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

[The Guard]

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

The nice part about it is that you can still refute their points but they can't refute your refutations.

 

[The Guard]

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.

Most movies don't have enough character development. That's hardly an argument. The important thing is that the main character WAS developed in MAN OF STEEL, as were some key supporting characters.

 

[roach]

The nice part about it is that you can still refute their points but they can't refute your refutations.

Did I just discover 'godmode' Hype style?

 

[jimbob]

Man, I guess I won't get to respond to future posts about the greatness of Hulk's reviews and how Shakespeare couldn't carry his jock strap. If you're put on ignore by a troll, that has to be worth something. I would still bet 3 to 1 that he's the Hulk. There isn't a writer living or dead that I would hype as much as Da Champion did with those mediocre reviews. At least we have Vidz' attempts to selectively break logical fallacies in support of his opinion.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ There's saying that HULK writes good reviews and then there's flat out saying that ANYONE who disagrees with that writer has an inferior intellect. He's either HULK himself, or his best friend.

From DA: "So go back and reread hulk's review. Every time you see a paragraph you think is dumb, ask yourself what you intellectual failures (or simply biases) are that are preventing you from seeing his point."


Also, if a movie reviewer makes one change one's mind on a flick, it means that one's sacrificed a personal opinion for the assessment of others. I'm not saying that one SHOULD look at a film in a set way (oftentimes, I need to watch a film three times to fully evaluate it). But if I like a movie a respected reviewer dislikes or vice versa, I might even agree with his OPINIONS on the film, but I don't think I should have to agree with the EMOTIONS driven by such opinions.

 

[roach]

^ There's saying that HULK writes good reviews and then there's flat out saying that ANYONE who disagrees with that writer has an inferior intellect. He's either HULK himself, or his best friend.

I was waiting for someone else to say something about that....and then I made my joke. He sounds very cult-like in his admiration for Hulk.

From DA: "So go back and reread hulk's review. Every time you see a paragraph you think is dumb, ask yourself what you intellectual failures (or simply biases) are that are preventing you from seeing his point."


Also, if a movie reviewer makes one change one's mind on a flick, it means that one's sacrificed a personal opinion for the assessment of others. I'm not saying that one SHOULD look at a film in a set way (oftentimes, I need to watch a film three times to fully evaluate it). But if I like a movie a respected reviewer dislikes or vice versa, I might even agree with his OPINIONS on the film, but I don't think I should have to agree with the EMOTIONS driven by such opinions.

Here's my thoughts....no one's opinion is more valid that anyone else's. We all have movies that we like that we don't know why we like it. I know there are movies that people hold up as the pinnacle of movie making that have a single issue that spoils it for me...and there are movies that are complete hot messes and I am entertained by them.
If people dislike this movie that is fine but stop coming up with long, drawn out reasonings. Guess what we all are not supposed to like the same things. Man of Steel has received mixed reviews...that means the critics (experts) don't really agree on this film.
If you like a movie and a review changes your mind...that says more about you than the movie.

 

[Marvin]

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

No I understood you fine. Didn't Stanton write and direct Jon Carter and the other guy Oblivion(interesting how all three of their last works hit the 50 percentile). The last guy has like 3 films to his credit and work on After Earth...Even goyer has 3 hit films.
Point being, even "among the best" there are poor showings.

You really can't account for how busy people are, but you are free to keep on assuming.

"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.

And here I was addressing your point about "winning a story award." Amazing how a film that good with that minimal a drop couldn't manage to win one simple story award...

-in response to you bringing up the "fact" that man of steel won't win one award for story. What about avengers, seems like an appropriate question, whether you are tired of that film being brought up or not, good films win story awards apparently. Or do they.

If you are going to make an argument in pieces, I'm going to address said pieces. Sorry.

