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

[TheFlamingCoco]

Right on.

I think put simply the most important thing is just getting the characters right. We just have to buy into the characters and love them. And Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth made that impossible. The story was a problem too but at the core of it it's just the main cast weren't likable. Henry and Amy just had so much more charm and charisma. It's just too bad they were let down a bit by the script. But I would watch a whole movie of just Henry and Amy as the characters if it was written well because they just have that screen presence, and it wouldn't need to have any fighting.

Martial arts isn't intrinsic to the character of Superman in the same way that it is with Batman. Joe Casey (Whatever happened to Truth, Justice and the American Way?) made a point of this back in the early 2000's where he did a whole year run on Superman with him not fighting anyone at all trying to show him as a pure pacifist and seeing if anyone noticed. In All-Star, Superman didn't throw a punch until the last couple issues against Solaris and Luthor when he was weak and under the clock.

It's kind of important to the character that while Batman tries to frighten and torment his enemies, Spidey tries to mock, insult and humiliate his enemies; Superman is the one trying to rehabilitate his enemies. Because he loves everyone and wants everyone to be the best they can be. It's why MOS would have been such a better film had Goyer taken a note from the issue of All-Star with Bar-El and Li-lo where they lay a huge beating on Supes, leaving him bloody and broken, but when they get sick, Superman still extends his hand to help them and saves them both. Had MOS ended like that fans would be so much happier right now, and I also think it would be validating to the public's perception of the character too. Like 'Yeah maybe that kind of mercy and kindness is still cool today'. Instead we got the dark edgy neck snap which has really just confused everyone about the character now.

TBH, it looked like he was searching for Zod's redemption too. Notice how long he begs Zod to avoid his mission on death before having to snap his neck.

However, I do feel like there were parts where Clark
1) Made a moral compromise. (Not saving his father immediately)
2)Was forced to make a moral compromise (stealing pants and killing Zod MIGHT apply here)
3) Made headstrong decisions (frying the scout ship and moving the fight to Smallville.)

I think the combination of these instances make this Superman seem more like an anti-hero, though one has to factor that he spent many years of his life saving people, and of course, the planet.

He also is soulful as Kent, for the most part.

 

[Smallville13]

Great post.

I don't like Brandon Routh. To me, he kind of looks like a pedophile, so I don't buy him as Superman, I think he'd be better cast on Law and Order: SVU. He also looks like a boy and not a man, and he lacks personality.But I thought Kate Bosworth was ok. If people didn't like her role that's fine, but I bought her as Lois. As for watching a 2 hour romantic comedy with Henry Cavill and Amy Adams, I watched some 60 hours of romantic comedy with Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher and loved most of it. I'm pretty sure that with good writing, Cavill and Adams would do a lot better.

One failure shared by both SR and MoS is that they both give very little dialogue to the ostensible protagonist. I'm not sure why that is. Why not give him lines?

With respect to rehabilitation, I loved the ending of All-Star the movie, when Lex sees what Superman an see, and ends up thinking differently, and gives that potion to Superman. I thought that was such a beautiful ending. It's the nicest ending of a Superman movie that I can think of.

How would you have written the ending to MoS?

Something like All-Star #9. Perhaps in place of Kryptonite poisoning it's the excruciating aural and visual sensory overload that eventually overcomes Zod when he loses control and becomes a pure monster of rage but caves to the pain. Same happens with Faora. And Superman helps them and treats them with tender kindness, deciding to spare them of the agony by placing them in the Phantom Zone. I honestly thought this would be the way they'd go with that considering in the Smallville fight that that was their weakness, both Zod and Faora succumbing to the sensory overload but getting bailed out. It seemed that was the key for Supes and it was being set-up. But then Zod just opened his eyes before stepping into the Scout Ship and he was fine with it.

Alot would have to be reworked with the Phantom Zone mechanics and stuff. I'd also scrap the tentacle fight in the Indian Ocean. And show Superman assisting in the clean-up of Metropolis at the end. I've been meaning to write a big post in the MOS board about what I would have done different whilst respecting alot of the film (there's alot of ideas I like), whilst taking other ideas from Birthright and other stories and placing them in. But it'd take me a long while to figure that post out so I haven't gotten around to it.

