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

[Krumm]

If you look through the past pages, the term 'fanboy' was used pejoratively on Mark Waid, as if his arguments matter less because of it. He's just another fanboy stating his opinion while we are fanboys/fangirls stating ours here. My point is, let's remove the 'fanboy' from our arguments -- all of us are passionate about Superman in one way or another.

True bit I feel in this argument it is important because it negates the strength if his informed opinion, which I do believe exist.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

What "killings"? Like otherworlds stuff? Just because something appeared in one comic or was a poor creative decision, does not mean it should define the character. I love the apologists assuring themselves that because something was "in the comics" (whether it was good/bad/made sense), it's perfectly okay. There was an issue of the comics where superman transformed into an ape. I have a feeling a lot of the apologist fans would be fine seeing this on film as long as they were reassured that it was "in the comics".

The irony here is that, in making such a statement, you are belittling the work of professionals who have demonstrated prowess in the art of storytelling arguably on par with that of Mark Waid. One such writer, John Byrne, penned a tale in which Superman uses kryptonite to execute Zod and two of his henchmen as punishment for unparalleled acts of genocide committed against the populace of a parallel Earth.

Rather than reflect on the possibility that some may have sought to use Superman's previous "killings in the comics" as a point of contention particularly because they're of the opinion that one or more of these depictions worked well within the context of their respective storylines, you instead respond with unfounded conjecture and a ridiculously poor analogy.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Yep, his response was kind rather a straw-man illustrated

 

[PacificBoy]

True bit I feel in this argument it is important because it negates the strength if his informed opinion, which I do believe exist.

Point taken, and I agree that while Mark Waid is an authority on Superman, his voice is just another of the opinions out there when it comes to his "Superman shouldn't kill" stance. Because frankly, that is a stance very much open to rich discussion and debate with no real wrong or right.

However, I don't think (to my knowledge) it's been argued "Superman shouldn't kill because Mark Waid said so". It's more "Superman shouldn't kill and I agree with Mark Waid's reasons and these are the reasons".

"Mark Waid is a fanboy" at times is used as an ad hominen to invalidate any word he says, which is an unfair way of arguing that his opinions carry the same weight as ours.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Suddenly, I feel like I was thrown back into debate class.

 

[PacificBoy]

Suddenly, I feel like I was thrown back into debate class.

But aren't we all master debaters here?

 

[roach]

But aren't we all master debaters here?

Not me..I'm master of my own domain.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

As opposed to IMDB, that is

"It's awesome!" "It sux!" "It's awesome because I liked these parts!" "It SUX because I dislike THESE parts. Then a third poster writes a multiple page essay on whether or not he likes the film, using extensive references to the film as examples. Then the other posters squabble about that ordinarily TLD'R post. And then he clarifies that post because someone probably took him out of context, and someone counterlectures. LOL.

 

[PacificBoy]

Yup, that's IMDB in a nutshell, nuts.

 

[PacificBoy]

Not me..I'm master of my own domain.

EDIT: not too tasteful!

How about the superherohype.com domain? I have yet to master it, middle or top, at all.

 

[roach]

Um ok

 

[DA_Champion]

and for every rule you think there is I can show you a film the breaks it successfully.

Yes, but MoS breaks a lot of rules (not just one or two) without offering enough in return to justify it. It has a weak protagonist for example... a lot of movies do, for example The Fighter. However, the latter compensates by having three other characters be so strong that the movie got 2 oscar wins and 3 oscar nominations for supporting character. MoS only has one strong character: Jor El, but he's not an actually interesting character, so it does not matter. Contrast charlene fleming to lois lane ( both played by amy adams).. it's embarrassing really.

MoS does offer a good looking cast, great visuals, and a great score ... but this is the david goyer thread, not the zach snyder thread.

 

[roach]

Yes, but MoS breaks a lot of rules (not just one or two) without offering enough in return to justify it. It has a weak protagonist for example... a lot of movies do, for example The Fighter. However, the latter compensates by having three other characters be so strong that the movie got 2 oscar wins and 3 oscar nominations for supporting character. MoS only has one strong character: Jor El, but he's not an actually interesting character, so it does not matter. Contrast charlene fleming to lois lane ( both played by amy adams).. it's embarrassing really.