And I see you are still going to play ignorant to the facts concerning the second weekend competition avengers faced(Dark Shadows) and what MOS faced in it's 65 percent drop second weekend. Surely the scientific method would take circumstance into account with any measure of data findings.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ "No one's opinion is more valid that anyone else's."-Roach

Here's where I disagree. I think a book fan who views an adaptation has more clout than someone who has only the movie as a frame of reference.

Similarly, I think professional critics have more experience with the medium, conventions, and rubriks or whatnot to assess the film. Not that I think they are always RIGHT, they just have a REASON to say what they say. Except Armond White

But I don't think people should feel like they HAVE to agree with the critics/professionals/informed fans just because they have more understanding of the medium in question. Sometimes, it''s best to use your own judgement.

Like, if a film has a LOT of flaws, and one even understands the scope of the errors to the point that cannot be considered quality entertainment. It's then a "guilty pleasure", and there's nothing wrong with that.

Similarly, if a movie makes a lot of divisive choices with its handling of story/structure/dialog/character, then I think it's best to form your own opinion. But I don't think criticisms should be THROWN out, unless the events of the material indicate that they are invalid.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that other people shouldn't form one's own opinion, but one also shouldn't disregard the opinions of others.

 

[DA_Champion]

I'm just a fan lol, and I was excited to read such an insightful review. It's still the best review of MoS I've read... if someone knows of a better review, please post it

Also, if a movie reviewer makes one change one's mind on a flick, it means that one's sacrificed a personal opinion for the assessment of others.

I know why you're seeing it that way but it's not how I see it. I still have an independent opinion early on. I still try and **not** read reviews before watching movies, and I try and avoid previews before watching movies. However, I want to understand how things work better. "Having an opinion" comes for free, you watch the movie and if you stay awake you automatically have an opinion, having an opinion is not an achievement. I had an independent opinion of MoS -- I thought it was a fantastic movie -- and I later realised I was misguided. That happens. It's not the first time I enjoy a bad movie. I also enjoyed Transformers 3 the first time I watched it. Understanding things, however, is harder, and more interesting, and is an achievement. 100% of people have an opinion. Only 1% of people or less have an understanding.

In the past three or four years or so I've tried to understand TV and movies better, as some weird hobby. When I watch a bluray or DVD, I often watch the commentary in the following days. I also try and read the better analyses, when I can find them. And if I come to understand something that I did not understand earlier, I change my assessment. When I listed to the commentary for Pan's Labyrinth this week, I was in awe, there were all sorts of really good decisions made that I had not realised. For example, I had not realised the Faun pupeteered his own legs. I just thought the Faun looked good, but it turned out they actually made the effort to use good practical effects.

The problems with MoS have now been well-diagnosed, so I'm satisfied. The character development is really weak, either due to too many characters, or too much action, or both. I've talked a lot about the plot holes and the dialogue, but I think the plot holes and clunky dialogue might be forgiven if the characters were more compelling.

One of the first things I noticed in the movie is that Goyer chose to have a movie with a 25 minute sequence on Krypton, and if somebody else had written the movie it might have started with Jonathan and Martha finding a baby in the field and deciding to raise him. I understand why they can't do both in a movie, they went for a science fiction tone and not for a "human" tone. By going with the Krypton opening sequence, they set up a lot of really poor, really scientifically illiterate science fiction like:
- the codex;
- Krypton having a much higher gravity even though it's a rocky planet with a thin atmosphere and it has dragons;
- Krypton's star not feeding energy because it's "older" (what?) even though it looks like a solar twin;
- Everybody on Krypton being bred and raised for a single purpose, and then they're shown as polymaths;
- Different gases sap Superman's powers;
They wanted to go for some serious science fiction, which is a legitimate choice, and would have worked if they were more scientifically literate. They did get one thing right in that they related black holes to the phantom zone -- hurray! So somebody involved was scientifically literate, and I suspect it was a Christopher Nolan, but I have no proof. I see some incredible potential here, but they screwed up because they didn't have the scientific literacy to pull it off, and it's a shame because they could have easily hired a consultant. I might have done this, the scifi-focused story, if I had been on staff, or something like it. I love science fiction when it's well thought out. Most novels I read are science fiction.

