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

[Marvin]

Is that so? Well in truth you have answered none of the points I raised only tried to Ineptly explain things but fail.

Maybe it’s your understanding that should be in question. You seem to not understand how superman can fly in space, no matter how many times I explain the lack of the “kryptonite inhibitor effect” occurring.

When Superman flys from earth and into krytpons lower atmosphere and doesn't then drop like a rock, you'll be onto something.

I will go with what you say Kryptons atmosphere completely drains him of his powers and earths nourishes him so what occurs between that little intermediary between earth and the ship..... you know space. You are aware of what occurs in space right? If we go by what your saying He shouldn't be able to take flight in space period.

1. Kryptonian atmosphere inhibits his powers, I would describe it’s effects as a variation of Gold Kryptonite something that inhibits his physiology from processing solar energy a certain way, the “draining effect” again is your own fiction. As in previous films, when you take it away(you know like leave the room with it), his powers tend to reappear.
2. What does space having no atmosphere have to do with the fact that Jor turned off the “gold kryptonite” on the ship, moreover with lack of said inhibitor if you will, and superman tends to get his stored powers back.

Also Goyer seemed to forget something extremely pivotal when he had ghost daddy change the atmosphere to earths, how is Lois Lane killing super powered kryptonians with that gun ( yes super powered since an atmospheric change has occurred) and second why are the krytonians not having sensory overload? I am sure you will have some excuse for it all I look forward to it.

Don't remember Lois "Killing" anyone but it's a well known tradition that kryptonian weaponry has a greater affect on superman than normal weapons, obviously superman has a stronger body than his peers to an unspecified degree given his upbringing. Haven’t seen the film in a while but I do remember the kryptonians that engaged with Lois having helmets on.
As for sensory overload I suppose there is no accounting for that amongst the scientist(only guy I can remember without a helmet for a prolonged period). The effect is probably greater on earth than a ship in a space vacuum.

That being so, I never said the film was perfect, can't name a genre film that isn't open to “Everything wrong with in 6 minutes" oversights deconstruction. I’ve raised my own concerns about the choreography of the ship plotting. Given the lack of anyone mentioning it in reviews however, I suspect it was done effectively enough.

 

[roach]

I haven't seen the movie in a while and can't seem to find the script online but where are we getting this notion that Earth's atmosphere gives him his powers?
My understanding is that:
*His powers come from the sun.
*Exposure to Krypton's atmosphere takes away his powers (pretty much kryptonite).

The times that we see him go weak are because of exposure to krypton's atmosphere. On Zod's ship he is weak due to exposure to the atmosphere. When the atmospheric agent is removed he's back to being super.

 

[Marvin]

^That's probably the understanding most people walk away from the film with.
Seems consistent with the films internal logic.

 

[Vid Electricz]

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. Be warned, It's quite long:

http://badassdigest.com/2013/07/03/film-crit-hulk-man-of-steel/

Particularly appropriate is this excerpt on "opinions":

WE KNOW IN OUR GUT IF WE LIKE OR DISLIKE SOMETHING WHEN WE WATCH IT, BUT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO ACTUALLY EXPLAIN WHY WE LIKE OR DISLIKE SOMETHING, WE JUST END UP GIVING OUR REASONS BASED ON OUR RELATIVE LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF THE THING ITSELF.

FOR INSTANCE, HULK DOESN'T KNOW **** ABOUT CARS.

STILL, HULK DRIVES A CAR EVERY DAY (JUMPING AROUND IS TIRING). HULK KNOWS WHAT CARS HULK THINKS LOOK COOL (1963 CHEVY STINGRAYS). HULK CAN GET IN A CAR AND TELL YOU IF IT FEELS GOOD TO DRIVE OR NOT. WHICH ALL MEANS THAT HULK BUYS AND CONSUMES CARS IN A TOTALLY FUNCTIONAL STATE. BUT HULK DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THEM. HULK COULDN'T TELL YOU HOW THEY WORK OR WHAT IS WHAT IN AN ENGINE. AND SO HULK'S OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT A CAR IS "GOOD OR NOT" SHOULDN'T REALLY BE CONSIDERED WITH THE SAME VALIDITY AS SOMEONE WHO CAN ACTUALLY ENGINEER OR PROPERLY FIX A CAR. THEY SIMPLY KNOW WHAT MAKES FOR A GOOD CAR. BUT THE THING IS THAT WE ALL HAVE OUR RELATIVE AREAS OF EXPERTISE. MEANING THAT SAME MECHANIC CAN WATCH A MOVIE AND GO "that ****ing sucked cause I hated his stupid face!" AND YET THEY CAN SIMPLY HEAR HULK'S ENGINE AND IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM FROM THE SOUND IT MAKES ALONE. IT IS ABOUT EXPERTISE IN A FIELD.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT WHEN IT COMES TO MOVIES WE HAVE THIS ODD HABIT OF THINKING THAT:
1) WE ALL HAVE A LEVEL OF EXPERTISE JUST BECAUSE WE ARE AVID CONSUMERS.
2) ACTUAL EXPERTS DON'T EXIST.

