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

[Krumm]

That's all I've ever argued (it's the heart of my argument anyway).

Also, if my argument seems "garbled" or unclear at this point, it's because of nonsense like this:

You cited him as an expert. We're saying Goyer is more of an expert. In what passes for your rules of logic, the more of an expert you are on something, the better informed and more valuable your opinion is and therefore more likely to be correct. Goyer>Waid in terms of writing screenplays, therefore Waid, and by extension you, are wrong.

I think the confusing part is that your informed v uninformed stance was directly tied to your regard for Waid's opinion of the film, which you are entitled to. But at this point it's devolved into experts knowing more than non-experts (a given) but the definition of what an expert is remains unclear.

Now, considering this argument's ties to Waid, it's fair to claim Waid as not being an expert on screenwriting and the value of his storytelling knowledge being fairly judged compartivley to those who either know more about screenwriting or have actually done it.

I think you're hurting your own argument at this point, and it's an argument I tend to agree with.

 

[Vid Electricz]

I think the confusing part is that your informed v uninformed stance was directly tied to your regard for Waid's opinion of the film, which you are entitled to. But at this point it's devolved into experts knowing more than non-experts (a given) but the definition of what an expert is remains unclear.

Now, considering this argument's ties to Waid, it's fair to claim Waid as not being an expert on screenwriting and the value of his storytelling knowledge being fairly judged compartivley to those who either know more about screenwriting or have actually done it.

Fair enough. But frankly, this "discussion" is becoming bogged down in pedantry. The Waid discussion was resolved after a few pages, when some sort of understanding seemed to have been reached.

The conversation moved on and evolved to discuss and analyze some of the problems/issues with Goyer's MoS script. All of a sudden, someone starts bringing Waid up from 10 pages ago as though it were somehow pertinent, when in fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with the current conversation.

 

[Krumm]

Fair enough. But frankly, this "discussion" is becoming bogged down in pedantry. The Waid discussion was resolved after a few pages, when some sort of understanding seemed to have been reached.

The conversation moved on and evolved to discuss and analyze some of the problems/issues with Goyer's MoS script. All of a sudden, someone starts bringing Waid up from 10 pages ago as though it were somehow pertinent, when in fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with the current conversation.

Well I think that's because you brought Hulk's review to the forum. But it wasn't Hulk's opinion that was quoted, it was Hulk's stance on informed v uninformed even though it had been settled.

And as I stated, considering that argument is directly tied to Waid, it is totally fair to bring him back up wether you've moved on you not, though me thinks you haven't.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Well I think that's because you brought Hulk's review to the forum. But it wasn't Hulk's opinion that was quoted, it was Hulk's stance on informed v uninformed even though it had been settled.

I can totally see where the issue arose from in this case. While the Hulk provided a great many insights as to what was "broken", as it were, in the MoS script, he also provided what I found to be an extremely well worded and succinct argument for the informed v. uniformed opinion discussion.

And as I stated, considering that argument is directly tied to Waid, it is totally fair to bring him back up wether you've moved on you not, though me thinks you haven't.

I commented on Waid strictly to acknowledge his skill and expertise of craft in his field, and how taking his stance/knoweldge/wisdom in to account can help to expand ones own breadth of understanding. Period.

I haven't mentioned of brought up Waid since.

 

[Krumm]

I can totally see where the issue arose from in this case. While the Hulk provided a great many insights as to what was "broken", as it were, in the MoS script, he also provided what I found to be an extremely well worded and succinct argument for the informed v. uniformed opinion discussion.





I commented on Waid strictly to acknowledge his skill and expertise of craft in his field, and how taking his stance/knoweldge/wisdom in to account can help to expand ones own breadth of understanding. Period.

I haven't mentioned of brought up Waid since.

Sorry, I mean for others to bring him back up. No, you didn't bring him back into this bit it is fair for others to.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I guess where it boils down to is pedigree vs passion. If someone is PASSIONATE about something/or someone, is it WRONGfor them to disagree with the person of pedigree? Likewise, can a person of prestige/experience/knowledge be careless about a topic that "Joe Passionate" is concerned about, marring the credibility of Mr. Experience.