Hulk, and also Mark Waid, I think, would have focused more on Jonathan and Martha finding a ship in the field and deciding to raise a baby. We never see the scene of Jonathan and Martha finding the ship in the field. If they had shown it, and had shown Jonathan and Martha bonding with baby Clark rather than expecting the viewer to assume it in the abstract, there would be a better sense of why Clark is such a moral individual, and it would add a layer to the rather good warmth between Martha and Clark in the second half of the movie, which I consider the best relationship of the movie. If I could build a time machine and go talk to Snyder and only give him a single piece of advice based on the movie I saw twice, I think I'd say to him "more scenes with Diane Lane." I come to this conclusion, with my understanding, after having seen the movie twice and debated it way too much. Interestingly, Mark Waid writes in the commentary to Birthright that a story entirely about Martha would be a great story to tell.

 

[DA_Champion]

Point being, even "among the best" there are poor showings.

For sure.

And here I was addressing your point about "winning a story award." Amazing how a film that good with that minimal a drop couldn't manage to win one simple story award...

-in response to you bringing up the "fact" that man of steel won't win one award for story. What about avengers, seems like an appropriate question, whether you are tired of that film being brought up or not, good films win story awards apparently. Or do they.

If you are going to make an argument in pieces, I'm going to address said pieces. Sorry.

I made 4 arguments against MoS and only 1 of them applies to the avengers. So, "what about the avengers" is a weak counter-argument, even weaker than normal.

And I see you are still going to play ignorant to the facts concerning the second weekend competition avengers faced(Dark Shadows) and what MOS faced in it's 65 percent drop second weekend. Surely the scientific method would take circumstance into account with any measure of data findings.

"What about the avengers" again. OK, so let's ignore the second weekend argument.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman2012.htm
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=avengers11.htm

The Avengers lasted over 20 weekends, Man of Steel lasted 14. The Avengers was in 3rd place in its 6th weekend with 20 million dollars, Man of Steel was in 15th place in its 6th weekend with 2 million dollars. Isn't that a massive difference in word of mouth and second showings? Is the drop from 3rd place to 15th place entirely due to the difference between Monsters University and Dark Shadows?

 

[Marvin]

For sure.


I made 4 arguments against MoS and only 1 of them applies to the avengers. So, "what about the avengers" is a weak counter-argument, even weaker than normal.

You brought up story awards, I found that odd and selective. MOS not winning one will mean about as much as Avengers not winning one.
=not surprising.

"What about the avengers" again. OK, so let's ignore the second weekend argument.

Progress.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman2012.htm
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=avengers11.htm

The Avengers lasted over 20 weekends, Man of Steel lasted 14. The Avengers was in 3rd place in its 6th weekend with 20 million dollars, Man of Steel was in 15th place in its 6th weekend with 2 million dollars. Isn't that a massive difference in word of mouth and second showings? Is the drop from 3rd place to 15th place entirely due to the difference between Monsters University and Dark Shadows?

-Firstly, once competition opens, it's not like it goes away.
-Secondly, looking at the weekly releases it appears Avengers faced more high profile flops during it's following weeks(I forget about that summer).
-Thirdly, Avengers was a sequel ,and not a conventional one. MoS was reboot to a crappy film based on a character draped in antiquity(cherished antiquity it seems), the mechanics of that might hold some answers to your question, lest we compare avengers 6th weekend to batman begins.