AND NEITHER OF WHICH IS ALL THAT TRUE. IT'S THE SAME REASON SO MANY PEOPLE JUST ASSUME THEY CAN WRITE A SCRIPT / STORY OR BE AN ACTOR WITHOUT MUCH EXPERIENCE (HINT: THAT DOESN'T WORK OUT VERY OFTEN). AND IT'S JUST A FAILURE TO SEE HOW MUCH OF WHAT THEY ARE ENGAGING IS ACTUALLY TECHNICAL OR BUILT ON EXPERIENCE. WHAT MAKES IT SO FUNNY IS THAT IT'S THE KIND OF THINKING YOU RARELY SEE IN SPORTS. NOBODY ASSUMES THEY CAN JUST RUN OUT ON THE FIELD AND STRIKE OUT THE SIDE (IF YOU DON'T LIKE BASEBALL, THAT MEANS "DO REALLY GOOD"). PEOPLE DRIVE EVERYDAY, BUT NO ONE ASSUMES THEY CAN JUST HOP INTO THE DAYTONA 500 AND COMPETE. BUT FOR SOME REASON WE DO MAKE THIS ASSUMPTION WITH MOVIES ALL THE TIME. WE ASSUME THAT JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW THE END RESULT OF HOW A MEDIA EXPERIENCE AFFECTS US, WE THEREFORE UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKED ON US. AND IT GIVES RISE TO ONGOING HABITS OF OPINION THAT MAY BE TOTALLY JUSTIFIED ON AN EMOTIONAL LEVEL, BUT THEY ARE NOT "RIGHT" IN THE WAY THEY ARE DIAGNOSING WHAT IS GOOD AND BAD. FOR INSTANCE, SOMEONE CAN DISLIKE SOPHIE'S CHOICE BECAUSE IT MADE THEM SAD, BUT THAT DOES NOT VALIDATE THEIR OPINION THAT IT IS "A BAD MOVIE." IT DEPENDS ON A CRUCIAL UNDERSTANDING OF FUNCTION, NOT MERE EFFECT.
AGAIN, THE THING ABOUT TANGIBLE DETAILS IS THAT WE ALL HAVE OUR RELATIVE CAPACITIES TO PERCEIVE BEYOND THEM OR FALL VICTIM TO THEM. FOR INSTANCE, TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE MAY WATCH NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN AND BOTH LIKE IT, BUT ONE WILL JUSTIFY IT WITH SOMETHING SIMPLE LIKE "It was awesome they had the gunfight in the hotel!" WHEREAS THE OTHER COULD HAVE MORE THEMATIC, NUANCED LEANINGS AND SAY: "The ending is just a perfect encapsulation of how one essentially 'retires' from the world of material pursuits when they've seen the cost of those pursuits and the cavernous loss that it creates! The constancy of death is haunting!" BOTH CAME TO THE SAME EVALUATION OF "GOOD" THROUGH RADICALLY DIFFERENT MEANS. THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE FOR PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T LIKE THE MOVIE. ONE PERSON CAN JUSTIFY THEIR DISLIKE BY SAYING "I thought the ending was stupid! I didn't get it! I wish we saw him get killed!" WHEREAS SOMEONE ELSE CAN SAY "I have a long-winded explanation for how the approach to the ending does not satisfy me on a cathartic level, even though that's totally the point of this movie and it builds to that message beautifully!" ...OKAY SOMEONE WOULD NEVER SAY IT LIKE THAT, BUT HULK LOVES THAT MOVIE SO DEAL WITH IT.
THE POINT IS THAT WE COULD JUST CHALK THESE DIFFERENCES IN OPINION OVER THE MOVIE UP TO A MATTER OF DRUTHERS, BUT WHILE EVERYONE IS CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION BEING RIGHT. THAT'S SIMPLY NOT WHAT SUBJECTIVITY IS ABOUT, YET WE MAKE THIS MISTAKE ALL THE TIME. JUST BECAUSE OPINIONS AREN'T FACTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOME OPINIONS AREN'T MORE COHERENT, HELPFUL AND PRODUCTIVE THAN OTHERS. AND THE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "The gun fight is awesome!" AND THE "perfect encapsulation of..." IS THE QUALITY OF INSIGHT. IT'S THE ABILITY TO ENGAGE THE TEXT FOR ITS EXPRESSED PURPOSE, AND THEN THEIR RESPECTIVE ABILITIES TO PROVIDE AN EDUCATIONAL PROCESS TO THE READER, FAR BEYOND THE LAME CONCLUSION OF BAD/GOOD WITHIN THE OPINION ITSELF.