Also I totally agree with you DA_Champion about the All-Star ending. I tear up when Luthor finally sees 'how he sees' and learns 'it's all just us in here together'. So beautiful and perfect. And then Superman becoming pure light energy, pure information, a pure thought or idea (mirroring his relationship with us right here) where he goes to cure the sun which provides life to all. That is the most mythological high concept ending that is so perfect for Supes. I love how it mirrors Bruce going underground in Miller's DKR too.

TBH, it looked like he was searching for Zod's redemption too. Notice how long he begs Zod to avoid his mission on death before having to snap his neck.

However, I do feel like there were parts where Clark
1) Made a moral compromise. (Not saving his father immediately)
2)Was forced to make a moral compromise (stealing pants and killing Zod MIGHT apply here)
3) Made headstrong decisions (frying the scout ship and moving the fight to Smallville.)

I think the combination of these instances make this Superman seem more like an anti-hero, though one has to factor that he spent many years of his life saving people, and of course, the planet.

He also is soulful as Kent, for the most part.

Yeah. These are definitely the parts where it seems like Snyder dropped the ball in interpreting the character. And it's not that I don't think Snyder knew what he was doing, but I think he was trying to shed new light on the character by making Clark tortured and depressed. But ultimately I just don't think it was the best approach. I can't think of any past intepretation of the character that would have stood idly by and watched his father die, even if saving him would mean outing himself in front of everyone else. He puts people in need before himself. That's kinda the point...

And killing Zod. Sure he had no choice. He had as much choice as Snyder and Goyer gave him. They made the choice. They wanted people to reassess the character, and move him away from the boyscout image, by making him tortured and depressed and now a murderer of Zod (and arguably his adoptive dad...).

However that all being said, Henry Cavill still completely embodied the physical presence of the character from the comics of the last 20 years. He was like a straight Tom Grummett/Jim Lee drawing come to life. Despite some of the material he delivered the best performance in the film (I remember everyone before release saying how Michael Shannon would completely overshadow him in the acting department) and he was just so much more enjoyable to watch than Brandon Routh.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Something like All-Star #9. Perhaps in place of Kryptonite poisoning it's the excruciating aural and visual sensory overload that eventually overcomes Zod when he loses control and becomes a pure monster of rage but caves to the pain. Same happens with Faora. And Superman helps them and treats them with tender kindness, deciding to spare them of the agony by placing them in the Phantom Zone. I honestly thought this would be the way they'd go with that considering in the Smallville fight that that was their weakness, both Zod and Faora succumbing to the sensory overload but getting bailed out. It seemed that was the key for Supes and it was being set-up. But then Zod just opened his eyes before stepping into the Scout Ship and he was fine with it.

Love this. This is creative thinking. Goyer, Snyder. Take notes.

Alot would have to be reworked with the Phantom Zone mechanics and stuff. I'd also scrap the tentacle fight in the Indian Ocean. And show Superman assisting in the clean-up of Metropolis at the end. I've been meaning to write a big post in the MOS board about what I would have done different whilst respecting alot of the film (there's alot of ideas I like), whilst taking other ideas from Birthright and other stories and placing them in. But it'd take me a long while to figure that post out so I haven't gotten around to it.

Also I totally agree with you DA_Champion about the All-Star ending. I tear up when Luthor finally sees 'how he sees' and learns 'it's all just us in here together'. So beautiful and perfect. And then Superman becoming pure light energy, pure information, a pure thought or idea (mirroring his relationship with us right here) where he goes to cure the sun which provides life to all. That is the most mythological high concept ending that is so perfect for Supes. I love how it mirrors Bruce going underground in Miller's DKR too.



Yeah. These are definitely the parts where it seems like Snyder dropped the ball in interpreting the character. And it's not that I don't think Snyder knew what he was doing, but I think he was trying to shed new light on the character by making Clark tortured and depressed. But ultimately I just don't think it was the best approach. I can't think of any past intepretation of the character that would have stood idly by and watched his father die, even if saving him would mean outing himself in front of everyone else. He puts people in need before himself. That's kinda the point...

I think Snyder had good intentions, but we all know where the road paved with good intentions leads to...Ultimately, it seemed that he didn't know what he was doing.

