BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

[Vid Electricz]

Roach is right on this one. Informed vs. uninformed opinions on movies are a silly game. I say the ending was right. Mark Waid says it sucked. Christopher Nolan says it was great. Surely Nolan knows more about making comic book movies than Waid, so therefore his opinion is more informed and valid, right? Wrong! It's art, not science. I might think Picasso is brilliant. Gerhard Richter might think it's some crap a five year old could do. If you want to evaluate Picasso, you shouldn't compare my resume to Richter's. It's meaningless.

Does he? Last I heard, Nolan didn't want this ending and had envisioned the story with a completely different ending, but Snyder eventually went with it anyway.

Does Nolan know more about storytelling than Waid?

"It's Art!" is a juvenile cop out. There are principles to art (painting, storytelling, etc...) just as there are to science. Just because they're more flexible doesn't mean they don't exist.

To me, I think, with something like film, I think it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with smarter/more credible/more informed people as long as you find reasons of your own to back it up. If you say something like "I liked it despite its flaws" you are a'cknowledging that it has weaknesses that didn't mar the film experience for you. But there are people (not so much here, but IMDB and whatnot) who are like 'THIS IS PERFECT WHAT KIND OF CRITIC ARE YOU?! ETC.'

True. Only I haven't seen any as far as contentions for the ending of MOS go.

 

[jimbob]

The principles of mathematics are completely different than the principles of storytelling. A 90 degree angle is a 90 degree angle to a chimpanzee with a protractor or to Stephen Hawking. NO work of art is universally loved or hated.

 

[STARMAN]

This entire argument makes no sense.

 

[roach]

Here is my expert opinion on Killing Zod.

I did not have an issue with Superman killing Zod. For a movie that is showing the origins we need to see the origin of everything. We, as comic fans, take it for granted that Superman does not kill. In the comics Superman doesn't kill rule came about as a result of the comics code. However non-comic movie going don't take it for granted. They don't know why Superman doesn't kill. In fact in all my years of Superman comic reading I've yet to read a logical reason why Superman doesn't kill. It's easy with Batman because he is a child's wish "This will never happen to anyone else." taken to adulthood. Batman doesn't kill because he was created by murder.
Back to the movie...Superman kills Zod and he is instantly overcome with guilt and grief. if he killed Zod and quipped and smiled I would have an issue with it. However he was overcome with grief. I believe we saw the creation of the 'Not gonna kill" rule for Superman. Filmmaking is about showing not telling. I didn't need Superman to say "I'll never kill again." His actions afterward told me he wouldn't. I am willing to bet he won't take a life in the follow up movies. No other superhero seemed to show any emotion when killing their villain but Superman is the one that gets faulted for it. Iron Man has killed every villain he has gone up against and no one bats an eye. How many Chitauri were killed by the Avengers? Why is Zod the line in the sand?

 

[STARMAN]

The idea that Mark Waid's subjective opinion validates another subjective opinion is silly.

 

[roach]

Does he? Last I heard, Nolan didn't want this ending and had envisioned the story with a completely different ending, but Snyder eventually went with it anyway.

Does Nolan know more about storytelling than Waid?

Actually Nolan didn't like the ending and when Goyer and Snyder explained why he agreed with them.

Comparing who knows how much about storytelling is useless.

 

[jimbob]

Roach, you like red delicious apples and I've never even read any of your comics. If you send me your resume, I can crunch the numbers and decide whether I should listen to your post or how much it's worth.

 

[Krumm]

Roach is right on this one. Informed vs. uninformed opinions on movies are a silly game. I say the ending was right. Mark Waid says it sucked. Christopher Nolan says it was great. Surely Nolan knows more about making comic book movies than Waid, so therefore his opinion is more informed and valid, right? Wrong! It's art, not science. I might think Picasso is brilliant. Gerhard Richter might think it's some crap a five year old could do. If you want to evaluate Picasso, you shouldn't compare my resume to Richter's. It's meaningless.

I think this a bit hyperbolic and going down a slippery slope and suggesting otherwise is negating a whole school of thought. There are elements to film and storytelling (I can't speak for all art) that follow certain formulas and techniques.

There is a correct way to do it and an incorrect way on the most basic level. The majority of well liked films have a beginning/middle/end, are able to be seen, and are able to be heard. Of course, there are always outliers but I think we can all agree that a vast majority of well liked films have all of those elements.