MoS does offer a good looking cast, great visuals, and a great score ... but this is the david goyer thread, not the zach snyder thread.

Well that's your opinion.

 

[DA_Champion]

Well that's your opinion.

It is certainly my opinion that Charlene Fleming was more interesting than Lois Lane.

I also think that The Wire is a more interesting show than law and order SVU.

 

[Tempest]

Point taken, and I agree that while Mark Waid is an authority on Superman, his voice is just another of the opinions out there when it comes to his "Superman shouldn't kill" stance. Because frankly, that is a stance very much open to rich discussion and debate with no real wrong or right.

However, I don't think (to my knowledge) it's been argued "Superman shouldn't kill because Mark Waid said so". It's more "Superman shouldn't kill and I agree with Mark Waid's reasons and these are the reasons".

"Mark Waid is a fanboy" at times is used as an ad hominen to invalidate any word he says, which is an unfair way of arguing that his opinions carry the same weight as ours.

I go to work and there's like six new pages. Wheeeeee!

Mark Waid is a fanboy is not used to invalidate his opinions. Only to point out that his opinion is not superior to the opinions of other people, as someone was implying in this thread (in the most ridiculous way possible, imo ) .

I'm sure Mark is a lovely person, and I'd be interested in some of the stuff he has to say, but I can't take his opinion so seriously when he is clearly driven by emotion.

 

[PacificBoy]

Mark Waid is a fanboy is not used to invalidate his opinions. Only to point out that his opinion is not superior to the opinions of other people, as someone was implying in this thread (in the most ridiculous way possible, imo ).

A point which in turn was a response to someone alluding "Mark Waid is a fanboy" -- the nature of such talk is that it becomes tit-for-tatty and snidey, and it becomes about the poster rather than the post.

I'm sure Mark is a lovely person, and I'd be interested in some of the stuff he has to say, but I can't take his opinion so seriously when he is clearly driven by emotion.

Which makes all of us, doesn't it? You and I are in October in a thread about a movie that opened in June. If we didn't have strong feelings about MoS, if it was "just a movie", I wouldn't be here giving the movie stick, and you, sticking up for the movie.

All things being equal in the convo about Superman killing Zod, Waid's opinion is as valid as it is yours or mine.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Stating that there are no rules is not belittling anyone's work. With film/ storytelling there is only one rule...don't be boring. People have tried to put rules on storytelling and some genius comes along and breaks them. Hitchcock broke all the rules of the day with Psycho...except don't be boring. ore rules got put up because people have a love of rules and guess what Tarantino comes along with Pulp Fiction and all the rules are broken again...except don't be boring.
There have been solid scripts that were made into solid movies that flopped and there have been crappy scripts that were made into movies that made lots of money.
John Carter was a solid script that followed Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey to the letter....and yet it failed.
I am sure we can all think of movies with weak scripts and nonexistent stories that went on to rake in a lot of money.

"Man of Steel" is different from "John Carter" in that "John Carter" while following the structure/guidlines of the "hero's journey" was a solid, well written/crafted film (thank you Michael Chabon), while MoS attempted to work within the same structure/guidelines of the "hero's journey", but tripped and fell at every opportunity. As a "well structred" story, Mos is a mess. It made $$$ because it's Superman.

When it comes to screenwriting there are no rules except the one the writer, himself, comes up with. Dan O'Bannon's method of screenwriting is different from Syd Field's, Blake Snyder's, Tarantino's, Nolan's, Whedon's or Logan's.

Same thing with directing. There are some basic rules to directing movies but how a person applies these rules separates them from other directors...hence the artistic part of filmmaking. I can put a camera in the hands of Spielberg, Abrams, Nolan, Tarantino, Scott or Cameron and tell them to shoot a person walking into a room I can guarantee that they would not shoot it the same.
This is why I say that film is 50% science and 50% art.

lol @ your "Masters in Creative Writing". It's pretty common knowledge that you have to learn the ropes and master the craft before you can successfully break the rules. This is the part that a lot of people forget. How many times have you been in a museum and have stood, looking at a Rothko, when some guy says: "Are you kidding me? I could paint that in two seconds!"