And killing Zod. Sure he had no choice. He had as much choice as Snyder and Goyer gave him. They made the choice. They wanted people to reassess the character, and move him away from the boyscout image, by making him tortured and depressed and now a murderer of Zod (and arguably his adoptive dad...).

 

[LordofhouseEl]

Right on.

I think put simply the most important thing is just getting the characters right. We just have to buy into the characters and love them. And Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth made that impossible. The story was a problem too but at the core of it it's just the main cast weren't likable. Henry and Amy just had so much more charm and charisma. It's just too bad they were let down a bit by the script. But I would watch a whole movie of just Henry and Amy as the characters if it was written well because they just have that screen presence, and it wouldn't need to have any fighting.

Martial arts isn't intrinsic to the character of Superman in the same way that it is with Batman. Joe Casey (Whatever happened to Truth, Justice and the American Way?) made a point of this back in the early 2000's where he did a whole year run on Superman with him not fighting anyone at all trying to show him as a pure pacifist and seeing if anyone noticed. In All-Star, Superman didn't throw a punch until the last couple issues against Solaris and Luthor when he was weak and under the clock.

It's kind of important to the character that while Batman tries to frighten and torment his enemies, Spidey tries to mock, insult and humiliate his enemies; Superman is the one trying to rehabilitate his enemies. Because he loves everyone and wants everyone to be the best they can be. It's why MOS would have been such a better film had Goyer taken a note from the issue of All-Star with Bar-El and Li-lo where they lay a huge beating on Supes, leaving him bloody and broken, but when they get sick, Superman still extends his hand to help them and saves them both. Had MOS ended like that fans would be so much happier right now, and I also think it would be validating to the public's perception of the character too. Like 'Yeah maybe that kind of mercy and kindness is still cool today'. Instead we got the dark edgy neck snap which has really just confused everyone about the character now.

Just want to say what an amazing post and couldn't agree more, although I thought Amy Adams was a terrible Lois Lane.

 

[Marvin]

Like 'Yeah maybe that kind of mercy and kindness is still cool today'. Instead we got the dark edgy neck snap which has really just confused everyone about the character now.

The audience wasn't confused when superman did such things in 3 of his previous films, not sure why they would start now. I can see fans being divided though. That's kinda the point of fans. I like the idea of superman showing mercy, though I doubt he would have passed up the opportunity if given the chance. That's just it, characterization is dependent on story/plot. If superman had his way he's never throw a punch and he could be a real ideal/example, but instead: he acts like superman given the scenario, which often includes bloody fights
This is why you'll never get 100% of fans on board.

I can't think of any past intepretation of the character that would have stood idly by and watched his father die,

First you'll have to find a version of jon kent as selfless and determined as this one seemingly was. That would however, entail acknowledging and discarding preconceived notions of how things "ought to be" and rather, how consistent they are in and of themselves.

even if saving him would mean outing himself in front of everyone else. He puts people in need before himself. That's kinda the point...

The crux of this entire debate.
There are people out here that look at clarks's inaction as selfish and not selfless.
Not even mark waid makes that mistake.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Right on.
It's kind of important to the character that while Batman tries to frighten and torment his enemies, Spidey tries to mock, insult and humiliate his enemies; Superman is the one trying to rehabilitate his enemies. Because he loves everyone and wants everyone to be the best they can be. It's why MOS would have been such a better film had Goyer taken a note from the issue of All-Star with Bar-El and Li-lo where they lay a huge beating on Supes, leaving him bloody and broken, but when they get sick, Superman still extends his hand to help them and saves them both. Had MOS ended like that fans would be so much happier right now, and I also think it would be validating to the public's perception of the character too. Like 'Yeah maybe that kind of mercy and kindness is still cool today'. Instead we got the dark edgy neck snap which has really just confused everyone about the character now.

This captures the spirit of Superman a million times better than MOS could dream of.

The only problem with this is that

a) the GA (LCD) wants to watch two action figures punch each other for an hour.

b) The legions of fanboys fall into the same groupthink that they did for SR where they all begin to claim (mistakenly) that the movie was a failure because supes "didn't punch anyone". Then come the complaints that the either the villain or hero was "weak". "Why didn't Superman fight back?" etc...