And by film I mean narrative.

 

[Vid Electricz]

The principles of mathematics are completely different than the principles of storytelling. A 90 degree angle is a 90 degree angle to a chimpanzee with a protractor or to Stephen Hawking. NO work of art is universally loved or hated.

Unless you're uneducated (UNINFORMED) in mathematics. Just as one can misconstrue/measure incorrectly/calculate incorrectly and think (incorrectly) that it looks 90 degrees when it's not.

Just as one can be uneducated (UNINFORMED) in how proper storytelling works. One can also watch a movie in which the story is uneven/doesn't hit it's marks/edited sloppily, tacked on, unearned moments, etc... and think it's great.

 

[Marvin]

Let me re-post this for the fifth(?) time now:

It's not about "convincing" you otherwise. It's about taking this other, knowledgable individuals wisdom and adding it to your understanding of said idea/concept

If there is an angle and I look at it and say, "this looks like a right angle. In my opinion, it's a right angle.", then a mathematician comes and explains exactly why it's not a right angle and that I was looking at it incorrectly and that it's actually an 80 degree angle. I would understand what the mathematician, who is obviously more knowledgeable than me has explained and add it to my breadth of understanding about angles. Lame example, but these same principles apply to storytelling. Just because it's "art" doesn't mean you can throw anything up on screen and it'll "work". That's a cop out. I'd think that someone with a Master's in creative writing would understand that.

Here's an example that branches off of yours:
If there is an angle and you look at it and say, "this looks like a right angle, in your opinion it's a right angle.", then a mathematician or authority of some sort explains why it's not a right angle but all the while it actually was a right angle...and you were looking at it correctly.
You understanding that the man is more knowledgeable than yourself is all well and good but that fact alone doesn't make him right on the present issue.
To make matters worse, there is no definitive answer here, whether you want to differ to the rules of creativity or not, no one can say with any certainty if the kill felt "earned" to the intended audience. My friend felt it did, my other friend felt it didn't. This isn't a matter or 90 degrees or not...

What's more, I don't recall Waid speaking on whether or not the kill felt "earned" but rather if superman should ever kill or not and if he was shown to make the most caring decisions in the face of crisis. I read it a while back tough. I personally don't think superman should be a vegan like waid suggests but then again, he's the authority on the character.

I didn't stand by Geoff John's endorsement of the GL movie either. He seems to be the big authority on that particular material at the moment.

 

[STARMAN]

It's a mistake to compare science with skill.

 

[Vid Electricz]

I think this a bit hyperbolic and going down a slippery slope and suggesting otherwise is negating a whole school of thought. There are elements to film and storytelling (I can't speak for all art) that follow certain formulas and techniques.

There is a correct way to do it and an incorrect way on the most basic level. The majority of well liked films have a beginning/middle/end, are able to be seen, and are able to be heard. Of course, there are always outliers but I think we can all agree that a vast majority of well liked films have all of those elements.

And by film I mean narrative.

Bingo.

It's extremely juvenile and simplistic to suggest otherwise.

 

[Krumm]

Unless you're uneducated (UNINFORMED) in mathematics. Just as one can misconstrue/measure incorrectly/calculate incorrectly and think (incorrectly) that it looks 90 degrees when it's not.

Just as one can be uneducated (UNINFORMED) in how proper storytelling works. One can also watch a movie in which the story is uneven/doesn't hit it's marks/edited sloppily, tacked on, unearned moments, etc... and think it's great.

I would say the killing of Zod ties in with the narrative of Clark finding his identity and Jonathan's concern of how the world will see him and responsibility that comes with Clark's powers.

Now, the strength of those connections can debated but the connections are there.

 

[roach]

I think this a bit hyperbolic and going down a slippery slope and suggesting otherwise is negating a whole school of thought. There are elements to film and storytelling (I can't speak for all art) that follow certain formulas and techniques.

There is a correct way to do it and an incorrect way on the most basic level. The majority of well liked films have a beginning/middle/end, are able to be seen, and are able to be heard. Of course, there are always outliers but I think we can all agree that a vast majority of well liked films have all of those elements.

And by film I mean narrative.

the funny thing about film is that it's 50% art and 50% science.

