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

[king666]

Hulk's "THE IMPORTANCE OF DRAMATIZING CHARACTER" (based on MOS) is great.

 

[jimbob]

"The review of MoS by "HULK" is the best I have seen. He is clearly a brilliant man. For the record, his other reviews are great too.
Every time I read one of his reviews, I change my mind about something and learn a great deal"
"HULK has made more and better original arguments than this entire thread combined.
If you think his review is stupid, than you need to reread and reread his review, until you can grasp his brilliance."
"Fact is, we are all fortunate to live in the internet era, where we have the privilege to read the musings of someone as brilliant as HULK"
"Hulk's writing has been known to exponentially increase IQ scores as well as cure cancer and impotence. He is available to write whatever sort of article you like, even a special song for a wedding or bar mitzvah. Hulk does lawn care and auto detailing too."
Okay, I made that last one up. It's okay, Da Champion, you can admit the name Hulk was taken here and he's really you. This attempt at third party self-promotion has crossed the line into bizarre silliness. Good night and good luck.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

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.

The only problem I have with the atmosphere power loss is that we're told Clark as a baby was caused great sickness for months when adapting to Earth's conditions, much like when, as an adult, he suffered what can be assumed the reversal aboard Black Zero.

Yet other Kryptonians, like Faora and Zod, adapt to Earth's conditions very, very quickly.

 

[D.P.]

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.

Read it, then read it again.

 

[Krumm]

It is the pseudonym of a film/tv critic.

I know. Read my post again and again until you get it.

 

[DA_Champion]

This thread really took a wrong turn. Instead of legitimately discussing what went wrong with the film, and how it went wrong and how it could be done better, and also what went right with the film and which factors made those parts right, we have reverted to the primitive and less mature discussion of whether or not the movie was good.

These are facts:

1) The movie suffered a 65% second week drop due to extremely poor word of mouth. That is worse than each of The Wolverine, Iron Man 3, Star Trek into Darkness, Oblivion, World War Z, Fast and Furious 6, GI Joe 2, Pacific Rim, Elysium, pretty much every single major blockbuster I looked at. Audiences wanted to see a great Superman movie. The movie made 150 million on opening weekend, when nobody had any idea what the writing was. The 150 million was not because of Goyer, it was not in spite of Goyer, it was independent of Goyer. Then, people told their family and friends about the movie... and the film suffered the worst second week drop of any major blockbuster among those I looked up.

2) MoS won't win any serious awards for storytelling.

3) WB is choosing not to make an MoS II. Whereas each of Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Batman, Spider Man, the X-Men, Fantastic Four, got stand-alone sequels, Superman is not. The fact is, if WB felt confident in this franchise, they would be commissioning both MoS II and BvS.

4) Professional critics rate MoS as one of the worst comic book movies made since Blade (I only include movies going back to Blade, because I give Goyer credit where credit is due, he had a big effect on the industry).

Dark Knight, 94%, 288 reviews
Spider Man 2, 94%, 248 reviews
Iron Man, 93%, 243 reviews
The Avengers, 92%, 301 reviews
Spider Man, 89%, 224 reviews
Dark Knight Rises, 88%, 304 reviews
X Men: First Class, 87%, 243 reviews
X Men 2, 87%, 224 reviews
Hellboy 2, 87%, 209 reviews
Batman Begins, 85%, 265 reviews
X Men, 82%, 243 reviews
Hellboy, 81%, 196 reviews
Captain America, 79%, 220 reviews
Iron Man 3, 78%, 270 reviews
Sin City, 78%, 242 reviews
Thor, 77%, 261 reviews
Superman Returns, 75%, 229
Iron Man 2, 73%, 275 reviews
The Amazing Spider Man, 73%, 284 reviews
The Wolverine, 68%, 191 reviews
The Incredible Hulk, 67%, 218 reviews
Watchmen, 64%, 289 reviews
Spider Man 3, 63%, 243 reviews
The Hulk, 62%, 229 reviews
300, 60%, 226 reviews
Blade 2, 59%, 136 reviews
X Men 3, 57%, 229 reviews
Man of Steel, 56%, 271 reviews
Blade, 55%, 84 reviews
Daredevil, 45%, 214 reviews
X Men Origins: The Wolverine, 38%, 222
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, 37%, 166 reviews
The Punisher, 29%, 167 reviews
Green Lantern, 26%, 227 reviews
Fantastic Four, 26%, 202 reviews
Sucker Punch, 23%, 202 reviews
Blade 3, 26%, 164 reviews
Elektra, 10%, 150 reviews