Lastly, most films don't do as well in their 6th week as avengers did. Not sure what that says about MoS. Most films don't do as well in their sixth week as as James Camerons last two either, some films are big, others are bigger. What you are getting at here is that because MoS didn't make 20 million in it's 6th week the way avengers did, that means it had negative word of mouth.
MoS didn't total in the one and a half billion range either like avengers, does that mean it had bad word of mouth? Considering how many good/successful films consistently fail to hit that mark, I'd say no. The point always was however, that few films high profile(I only know of one actually) have faced 145 plus million of direct and multiple demo competition in their second weekend, least of all Avengers and not been affected greatly.
ASM and Ironman seem like more logically week by week by totals comparisons. But I digress, the box office thread this is not.

 

[Krumm]

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.

Yeah that wasn't a conversation I found interesting. But I am still curious as to where you got your numbers from. If it's from RT, I don't find them to be a very good source.

 

[Tempest]

The problems with MoS have now been well-diagnosed, so I'm satisfied. The character development is really weak, either due to too many characters, or too much action, or both. I've talked a lot about the plot holes and the dialogue, but I think the plot holes and clunky dialogue might be forgiven if the characters were more compelling.

No they haven't. They've been refuted again and again. You just don't want to admit it, because you don't want to be admit to being wrong. MOS is not the greatest film ever written, but it's not nearly as bad as you are trying to make it out to be.

One of the first things I noticed in the movie is that Goyer chose to have a movie with a 25 minute sequence on Krypton, and if somebody else had written the movie it might have started with Jonathan and Martha finding a baby in the field and deciding to raise him. I understand why they can't do both in a movie, they went for a science fiction tone and not for a "human" tone. By going with the Krypton opening sequence, they set up a lot of really poor, really scientifically illiterate science fiction like:

This statement basically proves you have no knowledge or understanding of Superman.

First of all, his story is science fiction. Alien world, space ship, living on Earth as one of us, invaders from another planet, high tech spaceships -- these are hallmarks of science fiction. Superman is a science fiction fantasy wrapped up in good old American-styled folklore. But it's still science fiction.

The second problem with your statement is that you have gotten so swept up in the nonsense of other people's ideas, you have lost the whole other vision this film gave us; the human side. Clark is very human in this film, and he chooses to side with the humans in the battle for Earth. The duality of who Clark is wonderfully illustrated in the film, because they never let us forget that Clark is human in spirit, but is alien in all other ways.

That's not bad storytelling. That's using the story to show us the struggles Clark faces.

As for this:

- the codex;
- Krypton having a much higher gravity even though it's a rocky planet with a thin atmosphere and it has dragons;
- Krypton's star not feeding energy because it's "older" (what?) even though it looks like a solar twin;
- Everybody on Krypton being bred and raised for a single purpose, and then they're shown as polymaths;
- Different gases sap Superman's powers;

If you have a problem with that, you'd better take it up with the writers of the comic books.

Perhaps if you were as enthusiastic about researching Superman's history, you would have a greater understanding of the film, instead of relying on other people's opinions on what it means to them.

Here is a link to the article on Krypton's history in the comics: http://superman.wikia.com/wiki/Krypton

You should read it before you go on and on about how the writers have no understanding of Krypton.

Edit: I realize you said science, not Krypton. But you should still read the article so you understand the choices Goyer made in the film. It's not about "our" science, but rather the science that fits the universe for MOS, which is similar, but not the same as ours.

 

[roach]

^ "No one's opinion is more valid that anyone else's."-Roach

Here's where I disagree. I think a book fan who views an adaptation has more clout than someone who has only the movie as a frame of reference.

I disagree. We like what we like. I love Jaws. It's my favorite movie. I have watched documentary upon documentary about the shooting of the movie. I have been to several Jawsfests in Martha's Vineyard...though I missed it this year. Are you saying that someone who read the book should have more clout than me?

Similarly, I think professional critics have more experience with the medium, conventions, and rubriks or whatnot to assess the film. Not that I think they are always RIGHT, they just have a REASON to say what they say. Except Armond White

While professional critics may have more experience with the medium what they have no idea about is what I like.

