopping to show the kinds of sequences you're referring to would affect the pacing and the believeability and intensity and urgency of what we're watching.

Quote:
How is the destruction of the battle not apart of that impact?
I never said it wasn't.

Quote:
Again, that stuff isn't what I've been talking about when I say the movie didn't address the loss of life.
Then what are you talking about?

If you aren't referring to the people of Metropolis dealing with what's happening to them, or the loss of life, or their feelings about what Superman has done, what are you talking about?

Quote:
It can, but we're talking about two different things. You're talking about plot developments as a result of the destruction in Metropolis. I'm talking about addressing the emotionnal implications of it. There's a world of difference.
There's a world of difference between those two specific concepts, but I don't think the two concepts within the context of the franchise, or Superman's story, are necessarily mutually exclusive. If you're dealing with the reaction to the destruction, you would be dealing with the emotional implications, wouldn't you?

Quote:
A big no on all counts.

A montage isn't just showing an image and expecting the audience to feel a certain way, it still explores genuine human feelings and important themes in a meaningful way. There's a world of difference between showing a building collapse and showing a montage of different kinds of reactions people have to the catastrophe that was just averted.
No on all counts? So THE AVENGERS didn't rush through showing the various reactions to the event? That montage is like a minute long.

And I'm pretty sure that that montage was, in fact, expected to cause the audience to feel a certain way. Look at what they're showing, and the statements made within it. Not a lot of subtlety there.

And nevermind that, while there's some show, the actual information revealed is almost all "tell". It's a bunch of sound bytes and news headlines.

You keep telling me that there's a world of difference between obvious concepts. I'm aware there's a difference between visuals of buildings falling over and a montage of people's reactions. I'm not sure why you'd think I wouldn't be. I'm not advocating that one is better than the other, or making a value judgment between the two. I'm simply pointing out my opinion.

Quote:
Also the montage wasn't the only thing that The Avengers did to address the destruction and loss and the human tragedy in the final battle. They also showed the reactions and fear of civilians and local emergency services, they showed the heroes actively rescuing civilians and formulating an evacuation strategy, they flat out stated that minimizing loss of civilian life was a part of the battle strategy, and they showed the main characters having emotional reactions to what was going on. Remember that shot of Captain America, where we see him tired and weary and horrified by the destruction happening all around him and the likelihood that The Avengers might lose where he looks at the civilians he just rescued from inside the bank? We never got a shot of Superman giving a look like that. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
This is true. THE AVENGERS did do that. It was nice to see.

It would have been nice to see something like that in MAN OF STEEL. However, it also would have been somewhat redundant, and would have shown us what we can already see, that there's a lot of destruction going on, and that people are probably in danger. So I don't consider it necessary.

I think it's somewhat obvious why we didn't see Superman standing around taking in the devastation-once it starts, the fight between Superman and Zod is depicted as constant, no holds barred combat, where Superman pretty much has no time to catch his breath, let alone standing around looking at destruction. Nevermind that he's generally knocked into a new AREA with each step of the battle. He's not even in the area where destruction is happening, there's kind of a chain of new destruction going on.

I still don't see how not including something like that, as nice as it would have been, is somehow an inherent flaw in the storytelling.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night
The Guard is offline  
Old 09-26-2013, 12:48 AM   #147
Tempest
....What?
 
Tempest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,301
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Question View Post
Well, first of all, give the characters actual emotional responses to all of the destruction happening around them.
They did. I mean, yeah, the military guys didn't gape at the wreckage around them, and Superman was pretty much intently focused on you know, fighting to save the world and all that, but I think there was a lot of appropriate responses from the characters.

You've got to remember; we have soldiers and reporters as the core group of people we get to see on-screen. Their reactions were more reserved and distant, because that's really how they're trained. Jenny was the one who was the most human, and that's because she's the most inexperienced.

People who go into war zones, or who have trained for combat are not going to respond the same way to situations as the 'normal' people.

