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

[jimbob]

Yeah, I saw that. "They don't show it as a high gravity planet." What, were they supposed to have a human astronaut in the background yelling "I've fallen and I can't get up!"? If you evolved there, it's not a high gravity/weak sunlight/whatever planet, it's home. It's kind of like people who say that the Earth is perfectly suited for the life forms that live here. No, it is what it is, and if you're a life form that thrives in it, it seems perfect. If you came from somewhere different, it would be hellish. I can imagine his version of Krypton - "Okay, we'll shoot everything through a red filtered lens. Then all the people will be like squatting and shuffling slowly due to the gravity. Skinny people moving like fat people. Fat people needing hover-chairs and breathing tubes. Maybe throw in someone dropping a hat and it SMASHES into the ground, leaving a crater. All the animals have to be really stocky and maybe they would have evolved wheels to get around on. We're gonna get some awards for this one!"

 

[jimbob]

Quentin only has a job because movie studios are stupid. He was a video clerk, and therefore lacking expertise. Even though his scripts seem good to ordinary folk, they obviously can't be to sophisticates. He has an uninformed opinion, and really should have consulted Hulk before making up his mind.

 

[roach]

Yeah, I saw that. "They don't show it as a high gravity planet." What, were they supposed to have a human astronaut in the background yelling "I've fallen and I can't get up!"? If you evolved there, it's not a high gravity/weak sunlight/whatever planet, it's home. It's kind of like people who say that the Earth is perfectly suited for the life forms that live here. No, it is what it is, and if you're a life form that thrives in it, it seems perfect. If you came from somewhere different, it would be hellish. I can imagine his version of Krypton - "Okay, we'll shoot everything through a red filtered lens. Then all the people will be like squatting and shuffling slowly due to the gravity. Skinny people moving like fat people. Fat people needing hover-chairs and breathing tubes. Maybe throw in someone dropping a hat and it SMASHES into the ground, leaving a crater. All the animals have to be really stocky and maybe they would have evolved wheels to get around on. We're gonna get some awards for this one!"

im glad I wasn't the only one questioning it.

 

[roach]

Quentin only has a job because movie studios are stupid. He was a video clerk, and therefore lacking expertise. Even though his scripts seem good to ordinary folk, they obviously can't be to sophisticates. He has an uninformed opinion, and really should have consulted Hulk before making up his mind.

 

[Krumm]

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

Well, if you're presenting them as "facts," they should be perfect -- indisputable, even.

Fact is, RT is a flawed system and a black and white system. If you're going to use it then looking at the average rating is the best option. MOS got a 6.2/10, not great, but still better than the 56% Tomatometer score.

Now I could also show you the Critic's Choice score, a 77/100 or 3/4 stars, which sounds pretty good to me.

As for the word of mouth argument, the reason for the percentage drop is solely your conjecture, which is hardly a "fact." The CinemaScore for Man of Steel was an A-, RT audience score has it at a 76% or a 3.9/5, and IMDb also has 7.6/10. The RT and IMDb scores come from at least a quarter million people and IMDb has that score spread rather equally across all demographics.

I'm not say that MOS is an amazing piece of work but it certainly not the failure you're trying to present it to be with your "facts."

 

[Marvin]

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.

DA Champion said earlier that he didn't like changes for the sake of changes. As debatable as that is(early in a series) he lost me when he started stating why the sci fi supposedly didn't work. I find this whole discourse particularly interesting given two of DA's earlier quotes that caught my eye:

'We're not supposed to "interpret", and neither does Goyer. This is fantasy, and the rule is: Kryptonians are indistinguishable from humans other than the fact they get powers under a yellow sun (and possibly increased lung capacity). That's all there is to it.'
source

'I agree with you that "in real life" aliens with different genetic structure would be neurologically distinct. But this movie isn't real life, and it's not hard science fiction, it's fantasy.'source

'Scifi has some logic to it, so if Superman were actual scifi we'd be able to infer it, but it isn't. It's soft scifi/fantasy, so we can only go by what is in the movie, and only what is in the movie'source

Your most ironic statement:
'Superman is fantasy / soft-scifi, it's not hard scifi, stop pretending it is...'source
It's nice that you can seemingly take your own advice when it comes to neurological behavioural conclusions to be drawn from the film but can’t seem to apply this line of thinking across the board. That would require no longer being selective.

My personal favourite:
'The problem is that you're putting more thought into the script and the world-building then David Goyer ever did. You're trying to apply real-world logic, when it's Goyer-world logic that in fact matters.' I remember that one because it was a response to my attempt arriving at a logical conclusion based on evidence provided in the film.

All these statements on their own are what they are, but the fact that you used most of them in arguments against sci-fi reasoning. Something about this whole thing comes off disingenuous.

