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

[Vid Electricz]

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.

lol. These replies are becoming increasingly hilarious.

Right. Because Man of Steel didn't cater to any of the standard conventions of storytelling, it was an abstract series of images accompanied by atmospheric music.

Again, way to belittle a craft which requires great skill and technique. Since it's all just ephemeral anyway and your 9 year old is apparently so apt, why not have him/her write a layered, well structured, thematically dense, emotionally resonant script? It's just that easy, right?

 

[jimbob]

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.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that all works of art are equal. I'm saying that art cannot be contained, evaluated or defined in such simple scientific terms. In science, rules are rules. In art, rules are meaningless. While many people may enjoy a certain work, this only means that it is accessible. How can you define a movie's worth? Critical reviews? Box office? Audience score? "Expert" opinion? Get real.

Excellent post, Marvin.

 

[roach]

It's 50% art and 50% science.

 

[Vid Electricz]

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that all works of art are equal. I'm saying that art cannot be contained, evaluated or defined in such simple scientific terms. In science, rules are rules. In art, rules are meaningless. While many people may enjoy a certain work, this only means that it is accessible. How can you define a movie's worth? Critical reviews? Box office? Audience score? "Expert" opinion? Get real.

Excellent post, Marvin.

If there are no rules, then how is all art not equal?

What you're saying is that story structure, thematic elements, development of complex characters, etc...are all meaningless. What Stanley Kubrick or Martin Scorcese have accomplished in their studied technique and methodical storytelling is equal to that of Uwe Boll or a 9 year old writing a story, or even my crappy anti-story. After all, there are no rules. It's all just ephemeral and shapeless, open for interpretation and definition. This is what you are saying.

 

[roach]

If there are no rules, then how is all art not equal?

What you're saying is that story structure, thematic elements, development of complex characters, etc...are all meaningless. What Stanley Kubrick or Martin Scorcese have accomplished in their studied technique and methodical storytelling is equal to that of Uwe Boll or a 9 year old writing a story, or even my crappy anti-story. After all, there are no rules. It's all just ephemeral and shapeless, open for definition. This is what you are saying.

Malachai Nicolle was 5 years old when he co-created Axe Cop. He's 8 now and it's the funniest animated series on TV IMO.

Beethoven was performing at age 7.
Mozart was composing at age 5.
H.P. Lovecraft was writing at age 6.

Never underestimate anyone writing a story.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Malachai Nicolle was 5 years old when he co-created Axe Cop. He's 8 now and it's the funniest animated series on TV IMO.

Beethoven was performing at age 7.
Mozart was composing at age 5.
H.P. Lovecraft was writing at age 6.

Never underestimate anyone writing a story.

huh?

1. Those are the exceptions, not the rule.
2. They improved vastly and exponentially with age.
3. Seeing as they are very much the exception and not the rule (As the vast majority of people-let alone children-cannot pen a complex, challenging, creatively innovative, emotionally resonant script), I used the 9 year old example purely as an anecdotal point in my argument for the above reason. I'm not sure what your point is exactly.

 

[PacificBoy]

My opinion about people's opinion about Mark Waid's opinion.

Ok, so someone doesn't agree with Mark Waid, and that's fine. As informed, as venerated a source he is, his opinion, ultimately, is just another person's on the street since he wasn't directly involved in the movie.

BUT, is there a need to call him and reduce him and his stance to those of a "fanboy", to make a point against his own? Aren't all of us fanboys and fangirls? The moment anyone signs on to this board, a board named Superherohype at that, makes all of us card-carrying geeks and geekettes.

Yeah, I found his in-theatre reactions to Superman killing Zod a tad over the top, but still he gave reasons, his reasons, for disliking it. Me not big on his reaction doesn't mean I can't sit down and take in his reasons for it.

Argue the man's point, don't disparage the man's passion.

 

[roach]

My opinion on your opinion about people's opinion about Mark Waid's opinion


Agreed

My opinion about people's opinion about Mark Waid's opinion.