As for Superman, he's a pretty restrained fellow. Plus, as I mentioned, he was focused on not just saving a smattering of lives, but on saving the whole freaking world. He didn't have a reason -- or time -- to stand around and be horrified by what he saw. He was busy doing his best to stop what was happening. I'm not going to fault him for that.

Quote:
But if a film doesn't pay some measure of reverence to loss of life on that grand of a scale then it feels very cynical and very emotionally cold and disinterested. And if it doesn't seem to matter to the movie that all of those people are in peril, if that loss doesn't actually carry some kind of meaning, then the audience is much less inclined to care about how things turn out.
I felt terrible for the people in the movie who died. I really did. I don't need the film to tell me to feel bad for them, or to spend time on the death toll, or to have a character comment on how horrible it is, or whatever else was supposed to happen.

Quote:
I never suggested that the movie do any of those things. At no point during anything I've written in this thread did I make those suggestions.

It's false, hollow, cynical, and disrespectful because it trivializes that loss of life. That entire sequence treats death on a massive scale as nothing more than a set piece It doesn't engage the emotional reality or the human tragedy of what's happening, focusing much more on the spectacle of the action going on, and as soon as that sequence is over it's completely forgotten. As much as the stakes of that whole sequence hinge on the safety of innocent people, the movie never actually takes the time to engage the tragedy of their loss and what it means to the hero.
I really have to disagree. This film is all about what the loss of the planet would mean to Clark. H's grown to know humans, to love them, despite the bullies and jerks in the world. The loss of humans is so appalling to him that he destroys the remnants of his biological people in favor of his chosen family. What happens to the humans, and the threat of it happening to even more of them, is the driving force behind what Clark does.

Clark refuses Zod's offer. He talks to his mom about how Zod doesn't want to share Earth, and ever action Clark takes after that is done primarily to save everyone. His horror at what Zod intends to do is evident.

How can that not be enough for you?

Quote:
Except that was in direct response to having to kill Zod and it only lasted a few seconds and it's completely dropped in the next scene.
See above. Clark was horrified well before any mass-murdering happened. I don't need to see him acting horrified or sad. He knows what the consequences will be if he doesn't stop Zod, and instead of moping about it, or wasting time on being sad, he's proactive, and does his best to try to stop it.

And the silence in that one moment with Lois was so much better than anything else they could have done. I don't know what else they could have done, because for me, the intensity of the emotion there was so beautiful, that anything else would have just felt silly and cheap.

Quote:
There's a difference between "moving on" and "acting like it never happened." The scenes at the Daily Planet acted like the likely deaths of 100,000 people never happened. It's not dwelling to acknowledge the fact that that's sad and that is in some way meaningful.
How long after Sept. 11th did it take for the US to begin moving again? A week, tops. We had baseball games, basketball games. We started flying again. Trading stocks. Reporting the news. Going to parks. Massive loss of life and destruction of a city is sad.

And this is a newspaper. These people deal with tragedy and death and destruction and war and famine, and all the other nasty stuff on a daily basis. They aren't going to be sitting in their chairs, somber and sad. They're going to be busy writing about the news. It's what reporters do.

Quote:
And really, wouldn't all of that death and destruction effect him? If the movie is about him, shouldn't we see how he's been changed, how he's been effected emotionally by the events of the climax? I mean, yes he screams after he kills Zod, but in the very next scene and all of the remaining scenes in the film he acts like he's completely unaffected by what he had to do and the horror and destruction he witnessed. It's pretty sloppy storytelling if you're telling a character study and fail to show how someone is effected by the single most traumatizing and significant moment in his life.
I got the gist of how he felt right after he killed Zod. I didn't need another half hour of story-telling to reiterate how traumatic everything was. That's what imaginations and fanfics are for.

Just saying. I don't think a film has to go over every teeny detail, when it's something the audience should be able to figure out on their own.