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Something like All-Star #9. Perhaps in place of Kryptonite poisoning it's the excruciating aural and visual sensory overload that eventually overcomes Zod when he loses control and becomes a pure monster of rage but caves to the pain. Same happens with Faora. And Superman helps them and treats them with tender kindness, deciding to spare them of the agony by placing them in the Phantom Zone. I honestly thought this would be the way they'd go with that considering in the Smallville fight that that was their weakness, both Zod and Faora succumbing to the sensory overload but getting bailed out. It seemed that was the key for Supes and it was being set-up. But then Zod just opened his eyes before stepping into the Scout Ship and he was fine with it.

Alot would have to be reworked with the Phantom Zone mechanics and stuff. I'd also scrap the tentacle fight in the Indian Ocean. And show Superman assisting in the clean-up of Metropolis at the end. I've been meaning to write a big post in the MOS board about what I would have done different whilst respecting alot of the film (there's alot of ideas I like), whilst taking other ideas from Birthright and other stories and placing them in. But it'd take me a long while to figure that post out so I haven't gotten around to it.

All my this. When we heard the quotes taken from All-Star, I thought they would be in the same context they were intended in, Superman shows us the man of tomorrow by being better than us. Being forced into being Superman and then killing is that really the man of tomorrow? Or is it the cynicism of the man of today? This is something that was later picked up by Grant Morrison in Action Comics #9 and is one of the best issues of Superman ever.

In conjunction with what you've written, I'd have minimised Jor-El's role, Jonathan wouldn't spend next to every scene lecturing Clark, he wouldn't have died in the tornado scene (if he must die it should have been the climax) all in favour for establishing Clark in Metropolis. And for me, I'd have had the final scene be from Birthright where Clark uses the Kryptonian technology to send a message back in time to his parents and tell them he made it (to facilitate this, the Krypton sequence would be restructured).

Yeah. These are definitely the parts where it seems like Snyder dropped the ball in interpreting the character. And it's not that I don't think Snyder knew what he was doing, but I think he was trying to shed new light on the character by making Clark tortured and depressed. But ultimately I just don't think it was the best approach. I can't think of any past intepretation of the character that would have stood idly by and watched his father die, even if saving him would mean outing himself in front of everyone else. He puts people in need before himself. That's kinda the point...

And killing Zod. Sure he had no choice. He had as much choice as Snyder and Goyer gave him. They made the choice. They wanted people to reassess the character, and move him away from the boyscout image, by making him tortured and depressed and now a murderer of Zod (and arguably his adoptive dad...).

However that all being said, Henry Cavill still completely embodied the physical presence of the character from the comics of the last 20 years. He was like a straight Tom Grummett/Jim Lee drawing come to life. Despite some of the material he delivered the best performance in the film (I remember everyone before release saying how Michael Shannon would completely overshadow him in the acting department) and he was just so much more enjoyable to watch than Brandon Routh.

Even more this.

 

[Migu-EL]

The audience wasn't confused when superman did such things in 3 of his previous films, not sure why they would start now. I can see fans being divided though. That's kinda the point of fans. I like the idea of superman showing mercy, though I doubt he would have passed up the opportunity if given the chance. That's just it, characterization is dependent on story/plot. If superman had his way he's never throw a punch and he could be a real ideal/example, but instead: he acts like superman given the scenario, which often includes bloody fights
This is why you'll never get 100% of fans on board.

First you'll have to find a version of jon kent as selfless and determined as this one seemingly was. That would however, entail acknowledging and discarding preconceived notions of how things "ought to be" and rather, how consistent they are in and of themselves.


The crux of this entire debate.
There are people out here that look at clarks's inaction as selfish and not selfless.
Not even mark waid makes that mistake.

Well said

 

[Smallville13]

The audience wasn't confused when superman did such things in 3 of his previous films, not sure why they would start now. I can see fans being divided though. That's kinda the point of fans. I like the idea of superman showing mercy, though I doubt he would have passed up the opportunity if given the chance. That's just it, characterization is dependent on story/plot. If superman had his way he's never throw a punch and he could be a real ideal/example, but instead: he acts like superman given the scenario, which often includes bloody fights
This is why you'll never get 100% of fans on board.

