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

[Krumm]

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.

And two people can have equally insightful and differing opinions.

 

[Krumm]

Stanley Kubrick picked White Men Can't Jump as one of his favorite films.

As he should. Wanna fight about it?! t:

 

[roach]

It's a slippery slope. Most studio movies are made by experts. Goyer has 19 produced film scripts, 26 tv scripts, 2 video games, 3 novels...I would say that this would make Goyer an expert in story. So if someone didn't like The writing of MOS and an expert wrote MOS...then any opinion not stated by an expert that says MOS was bad is invalid because an expert wrote the movie.

 

[jimbob]

As he should. Wanna fight about it?! t:

Heck, no. I can picture Kubrick discussing the merits of Kurosawa, and comparing elements of Seven Samurai to when Billy Hoyle came on the scene to hustle Sidney.

 

[roach]

Heck, no. I can picture Kubrick discussing the merits of Kurosawa, and comparing elements of Seven Samurai to when Billy Hoyle came on the scene to hustle Sidney.

Mind blown

 

[jimbob]

It's a slippery slope. Most studio movies are made by experts. Goyer has 19 produced film scripts, 26 tv scripts, 2 video games, 3 novels...I would say that this would make Goyer an expert in story. So if someone didn't like The writing of MOS and an expert wrote MOS...then any opinion not stated by an expert that says MOS was bad is invalid because an expert wrote the movie.

Yeah, but obviously he's a talentless hack. WB is SO STUPID you know, they just keep hiring people like him to write blockbusters. That's why they're the top studio this year, #2 in 2012, #2 in 2011, #1 in 2010, 2009 and 2008. They have no idea how to successfully make movies. If they would only listen to the experts who post here...

 

[Vid Electricz]

It's a slippery slope. Most studio movies are made by experts. Goyer has 19 produced film scripts, 26 tv scripts, 2 video games, 3 novels...I would say that this would make Goyer an expert in story. So if someone didn't like The writing of MOS and an expert wrote MOS...then any opinion not stated by an expert that says MOS was bad is invalid because an expert wrote the movie.

Ah yes, the old quantity game. Uwe Boll has written 16 features and directed 25+.

Also, Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus are the top selling artists in 2013.

Experts.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Yeah, but obviously he's a talentless hack. WB is SO STUPID you know, they just keep hiring people like him to write blockbusters. That's why they're the top studio this year, #2 in 2012, #2 in 2011, #1 in 2010, 2009 and 2008. They have no idea how to successfully make movies. If they would only listen to the experts who post here...

Not a talentless hack by any means (and no one ever suggested such), but he did make a great many missteps with MoS. I think it's important to be critical of these sorts of things to improve ones own understanding and breadth of knowledge.

 

[jimbob]

Ah yes, the old quantity game. Uwe Boll has written 16 features and directed 25+.

Also, Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus are the top selling artists in 2013.

Experts.

Quantity not required. Which of Mark Waid's movies is comparable to TDK or Dark City? I'll wait while you look it up.

 

[Krumm]

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

Very cool. I do a lot of sound designing with my edits. It's all creative and I'm sure it sounds like a mess, since I don't understand the technical side of it, but it's always cool to hear what it's like when it comes back. Fascinating stuff.

 

[roach]

Ah yes, the old quantity game. Uwe Boll has written 16 features and directed 25+.

and based on his ability to write 16 movies and directed 25 can't he be called an expert. Regardless of how you feel about the movies he has written.He knows things about writing and filmmaking that someone who has never written or directed a movie doesn't.

Also, Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus are the top selling artists in 2013.

I have never recorded an album....wouldn't Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus know more about the process of making an album than me.

Experts.

But they are aren't they?

 

[Vid Electricz]

Quantity not required. Which of Mark Waid's movies is comparable to TDK or Dark City? I'll wait while you look it up.

Huh? What are you on about with Mark Waid again? Last I checked, we were discussing Goyer's MoS script.

Now, if you want to do a critical analysis of some of Waid's work, well, that's a different story.

 

[Skrilla31]

Yeah, but obviously he's a talentless hack. WB is SO STUPID you know, they just keep hiring people like him to write blockbusters. That's why they're the top studio this year, #2 in 2012, #2 in 2011, #1 in 2010, 2009 and 2008. They have no idea how to successfully make movies. If they would only listen to the experts who post here...

Did people pay to see MOS because of Superman or because of David Goyer.

You could have a f'n special needs case write the new Star Wars movie and guess what people are gonna line up in droves to see it anyway. Has very little to do with the competence level of the execs in charge.