Does a star need to emit distinctly red light in order for it to be contrasted to something “younger and different” or can that simply be chalked up to the rules of fantasy/soft scifi? Can a possibly(source material accurate) kryptonite element rich atmosphere inhibit clarks powers whereas an earth based system does not…etc.

 

[Krumm]

^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.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood this, but I couldn't disagree more. When it comes to film adaptions of books, fans of the book are the last people I listen to. They rarely have an objective opinion and often fail to understand that screenwriting is a different medium with a different structure, which is the reason a lot of things are cut out.

 

[The Guard]

Regarding his argument about the science of the film, I really don't understand how the science fiction (key word: FICTION) can actually be "wrong" in relation to what conditions actually give a man the power to fly, lift tremendous weight, shoot heat from his eyes, etc.

 

[Marvin]

Regarding his argument about the science of the film, I really don't understand how the science fiction (key word: FICTION) can actually be "wrong" in relation to what conditions actually give a man the power to fly, lift tremendous weight, shoot heat from his eyes, etc.

To be fair, "weak science fiction" is that which contradicts its own internal/designed and conveyed logic(explicitly). None of which I personally saw happen in this film.

 

[The Guard]

Exactly.

 

[DA_Champion]

To be fair, "weak science fiction" is that which contradicts its own internal/designed and conveyed logic(explicitly). None of which I personally saw happen in this film.

That is one way for science fiction to be weak. Another way is if it's not very informative. I generally think of science fiction as a means to either try and rigorously visualise the future, or to use some plot devices to teach us more about the human condition. This is very difficult to pull off, and thus I give tremendous respect to writers whom I think succeeded several times, like Isaac Asimov.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Good point.

 

[DA_Champion]

Well, if you're presenting them as "facts," they should be perfect -- indisputable, even.

Fact is, RT is a flawed system and a black and white system. If you're going to use it then looking at the average rating is the best option. MOS got a 6.2/10, not great, but still better than the 56% Tomatometer score.

Now I could also show you the Critic's Choice score, a 77/100 or 3/4 stars, which sounds pretty good to me.

As for the word of mouth argument, the reason for the percentage drop is solely your conjecture, which is hardly a "fact." The CinemaScore for Man of Steel was an A-, RT audience score has it at a 76% or a 3.9/5, and IMDb also has 7.6/10. The RT and IMDb scores come from at least a quarter million people and IMDb has that score spread rather equally across all demographics.

I'm not say that MOS is an amazing piece of work but it certainly not the failure you're trying to present it to be with your "facts."

Whether or not MoS is a "failure" depends on where you set the bar for a passing grade. I'd rate it as a failure relative to what the previews promised, and "average" relative to the comic book movie genre over the past ~15 years. However, that's mostly because it's a pretty weak genre of film, as Marvin has pointed out, comic book movies virtually never win any awards, in spite of having such large budgets, because the storytelling is typically very weak, for example Iron Man 2. I was hoping MoS would be a step up.

 

[DA_Champion]

DA Champion said earlier that he didn't like changes for the sake of changes. As debatable as that is(early in a series) he lost me when he started stating why the sci fi supposedly didn't work. I find this whole discourse particularly interesting given two of DA's earlier quotes that caught my eye:

'We're not supposed to "interpret", and neither does Goyer. This is fantasy, and the rule is: Kryptonians are indistinguishable from humans other than the fact they get powers under a yellow sun (and possibly increased lung capacity). That's all there is to it.'
source

'I agree with you that "in real life" aliens with different genetic structure would be neurologically distinct. But this movie isn't real life, and it's not hard science fiction, it's fantasy.'source

'Scifi has some logic to it, so if Superman were actual scifi we'd be able to infer it, but it isn't. It's soft scifi/fantasy, so we can only go by what is in the movie, and only what is in the movie'source

Your most ironic statement:
'Superman is fantasy / soft-scifi, it's not hard scifi, stop pretending it is...'source
It's nice that you can seemingly take your own advice when it comes to neurological behavioural conclusions to be drawn from the film but can’t seem to apply this line of thinking across the board. That would require no longer being selective.

My personal favourite:
'The problem is that you're putting more thought into the script and the world-building then David Goyer ever did. You're trying to apply real-world logic, when it's Goyer-world logic that in fact matters.' I remember that one because it was a response to my attempt arriving at a logical conclusion based on evidence provided in the film.

All these statements on their own are what they are, but the fact that you used most of them in arguments against sci-fi reasoning. Something about this whole thing comes off disingenuous.

Does a star need to emit distinctly red light in order for it to be contrasted to something “younger and different” or can that simply be chalked up to the rules of fantasy/soft scifi? Can a possibly(source material accurate) kryptonite element rich atmosphere inhibit clarks powers whereas an earth based system does not…etc.