I personally find the rules themselves belittle and confine the craft of expressing yourself. True artists have faced these rules in some form or another over the years, whether it be mozzart being told what kinda work he needs to do in italy vs germany or again pollack being told his work is that of a child...rules based on subjecture.

I am given a blank canvas and proceed to create something from inside that I will present someone else and they will elicit for me an emotional response. I see a purity in that. These rules I find are limiting and they insult themselves in that they change with the times(again see the initial reception of modern art) effectively removing the "value" or works inspired and produced before the new rules showed up.

A boy is given his hearing after 13 years of no sound. He hears a bird sing outside his window and he finds the sound touching and beautiful. Gone is simon cowel telling the contestant and by extension the audience about being "off pitch or lacking control", it's just a boy and his personal experience, like eating a mars bar for the first time. That's what art is to me. Belonging to the individual. I find most of this other stuff to be a form of corporation, control and establishment. Obviously I respect it for what it is I do have multiple degrees and what not, and the peers I have that have made something of themselves in it, but in my informed experience as a working and award wining artist, that's my opinion on the matter.

Someone can follow the best recipe and guidelines to produce an "award winning" omelette du fromage"(dexter's lab). But when the critic gets to your table and suggests it needs more salt...it's all for nothing, that's them turning art expression into a lab experiment. What is this "taste" the consensus in power has told us is the "best" when really your sister likes her omelettes your way...

My professor once told me that criticism an artist faces is people telling you want they dislike based on their personal experience, then finding a rule to explain it. I see this most present in the yearly top ten lists.

A bird chirp can be a great piece of art to an individual. More powerful and personal than any structured symphony, but who stands to gain from that

So are you comparing David Goyer to Mozart? Because that's who this thread is concerning. Was Goyer "breaking any rules"? Was he creating an intellectually stimulating, creatively innovative, abstract expressionist masterpiece? No, he was working well within the boundaries and limitations of the tried and true "hero's journey"/ three act story structure- and in that respect, the movie failed. Again, we're talking about a Zack Snyder/David Goyer superhero adventure film, Not David Lynch or Stanley Kubrick here. lol.

and for every rule you think there is I can show you a film the breaks it successfully.

This goes back to having mastered the rules before on can successfully break them. We're talking about a script for a superhero adventure movie that couldn't possibly be more rote and cliched. Man of Steel didn't "break any rules", it stumbled and fell while working within the confines of a time tested formula. I love these excuses and apologies for this film, they get more elaborate and off-point with every new reply.

 

[roach]

Funny how people's accomplishments are celebrated when they prove your point but are denigrated when they don't.
and since I have studied the art form and have a degree to back that up doesn't that mean my informed opinion trumps your uninformed opinion.

 

[Vid Electricz]

The irony here is that, in making such a statement, you are belittling the work of professionals who have demonstrated prowess in the art of storytelling arguably on par with that of Mark Waid. One such writer, John Byrne, penned a tale in which Superman uses kryptonite to execute Zod and two of his henchmen as punishment for unparalleled acts of genocide committed against the populace of a parallel Earth.

Sorry, how is it "ironic"? I've seen the two pages posted (same as everyone has, I presume), which apparently, was enough to satiate those who were pleased that it was "from the comics", but I haven't read the whole story, so I cannot speak to the larger ramifications that Superman's actions had on his character. Please do enlighten me.

From those pages posted, Superman executes Zod and co. almost casually and with no remorse. Not quite the same approach taken to the character in MoS, where he screams in despair(?) after the execution.

Rather than reflect on the possibility that some may have sought to use Superman's previous "killings in the comics" as a point of contention particularly because they're of the opinion that one or more of these depictions worked well within the context of their respective storylines, you instead respond with unfounded conjecture and a ridiculously poor analogy.

Sorry, but I'm only seeing more apologizing here. In what other instances "in the comics" did Superman execute his enemies, what sort of long term consequences and ramifications did these executions have on the story/character? What new area of the Superman mythos did they explore? If they didn't/haven't, then your argument is completely moot.