It's rated as the 11th worst comic book movie out of 38 that I looked up (let me know if I forgot some important ones). As there were only 271 reviews, there's a ~17% (thus totally plausible) chance that the true score was 64% or higher (Take statistics 101 and understand the chapter on the Bernoulli distribution if you want to know how I got that), but even at 64% it would only be average. I think it's worth understanding what happened here. Why did a movie that had so much going for it do so badly? I find the question of why things work and why things fail to be interesting in itself. I'm not interested in answers like "critics are dumb". They're not dumb, I bet that nearly all of those 271 reviewers have a better understanding of film than nearly every one on this forum, and most are ahead every single one of us.

HULK's theory, as far as I understand it, is the same as most I've seen, that the movie did not really develop the characters, and so we could not care for them. He just went into greater detail than I've seen elsewhere. That's pretty much the most common criticism: not enough character development. Heck, just join 140,000 other people and watch the following funny, review aggregator:
[YT]fKixEh0541k[/YT]
MoS ran a huge plot and we met Jor-El, Lara, Jonathan, Martha, Clark, Lois, Perry, Jenny, General Swanwick, Zod, Faora, Col. Hardy, Hamilton, ... and they wasted an hour on action scenes. That doesn't work. In the next movie they are adding in Batman, probably Lex, probably Alfred, probably Gordon, probably some villains, possible love interest for Bruce,... I don't see it working, but who knows.

The lack of focus in the plot to MoS also reflects Goyer's lack of focus in his career. IMO his greatest work is Batman Begins (2005). In the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 he was a writer for two movies, and one television episode. In contrast, for Man of Steel (2013), in the years 2011, 2012, and 2013, he is credited for 4 movies, 4 television episodes, one video game, and three novels. That's a difference of 2 movies, 2 television episodes, a video game, and three novels... his mind must be really scattered. You look at sthe best people in Hollywood, the best writers, and they're more focused. Michael Arndt, Andrew Stanton, Mark Boal, for example, produce less quantity and more quality than Goyer. Heck, Goyer at his peak (2005) was producing less quantity and more quality than current Goyer: MoS isn't any worse than Flash Forward or Ghost Rider 2.

If Goyer focused more, I think he would have a better shot at writing a script as good as Batman Begins again. I for one am willing to tolerate mediocre dialogue if I get a coherent narrative, and I think a lot of other people would to. We'll see, maybe he will. I don't know what he's up to, but the only other work he's listed as involved in is Godzilla, so maybe he'll be more careful this time, and he'll write a more cohesive script with fewer plot holes like Jor-El beating up Zod, Earth's sun being more nourishing because it's "younger", a black hole opening up over Metropolis and not harming people in Metropolis, et cetera.

 

[king666]

They have a huge challenge ahead of them. I wish Goyer wasn't the screenwriter for Batman vs. Superman.

 

[Marvin]

The only problem I have with the atmosphere power loss is that we're told Clark as a baby was caused great sickness for months when adapting to Earth's conditions, much like when, as an adult, he suffered what can be assumed the reversal aboard Black Zero.

Yet other Kryptonians, like Faora and Zod, adapt to Earth's conditions very, very quickly.

Don't remember them referring with Clarks youthful struggles as "great sickness for months" in the film. Rather just struggles. The Black zero ship "sickness" seemed like a different effect and a brief one at that. There is no implied correlation between the experiences.
Note: no vomiting from Zod or Faora on earth.