 

[Krumm]

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. Be warned, It's quite long:

http://badassdigest.com/2013/07/03/film-crit-hulk-man-of-steel/

Particularly appropriate is this excerpt on "opinions":

While I agree with all of that, I'm not sure what you are ultimately driving at.

 

[Vid Electricz]

While I agree with all of that, I'm not sure what you are ultimately driving at.

The erroneous and widely accepted belief that we are all somehow experts and that because film is "art", it is completely ephemeral and somehow outside of the boundaries of being executed poorly/incorrectly.

 

[Krumm]

The erroneous and widely accepted belief that we are all somehow experts and that because film is "art", it is completely ephermeral and somehow outside of the boundaries of being executed poorly/incorrectly.

Agreed but people with informed opinions can still disagree on something.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Agreed but people with informed opinions can still disagree on something.

Therein lies the problem. Not all of them are informed (or even close to it), yet still view themselves as experts.

 

[Marvin]

Therein lies the problem. Not all of them are informed (or even close to it), yet still view themselves as experts.

Actually the real problem is that the two foremost experts can disagree on something..because it's an art, unlike science there is no demonstrable correct answer to anything.
Disagree?

alot of what can be taken from hulks excerpt(outside of the caps) is that most of us running around expressing our opinion on the film(good or bad) are of little to no consequence relative to he and his contemporaries.
I would add one point of contention to be considered, just because you can't hop into and drive in Daytona, doesn't you aren't qualified to judge it. Kinda stomps all over the industry of commentating in part.

 

[Krumm]

Therein lies the problem. Not all of them are informed (or even close to it), yet still view themselves as experts.

Then who do you considered informed?

 

[Vid Electricz]

Then who do you considered informed?

The individual that demonstrates a level of expertise in said field.

 

[roach]

So since few/none of us in this thread can be considered experts in movies and/or screenwriting...then none of us can really say that Man of Steel was good/bad.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Actually the real problem is that the two foremost experts can disagree on something..because it's an art, unlike science there is no demonstrable correct answer to anything.
Disagree?

Again, the boundaries are flexible, not non-existent; particularly for a film modelled on the hero's journey/based on the tradional three act sctructure (as MoS most definitely is).

I would add one point of contention to be considered, just because you can't hop into and drive in Daytona, doesn't you aren't qualified to judge it. Kinda stomps all over the industry of commentating in part.

Fair enough. Still, not having done/being able to do said task robs the comentator of some degree of credibility in their ability to successfully assess the ability of the subject.

 

[Krumm]

The individual that demonstrates a level of expertise in said field.

That is rather vague. Expertise is fairly subjective.

 

[TheBat812]

While I agree with all of that, I'm not sure what you are ultimately driving at.

If anything, all this does is lend credence to the idea that those of us with actual film/writing backgrounds in the film industry actually merit a bit more value than either a fanboy or a comic book writer. Not that our opinions are better, but that they are derived from a more experienced and well-versed knowledge of the subject we're discussing.

 

[Krumm]

If anything, all this does is lend credence to the idea that those of us with actual film/writing backgrounds in the film industry actually merit a bit more value than either a fanboy or a comic book writer. Not that our opinions are better, but that they are derived from a more experienced and well-versed knowledge of the subject we're discussing.

Agreed but we (I believe you are one also, correct?) are not necessarily "experts." What that means? I'm not too sure.

 

[Vid Electricz]

That is rather vague. Expertise is fairly subjective.

Seriously? Having a high degree of understanding and skill in said craft/field.