 

[Tempest]

A point which in turn was a response to someone alluding "Mark Waid is a fanboy" -- the nature of such talk is that it becomes tit-for-tatty and snidey, and it becomes about the poster rather than the post.

Which makes all of us, doesn't it? You and I are in October in a thread about a movie that opened in June. If we didn't have strong feelings about MoS, if it was "just a movie", I wouldn't be here giving the movie stick, and you, sticking up for the movie.

All things being equal in the convo about Superman killing Zod, Waid's opinion is as valid as it is yours or mine.

Way to miss the point. Like I said, someone elevated Waid's opinion to ridiculous measures. Waid can have his opinion, but his opinion does come with some errors, which is perfectly valid to point out.

Think of it this way: Someone feeds you a tidbit of news. You may form an opinion on the topic. Then you find out that the source is faulty, but you still hold to your opinion as being 'right' because you want to believe what you want to believe.

All well and good, but the logic behind your opinion is still faulty. Mark Waid's whinging about Superman does not make him correct. It makes his opinion completely erroneous, because there are facts that dismantle his complaint.

There's a certain truth to his complaint. Superman after all, does not typically kill. That is correct. But Superman has killed, and more importantly, has shown that he is willing to kill if he needs to.

Most recently, in the New 52, Superman was going to kill the woman who was possessed. He didn't want to, but he would have done it in order to save everyone. Another example is "Enemies Among Us", when Batman is over-taken by an alien force, Superman says flat-out that he knows Batman would rather die than lose his soul. If the aliens refuse to leave Bruce, Clark is ready to kill him in order to give Bruce peace. In Earth One, Superman arms the rebels.

You can argue about the morality of any of those choices, but that does not change that Superman sometimes considers death as an option -- but only if there are few or no other options.

In the film, the situation Superman faced with Zod was a no-win. There was no convenient phantom zone or way to depower him. In the context of the story, the death makes sense.

Mark Waid's reaction to it was emotional, and not driven by anything that we actually know about the character.

Sorry, how is it "ironic"? I've seen the two pages posted (same as everyone has, I presume), which apparently, was enough to satiate those who were pleased that it was "from the comics", but I haven't read the whole story, so I cannot speak to the larger ramifications that Superman's actions had on his character. Please do enlighten me.

1. After Superman killed Zod and two other Kryptonians, he exiled himself from Earth, and moped about the universe while he struggled with his actions. It's a long story, but his emo journey eventually ends with him facing down his guilt, and finding the freedom to take up the burden of being a champion of Earth once more.

2. After Superman killed Doomsday, he died. When he came back, there wasn't a lot of time for reflection, since there were all kinds of troubles, but in Superman Day of Doom, he's confronted with the sheer quantity of deaths that were both a direct, and indirect result of his battle with Doomsday. It takes him a while to even really consider all those other deaths.

In the end, Superman discovers the tremendous losses the people of Earth endured, and feels the weight of those deaths. But he also acknowledges that while he may sometimes draw enemies to Earth, if he stepped aside, larger tragedies could happen. ( Doomsday killed several thousand people. Other people died indirectly as a result of the attack. When Superman died and was gone, Coast City was attacked, and seven million people were murdered).

3. Even in Earth One, there are consequences. Superman gives the rebels the means to fight against their oppressor (who is an evil bastard). Superman is patting himself on the back for doing a great job, and when he arrives at his apartment, he finds out one of his neighbors committed suicide. In the apartment, there are frantic words scribbled on the walls, all about Superman. One of the more poignant scribbles is: "Superman can save the world, why can't he save me?"

Clark had been so absorbed in trying to get back at the bad guy, he'd missed the needs and struggles of someone whom he spoke to nearly every day. He knew about them, but he sort of pushed them to the back of his mind...and because of his inaction on something that seemed trivial, a person died. A painful lesson for Clark, but a good one.

From those pages posted, Superman executes Zod and co. almost casually and with no remorse. Not quite the same approach taken to the character in MoS, where he screams in despair(?) after the execution.