But I don't think people should feel like they HAVE to agree with the critics/professionals/informed fans just because they have more understanding of the medium in question. Sometimes, it''s best to use your own judgement.

exactly the point I am trying to make. If people want to listen to critics that is fine. On a movie like this, Man of Steel received mixed reviews, which review do you follow. A lot of critics said it was bad and a lot of critics said it was good.

Like, if a film has a LOT of flaws, and one even understands the scope of the errors to the point that cannot be considered quality entertainment. It's then a "guilty pleasure", and there's nothing wrong with that.

Similarly, if a movie makes a lot of divisive choices with its handling of story/structure/dialog/character, then I think it's best to form your own opinion. But I don't think criticisms should be THROWN out, unless the events of the material indicate that they are invalid.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that other people shouldn't form one's own opinion, but one also shouldn't disregard the opinions of others.

If I see no validity in someone's opinion then I have no reason to not disregard it. If someone hated Man of Steel because Superman didn't have red trunks IMO(lol) that's not a valid reason to hate the movie. That person is entitled to think that way but in my estimation they just seem to be nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. On the flip side of that the person who hated MOS because of no trunks may look at my opinion as being not valid.

 

[roach]

One of the first things I noticed in the movie is that Goyer chose to have a movie with a 25 minute sequence on Krypton, and if somebody else had written the movie it might have started with Jonathan and Martha finding a baby in the field and deciding to raise him.

Superman's story always starts on Krypton. I don't know why this is an issue. However by starting the story in Krypton rather than Earth we get a different version of Krypton that we are used to (not snowy and crystals) and it sets up the villain of the piece rather nicely. Mark Waid's Birthright gives us 22 pages of Krypton before we get to Earth and we don't see Martha and Jonathan finding him.


I understand why they can't do both in a movie, they went for a science fiction tone and not for a "human" tone. By going with the Krypton opening sequence, they set up a lot of really poor, really scientifically illiterate science fiction like:
- the codex;
- Krypton having a much higher gravity even though it's a rocky planet with a thin atmosphere and it has dragons;
- Krypton's star not feeding energy because it's "older" (what?) even though it looks like a solar twin;
- Everybody on Krypton being bred and raised for a single purpose, and then they're shown as polymaths;
- Different gases sap Superman's powers;

How was the codex scientifically illiterate? or the higher gravity complaint...is this even in the movie? I think you are missing the point about science fiction.


They wanted to go for some serious science fiction, which is a legitimate choice, and would have worked if they were more scientifically literate. They did get one thing right in that they related black holes to the phantom zone -- hurray! So somebody involved was scientifically literate, and I suspect it was a Christopher Nolan, but I have no proof. I see some incredible potential here, but they screwed up because they didn't have the scientific literacy to pull it off, and it's a shame because they could have easily hired a consultant. I might have done this, the scifi-focused story, if I had been on staff, or something like it. I love science fiction when it's well thought out. Most novels I read are science fiction.

It's science fiction...not science fact.

Hulk, and also Mark Waid, I think, would have focused more on Jonathan and Martha finding a ship in the field and deciding to raise a baby. We never see the scene of Jonathan and Martha finding the ship in the field. If they had shown it, and had shown Jonathan and Martha bonding with baby Clark rather than expecting the viewer to assume it in the abstract, there would be a better sense of why Clark is such a moral individual, and it would add a layer to the rather good warmth between Martha and Clark in the second half of the movie, which I consider the best relationship of the movie. If I could build a time machine and go talk to Snyder and only give him a single piece of advice based on the movie I saw twice, I think I'd say to him "more scenes with Diane Lane." I come to this conclusion, with my understanding, after having seen the movie twice and debated it way too much. Interestingly, Mark Waid writes in the commentary to Birthright that a story entirely about Martha would be a great story to tell.