 

[roach]

Not a talentless hack by any means (and no one ever suggested such), but he did make a great many missteps with MoS. I think it's important to be critical of these sorts of things to improve ones own understanding and breadth of knowledge.

if based on your idea that informed opinion trump uninformed opinions....if he is an expert and you are not...by your own admission his opinion trumps yours.

 

[roach]

Did people pay to see MOS because of Superman or because of David Goyer.

You could have a f'n special needs case write the new Star Wars movie and guess what people are gonna line up in droves to see it anyway. Has very little to do with the competence level of the execs in charge.

There are no writers that are draws in Hollywood.

 

[jimbob]

Huh? What are you on about with Mark Waid again? Last I checked, we were discussing Goyer's MoS script.

Now, if you want to do a critical analysis of some of Waid's work, well, that's a different story.

"Mark Waid is a HUGE fan of the character and understands storytelling and character arcs. 99% of posters on these boards do not. I'll take what this guy (who has been practicing his craft for 30 years) says over some anonymous poster who understands nothing about what makes a good story or character arc. Informed > Uninformed"
Recognize your post? 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.

 

[Vid Electricz]

and based on his ability to write 16 movies and directed 25 can't he be called an expert. Regardless of how you feel about the movies he has written.He knows things about writing and filmmaking that someone who has never written or directed a movie doesn't.

If I do 100 drawings and they are all of equally terrible quality, and I never make the effort to improve the quality of said drawings, can I say I am an expert or that I now know more than you on the subject of drawing?

I have never recorded an album....wouldn't Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus know more about the process of making an album than me.

I am sure they know enough about singing (as far as it is their actual voice in the featured song), but they don't record their own music and they certainly don't play their own instruments and generally don't write their own songs. I would say that their level of expertise is perhaps above yours or my own, but far beneath, say, David Bowie or Mick Jagger.

Fortunately, there are different levels of skill ranging from amatuer to master.

But they are aren't they?

Debatable. In the low end of their field perhaps.

 

[Skrilla31]

Look we all have different standards and criteria. If someone prefers a big mac to a filet mignon, that's their right.

Personally I thought MOS was a steaming pile of s***, but hey who am I tell someone else they're wrong for thinking otherwise. I mean sure I might look at them differently but they have every right to think it was a masterwork. Who cares what their expertize level is.

 

[Vid Electricz]

if based on your idea that informed opinion trump uninformed opinions....if he is an expert and you are not...by your own admission his opinion trumps yours.

I'm so glad I don't see the world in black and white- As though you're either an "expert" or you're not. lol. There is no degree of variation to you.

"Mark Waid is a HUGE fan of the character and understands storytelling and character arcs. 99% of posters on these boards do not. I'll take what this guy (who has been practicing his craft for 30 years) says over some anonymous poster who understands nothing about what makes a good story or character arc. Informed > Uninformed"

Recognize your post? 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.

1. This post is from at almost 10 pages ago. We covered all the ground on Waid that there is to be covered. The conversation, did in fact move on.
2.Absolutely I recognize my post, and I still stand by the point that Waid's history and skill as a storyteller/quality of work, lend to his level of expertise. My original and main point concerning informed v. uninformed opinions remains unchanged.

I'm sorry but the twisted logic and degree to which you have entirely missed the point here is hilarious.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

"Mark Waid is a HUGE fan of the character and understands storytelling and character arcs. 99% of posters on these boards do not. I'll take what this guy (who has been practicing his craft for 30 years) says over some anonymous poster who understands nothing about what makes a good story or character arc. Informed > Uninformed"
Recognize your post? 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.

Waid hasn't written for FILM, so this is totally straw-man argument. I bet if he did, I think he'd produce great stuff. This statement like saying that Tommy Wiseau is a better screenwriter than Grant Morrison

 

[Vid Electricz]

Waid hasn't written for FILM, so this is totally straw-man argument. I bet if he did, I think he'd produce great stuff. This statement like saying that Tommy Wiseau is a better screenwriter than Grant Morrison

Boom. Thank you.

As an aside: If Waid's script for Kingdom Come, if adapted to film, would be absolutely stellar.

 

[Krumm]

I'm so glad I don't see the world in black and white- As though you're either an "expert" or you're not. lol. There is no degree of variation to you.