Furthermore:
-Trained kryptonian warriors have a knack for mastering their abilities in a shorter time then infants.
-Faora wore a protective suit and when she was exposed to earths atmosphere, as baby clark would have been, she displayed sensory struggles of her own.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Don't remember them referring with Clarks youthful struggles as "great sickness for months" in the film. Rather just struggles. The Black zero ship "sickness" seemed like a different effect and a brief one at that. There is no implied correlation between the experiences.
Note: no vomiting from Zod or Faora on earth.

Furthermore:
-Trained kryptonian warriors have a knack for mastering their abilities in a shorter time then infants.
-Faora wore a protective suit and when she was exposed to earths atmosphere, as baby clark would have been, she displayed sensory struggles of her own.

Didn't Martha refer to Clark struggling to breathe as an infant when he returns? Also, I'd have assumed the process of acclimating to Earth would be the same as acclimating to Krypton. But I suppose Earth having weaker gravity might make it easier to go Krypton-> Earth than Earth-> Krypton.

 

[Marvin]

This thread really took a wrong turn. Instead of legitimately discussing what went wrong with the film, and how it went wrong and how it could be done better, and also what went right with the film and which factors made those parts right, we have reverted to the primitive and less mature discussion of whether or not the movie was good.

So let's discuss what went wrong and how it could have been done better....
Takes a look at the rest of your post, nevermind.

These are facts:
1) The movie suffered a 65% second week drop due to extremely poor word of mouth....

When a "PhD" suggests "facts", one would expect "facts" to follow.
Your correlations and how you derive them are mostly conjecture. Lest we start correlating HarryPotter's finale's drop to word of mouth(69%).
-A greater fact is competition, opening weekend or otherwise.

2) MoS won't win any serious awards for storytelling.

More facts I see(has award season even started yet?)
I suppose "serious" will need to be defined, but that being said Avengers pulled in zero wins for "storytelling"(serious or otherwise). Awards won aside, that matters little apparently as no one here puts Whedons script under this level of criticism. Wins or not.

3) WB is choosing not to make an MoS II. Whereas each of Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Batman, Spider Man, the X-Men, Fantastic Four, got stand-alone sequels, Superman is not. The fact is, if WB felt confident in this franchise, they would be commissioning both MoS II and BvS.

More facts I see
So that's what they would do if they felt confident?
Further, curious how you know superman won't be getting a stand alone sequel..

4) Professional critics rate MoS as one of the worst comic book movies made since Blade

Not sure if you know how Rotten Tomatoes works(given your affinity with math I'm sure you do), but if you want to know how "professional rate mos" relative to other films you'd do better to pull up their own lists where they do just that. Sort of like the Roger Ebert list you cited earlier. What you are doing with the Rotten Tomatoes rankings is something else(the amount of yay's vs nay's even with a positive review, averaged out between a varying number of reviews per film)...not the same thing.

I bet that nearly all of those 271 reviewers have a better understanding of film than nearly every one on this forum, and most are ahead every single one of us.

I'm curious if even Vid Electricz would stand by such an assertion. But I can't speak for him.

HULK's theory, as far as I understand it, is the same as most I've seen, that the movie did not really develop the characters, and so we could not care for them. He just went into greater detail than I've seen elsewhere. That's pretty much the most common criticism: not enough character development.

More facts?

The lack of focus in the plot to MoS also reflects Goyer's lack of focus in his career. IMO his greatest work is Batman Begins (2005). In the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 he was a writer for two movies, and one television episode. In contrast, for Man of Steel (2013), in the years 2011, 2012, and 2013, he is credited for 4 movies, 4 television episodes, one video game, and three novels. That's a difference of 2 movies, 2 television episodes, a video game, and three novels... his mind must be really scattered. You look at the best people in Hollywood, the best writers, and they're more focused. Michael Arndt, Andrew Stanton, Mark Boal, for example, produce less quantity and more quality than Goyer. Heck, Goyer at his peak (2005) was producing less quantity and more quality than current Goyer: MoS isn't any worse than Flash Forward or Ghost Rider 2.