Interesting...in Birthright Mark Waid starts off with Krypton. We get the whole "planet is going to explode no one is listening to Jor-el send my son to earth" intro that we got in Man of Steel. 22 pages of sci fi Krypton. The story shows Kal's rocket and then we are with a grown up Clark in Africa. We never see Martha and Clark bond in the story.

 

[DA_Champion]

Yeah that wasn't a conversation I found interesting. But I am still curious as to where you got your numbers from. If it's from RT, I don't find them to be a very good source.

Those are the aggregates from RT. It's not perfect but it's pretty good.

This statement basically proves you have no knowledge or understanding of Superman.

First of all, his story is science fiction. Alien world, space ship, living on Earth as one of us, invaders from another planet, high tech spaceships -- these are hallmarks of science fiction. Superman is a science fiction fantasy wrapped up in good old American-styled folklore. But it's still science fiction.

I have plenty of knowledge of Superman.

We're discussing a 2 hour movie, so they can't cover all the bases, some parts have to be discarded in the case of a single movie. They made the strategic decision to spend ~25 minutes on the flawed science fiction and not on Clark's upbringing, even though as much as you wanna say "superman is science fiction," it is also an immigration and adoption story. That part was covered much less thoroughly than the science fiction.

Further, if they want to pursue Superman as a science fiction -- and it's a legitimate choice -- would it not make more sense for the science fiction to be coherent?

If you have a problem with that, you'd better take it up with the writers of the comic books.

Perhaps if you were as enthusiastic about researching Superman's history, you would have a greater understanding of the film, instead of relying on other people's opinions on what it means to them.

Here is a link to the article on Krypton's history in the comics: http://superman.wikia.com/wiki/Krypton

You should read it before you go on and on about how the writers have no understanding of Krypton.

Edit: I realize you said science, not Krypton. But you should still read the article so you understand the choices Goyer made in the film. It's not about "our" science, but rather the science that fits the universe for MOS, which is similar, but not the same as ours.

Goyer did not respect the source material from the comics, if he had the science fiction would be better.

The article you link to is quite clear that Superman's powers arise because he can absorb yellow sun radiation, then why did they change this in the movie? They show Krypton as orbiting a solar twin. Why not show it orbiting a red star, either a red dwarf or a red giant? The answer is that they made scientifically illiterate changes, referencing the "age" of the star. Krypton's star is apparently older, but the fact it looks like a solar twin means that nobody should notice a difference. They changed the mythology here to something stupid, so your article is irrelevant. The movie would be better if they had respected the source material.

The article also talks about Krypton having a higher gravity. We all knew that already. But if that is so important, then why did they show a world with lower or comparable gravity? They kind of respected the source material... but not really. They told us one thing and showed another.

If you want to see a good science fiction movie, I recommend Moon, Inception, and District 9. They follow through in those movies, consequences exist and the world-building is coherent.

 

[roach]

It's a science fiction show not a Discovery channel show.

 

[DA_Champion]

You brought up story awards, I found that odd and selective.

You're having a very hard time dealing with a very simple idea.

I listed 4 quality measures. I then pointed out MoS fails all 4. In contrast, TA succeeded in 3 in failed in 1. 3/4 is better than 0/4.

It's like if I criticise a baseball player who cannot hit for average, cannot hit for power, cannot steal bases, and cannot get walks. You would then reply to me that there's another baseball player who hits .310, gets 30 HRs a year, steals 30 bases a year, but doesn't get many walks, and therefore we shouldn't discuss walks because there's a respected player out there who doesn't get many walks. No, sorry Marvin. It's still good to get a lot of walks and unfortunate not to, regardless of there being good players who don't get many walks.

 

[Octoberist]

Everyone's so...ANGRY..here!

 

[roach]

Everyone's so...ANGRY..here!

it's a mad house here

 

[Marvin]

You're having a very hard time dealing with a very simple idea.

I listed 4 quality measures. I then pointed out MoS fails all 4. In contrast, TA succeeded in 3 in failed in 1. 3/4 is better than 0/4.