 

[jimbob]

Being informed or uninformed is utterly irrelevant. What can be calculated is not debatable. All works of art are. Let's say my 9 year old likes Lawrence of Arabia. Should I tell her she's too uninformed to correctly form an opinion on it and she should get back to me when she's graduated and had a successful film career? By the way, there is no such thing as "proper storytelling." There is only storytelling.

 

[The Guard]

There aren't really any hard or fast "rules" of art. There are guidelines, and suggestions. There are things that have worked before, and which tend to be well received or poorly received, but there's a lot more gray area to art and its composition and structure than people think.

 

[Krumm]

the funny thing about film is that it's 50% art and 50% science.

Agreed.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Here is my expert opinion on Killing Zod.

I did not have an issue with Superman killing Zod. For a movie that is showing the origins we need to see the origin of everything. We, as comic fans, take it for granted that Superman does not kill. In the comics Superman doesn't kill rule came about as a result of the comics code. However non-comic movie going don't take it for granted. They don't know why Superman doesn't kill. In fact in all my years of Superman comic reading I've yet to read a logical reason why Superman doesn't kill. It's easy with Batman because he is a child's wish "This will never happen to anyone else." taken to adulthood. Batman doesn't kill because he was created by murder.
Back to the movie...Superman kills Zod and he is instantly overcome with guilt and grief. if he killed Zod and quipped and smiled I would have an issue with it. However he was overcome with grief. I believe we saw the creation of the 'Not gonna kill" rule for Superman. Filmmaking is about showing not telling. I didn't need Superman to say "I'll never kill again." His actions afterward told me he wouldn't. I am willing to bet he won't take a life in the follow up movies.

This I have no doubt of, I could maybe see Darkseid being killed if he is introduced.

But the resolution of the plot, if another character like Zod is the antagonist, is that they'll only be saved via either deus ex machina, because all situations of one on one combat must be avoided because of Man of Steel. Or we'll never see another villain on the same level as Kryptonains, so they could be handled by Earth forces, again because of Man of Steel's resolution.

Whether no death needed to be explored (I thought Jonathan's death would have been fine for that, personally. Considering Clark let it happen, why would he want to then intentionally kill people?) it wasn't handled well in terms of context of the whole series to do it like that.

I think personally, it should have been handled more akin to Al Ghul's death in Batman Begins, rather than Dent's in The Dark Knight. Yes, Bruce made the plan to kill Ra's by having the monorail tracks blown up, but ultimately, had Ra's not destroyed the controls, he could have saved himself.

So say if Superman and Zod are in the same situation, Superman with Zod in a headlock. Zod could still be trying to push his head against Superman's arms, and the more forceful Zod becomes in trying to kill the family, the stronger Superman becomes in opposing him, and as Zod keeps pushing, his neck snaps.

Everything is essentially the same, but it removes the intent of killing from Superman's mind.

No other superhero seemed to show any emotion when killing their villain but Superman is the one that gets faulted for it. Iron Man has killed every villain he has gone up against and no one bats an eye. How many Chitauri were killed by the Avengers? Why is Zod the line in the sand?

It's not that Zod is the line in the sand. Superman is. Are there any instances of Superman intentionally killing sentients that weren't largely reviled, or massively controversial?

 

[roach]

Being informed or uninformed is utterly irrelevant. What can be calculated is not debatable. All works of art are. Let's say my 9 year old likes Lawrence of Arabia. Should I tell her she's too uninformed to correctly form an opinion on it and she should get back to me when she's graduated and had a successful film career? By the way, there is no such thing as "proper storytelling." There is only storytelling.

There is only one rule in filmmaking...don't be boring. People will line up for miles for a film that has no story or full of plot holes, little to no character development and full of spectacle as long as the film is not boring. There is no formula or equation to making a good film...Hollywood would have found it long ago and every movie they made would be a hit.

 

[Krumm]

Being informed or uninformed is utterly irrelevant. What can be calculated is not debatable. All works of art are. Let's say my 9 year old likes Lawrence of Arabia. Should I tell her she's too uninformed to correctly form an opinion on it and she should get back to me when she's graduated and had a successful film career? By the way, there is no such thing as "proper storytelling." There is only storytelling.

There aren't really any hard or fast "rules" of art. There are guidelines, and suggestions. There are things that have worked before, and which tend to be well received or poorly received, but there's a lot more gray area to art and its composition and structure than people think.