I don't think I've ever read more baseless assumption on the issue of hollywood writing, and I've read plenty.
The best people in hollywood?
Nice touch at the end there.

so maybe he'll be more careful this time, and he'll write a more cohesive script with fewer plot holes like Jor-El beating up Zod, Earth's sun being more nourishing because it's "younger", a black hole opening up over Metropolis and not harming people in Metropolis, et cetera.

You have an interesting way of failing to prove points but then bringing them up again as if they were proven. Then again you do supposedly have Guard on ignore.

 

[STARMAN]

Since when did we go from the usual discussion of Goyer's writing to this person is an expert and everyone else is wrong discussion? It's ridiculous.

 

[Krumm]

This thread really took a wrong turn. Instead of legitimately discussing what went wrong with the film, and how it went wrong and how it could be done better, and also what went right with the film and which factors made those parts right, we have reverted to the primitive and less mature discussion of whether or not the movie was good.

So why keep it going?

Dark Knight, 94%, 288 reviews
Spider Man 2, 94%, 248 reviews
Iron Man, 93%, 243 reviews
The Avengers, 92%, 301 reviews
Spider Man, 89%, 224 reviews
Dark Knight Rises, 88%, 304 reviews
X Men: First Class, 87%, 243 reviews
X Men 2, 87%, 224 reviews
Hellboy 2, 87%, 209 reviews
Batman Begins, 85%, 265 reviews
X Men, 82%, 243 reviews
Hellboy, 81%, 196 reviews
Captain America, 79%, 220 reviews
Iron Man 3, 78%, 270 reviews
Sin City, 78%, 242 reviews
Thor, 77%, 261 reviews
Superman Returns, 75%, 229
Iron Man 2, 73%, 275 reviews
The Amazing Spider Man, 73%, 284 reviews
The Wolverine, 68%, 191 reviews
The Incredible Hulk, 67%, 218 reviews
Watchmen, 64%, 289 reviews
Spider Man 3, 63%, 243 reviews
The Hulk, 62%, 229 reviews
300, 60%, 226 reviews
Blade 2, 59%, 136 reviews
X Men 3, 57%, 229 reviews
Man of Steel, 56%, 271 reviews
Blade, 55%, 84 reviews
Daredevil, 45%, 214 reviews
X Men Origins: The Wolverine, 38%, 222
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, 37%, 166 reviews
The Punisher, 29%, 167 reviews
Green Lantern, 26%, 227 reviews
Fantastic Four, 26%, 202 reviews
Sucker Punch, 23%, 202 reviews
Blade 3, 26%, 164 reviews
Elektra, 10%, 150 reviews

Where did these come from out of curiosity?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

This thread really took a wrong turn. Instead of legitimately discussing what went wrong with the film, and how it went wrong and how it could be done better, and also what went right with the film and which factors made those parts right, we have reverted to the primitive and less mature discussion of whether or not the movie was good.

These are facts:

1) The movie suffered a 65% second week drop due to extremely poor word of mouth. That is worse than each of The Wolverine, Iron Man 3, Star Trek into Darkness, Oblivion, World War Z, Fast and Furious 6, GI Joe 2, Pacific Rim, Elysium, pretty much every single major blockbuster I looked at. Audiences wanted to see a great Superman movie. The movie made 150 million on opening weekend, when nobody had any idea what the writing was. The 150 million was not because of Goyer, it was not in spite of Goyer, it was independent of Goyer. Then, people told their family and friends about the movie... and the film suffered the worst second week drop of any major blockbuster among those I looked up.

2) MoS won't win any serious awards for storytelling.