And yet, the position of experience and professionalism is never brought up as a way of leveling criticisms when it refers to someone like Bay

IE. Bay is a more experienced storyteller than most of us, therefore we shouldn't feel above him :P

 

[Vid Electricz]

Sorry, I mean for others to bring him back up. No, you didn't bring him back into this bit it is fair for others to.

It is fair for others to bring Waid back into the discussion if they so desire. I guess I just felt that there was no relevance for it in the current discussion.

 

[Vid Electricz]

I guess where it boils down to is pedigree vs passion. If someone is PASSIONATE about something/or someone, is it WRONGfor them to disagree with the person of pedigree? Likewise, can a person of prestige/experience/knowledge be careless about a topic that "Joe Passionate" is concerned about, marring the credibility of Mr. Experience.

And yet, the position of experience and professionalism is never brought up as a way of leveling criticisms when it refers to someone like Bay

IE. Bay is a more experienced storyteller than most of us, therefore we shouldn't feel above him :P

All excellent points. They should all be judged on a case-by-case basis (context is important).

As far as someone like Michael Bay- he obviously has a level of skill and proficiency in the technical aspects of filmmaking, while a very basic, rudimentary understanding of story and characters (which we see clearly through his films). One wouldn't need to be at a very high level of storytelling expertise to understand the shortcomings of his work.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ My grammar is subpar today. I must be tired. But yes, I don't like the idea that one's professionalism should be its own response against criticism. I think criticism occurs from many different places, legitimate or otherwise.

Saying Superman could have lead Zod away from Metropolis, is ILLEGITIMATE criticism, because I think it's pretty clear that he'd dart away and kill more people if Superman were to just "go the other way."

Stating that Superman should have done more to save others is FAIR-ER, because the film shows Supes smashing through buildings, MOVING the fight to Smallville, and not spending ANY time away from fighting to save people (the soldier in Smallville being the exception).

The trouble is the fair criticisms get blended with the unfair ones, resulting in what I believe, is a misjudged film.

 

[Tempest]

Excellent, in-depth diagnosis of the problems with the story and characters in Man of Steel. Yes, the all caps gimmick is obnoxious and headache-inducing, but that doesn't make the arguments any less valid.

I only made it to intro three before I realized that what I was reading was basically ****. I doggedly read through to the end, and basically, what his whole critique, what everything he writes about boils down to, is the problem I see over and over again.

What is the problem?

MOS did not give everyone their vision of Superman.

He immediately invalidated his entire, long ****** rant about storytelling by showing us what matters the most to him, and that was that his own vision of who Superman is did not appear in the way that he wanted him to.

That's not a good assessment. What he did was decide he didn't like MOS, and then he came up with all kinds of 'intellectual' reasons for it when he was challenged.

If there's one thing I know about people, it's that they hate for their opinions to be challenged, and they will draw upon all kinds of silly things to defend themselves.

It's why he had four intros; to defend himself because he really knows that his opinion is not about intellect, but about how he views Superman.

So Hulk's opinion is worth no more than anyone else's. Do you have any experts left?

 

[roach]

I only made it to intro three before I realized that what I was reading was basically ****. I doggedly read through to the end, and basically, what his whole critique, what everything he writes about boils down to, is the problem I see over and over again.

What is the problem?

MOS did not give everyone their vision of Superman.

He immediately invalidated his entire, long ****** rant about storytelling by showing us what matters the most to him, and that was that his own vision of who Superman is did not appear in the way that he wanted him to.

That's not a good assessment. What he did was decide he didn't like MOS, and then he came up with all kinds of 'intellectual' reasons for it when he was challenged.

If there's one thing I know about people, it's that they hate for their opinions to be challenged, and they will draw upon all kinds of silly things to defend themselves.

It's why he had four intros; to defend himself because he really knows that his opinion is not about intellect, but about how he views Superman.

So Hulk's opinion is worth no more than anyone else's. Do you have any experts left?

No truer words have ever been spoken:

He continues, “There hasn’t been a Superman story written or movie made where someone didn’t say, ‘Yeah, but he’s Superman, so he should have been able to blah, blah, blah.’