Quote:
No it's not. Showing would involve actually showing the real human, emotional impact these events had on the characters, including and especially Superman. Instead we see buildings fall down but we don't ever see the impact it has on anyone.
I think this is the part where someone cracks a really bad joke about how we saw plenty of people impacted by falling buildings. Yep, I went there.

Dude, these were fictional people. I'm sad they died, but seriously, I don't need the film to tell me that it was sad that they died, and to go over it several times. And like I said, reporters. Military people. We aren't going to necessarily get the same reaction out of them as we would from other people.

Out of all of them, I guess Clark would be the most likely to be affected -- but then again, he's been traveling for a while, and he has a lot of experience. I wouldn't say that he's hardened, but I think he has learned to cope with tragedy and loss.

Quote:
I'm not asking for it to be the focus of the film. I'm asking that the film actually have significant events like that matter. When everything is dropped and forgotten in the next scene it feels like none of what preceded it mattered.
But the point of the film wasn't about the deaths of the people. It was about Clark, and his choices. And after he cries, he explains his mission. His decision on what he's going to do, and who he's going to be. If anything, I would say that the deaths of all those people inspired him to step forward, instead of going back into hiding, which is something he could have chosen to do.

Quote:
And you don't see the emotional disconnect between what Superman goes through and how he reacts to it? You don't think it's weird that Superman isn't left, on some level, haunted by the battle in Metropolis?
Who says he isn't? But that isn't the point of the film. I mean, ok, you bring up the Avengers at the end of your post. I haven't seen it, so maybe these are in the film, but...I mean, do the characters have PTSD flashbacks? Are there scenes where they talk about how tormented they are by the casualties? Do they toast the dead? Do they show any signs of being haunted after the battle is over?

And I cut some of your post out.

Quote:
A montage isn't just showing an image and expecting the audience to feel a certain way, it still explores genuine human feelings and important themes in a meaningful way. There's a world of difference between showing a building collapse and showing a montage of different kinds of reactions people have to the catastrophe that was just averted.

Also the montage wasn't the only thing that The Avengers did to address the destruction and loss and the human tragedy in the final battle. They also showed the reactions and fear of civilians and local emergency services, they showed the heroes actively rescuing civilians and formulating an evacuation strategy, they flat out stated that minimizing loss of civilian life was a part of the battle strategy, and they showed the main characters having emotional reactions to what was going on. Remember that shot of Captain America, where we see him tired and weary and horrified by the destruction happening all around him and the likelihood that The Avengers might lose where he looks at the civilians he just rescued from inside the bank? We never got a shot of Superman giving a look like that. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Clark tells the people in Smallville to get inside because it wasn't safe. We see Clark save a pilot, a guy from the helicopter, and Harding. We see Clark being upset about Zod wanting to destroy Earth. We hear him sound distressed at the fact that Zod doesn't want to be at peace with Earth.

Both Clark and Lois are literally trembling after fighting the phantom zone. I thought that it was a great moment, just because it felt very real to me. He wasn't perfect and fine in that moment. He and Lois were really holding onto each other, and they were breathless and shaky.

Then we get Zod's reaction to losing his people, and damn it all if I didn't actually feel bad for him.

And for all that people complain about Zod's death, we get Clark struggling with what to do with Zod, who is going to kill all the people who managed to survive the attack. The emotion in Clark's voice as he begs Zod to stop is so sad.

Then Superman cries, and Lois tears up as well. I mean...Superman. Cries. He weeps. He can't even stay on his feet; he falls to his knees, and then he needs Lois to hold him up as he cries.

....I may be a little in love with that scene. I don't need anything more than that. I don't. That was absolutely beautiful, and anything more would have been just too much.

It's an interesting debate. But to sum it up, I disagree that the film needed to delve any more into the angst. I feel like focusing on that aspect of the film is kind of missing the broader picture, but we all have the things that get us tangled up.