3) WB is choosing not to make an MoS II. Whereas each of Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Batman, Spider Man, the X-Men, Fantastic Four, got stand-alone sequels, Superman is not. The fact is, if WB felt confident in this franchise, they would be commissioning both MoS II and BvS.

4) Professional critics rate MoS as one of the worst comic book movies made since Blade (I only include movies going back to Blade, because I give Goyer credit where credit is due, he had a big effect on the industry).

Dark Knight, 94%, 288 reviews
Spider Man 2, 94%, 248 reviews
Iron Man, 93%, 243 reviews
The Avengers, 92%, 301 reviews
Spider Man, 89%, 224 reviews
Dark Knight Rises, 88%, 304 reviews
X Men: First Class, 87%, 243 reviews
X Men 2, 87%, 224 reviews
Hellboy 2, 87%, 209 reviews
Batman Begins, 85%, 265 reviews
X Men, 82%, 243 reviews
Hellboy, 81%, 196 reviews
Captain America, 79%, 220 reviews
Iron Man 3, 78%, 270 reviews
Sin City, 78%, 242 reviews
Thor, 77%, 261 reviews
Superman Returns, 75%, 229
Iron Man 2, 73%, 275 reviews
The Amazing Spider Man, 73%, 284 reviews
The Wolverine, 68%, 191 reviews
The Incredible Hulk, 67%, 218 reviews
Watchmen, 64%, 289 reviews
Spider Man 3, 63%, 243 reviews
The Hulk, 62%, 229 reviews
300, 60%, 226 reviews
Blade 2, 59%, 136 reviews
X Men 3, 57%, 229 reviews
Man of Steel, 56%, 271 reviews
Blade, 55%, 84 reviews
Daredevil, 45%, 214 reviews
X Men Origins: The Wolverine, 38%, 222
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, 37%, 166 reviews
The Punisher, 29%, 167 reviews
Green Lantern, 26%, 227 reviews
Fantastic Four, 26%, 202 reviews
Sucker Punch, 23%, 202 reviews
Blade 3, 26%, 164 reviews
Elektra, 10%, 150 reviews

It's rated as the 11th worst comic book movie out of 38 that I looked up (let me know if I forgot some important ones). As there were only 271 reviews, there's a ~17% (thus totally plausible) chance that the true score was 64% or higher (Take statistics 101 and understand the chapter on the Bernoulli distribution if you want to know how I got that), but even at 64% it would only be average. I think it's worth understanding what happened here. Why did a movie that had so much going for it do so badly? I find the question of why things work and why things fail to be interesting in itself. I'm not interested in answers like "critics are dumb". They're not dumb, I bet that nearly all of those 271 reviewers have a better understanding of film than nearly every one on this forum, and most are ahead every single one of us.

HULK's theory, as far as I understand it, is the same as most I've seen, that the movie did not really develop the characters, and so we could not care for them. He just went into greater detail than I've seen elsewhere. That's pretty much the most common criticism: not enough character development. Heck, just join 140,000 other people and watch the following funny, review aggregator:
[YT]fKixEh0541k[/YT]
MoS ran a huge plot and we met Jor-El, Lara, Jonathan, Martha, Clark, Lois, Perry, Jenny, General Swanwick, Zod, Faora, Col. Hardy, Hamilton, ... and they wasted an hour on action scenes. That doesn't work. In the next movie they are adding in Batman, probably Lex, probably Alfred, probably Gordon, probably some villains, possible love interest for Bruce,... I don't see it working, but who knows.

The lack of focus in the plot to MoS also reflects Goyer's lack of focus in his career. IMO his greatest work is Batman Begins (2005). In the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 he was a writer for two movies, and one television episode. In contrast, for Man of Steel (2013), in the years 2011, 2012, and 2013, he is credited for 4 movies, 4 television episodes, one video game, and three novels. That's a difference of 2 movies, 2 television episodes, a video game, and three novels... his mind must be really scattered. You look at the best people in Hollywood, the best writers, and they're more focused. Michael Arndt, Andrew Stanton, Mark Boal, for example, produce less quantity and more quality than Goyer. Heck, Goyer at his peak (2005) was producing less quantity and more quality than current Goyer: MoS isn't any worse than Flash Forward or Ghost Rider 2.