This will be my last post to you. Not that I have anything against you, and I think this conversation has been productive, but because we have invested way too much time into this, and I think it's time to move forward. Dissecting MoS is very interesting, but there are other interesting things to do in life. I saw the movie in July, and now it's October.

You're entirely right, for example, that Superman being able to fly at Mach 20 or whatever due to energy he picks up from the yellow sun is nonsensical and requires a suspension of disbelief. However, we have all already suspended our disbelief for that. I think that 95% of people who went into the movie theatre knew that Superman is defined to be able to fly, you don't need to convince anybody of that. It's already bought. However, when you introduce new concepts, new ideas, new components to the myths, you better do it carefully because you're not getting away with it for free. If you're replacing one idea with another, you better make sure it makes more sense somehow. Because the old ideas, even if they're bad, are already accepted. The new ideas have to be better.

As an example: midichlorians. People had no problem with the force in the original series, and then n the prequels Lucas said the force was caused by something that can be measured in a blood test. A bad explanation was provided to something that didn't need to be explained, and it pissed people off.

In truth, Man of Steel did not make 150 million on opening weekend because people wanted to watch a documentary about the codex. It would have probably been better to skim over the science fiction (like John Carter did and like Star Wars did) and instead go over what people want to see (the characters and the adventures) than to go on and on and on over nonsensical science fiction. I've learned from these discussions that a lot of people don't care about the scifi at all, they just want the characters, their interactions, and the adventure. Thus I'd put that as the first option, then I'd put good science fiction as the second option, and finally flawed, incoherent science as the last choice.

Since you asked, I'll explain why the new science fiction is nonsensical, though I think a better option than sound science fiction might have been less science fiction, just don't belabour the point.

With respect to yellow sun and red sun. That one kind of made sense, because yellow light is more precious than red light, so I've always told myself Superman's skin absorbs light with a wavelength of ~550 nm, and not light with a wavelength of ~750 nm, and I was content. It also describes stars as well. When it comes to stars, we only experience two things:
1) How big the star appears, which is a function of how big it is and how close you are to the star... and Krypton's star is shown to appear bigger;
2) The temperature or colour of the star.
You do not experience the age of the star. The age of the star does sometimes matter because as a star ages, it changes at specific points and effects... the colour and size of the star, which is what's experienced. But if an ageing star becomes a red giant, what matters is that it's red and a giant, that is what you'll feel. A larger amount of heat, and a different kind of heat. That's all. In this case they showed Krypton's star as being very much like the sun, only it appears larger. Why tell us light from the star matters, if they show Krypton as orbiting the same kind of star?

Saying that an older star doesn't provide energy, is equivalent to saying that Iron is a good element for building knives because it's very magnetic. That's not good science fiction as A doesn't follow from B. If Jor-El had said that his knife is a good knife because it's magnetic, I would have also thought "WTF?" You should either not provide an explanation (like the force in star wars or anything in Miyazake's films) or provide a good one (like phantom drives being linked to black holes). Don't provide a bad explanation. Certainly don't go to great lengths for a bad explanation. The lower gravity on Mars in John Carter is a bad explanation, but they don't belabour the point, so it's ok.

This video, if you fast forward to three minutes, shows you what the sun will look like when it's a red giant, fast forward to three minutes, and also at 3:36 and at 4:45:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv9d0TM7Z0g
It is reddish-orange and not the solar twin we see in the movie. Thus, they changed something in the mythology that made sense (red light is not absorbed by Kryptonians) to something that doesn't make sense (light from old stars is not absorbed).

All of this is aside from the fact, that you want to both show and tell. To paraphrase Guillermo Del Toro, the best kind of storytelling is with the camera (from the commentary to Pan's Labyrinth). If you're going to say Krypton has a different kind of sun, then you will gain immensely by showing it. You will gain among all audiences, not just those who want their elaborate science fiction to be scientifically coherent. Think of the "wow" factor from Tatooine having two Suns, remember first seeing that? Tell us it's an alien world, and show it.

My comments about neurological behaviour were, if you read the link provided by Tempest, already part of the mythology prior to Goyer. Kryptonians think and feel like humans, though in some versions they are smarter on average. That's what was in there before, and Goyer maintained that as far as I can tell. So basically everything I said about Kryptonians and psychology is well backed. We're not supposed to interpret beyond thinking that they are just like people, they experience anger, love, ambition, hate, etc. Kryptonians feel like humans feel, and they think like us other than with a higher average intelligence.

All the best,
- David

 

[DA_Champion]

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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

This will be my last reply to you as well, again nothing personal, though I'm seeing a lot of unnecessary belligerence on your part.