I have a humiliation squick. I can't stand to watch a character do something to purposefully humiliate or embarrass another character ( can't stand it in RL either, tbh). BvS will be an interesting exercise to see how far my buttons can get pushed. -grin-

__________________
It made sense five minutes ago.

A Christmas Card featuring a Suspicious Sort. Look closely, and you'll note that he was nowhere near the place, nor indeed was he near any place at any time.

T.H.E.M.
Tempest is online now  
Old 09-26-2013, 05:46 AM   #148
DA_Champion
Side-Kick
 
DA_Champion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 6,530
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
American Cinema has celebrated this film for 30 years. Not that much unlike jaws and even the Starwars. A high critical consensus and a place in the academy award tributes. Flaws and all.
You are obsessed with disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, rather than trying to learn. I wrote, correctly, that S:TM is not one of the great movies of the 20th century, it was in passing and not central to my point, and did not need to be justified as it's well known to be true. You're telling me it's "not unlike" Jaws and Star Wars? Are you nuts?

Here's Roger Ebert's top-100 movies list:
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-jou...ill-number-one
Star Wars is 13th, and Jaws is 56th. Superman doesn't make the cut.

Here's IMDB's top 250 movies list:
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top
Star Wars is 16th, Jaws is 147th, Superman doesn't make the cut.

And so on and so fourth, you can look through countless lists. S:TM is a well-liked film, but not a great film. Either the overwhelming majority, or all, experts place it a notch or a few below SW and Jaws. You wrote down that it was "recognised by the Oscars"... well over 1,100 films have been nominated for oscars. Being in the top 1,100 doesn't qualify a film as "great". FYI Star Wars won 6 oscars, Jaws won 3, and S:TM won 0.

Man of Steel is also likely going to win 0 oscars.


Last edited by DA_Champion; 09-26-2013 at 05:50 AM.
DA_Champion is offline  
Old 09-26-2013, 05:55 AM   #149
herolee10
S.W. Mourner
 
herolee10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 16,394
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

You know, the thing that pisses me off the most about David Goyer is that he still continues to have this notion that Superman isn't cool enough as a character; hell, he just admitted it when he gave out that interview regarding why he had Superman kill Zod...about how Superman isn't as innately cool as Batman, hence why MOS was hard for him to write.

It's not really smart to literally bash/diss the character that you're writing for.

herolee10 is online now  
Old 09-26-2013, 06:14 AM   #150
TheBat812
Side-Kick
 
TheBat812's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,086
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Quote:
MARK WAID: I understand, and I didn’t see him stopping either, but what I’m saying is this: it could have been sold to me much better by reminding me that Zod is using people against Superman. Because by the time he gets to the final fight, all he wants to do is punch Superman, and there is no reason in the world that Superman at that point can’t take the fight anywhere in the galaxy. No reason at all. There’s no reason why Superman just didn’t give a flying flip about collateral damage and about the people.
I'd agree with this in teh sense that they don't really show Zod using the people against him until that final family (from what I remember). But I disagree that they never make the point that Superman can't take this fight wherever he wants to: Zod tells him specifically that his goal is to cause as much damage as possible, so Superman can't lead him away from anything, that just leaves Zod free to destroy everything. It's a case of telling not showing, which I agree could have been better, but his point doesn't really stand as he wants it to.


hero, he's not saying the character of Superman isn't cool in himself, he's just saying the average person doesn't see him as inherently cool. So you either keep him the straight up altruistic boyscout for no good reason, or you make him earn that title, bringing the audience along for that ride to help them understand why he's so well loved and why he actually is cool. The reason he has Superman kill is because that's the first question on everyone's mind about Superman - oh he's too powerful, why doesn't he just kill the bad guys? He had to build an experience that leads to his code for it to resonate with a cynical audience that doesn't just buy his inherent goodness. It's a matter of putting yourself in the GA's perspective, rather than from a fanboys' perspective, and I think Goyer really gets that.

__________________
"No great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness." - Aristotle
TheBat812 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:38 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.