If Goyer focused more, I think he would have a better shot at writing a script as good as Batman Begins again. I for one am willing to tolerate mediocre dialogue if I get a coherent narrative, and I think a lot of other people would to. We'll see, maybe he will. I don't know what he's up to, but the only other work he's listed as involved in is Godzilla, so maybe he'll be more careful this time, and he'll write a more cohesive script with fewer plot holes like Jor-El beating up Zod, Earth's sun being more nourishing because it's "younger", a black hole opening up over Metropolis and not harming people in Metropolis, et cetera.

I doubt most people care about "black holes" and its effect on the Earth, or the sustenance of solar radiation

But yes, a more focused Goyer would be better. Hopefully, he'll try not to just come up with a neat plot and paste the respective characters inside, but focus on the characters a bit more in the sequel.

I DO think that PART of what drug MOS down is preconceptions of who Superman SHOULD be. No other superhero, I think, has as much preconceptions that have to be met/validated.

If MOS were better written/directed/edited, I STILL think it'd be underrated. If the film was a masterpiece, I think it'd struggle to get 75 percent fresh at RT, because of many of the older critics' love for the Donnerverse.

But yes, the overloaded the action, and underwrote the characters.

And that looks like Rottentomatoes, for people who are wondering.

 

[Marvin]

Since when did we go from the usual discussion of Goyer's writing to this person is an expert and everyone else is wrong discussion? It's ridiculous.

The issue of superman killing was brought up. Followed by Waid's opinion, then backed by the idea that Waids opinion means more than anyone's here based on his current occupation and how it relates to superman. This digressed, progressed then snowballed from there, stopped then started again.
As I remember, but I mostly stayed out of that one.

That's the recap.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Go for it!

 

[roach]

"The review of MoS by "HULK" is the best I have seen. He is clearly a brilliant man. For the record, his other reviews are great too.
Every time I read one of his reviews, I change my mind about something and learn a great deal"
"HULK has made more and better original arguments than this entire thread combined.
If you think his review is stupid, than you need to reread and reread his review, until you can grasp his brilliance."
"Fact is, we are all fortunate to live in the internet era, where we have the privilege to read the musings of someone as brilliant as HULK"
"Hulk's writing has been known to exponentially increase IQ scores as well as cure cancer and impotence. He is available to write whatever sort of article you like, even a special song for a wedding or bar mitzvah. Hulk does lawn care and auto detailing too."
Okay, I made that last one up. It's okay, Da Champion, you can admit the name Hulk was taken here and he's really you. This attempt at third party self-promotion has crossed the line into bizarre silliness. Good night and good luck.

Hi my name is Roach and in this high paced world of cat videos and Miley Cyrus I don't have the time to sit through a 1 1/2 movie and form an opinion. That's why I use Hulk- reviews. Hulk-reviews form my opinions so I can get back to what's important in life...GTA5. Hulk-reviews come in seven different flavors including Ranch and Hickory. It goes down smooth and there's no after taste. Isn't it time you got back to life? Ask your doctor if Hulk-reviews are right for you.

Warning: Hulk-reviews has been known to cause some if not all of these side effects: dry mouth, itchy eyes, hairy toes, heart burn, bad breath, frequent diarrhea, may cause shingles, kidney stones, fever, anal leakage, weakness or fainting, cult like submission, mood changes, problems with speech or vision, all caps, seizures, nausea, mild skin rash, and mild death.

Don't use if you are pregnant or plan to get pregnant.


t:t:t:t:t:

 

[jimbob]

Too funny, Roach! "Mah crops was all dried up, and then I got on the internets and read Hulk's review of Wolverine. As mah son helped my with some of the fancy words, it started rainin' like cats and dogs! You might think it's a coinsadense, but I says a littel prare to Hulk every nite."