No one said he did it without remorse. We simply said he had killed. Although, to illustrate the difference in the film and comic, Zod was already done killing 5 billion people by the time Superman executed him. In MOS, Zod is still a clear threat to the Earth, so in many ways, Zod's execution in the comics is less justifiable than the one in MOS.

The only time he's ever killed without remorse was in Superman II. And also whenever he's been possessed by something evil, or like in Superman/Batman, when he and Bruce were raised like brothers and were evil. Then he doesn't mind killing at all. Do not make Supes angry if he's evil. He'll broil you alive, or beat you, then strangle you with a golden lasso.

Sorry, but I'm only seeing more apologizing here. In what other instances "in the comics" did Superman execute his enemies, what sort of long term consequences and ramifications did these executions have on the story/character? What new area of the Superman mythos did they explore? If they didn't/haven't, then your argument is completely moot.

Posted above! I'll point out that the only comic that had Superman deal with the consequences of his actions within the same story was Earth One. The other comics spread the journey over several months of comics.

The point is, true, MOS didn't cover everything. But I strongly suspect that MOS was specifically designed for a multi-film journey for Superman. Not that I actually need to see Superman struggling with Zod's death. Zod deserved his death. I can understand his motivations to a certain extent, but still, he was a genocidal maniac. MOS Supes seems a bit more...pragmatic than some of his counterparts. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of fallout in the next film, but I really don't want to see Superman agonizing over what happened to Zod.

 

[Marvin]

So are you comparing David Goyer to Mozart? Because that's who this thread is concerning. Was Goyer "breaking any rules"? Was he creating an intellectually stimulating, creatively innovative, abstract expressionist masterpiece? No, he was working well within the boundaries and limitations of the tried and true "hero's journey"/ three act story structure- and in that respect, the movie failed. Again, we're talking about a Zack Snyder/David Goyer superhero adventure film, Not David Lynch or Stanley Kubrick here. lol.

Last I checked you chimed on the matter of mark waid's opinion being automatically correct due to his celebrated contribution to the collective works. Speaking of "rules", there is a reason the appeal to authority fallacy exists. Anyways, that digressed to a discussion of what art is in relation to science and how the so called guidelines are just that, guidelines. Constantly bent broken and rewritten over the years. All boiling down the revelation that art existed long before the rules.

Furthermore, there's a reason MOS got a 50/50 split among critics
(ignoring what it got among audience scores).
That reason is, opinion. Need we start deciding whose opinion among the hundred of them is the most valued and simply differ to that one? The answer is no. This isn't science magazine.

On the matter of if Goyer "Broke any rules" apparently some people have it in their minds that superman can't kill. Go figure. You are right though, if this is a measure of how well Goyer(and co.) succeeded at following the rules, I can see where some of the detractors are coming from.
If you want to know how I think Goyer compares to Mozart, ask.

 

[PacificBoy]

Way to miss the point. Like I said, someone elevated Waid's opinion to ridiculous measures.

And like I said, "someone elevated Waid's opinion to ridiculous measures" as a response to someone else devaluing Waid's opinion to ridiculous measures. Then one poster is accused of being supercilious, the other poster is gullible, then another is naive or arrogant or etc. ad nauseam. It's simply playground stuff.

Waid can have his opinion, but his opinion does come with some errors, which is perfectly valid to point out.

Which is what I said.

All well and good, but the logic behind your opinion is still faulty. Mark Waid's whinging about Superman does not make him correct. It makes his opinion completely erroneous, because there are facts that dismantle his complaint.

There's a certain truth to his complaint. Superman after all, does not typically kill. That is correct. But Superman has killed, and more importantly, has shown that he is willing to kill if he needs to.

How can his opinion be "completely erroneous" if there's "certain truth to his complaint"?

Most recently, in the New 52, Superman was going to kill the woman who was possessed. He didn't want to, but he would have done it in order to save everyone. Another example is "Enemies Among Us", when Batman is over-taken by an alien force, Superman says flat-out that he knows Batman would rather die than lose his soul. If the aliens refuse to leave Bruce, Clark is ready to kill him in order to give Bruce peace. In Earth One, Superman arms the rebels.

You can argue about the morality of any of those choices, but that does not change that Superman sometimes considers death as an option -- but only if there are few or no other options.