1. This post is from at almost 10 pages ago. We covered all the ground on Waid that there is to be covered. The conversation, did in fact move on.
2.Absolutely I recognize my post, and I still stand by the point that Waid's history and skill as a storyteller/quality of work, lend to his level of expertise. My original and main point concerning informed v. uninformed opinions remains unchanged.

I'm sorry but the twisted logic and degree to which you have entirely missed the point here is hilarious.

I agree with informed vs uninformed (at least the existence of) but his argument makes sense. As I said from the get-go, your argument at this point is a bit garbled.

 

[Vid Electricz]

I agree with informed vs uninformed (at least the existence of) but his argument makes sense. As I said from the get-go, your argument at this point is a bit garbled.

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.

 

[TheBat812]

Waid hasn't written for FILM, so this is totally straw-man argument. I bet if he did, I think he'd produce great stuff. This statement like saying that Tommy Wiseau is a better screenwriter than Grant Morrison

I'm sorry, that's not a good argument at all. You can't qualify somebody on something they haven't done. Simply not how it works.

Furthermore, as far as what was posted, Waid speaks much more about the characterization not being what he wanted than of the quality of the film.

What exactly ARE we arguing here? I thought we were discussing cinematic issues with MOS, which is why we were discussing the merit of opinions from an objective filmic standpoint. IMO, I give more credence to opinions of those working within the field, because even if they aren't experts, they have spent more time and energy in an active sense than those who haven't.

The layman can criticize a work of art all he wants and is totally justified in doing so, but there is simply a different viewpoint of those who've actually created works in that same medium. It's easy to point out flaws of something from an outside perspective, but those who work in the industry recognize flaws while focusing more on the positives of the work. If we're going to critique a work, we look at grander things than "Was Krypton's realization 100% believable?" or "Why didn't Clark try to save every person possible in the midst of his first ever fight?", etc. We look at things like "Were the thematic implications of the film in line with the character's growth? And how did they help each other to build the protagonist's arc?" Most criticisms' of the film tend to be the former. Were there executional errors? You bet. But the content of the script was still solid and a great start. Goyer clearly understands the character and made Clark more human and relatable to me than any previous incarnation. He felt like a person, not an ideal.

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

The problem is you're only using it when it fits your opinion. I get it, you respect Waid's characterization of Superman and his abilities as a comic book writer. But if we're talking about being informed versus uninformed, Waid is classified as uninformed with regards to filmmaking, whereas roach would be classified as informed given his studies and his active work in the field of screenwriting.

 

[The Guard]

Getting a bit tired of people whining about inconsistencies in the film. "Inconsistencies" that they perceive, based on some assumption they made about a character or a part of the film, that fly in the face of both what is told and shown to us. Basically, some people misinterpret what the film actually shows or tells, and then whine about the actual content of the film contradicting their own uninformed assumptions about the film.

Regarding what Clark wants as a character...it's quite clear that he wants to find his place in the world and his purpose as a son of two worlds. It's not hard to figure this out. That's what pretty much ALL of the drama in the film is about. These are very obvious and very relatable concepts.

The argument about Clark not making his own decisions or driving the plot forward...I'm starting to think some here are just unaware of what it means to make your own decisions, to be honest, and not familiar with the concepts of agency and free will. Yes, Clark is reluctant to reveal himself to the world, but even with that, he is still an active character in terms of searching for his origins, choosing his level of involvement in events, and using his powers to help people.

Yes, Zod coming to Earth is the impetus for Clark to reveal himself and surrender to the military, and to warn them. But being put in a tight spot with an apparently clear moral choice doesn't change the fact that you still, as a character, have to make a decision and ACT, both to drive the plot forward and to evolve the story and yourself as a character.

Getting advice from others doesn't invalidate your role in taking action as a character anymore than it does in real life. The same holds true for many, if not most, movie characters in cinema; are their decisions and contributions to their "world" suddenly invalid? No, it's simply cinematic convention, and also something that happens in the real world.

I'm well past the point of being able to take complaints about Jor-El beating Zod when he absolutely has to seriously.

First, no, Jor-El does not EASILY handle Zod. The fight is pretty even at first, with a few back and forth swings in momentum until about the final third of the fight, when Jor-El gains the upper hand.

Most of the arguments against Jor-El being able to beat Zod lack perspective and logic, even from a storytelling standpoint, which they claim to be considering. Because the event ADDS to the story and its emotional weight along with enhancing the plot.

Yes, the story calls for it, and that's the main reason it happens, and that does not invalidate the event in the least, from a structural or emotional standpoint. But the movie also expects you to be able to figure out that, based on what we see:

-Zod is never ascribed any particular level of physical skill, so no, nothing Jor-El does flies in the face of anything else told or shown to us.