 

[roach]

I try.

 

[DA_Champion]

- delete -

 

[DA_Champion]

I have added jimbob and roach to my ignore list. Life is too short to waste it on low-information individuals.

So why keep it going?

Not sure. There may still be good things to discuss, but I think the 20 pages of irrational justification for Jor-El easily beating up Zod has scared some of the more sophisticated posters away. The proper question is not "how do we understand Goyer's genius here?" but rather "why did Goyer make such a mistake?" I submit it that this is because they want to build up Jor-El as the ultimate badass, but that's just a hypothesis.

I doubt most people care about "black holes" and its effect on the Earth, or the sustenance of solar radiation

I've seen it mentioned in reviews. I personally didn't mind it too much, but a lot of other people did. When you throw a lot of nonsense at the viewers, the plotholes pull can pull people out of the film. Fact is they opened up a black hole over Metropolis, and the gravity field was strong enough to suck in some Kryptonians, so it should be strong enough to really devastate Metropolis. Really, Metropolis should be in the black hole, possibly the entire Earth.

I can think of ways to fix this, but they didn't actually use any, so it's easy to see how a lot of viewers would have been thinking "ummmmmmmm". A simple line stating that these kinds of black holes are unstable, or even showing it close and disappear, would have been sufficient.

But yes, a more focused Goyer would be better. Hopefully, he'll try not to just come up with a neat plot and paste the respective characters inside, but focus on the characters a bit more in the sequel.

I hope so too.

I DO think that PART of what drug MOS down is preconceptions of who Superman SHOULD be. No other superhero, I think, has as much preconceptions that have to be met/validated.

If MOS were better written/directed/edited, I STILL think it'd be underrated. If the film was a masterpiece, I think it'd struggle to get 75 percent fresh at RT, because of many of the older critics' love for the Donnerverse.

Superman Returns, which was pretty mediocre, got a 75% on Rotten Tomatoes. Spider Man, who I think is just as popular as Superman, got 94%, 89%, 73%, and 63% over his four movies.

But yes, the overloaded the action, and underwrote the characters.

And that looks like Rottentomatoes, for people who are wondering.

I hope to see the action cut by one half in the sequel.

 

[DA_Champion]

I don't think I've ever read more baseless assumption on the issue of hollywood writing, and I've read plenty.
The best people in hollywood?
Nice touch at the end there.

I just checked my post, and you misunerstood. I wrote:
"Michael Arndt, Andrew Stanton, Mark Boal, for example,"
Which means I'm qualifying them as among the best writers, I'm not saying that they're the three best writers (How could anyone say that?). The "for example" is a very key part of the sentence

I'm really looking forward to Star Wars VII, largely because Arndt is the screenwriter. If Goyer or Lindelof were the screenwriter, I wouldn't be very excited for Star Wars VII, I think I'd be apprehensive about it.

More facts I see(has award season even started yet?)
I suppose "serious" will need to be defined, but that being said Avengers pulled in zero wins for "storytelling"(serious or otherwise). Awards won aside, that matters little apparently as no one here puts Whedons script under this level of criticism. Wins or not.

"But what about The Avengers?"

Sigh.

You know, if you looked at the whole argument and the big picture, rather than breaking it up into pieces in an unsophisticated manner, you'd see that the avengers got a 92% and not a 56% on RT, that it had a 50% second weekend drop and not a 65% weekend drop, and that it is getting a sequel, I think it might even be getting two sequels.

 

[roach]

I don't think I've ever been put on ignore before. Awesome.

 

[roach]

These are facts:

1) The movie suffered a 65% second week drop due to extremely poor word of mouth. That is worse than each of The Wolverine, Iron Man 3, Star Trek into Darkness, Oblivion, World War Z, Fast and Furious 6, GI Joe 2, Pacific Rim, Elysium, pretty much every single major blockbuster I looked at. Audiences wanted to see a great Superman movie. The movie made 150 million on opening weekend, when nobody had any idea what the writing was.