I'm not arguing the morality; in fact, I agree with the ones you bring up here! Superman should kill in the right circumstances -- that works for me.

In the film, the situation Superman faced with Zod was a no-win. There was no convenient phantom zone or way to depower him. In the context of the story, the death makes sense.

The death makes complete sense in the movie. Zod had to be taken out, no questions asked. But Waid wasn't questioning the movie logic, he was questioning the storytelling, the lack of buildup, the lack of execution of the death.

He said: "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."

Mark Waid's reaction to it was emotional, and not driven by anything that we actually know about the character.

This isn't true, as you yourself said his complaint had "certain truth". His initial review was a tad overdramatic, I give you that, but he clarified his points in an interview with Voices For Krypton. So a lot of the recent stuff quoted from Waid is from this, rather than his original review.

His opinion is that Superman always finds a way not to kill, an opinion based on how Superman is portrayed in comics. Your opinion is "Superman has killed, and more importantly, has shown that he is willing to kill if he needs to", which is also evidenced by the comics. In other words, both are valid starting points of discussion.

Finally, how can an emotional reaction be held against his opinion of the movie? Isn't it like saying if somebody cried in the theatre when Superman killed Zod, his or her opinion can't be taken seriously?

 

[Vid Electricz]

Last I checked you chimed on the matter of mark waid's opinion being automatically correct due to his celebrated contribution to the collective works.

No. I advocate no such thing. If you read my original post (in response to DA Champion) as well as my following replies you will see that I am speaking about individuals who have been trained and practiced in their respective fields who have accumulated knowledge and wisdom far beyond your own breadth of understanding- and how it is important to take this kind into consideration and allow it to help inform your own opinion.

Speaking of "rules", there is a reason the appeal to authority fallacy exists. Anyways, that digressed to a discussion of what art is in relation to science and how the so called guidelines are just that, guidelines. Constantly bent broken and rewritten over the years. All boiling down the revelation that art existed long before the rules.

Furthermore, there's a reason MOS got a 50/50 split among critics
(ignoring what it got among audience scores).
That reason is, opinion. Need we start deciding whose opinion among the hundred of them is the most valued and simply differ to that one? The answer is no. This isn't science magazine.

On the matter of if Goyer "Broke any rules" apparently some people have it in their minds that superman can't kill. Go figure. You are right though, if this is a measure of how well Goyer(and co.) succeeded at following the rules, I can see where some of the detractors are coming from.

This is exactly my point. Goyer was playing by the rules (three act structure/classic hero's journey, in a straightforward action adventure movie, inundated with all the tropes, cliches and trappings that generally accompany, etc...) and he failed within those established confines.

If you want to know how I think Goyer compares to Mozart, ask.

How do you think Goyer compares to Mozart? lol.

 

[The Guard]

There are some very strong rules of thumb to what makes a better movie and MoS consistently fails. The plot relies on a McGuffin, the dialogue is weak, they tell us one thing about krypton and show another, the protagonist has no arc and fewer lines and makes fewer decisions than his biological father, and moments in the movie that are supposed to ge emotionally poignant, like the deaths of jonathan or zod, are tacked on and not integrated onto the plot.

Supposedly I'm on ignore, but...

How does the plot rely on a McGuffin, exactly?

How can you watch this movie and claim that Superman has no arc? He clearly does have one. The whole origin story. The search for identity and purpose. The "hiding from humanity and believing he will be feared and misunderstood" evolving into "stepping into the light as a savior", the "going from a loner to trusting in and working with, even leading others" stuff? That's his arc. It's delineated pretty well within the film.

While he doesn't make speeches like his father, I seriously doubt that Clark/Superman actually has fewer lines than Jor-El does. I haven't counted the lines he has or the decisions he makes lately, so I can't be sure. Though I don't see why the number of lines/decisions made is relevant to the quality of Superman's portrayal in the first place.

The death of Zod is quite clearly integrated into the plot, as is Jonathan's death. I'm not sure how people can't see that.

 

[slumcat]

The plot absolutely relies on a McGuffin and its the most ludicrous one ever conceived, the goddamned codex. WHO thought of THAT?