-Jor-El can obviously fight, as evidenced by the fact that he can obviously fight.

Jor-El had a suit of battle armor in his house. He knew how to fight, and how to use weapons. He clearly wasn’t just a scientist or a "pencil pusher".

-Zod is not infallible, as evidenced by the fact that he is shown to be fallible.
-Sometimes people with more to lose in a given situation fight harder, and win. This is storytelling and cinematic convention at work and something that happens in real life. It's not a sports boxing match. It's a knock down drag out fight, with both luck and skill involved in the outcome.

I can’t believe the amount of overanalytical whining about science-fiction concepts for explaining Superman's powers.

Yeah, let’s whine about the guy who can fly, lift incredible weight and shoot heat from his eyes getting his powers from a “younger star” instead of a “red sun”. Because of course, one of those actually makes sense more than the other one does, in the context of a man who flies, shoots heat from his eyes, etc, right? I mean, seriously, does a Masters or a PhD in something teach you what actually causes people to have powers like Superman's?

BTW, the “young sun” bit? I don't think it's just science exposition within the film. It’s a veiled metaphor. Earth, by extension, is understood to be younger and still having a chance, whereas Krypton was an older, advanced civilization that was doomed.

Faora's line about evolution was never meant to be a core theme of the film. That is just there to explain why the Kryptonians feel they are superior to humans, which explains why they do what they do later on in the film. It also speaks to Kryptonian society's arrogance and closemindedness, as others have pointed out.

Someone also said that Zod never gains an advantage over Clark. This is simply not true. Zod more or less kicks the crap out of Superman until the last part of the Metropolis battle.

There's no reason Zod should be seen as anything less than a dangerous presence in this film, pathetic elements aside. Know why? Because what he does is still threatening and intimidating. Oh, because once Jor-El beat him in a fight, Zod leveling half of Metropolis doesn't matter when considering the weight of his actions?

There's also been an argument about why Superman was able to handle Faora and Nam-Ek but not Zod as well in the final battle.

First, Superman got his butt handed to him by EVERYONE he fought at one point or another, including the squid machine thingie.

Second, Faora and Nam-Ek are trying to fight Superman, and to stop him, in the prior sequence. They are not raging and out of control and seeking wholesale slaughter as Zod is, nor have they begun to master their powers to the extent that Zod does at the end of the film. Logically, Superman WOULD likely have more trouble in a one on one scenario with Zod in that state.

But aside from all that, none of the fighting should rely on an "equation". There’s no mathematical value or certainty of when someone can beat someone else in a fight, anymore than it is always certain when a particular sports player will succeed over another, or a team defeat another team. It's like whining over whether it makes sense for the Hobbits to be able to defeat any enemies in combat.

Regardless, Jor-El “Nerfing Zod”, as it has been put, is important for us to see. Zod has to fail. That’s part of his character’s motivation, and continues to be part of his character's motivations right up to the end. Fear of failure, Of not being able to protect Krypton.

The atmospheric change from Earth to Krypton removing Superman's powers does, indeed make sense. People are looking at this the wrong way.

The atmosphere is a foreign one to him. One his system is not adapted or suited to. Here on Earth, if we get to certain altitudes or into certain environments, with different pressures and atmospheric compositions or conditions than we are used to, our human bodies, especially if not used to a locale or regulated somehow, can start to shut down, get sick, etc.

Which is what happens to Superman when first exposed to Krypton’s atmosphere, and to Faora on Earth.

It’s not only a nod to the effects of Red Sun radiation removing his powers in the comics. It’s also a nod to Kryptonite’s effects, which weaken him and sicken him.

Point being, it’s not just ABOUT power loss. They're not trying to take his powers away, they're trying to incapacitate him, period. It's about him being too weak/sick to FUNCTION, let alone fight. They could have caused him to faint, and the effects would have been the same. His system is rejecting a foreign atmosphere. If his system isn't functioning, he couldn't use his powers anyway.

And the overarching argument re: Superman not saving people/people being in danger, seems to be that seeing the one sequence where Superman prevents Zod from killing innocents after begging him is not powerful enough within the structure of the film to fulfill this needed element of a superhero film. I disagree. I think, despite the fact that its only one sequence, that its still EASILY the most relevant, powerful and conflicted “people in danger/superhero must save them" sequence we’ve seen recently on film.