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ The trouble is (amongst others), and I like the film, they went TOO big, too soon. Audiences aren't used to seeing a Superman who can't save everyone who appears, or one faced with a threat level that prevents him from moving the fight away.

Combine that with OBVIOUS pacing problems, controversial character moments, and some CORNY dialog (we had a child. A BOY child) and you have a film that both feels ambitious AND generic at times (I'm looking at you, tentacle-spaceship)

I'm hoping that the Sny/Goy team is secretly thinking, "Let's dial it back and focus all about Clark, and the real-world effects around him."

But they're probably thinking "What kind of neat plot can we place Superman/Batman in?"

I think MOS2/WF will be better than expected, but not the dream movie many have imagined.

 

[Marvin]

^This same audience that isn't ready for a "more fallible superman" that can't to everything, because they themselves being harnessed to antiquity, find themselves in the position to point out "corny lines," as if such a thing is new to "their" superman.

You would think if people want something familiar in superman, corny lines and tacky flourishes would be welcomed sight.

Can't please everyone. Pretty sure if this same audience modern audience was faced with the reality that was the first two donner films, but for the first time, they'd have similar and a whole other set of complaints.
Even Peter Parker didn't actually quit...and no one likes that guy.

 

[DA_Champion]

The review of MoS by "HULK" is the best I have seen. He is clearly a brilliant man. For the record, his other reviews are great too.

Every time I read one of his reviews, I change my mind about something and learn a great deal

 

[DA_Champion]

I only made it to intro three before I realized that what I was reading was basically ****. I doggedly read through to the end, and basically, what his whole critique, what everything he writes about boils down to, is the problem I see over and over again.

What is the problem?

MOS did not give everyone their vision of Superman.

He immediately invalidated his entire, long ****** rant about storytelling by showing us what matters the most to him, and that was that his own vision of who Superman is did not appear in the way that he wanted him to.

That's not a good assessment. What he did was decide he didn't like MOS, and then he came up with all kinds of 'intellectual' reasons for it when he was challenged.

If there's one thing I know about people, it's that they hate for their opinions to be challenged, and they will draw upon all kinds of silly things to defend themselves.

It's why he had four intros; to defend himself because he really knows that his opinion is not about intellect, but about how he views Superman.

So Hulk's opinion is worth no more than anyone else's. Do you have any experts left?

HULK has made more and better original arguments than this entire thread combined.

If you think his review is stupid, than you need to reread and reread his review, until you can grasp his brilliance.

You did not understand his arguments - fine. He is writing at an advanced level. I, likewise, did not understand calculus the first time I learned about it, but I kept going back to it again and again. Within one year I was tutoring calculus. A few years later I successfully completed a major in honours mathematics and physics.

So go back and reread hulk's review. Every time you see a paragraph you thinl is dumb, ask yourself what you intellectual failures (or simply biases) are that are preventing you from seeing his point.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

"Since they were unable to figure out how to reboot the superman franchise without introducing some new form of origin, they decided to basically go halvsies and just incorporate a lot of new changes and things we hadn't previously seen. Hulk talked about this before where they opted for a harder sci-fi angle, but really their biggest change was playing the greatest hits of his childhood out of order (and nonsensically) as flashbacks."

^ That line kind of nailed it there. I think his essay was well written, though the way he paints it makes it sound like the people who like it are "suckers."

I personally thought it did a good job of showing how tough it was to be Superman (an accusation leveled against MOS by HULK).

But I agree with his article about "shorthand' writing. MOS isn't built around the drama around Clark Kent, just situations the character happens to be IN.

A good example to use is Pa Kent. Many people came away thinking "he's a crazy jerk", which is the OPPOSITE of what Kent should come across as. Ironically, I think Goyer was trying to create a realistic portrait of the man. Someone who would have a primal fear of his son being used by the government, but DID think his son had a special purpose in life.

I feel like these inconsistencies are due to Goyer wanting drama from a character he either didn't understand or care about. Zack probably wanted a CGI tornado in there somewhere, but I'm not sure who to blame for that particular moment in the film.