Yeah, I think we all love to see Superman let lose in a fight. However with that much of it in MOS, is that what people will associate most with the property now? I don't have the biggest attachment to the Donner films but let's be honest there's something much more innocent about Superman tricking the Phantom Zone criminals into losing their powers and falling (possibly) to their deaths (although it's unclear). It's the 'Disney death' if you will, and then Superman charmingly smiles at Lois. There's a difference between that and HRAAAAHH *-SNAP-*.

First you'll have to find a version of jon kent as selfless and determined as this one seemingly was. That would however, entail acknowledging and discarding preconceived notions of how things "ought to be" and rather, how consistent they are in and of themselves.

Maybe. The how things 'ought to be' argument is interesting, I mean there has to be alot of that there, because if not how far is too far and you're left with something else. Snyder definitely went there though, definitely pushing the limits on how much the foundation can be changed or removed.

The crux of this entire debate.
There are people out here that look at clarks's inaction as selfish and not selfless.
Not even mark waid makes that mistake.

Well 'mistake' is like you're opinion man. Is a human life worth more than the fear caused by Clark's abilities? Y'see this is actually where I would see Clark making the 'wrong' choice (if you see it that way). One human life absolutely means more to him then whatever damage he would cause outing himself which he wouldn't even consider anyway. Perhaps that would be his mistake, but he's young, idealistic and reckless.

What would have been the difference between Clark saving those people on the oil rig by exposing himself, and saving his father in the tornado? Was he just not ready?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

He tried to hide his anonymity in the oil rig scene, hence the pants stealing.

I think he would have saved Pa if he hadn't motioned Supes to stop.

 

[The Batman]

Man of Steel may not have been the movie Superman fans wanted to see, but it was the movie that Superman fans claimed they wanted to see. We got what we said we wanted, it's kind of like a democracy.

You're absolutely correct.

Not only that, fan demand was probably how we ended up with SR. WB tried to give a fresh new take on Superman with flyby. After the backlash to JJ's script, its no surprise they decided to make a Superman movie that slavishly stuck to what came before.

 

[The Question]

To this day it infuriates me when people say that the problem with Superman Returns is that Superman doesn't punch anything. Superman returns is a bad movie because it's boring, kind of pointless, fairly *********ory, doesn't really stand on it's own as a self contained story, and is crammed with way too many references to previous films. Fight scenes wouldn't have made that movie better.

Fight scenes and action scenes in general don't inherently make things good. They actually have to serve a purpose in the story and have some kind of motivation to them.

 

[DA_Champion]

So I spoke to some twenty year olds today, and they told me that they found man of steel to be very average, because there was too much story that they knew already, and they were bored, and they were thinking "just get to the cool action already".

 

[Marvin]

^Welcome to the producers dilemma.

I agree with what you said there Question.

 

[Vid Electricz]

So I spoke to some twenty year olds today, and they told me that they found man of steel to be very average, because there was too much story that they knew already, and they were bored, and they were thinking "just get to the cool action already".

Welcome to the GA (lowest common denominator), is more like it. The vast majority of audiences believe that they want to see (are conditioned to understand anyway) two action figures punching each other for an hour is "entertainment" (or transforming robots incoherently pummeling each other, or cars going really fast and then crashing). It's certainly not limited to one particular demographic, but generally 13-30 year old males fall into this category.

 

[Marvin]

^This same denomination contributing heavily to films we, intelligent fans, determine to be great(Avengers/TDK) and refusing films we determine to be crap(GL), confuses matters a little.

 

[roach]

^This same denomination contributing heavily to films we, intelligent fans, determine to be great(Avengers/TDK) and refusing films we determine to be crap(GL), confuses matters a little.

"The GA gets it right if they like movies I like."
"The GA is the lowest common denominator when they like movies I don't."

 

[Vid Electricz]

^This same denomination contributing heavily to films we, intelligent fans, determine to be great(Avengers/TDK) and refusing films we determine to be crap(GL), confuses matters a little.

Oh, it sounds so nice and simple when we can cherry pick examples. Where are the Tansformers films and the Fast and Furious films, the Expendables, etc...in your little comparison?