It's like if I criticise a baseball player who cannot hit for average, cannot hit for power, cannot steal bases, and cannot get walks. You would then reply to me that there's another baseball player who hits .310, gets 30 HRs a year, steals 30 bases a year, but doesn't get many walks, and therefore we shouldn't discuss walks because there's a respected player out there who doesn't get many walks. No, sorry Marvin. It's still good to get a lot of walks and unfortunate not to, regardless of there being good players who don't get many walks.

I'm thinking I missed something...
Quite simply, you said:

These are facts:
...
2) MoS won't win any serious awards for storytelling.

You weren't talking about avengers you were simply stating "Facts" as to why mos is a bad movie. I told you that just because a big summer genre film doesn't win any story awards doesn't mean it's not a good film. You can argue all you want about the reasons MOS isn't a good film but, just because it doesn't win a story award means little, the fact is tons of great summer movies don't win story awards. There is no prerequisite for good films of this sort to win story awards, Ironman is a great film that didn't "win" a story award, Spiderman..etc. Before you get into what those films did win, please understand the point, simply not winning something isn't a criticism.

It's a simple point: You were listing off "Facts" that correlate directly to MOS being a failure and I disputed one of your facts for being ill conceived. I get that you want to list out an average of reasons that lands mos in worse position than other filims, however that point in particular is nonsense.

It would be no different than you saying, 'Let's look at the facts, MoS will probably not win an Oscar for Best picture.' Meaning it's a failure. And then me retorting: Avengers didn't win best picture either and it's a great film.

If MOS wins worst story award, that will be another matter.

 

[Tempest]

I have plenty of knowledge of Superman.

I don't think you do, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

We're discussing a 2 hour movie, so they can't cover all the bases, some parts have to be discarded in the case of a single movie. They made the strategic decision to spend ~25 minutes on the flawed science fiction and not on Clark's upbringing, even though as much as you wanna say "superman is science fiction," it is also an immigration and adoption story. That part was covered much less thoroughly than the science fiction.

One, the science fiction was not flawed. You have failed to prove your point, which I will further discuss later in this post. Secondly, I never once said that the film is only about science fiction. I pointed out that the duality that makes up Clark Kent is very well illustrated in the story. The other-worldly elements are nicely balanced against the more grounding aspects of the humanity Clark is surrounded by. The story also does the job of making certain that we never forget that Clark is both a stranger to our world, but one who has a great heart, and longs for acceptance.

Further, if they want to pursue Superman as a science fiction -- and it's a legitimate choice -- would it not make more sense for the science fiction to be coherent?

No. Because there is no coherency in Superman science, because I don't think that it would actually happen the way it does in the comics -- which is not Goyer's fault.

Sure, he could have made the science more realistic, but that would require that he ignore the most basic facets of the Superman comics, and why would, or should he, do that? If he'd done that, you'd be ripping him a new one that he couldn't even keep the smallest details of Superman intact.

This whole thing about the science fiction is literally you grasping at straws, because you have very little else to stand on.

You liked the movie, then you were swayed by others to dislike it. Now that you've had reasoned, spirited debates where your points have slowly been whittled away, you are hanging onto this last argument.

If you don't like MOS, just own it. I don't like Twilight. I could go on and on about weak characters, or recycled plots, but really it just boils down to my gut saying I don't like it.

The article you link to is quite clear that Superman's powers arise because he can absorb yellow sun radiation, then why did they change this in the movie? They show Krypton as orbiting a solar twin. Why not show it orbiting a red star, either a red dwarf or a red giant? The answer is that they made scientifically illiterate changes, referencing the "age" of the star. Krypton's star is apparently older, but the fact it looks like a solar twin means that nobody should notice a difference. They changed the mythology here to something stupid, so your article is irrelevant. The movie would be better if they had respected the source material.