I won't disagree with this necessarily.

However, I wonder how we explain films that are widely loved and widely panned. There is something fundamentally different between The Room and Vertigo.

I don't mean this facetiously, it's just something that I often wonder.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Being informed or uninformed is utterly irrelevant. What can be calculated is not debatable. All works of art are. Let's say my 9 year old likes Lawrence of Arabia. Should I tell her she's too uninformed to correctly form an opinion on it and she should get back to me when she's graduated and had a successful film career? By the way, there is no such thing as "proper storytelling." There is only storytelling.

Well that's the simple way of going through life.

"Jim died. Then, Jim ate his cereal and went to bed. After that, he got home from school, then Jim got dressed for the morning and ate his dinner."

Boom! Storytelling! Was that an effective story? Did it move you? Did you relate to Jim? Doesn't matter! IT'S ART!

Way to denigrate and belittle a field that requires years of practice, technique and great skill if it is to be done well.

 

[roach]

This I have no doubt of, I could maybe see Darkseid being killed if he is introduced.

Or tossed back into a boom tube and told not to come back...perhaps

But the resolution of the plot, if another character like Zod is the antagonist, is that they'll only be saved via either deus ex machina, because all situations of one on one combat must be avoided because of Man of Steel. Or we'll never see another villain on the same level as Kryptonains, so they could be handled by Earth forces, again because of Man of Steel's resolution.

Whether no death needed to be explored (I thought Jonathan's death would have been fine for that, personally. Considering Clark let it happen, why would he want to then intentionally kill people?) it wasn't handled well in terms of context of the whole series to do it like that.

I think personally, it should have been handled more akin to Al Ghul's death in Batman Begins, rather than Dent's in The Dark Knight. Yes, Bruce made the plan to kill Ra's by having the monorail tracks blown up, but ultimately, had Ra's not destroyed the controls, he could have saved himself.

So say if Superman and Zod are in the same situation, Superman with Zod in a headlock. Zod could still be trying to push his head against Superman's arms, and the more forceful Zod becomes in trying to kill the family, the stronger Superman becomes in opposing him, and as Zod keeps pushing, his neck snaps.

Everything is essentially the same, but it removes the intent of killing from Superman's mind.



It's not that Zod is the line in the sand. Superman is. Are there any instances of Superman intentionally killing sentients that weren't largely reviled, or massively controversial?

Doomsday.

 

[jimbob]

There aren't really any hard or fast "rules" of art. There are guidelines, and suggestions. There are things that have worked before, and which tend to be well received or poorly received, but there's a lot more gray area to art and its composition and structure than people think.

Absolutely. And what is unconventional and radical often becomes the new normal. Only you can decide how you feel about a work of art. You can listen to other opinions and points of view on it, but art is about emotion and expression, not about numbers and formulas.

 

[Vid Electricz]

There aren't really any hard or fast "rules" of art. There are guidelines, and suggestions. There are things that have worked before, and which tend to be well received or poorly received, but there's a lot more gray area to art and its composition and structure than people think.

Agreed. Like I said, just because the boundaries can be more flexible, doesn't mean there aren't any.

BTW, we're talking about an extremely conventional superhero movie here, not a David Lynch or Werner Herzog film.

 

[Marvin]

Bingo.

It's extremely juvenile and simplistic to suggest otherwise.

No, science is based on provable facts and operations, mostly yielding a calculated result at times with absolute accuracy...something that can be repeated in a controlled environment.

The saying you are entitled to your own opinion simply doesn't apply to facts, and the facts of math and science.

There is no telling the result one story will have on 100 different people from different walks on life. That's art. A cave drawing can tell a great story to one person whilst it takes Shakespheare to elicit an emotional response from another. Breaking bad is genius to one person whilst another person has a more engaging and relateable experience with Seinfeld or a planet earth feature.

This is the reason Jackson pollock's art was met with "mere unorganized explosions of random energy, and therefore meaningless." from Robert Coates and "This is not art—it's a joke in bad taste." from another such publication, only for his work to be later considered perhaps the greatest from an american of his sort...Art is as subjective as a little girl tasting ice cream for the first time telling you how she feels. Rules are more guide lines to achieve a desired result. And to give analysis something with the appearance of tangibility.
imo.