Why don't films like Tree of Life, Moonrise Kingdom or Amour make even close to the same BO as big, loud, simple action/adventure films?

"The GA gets it right if they like movies I like."
"The GA is the lowest common denominator when they like movies I don't."

No. Never said that. I certainly don't buy into a school of thought nearly so simplistic or elementary. It can be both simultaneously, or neither. It's about understanding what sells most successfully to the GA.

 

[Marvin]

Oh, it sounds so nice and simple when we can cherry pick examples. Where are the Tansformers films and the Fast and Furious films, the Expendables, etc...in your little comparison?

Why don't films like Tree of Life, Moonrise Kingdom or Amour make even close to the same BO as big, loud, simple action/adventure films?

Simple, if your paradigm falls apart at the first couple of examples that comes to my mind, what good is it in the grand sense of an argument...
probabilities/trends, perhaps..

 

[Vid Electricz]

Simple, if your paradigm falls apart at the first couple of examples that comes to my mind, what good is it in the grand sense of an argument...
probabilities/trends, perhaps..

Huh? This isn't even a reply/refutation. It's an obvious dodge.

Yeah, probabilities/trends, perhaps. lol.

 

[Marvin]

Huh? This isn't even a reply/refutation. It's an obvious dodge.

Yeah, probabilities/trends, perhaps. lol.

When someone shows up here and says: good movies make money and bad movies don't. I'll replay in the same way. I'll give them examples of their rhetoric being worthless and suggest their theory is self serving.

Good movies make money, thus this is a good movie.
probabilities and trends perhaps

 

[Vid Electricz]

When someone shows up here and says: good movies make money and bad movies don't. I'll replay in the same way. I'll give them examples of their rhetoric being worthless and suggest their theory is self serving.

Implying that this is the inverse of my argument demonstrates an extremely simplistic (if any) understanding of what I am communicating.

Good movies make money, thus this is a good movie.
probabilities and trends perhaps

lol! Excellent satire.

 

[Marvin]

Implying that this is the inverse of my argument demonstrates an extremely simplistic (if any) understanding of what I am communicating.

I never meant to convey your argument, I stated what becomes from deriving anything from trends in public consumption in a self serving manner as opposed to an objective one.

DA:So I spoke to some twenty year olds today, and they told me that they found man of steel to be very average, because there was too much story that they knew already, and they were bored, and they were thinking "just get to the cool action already".

You:
Welcome to the GA (lowest common denominator), is more like it. The vast majority of audiences believe that they want to see (are conditioned to understand anyway) two action figures punching each other for an hour is "entertainment"

If you want to assume the largest demographic in the industry simply likes mos due to the 60 minute fighting as one would assert given your response to DA's anecdote, the one in which you seemingly answered his 'question', then I'm going to stand by my statement. Is that why the largest demographic likes TDK/Avengers as well? Do they support all these films for the same reasons or are the reasons going to be picked and chosen depending on the point we want to make on that message board that day...

lol! Excellent satire.

I would think so.

 

[jimbob]

I just...wow. What the hell? You know, I really thought Twilight was awful. Maybe I'll spend hour after hour of my life going on Twilight boards coming up with lame subjective arguments as to why that movie was so bad. Maybe I'll convince some of the fans there that they're wrong and they should really see it my way. On second thought, that would be really futile, stupid and pathetic.

 

[Vid Electricz]

I just...wow. What the hell? You know, I really thought Twilight was awful. Maybe I'll spend hour after hour of my life going on Twilight boards coming up with lame subjective arguments as to why that movie was so bad. Maybe I'll convince some of the fans there that they're wrong and they should really see it my way. On second thought, that would be really futile, stupid and pathetic.

Though, of course, it's not futile, stupid or pathetic to try to convince people that their very valid criticisms of said movie are worthless, right? Brilliant. We've got some geniuses on board here.

Also, I didn't find MOS to be "awful", but I'm not so blind/ignorant that I'm going to look past it's weaknesses. This is obviously difficult for you to understand, but one can still critique something even if they like it. This movie had it's strengths, but also weaknesses- looking at some of the apologist zealotry infesting this board, one might understandably get a little confused.