Ok, so someone doesn't agree with Mark Waid, and that's fine. As informed, as venerated a source he is, his opinion, ultimately, is just another person on the street's since he wasn't directly involved in the movie.

BUT, is there a need to call him and reduce him and his stance to those of a "fanboy", to make a point against his own? Aren't all of us fanboys and fangirls? The moment anyone signs on to this board, a board named Superherohype at that, makes all of us card-carrying geeks and geekettes.

Yeah, I found his in-theatre reactions to Superman killing Zod a tad over the top, but still he gave reasons, his reasons, for disliking it. Me not big on his reaction doesn't mean I can't sit down and take in his reasons for it.

Argue the man's point, don't disparage the man's passion.

 

[Marvin]

My opinion about people's opinion about Mark Waid's opinion.

BUT, is there a need to call him and reduce him and his stance to those of a "fanboy", to make a point against his own? Aren't all of us fanboys and fangirls? The moment anyone signs on to this board, a board named Superherohype at that, makes all of us card-carrying geeks and geekettes.

I don't recall anyone here calling him a fanboy(I could be wrong).
I do recall he himself calling himself that term however.

 

[Marvin]

If there are no rules, then how is all art not equal?

What you're saying is that story structure, thematic elements, development of complex characters, etc...are all meaningless. What Stanley Kubrick or Martin Scorcese have accomplished in their studied technique and methodical storytelling is equal to that of Uwe Boll or a 9 year old writing a story, or even my crappy anti-story. After all, there are no rules. It's all just ephemeral and shapeless, open for interpretation and definition. This is what you are saying.

It's indicative of our cultural establishment. Art on our planet might be chicken scratches and white noise on another such and or advanced planet, not he same deal with science and math or even athletic achievement. So what does that really leave us with? A constuct of our society.

Props to these artists for climbing and achieving something that speaks to our cultural discourse, however at the end of the day it's not all that far removed form this. We have set up our own parameters for what is success and failure in this art form and some filmmakers do well with and in this construct others not so much. It could change at any given moment. Rhythm and Blues didn't exist a couple of centuries ago, electoric music. Something might come along that is held in higher regard than our current construct and unlike science there will be a new measure of "achievement".

A "great art work" of 20thousand years ago isn't going to be measured with in the same paradigm come the 50th century. It's simply a moment. This is far more evident in the world of fashion.

The great art work of the first cave man is seemingly intuitive to our modern children. In a few centuries things might shift further. Kids have film editing assignments in elementary school these days. Wouldn't put much past an inspired youth, not with the way we digest art.

 

[PacificBoy]

My opinion on your opinion about people's opinion about Mark Waid's opinion

That gave me a headache. One too many opinions. t:

 

[roach]

That gave me a headache. One too many opinions. t:

everybody has one.....t:

 

[PacificBoy]

I don't recall anyone here calling him a fanboy(I could be wrong).
I do recall he himself calling himself that term however.

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.

 

[Vid Electricz]

It's indicative of our cultural establishment. Art on our planet might be chicken scratches and white noise on another such and or advanced planet, not he same deal with science and math or even athletic achievement. So what does that really leave us with? A constuct of our society.

Props to these artists for climbing and achieving something that speaks to our cultural discourse, however at the end of the day it's not all that far removed form this. We have set up our own parameters for what is success and failure in this art form and some filmmakers do well with and in this construct others not so much. It could change at any given moment. Rhythm and Blues didn't exist a couple of centuries ago, electoric music. Something might come along that is held in higher regard than our current construct and unlike science there will be a new measure of "achievement".

A "great art work" of 20thousand years ago isn't going to be measured with in the same paradigm come the 50th century. It's simply a moment. This is far more evident in the world of fashion.

The great art work of the first cave man is seemingly intuitive to our modern children. In a few centuries things might shift further. Kids have film editing assignments in elementary school these days. Wouldn't put much past an inspired youth, not with the way we digest art.