Some facts and a lot of conjecture. Let's not forget that the weekend after Man of Steel came out World War Z came out (a movie with Brad Pitt) and Monsters University (a Pixar film). Surely couldn't the drop have come from two big movies being released the next weekend?

2) MoS won't win any serious awards for storytelling.

Yes this is a fact but Superhero movies never win the serious awards for storytelling. The pinnacle movies haven't won awards so why are we expecting this one or holding it against this movie. This is a non argument.

3) WB is choosing not to make an MoS II. Whereas each of Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Batman, Spider Man, the X-Men, Fantastic Four, got stand-alone sequels, Superman is not. The fact is, if WB felt confident in this franchise, they would be commissioning both MoS II and BvS.

Conjecture. This is pretending to know the mind set of WB. However if we are gonna make guesses lets make logical, intelligent guesses. If WB was at all disappointed with the direction or script of Man of Steel...why would they hire the director and writer of Man of Steel? Would it make sense to hire a writer to continue a series you want to turn into a tentpole if you have no confidence in the writer or the property? If WB had no confidence in Superman would they really put the movie out during summer 2015...going up against Avengers 2, Star Wars and other big flicks?

4) Professional critics rate MoS as one of the worst comic book movies made since Blade (I only include movies going back to Blade, because I give Goyer credit where credit is due, he had a big effect on the industry).

Really MOS is the worst superhero movie going back to Blade??? Did they not see Elektra or Catwoman??? IGN gave the movie a 9 out of 10. Oh and speaking of Rotten Tomatoes:Grae Drake, editor of Rotten Tomatoes, expressed dismay over the critical reception, stating: As much as I love and respect our critics at Rotten Tomatoes, I’ve got to say I am shocked. Listen, the movie’s not perfect but…I just cannot fathom it. It was a good movie, you guys.”

These were some of the 'facts' I felt needed to be addressed. I know you have me on ignore but I am not going to let that keep me out of the conversation.

 

[The Guard]

The only problem I have with the atmosphere power loss is that we're told Clark as a baby was caused great sickness for months when adapting to Earth's conditions, much like when, as an adult, he suffered what can be assumed the reversal aboard Black Zero.

Yet other Kryptonians, like Faora and Zod, adapt to Earth's conditions very, very quickly.

Well, yes, but he was a baby back then.

Adults tend to be stronger and less susceptible to atmospheric changes and illness than babies, don't they?

Zod's really the only one who actually adapted, wasn't he?

 

[The Guard]

This thread really took a wrong turn. Instead of legitimately discussing what went wrong with the film, and how it went wrong and how it could be done better, and also what went right with the film and which factors made those parts right, we have reverted to the primitive and less mature discussion of whether or not the movie was good.

Umm...no. The lion's share of the discussion the last day or so has been about appeals to authority, not whether the film is good or not. You seem to have missed several posts.

MoS ran a huge plot and we met Jor-El, Lara, Jonathan, Martha, Clark, Lois, Perry, Jenny, General Swanwick, Zod, Faora, Col. Hardy, Hamilton, ... and they wasted an hour on action scenes. That doesn't work.

An hour?

No. More like 20 minutes. Maybe. 30 tops.

In the next movie they are adding in Batman, probably Lex, probably Alfred, probably Gordon, probably some villains, possible love interest for Bruce,... I don't see it working, but who knows.

Well, Zod is dead, Faora is dead, Hamilton is dead, Jonathan and Jor-El are dead...so there's some breathing room.

I don't know what he's up to, but the only other work he's listed as involved in is Godzilla, so maybe he'll be more careful this time, and he'll write a more cohesive script with fewer plot holes like Jor-El beating up Zod, Earth's sun being more nourishing because it's "younger", a black hole opening up over Metropolis and not harming people in Metropolis, et cetera.

These aren't plotholes. Perhaps you should think about why your own intellectual "failings" prevent you from realizing this.