I guess both :/

 

[Marvin]

A good example to use is Pa Kent. Many people came away thinking "he's a crazy jerk", which is the OPPOSITE of what Kent should come across as. Ironically, I think Goyer was trying to create a realistic portrait of the man. Someone who would have a primal fear of his son being used by the government, but DID think his son had a special purpose in life.

I didn't come away feeling as such. It begs the question of just how much responsibility the audience has to comprehend characterization. J,Johah was more my reading of "crazy jerk" tbh.

I feel like these inconsistencies are due to Goyer wanting drama from a character he either didn't understand or care about. Zack probably wanted a CGI tornado in there somewhere, but I'm not sure who to blame for that particular moment in the film.

Always fascinated by this accusation that goyer doesn't understand this particular comic book character, ignoring that he is a DC writer who has published works including the character, it implies the people making the accusation actually understand the character better, guess we'll never know.

I personally saw alot of characterization on MOS that surpasses the previous films. Like I said, a superman that doesn't quit on humanity and dedicates his life to saving strangers is all but unheard of on the big screen.

I'm also fascinated by the ability of particular individuals to just run around assuming film makers intent then proceeding to criticize such. Point being, kinda hard to speak for Zack if you have no idea of the goings on. Just a few pages ago someone else claimed he was handed a final shooting script...
chaos I tells ya.

 

[Marvin]

Spoiler

HULK has made more and better original arguments than this entire thread combined.

If you think his review is stupid, than you need to reread and reread his review, until you can grasp his brilliance.

You did not understand his arguments - fine. He is writing at an advanced level. I, likewise, did not understand calculus the first time I learned about it, but I kept going back to it again and again. Within one year I was tutoring calculus. A few years later I successfully completed a major in honours mathematics and physics.

So go back and reread hulk's review. Every time you see a paragraph you thinl is dumb, ask yourself what you intellectual failures (or simply biases) are that are preventing you from seeing his point.

DA, surely you could have worded this more tactfully. Whatever your intent(no doubt transparent), it comes off as your most condescending post yet. I mean instead of engaging with her on her analysis and rebuttal, you just said she's too dumb and needs to read and re read in order to grasp his brilliance?
Like something out of dexters lab.

Furthermore, as brilliant as this character may or may not be, his caps lock schtick is a bit much, I say this in light of his "writing at an advanced" level. Dude should just lose the gimmick and let his writing speak for itself.
imo.

 

[Krumm]

HULK has made more and better original arguments than this entire thread combined.

If you think his review is stupid, than you need to reread and reread his review, until you can grasp his brilliance.

You did not understand his arguments - fine. He is writing at an advanced level. I, likewise, did not understand calculus the first time I learned about it, but I kept going back to it again and again. Within one year I was tutoring calculus. A few years later I successfully completed a major in honours mathematics and physics.

So go back and reread hulk's review. Every time you see a paragraph you thinl is dumb, ask yourself what you intellectual failures (or simply biases) are that are preventing you from seeing his point.

Hulk?

 

[DA_Champion]

If I thought tempest was too dumb I would tell her not too bother trying. Instead I told her to keep working on it until she acquires clarity.

Intelligence does not mean things come easy. It means things can come at all.

Fact is, we are all fortunate to live in the internet era, where we have the privilege to read the musings of someone as brilliant as HULK.

 

[DA_Champion]

Hulk?

It is the pseudonym of a film/tv critic.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Or just TALK like the Hulk, instead of speaking like a college professor with the Caps Lock on.

HULK NOT LIKE MAN OF STEEL BECAUSE IT LACK CHARACTER

Rather than just giving a big essay with big letters, I think it would be more fun to embrace the Hulkness.

 

[TheBat812]

Can somebody link the Hulk review? And who is this Hulk? Is he an industry professional? Or just some blogger?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ He's a blogger. And there's swearing in it, so the hype might not like linking it.

But the reviews are at filmcrithulk DOT wordpress DOT com.

 

[DA_Champion]

HULK also has good reviews of prometheus, star trek into darkness, john carter, dark knight rises, and avengers. I can only speak for the ones I have read.