 

[TheBat812]

Agreed but we (I believe you are one also, correct?) are not necessarily "experts." What that means? I'm not too sure.

There truly are few "experts", because any artist worth his salt knows there's always more to be learned, and that art truly is subjective. Even a genius like Walter Murch would offer his opinion without pretending that it's the end-all-be-all. All anybody can do is offer up their opinion. Some people's opinions are more informed than others, having been based upon years of experience in trying to actively create art, but that doesn't mean they're perfect.

And ya, I'm a sound designer. t:

 

[jimbob]

Expertise is completely and utterly irrelevant. In science, facts are all that count. In art, facts are completely a matter of opinion. Einstein thought that the universe wasn't expanding. If Tiger Woods slices a tee shot into the lake, anybody can tell you that was a bad shot. I think Jennifer Lawrence is ugly. Roach likes red delicious apples. Montserrat Caballe has an incredible voice, but some people prefer the sound of mating cats. Stanley Kubrick picked White Men Can't Jump as one of his favorite films. Does level of expertise make any of these things right or wrong? Of course not.

 

[roach]

Expertise is completely and utterly irrelevant. In science, facts are all that count. In art, facts are completely a matter of opinion. Einstein thought that the universe wasn't expanding. If Tiger Woods slices a tee shot into the lake, anybody can tell you that was a bad shot. I think Jennifer Lawrence is ugly. Roach likes red delicious apples. Montserrat Caballe has an incredible voice, but some people prefer the sound of mating cats. Stanley Kubrick picked White Men Can't Jump as one of his favorite films. Does level of expertise make any of these things right or wrong? Of course not.

Mmmm apples

 

[Vid Electricz]

Expertise is completely and utterly irrelevant. In science, facts are all that count. In art, facts are completely a matter of opinion. Einstein thought that the universe wasn't expanding. If Tiger Woods slices a tee shot into the lake, anybody can tell you that was a bad shot. I think Jennifer Lawrence is ugly. Roach likes red delicious apples. Montserrat Caballe has an incredible voice, but some people prefer the sound of mating cats. Stanley Kubrick picked White Men Can't Jump as one of his favorite films. Does level of expertise make any of these things right or wrong? Of course not.

Here we go with this stuff again. This conversation does not concern the elementary and simplistic "right"/"wrong" of an opinion. Communicated perfectly in the excerpt I posted earlier:

WHILE EVERYONE IS CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION BEING RIGHT. THAT'S SIMPLY NOT WHAT SUBJECTIVITY IS ABOUT, YET WE MAKE THIS MISTAKE ALL THE TIME. JUST BECAUSE OPINIONS AREN'T FACTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOME OPINIONS AREN'T MORE COHERENT, HELPFUL AND PRODUCTIVE THAN OTHERS. AND THE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "The gun fight is awesome!" AND THE "perfect encapsulation of..." IS THE QUALITY OF INSIGHT. IT'S THE ABILITY TO ENGAGE THE TEXT FOR ITS EXPRESSED PURPOSE, AND THEN THEIR RESPECTIVE ABILITIES TO PROVIDE AN EDUCATIONAL PROCESS TO THE READER, FAR BEYOND THE LAME CONCLUSION OF BAD/GOOD WITHIN THE OPINION ITSELF.

 

[Marvin]

Mmmm apples

I used to prefer granny smith but, who was I kidding. I came home to the glory of the red.

 

[roach]

I used to prefer granny smith but, who was I kidding. I came home to the glory of the red.

Granny Smith will work in a pinch.

 

[Krumm]

Seriously? Having a high degree of understanding and skill in said craft/field.

Yeah and that's subjective as to what one considers a high degree.

Roach has a Masters in creative writing, which I would consider high, does his opinion count?

I've studied screenwriting and have written scripts myself. Do I count?

Mark Waid doesn't write screenplays. Does he count?

 

[jimbob]

Vidz, it's tough to read what you posted earlier. Can you turn it down a bit? Why do you constantly argue with yourself? You say that some opinions are more informed than others, but that doesn't mean they're more likely to be "right" or "wrong." Then you use said opinions to support your own and that we should all follow suit. If everyone followed Einstein when he thought the universe was in a static state, we'd all be wrong. If we all followed Geoff Johns when he said Green Lantern was a great movie, it would have made a lot more money. By the way, while I enjoy red delicious, I'm more of a Fuji man at this point.