I certainly don't disagree with any of this, but it's off point slightly in that it was initially posited that "art" has no rules, no guidlines, nothing. It is essentially ephemeral and definitionless...because it's "art".

Obviously, this isn't true or else we wouldn't have classes teaching children how to edit, schools devoted to teaching technique and developing skills, be it in writing, painting, needlework, whatever.

Even Jazz and Blues have their parameters and guidlines. At which point do they cease to be defined as "Jazz" or "Blues"?

This is what my rebuttal was aimed towards. Denigrating and belittling a craft that an artist has worked their entire life towards mastering by saying there are no rules is insulting and frankly, ignorant.

 

[PacificBoy]

everybody has one.....t:

Our little convo is getting really metaphysical! t:

(For lack of better repartee.)

 

[DA_Champion]

It is ok to sometimes enjoy bad movies and not enjoy great movies. I got more gun out of alien vs predator then out of the maltese falcon. However, I am not going to claim that AvP is the better movie, it's not.

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.

It is a weak story. However, it is ok to still enjoy the movie: it has a good looking cast, a great score, and great visuals. Those things are not meaningless.

 

[DA_Champion]

I certainly don't disagree with any of this, but it's off point slightly in that it was initially posited that "art" has no rules, no guidlines, nothing. It is essentially ephemeral and definitionless...because it's "art".

Obviously, this isn't true or else we wouldn't have classes teaching children how to edit, schools devoted to teaching technique and developing skills, be it in writing, painting, needlework, whatever.

Even Jazz and Blues have their parameters and guidlines. At which point do they cease to be defined as "Jazz" or "Blues"?

This is what my rebuttal was aimed towards. Denigrating and belittling a craft that an artist has worked their entire life towards mastering by saying there are no rules is insulting and frankly, ignorant.

When people dismiss art as not having any rules they are merely demonstrating their ignorance.

 

[Vid Electricz]

It is ok to sometimes enjoy bad movies and not enjoy great movies. I got more gun out of alien vs predator then out of the maltese falcon. However, I am not going to claim that AvP is the better movie, it's not.

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.

It is a weak story. However, it is ok to still enjoy the movie: it has a good looking cast, a great score, and great visuals. Those things are not meaningless.

Exactly. It takes a great skill and technique to put together all of these elements in a way that is stimulating both intellectually (as far as a superhero movie can go which is another discussion) and emotionally resonant. It's an art, if you will

 

[Vid Electricz]

When people dismiss art as not having any rules they are merely demonstrating their ignorance.

 

[roach]

This is what my rebuttal was aimed towards. Denigrating and belittling a craft that an artist has worked their entire life towards mastering by saying there are no rules is insulting and frankly, ignorant.

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.

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.

 

[Marvin]

I certainly don't disagree with any of this, but it's off point slightly in that it was initially posited that "art" has no rules, no guidlines, nothing. It is essentially ephemeral and definitionless...because it's "art".

Obviously, this isn't true or else we wouldn't have classes teaching children how to edit, schools devoted to teaching technique and developing skills, be it in writing, painting, needlework, whatever.

Even Jazz and Blues have their parameters and guidlines. At which point do they cease to be defined as "Jazz" or "Blues"?

This is what my rebuttal was aimed towards. Denigrating and belittling a craft that an artist has worked their entire life towards mastering by saying there are no rules is insulting and frankly, ignorant.

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

 

[roach]

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.

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

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

The trouble with saying there are "rules" to storytelling is that it fosters a one-size-fits all mentality. Some people like linear, others like fragmented narration. Some people like everything tied together, others like things to be more mysterious.

Rules/devices, I think, should be used to AID the story. But I don't think stories should be BOUND to them. Otherwise, we wouldn't have new concepts/devices.

 

[Marvin]

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

Starting with this celebrated gem
[YT]KIxawleLISM[/YT]

character development/rising action...etc
non present.

 

[roach]

History is full of people who were told something can't be done and they did it...especially in film making and storytelling.