This is the part of your argument that puzzles me the most. The sun in Krypton appears to be larger than ours, and is not a bright yellow, but closer to an orange-red in appearance, which fits the narrative of it being a 'red' sun.

You should know that red suns are not always a true red color. So they are scientifically fine.

The film references the 'older' sun, which is also correct, because you know that red stars are generally older in age. There was absolutely no change to that aspect of the mythology.

The one thing they added was that the atmosphere on Earth also helps Clark's powers. It makes about as much sense as any of the other 'science' surrounding Clark's abilities, so I'm willing to let it slide, particularly since they used the atmosphere instead of the hated Kryptonite.

The article also talks about Krypton having a higher gravity. We all knew that already. But if that is so important, then why did they show a world with lower or comparable gravity? They kind of respected the source material... but not really. They told us one thing and showed another.

Well, I think they did show it. The Kryptonians, even on their own planet, seem to be somewhat stronger than the average human, and their invulnerability on Earth comes in part from their genetic makeup, which comes from the denser, stronger muscles and bones that they have from living in a place with higher gravity.

How would you have shown Krypton with a higher gravitational force? Describe to me the scenario you would have given in order for it to have made sense.

They talk about the size being important (they were increasing the Earth's mass to give it a greater gravitational force), and we see Clark is somewhat affected by the stronger gravity, particularly when fighting the world engine.

If you want to see a good science fiction movie, I recommend Moon, Inception, and District 9. They follow through in those movies, consequences exist and the world-building is coherent.

Re-read the article. Everything you complain about comes from the source material. Goyer didn't remake the science of Superman. He added one small piece to it, and it works just as well as anything else in this universe.

The other films you mention have the advantage of working off of fairly clean slates, instead of 75 years worth of history.

 

[jimbob]

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.
First of all, it opened at 116 m, not 150. Some blockbusters you somehow missed with bigger drops include the final Harry Potter movie, Hellboy 2, Twilight BD Part 1, Twilight BD Part 2, Wolverine, Cloverfield, and Watchmen. The Avengers and The Dark Knight had drops over 50%, so I guess they had 20% less bad word of mouth, or didn't over-achieve in their opening weekend as much, or however you want to spin it. Yes, nobody had any idea what the writing was when the movie opened, because there were no advanced screenings or reviews. Oh wait, that's not true, is it? Most reviews were out on opening weekend, unless you were someone like Hulk, who reviewed the movie 2 weeks later, when his mom let him see a discounted matinee or something.

2) MoS won't win any serious awards for storytelling.
It's been dealt with already. I'll accept your admission this was a bad point.

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.
Yeah, it's kind of funny that they were already negotiating with Affleck for the next movie in the spring already, though. The fact that they're building the whole DC cinematic universe around Man of Steel kind of speaks to their disappointment. Reminiscent of Iron Man that way, don't you think? Of course they put Black Widow in the second one, as Stark couldn't carry it alone. The movie coming out in 2015 is a sequel to MOS. There is no Green Lantern sequel with Aquaman or Wonder Woman coming out. See the difference?
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).
Actually, they don't. You're referring to number of positive vs. negative reviews, not scores. If you ask critics to rank CBM's since Blade, most likely it will be in the middle, though some will have it near the top. There's Blade 3, Catwoman, Cowboys & Aliens, 2 horrendous Crow movies, Daredevil, Elektra, the Fantastic Four movies, the Ghost Rider movies, Green Lantern, the Hulk movies, Jonah Hex, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, the Punisher movies, Spider-man 3, and Superman Returns. I'm sure there are more, but if you seriously think MOS isn't better than those, you've got some serious hater-vision going on.

 

[roach]

A lot of his complaints about the science and look and feel can't be attributed to the screenwriter and are more areas of the director and visual effects people.

 

[roach]

Back on the subject of opinions: Quentin Tarantino has listed the Lone Ranger as one of the best films of 2013.