Once more: the source material is bigger than any 2 hour movie. These are things we did not see or barely saw in this movie:
- Jonathan and Clark finding a baby in a field, and their difficulty raising an alien baby;
- Friends Pete Ross and Lana Lang being a big part of Clark's life growing up;
- Clark Kent, investigative reporter;
- Justice League, in particular relationships with supergirl and batman;
- Lex Luthor, the ultimate enemy;
All of these are very important "if you're familiar with the mythology of Superman" but they either show up very marginally in the movie, or not at all, that is because you can't show everything. In contrast, the flawed science shows up for what was a 20+ minute intro, and then various points later. It's not as though Jor-El is 10x more important than Jonathan Kent in every single interpretation, though he did get 10x the screentime and lines and narrative importance. They made a decision here, to downplay the human component and character component, and thus he's never written a newspaper article until age 33, and according to many Lois Lane is the first friend he has ever had.

Instead of spending 30 minutes on Jor-El and 3 minutes on Jonathan Kent and 6 minutes on Martha Kent, which you keep telling me "is from the source material", they could have had a more equitable partition of time, which would also be from the source material. More good humanity, less poor science fiction. It's precisely because the science fiction in Superman is so bad that it's never really prominent. I've never seen a Superman version before that prioritizes Jor-El over Jonathan and Martha, never mind by a factor of several, not the Donnerverse, not Smallville, not Lois and Clark, not STAS, not the comics I've read. This focus on the science fiction isn't from the souce material as you imply, it's an "innovation" by Goyer.

Man of Steel did not make 150 million on opening weekend because people wanted to watch a documentary about the codex.

For the gravity to make more sense, the first thing they would have to do is take out the dragon. As this web page explains:
http://mqallen.com/2012/03/16/can-dragons-really-fly/
The largest animal that can fly depends in part on a planet's gravity. You can look up other links. There are other things they could, but I don't think they're as essential. As it is, anybody who knows anything about flying didn't buy that Krypton had much higher gravity. Alternatively, if you want a good laugh, here:
http://what-if.xkcd.com/30/
Anybody who knows anything about physics or engineering, the crudest consultant, could have told them that if they played up Krypton as having a much higher gravity, that dragon would not make sense.

The second part is, that since the gravity beam from the world builder was increasing the Earth's gravity, this should have caused earthquakes and volcanoes everywhere, even an extremely small change in gravity would have that effect, and so I was thinking "****, what about the earthquakes?" They really didn't think this through. If I had been a consultant I would have told them to not increase the Earth's gravity, because the consequences would be too complex to deal with in the movie.

 

[roach]

Someone lost their ability to suspend belief.....I wonder what he thought of Lord of the Rings? Star Wars?

Higher gravity is from the source material
dragons on krypton is from the source material

 

[The Guard]

And seeing as how Krypton has higher gravity, one would assume that those dragons are physiologically suited TO that higher gravity. Like the people of Krypton themselves.

 

[roach]

And seeing as how Krypton has higher gravity, one would assume that those dragons are physiologically suited TO that higher gravity. Like the people of Krypton themselves.

Exactly...why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Krumm]

Whether or not MoS is a "failure" depends on where you set the bar for a passing grade. I'd rate it as a failure relative to what the previews promised, and "average" relative to the comic book movie genre over the past ~15 years. However, that's mostly because it's a pretty weak genre of film, as Marvin has pointed out, comic book movies virtually never win any awards, in spite of having such large budgets, because the storytelling is typically very weak, for example Iron Man 2. I was hoping MoS would be a step up.

And that's the thing, you presented a laundry list of "facts" that were meant to paint the quality and reception of Man of Steel in a poor light. Now, you're claiming that the failure of the film is completely subjective to the viewer, which I completely agree with. But it begs the question: what was the point of that post all those "facts?"

However, I'm seeing a trend here with your last couple of post so I'll be moving on from the topic and rightfully so because it's not really getting anywhere as you said.

 

[roach]

He had no leg to stand on with his criticisms and when they were debunked he decided to lean on 'scientific inaccuracies'. It's a perfect example of clutching at straws. If you didn't like the movie...that's fine but don't invent stuff. No one walked out of Man of Steel, disliking it because of the science.

 

[The Guard]

Well, DA seems to have had issues with it.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

He had no leg to stand on with his criticisms and when they were debunked he decided to lean on 'scientific inaccuracies'. It's a perfect example of clutching at straws. If you didn't like the movie...that's fine but don't invent stuff. No one walked out of Man of Steel, disliking it because of the science.

Exactly.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

He had no leg to stand on with his criticisms and when they were debunked he decided to lean on 'scientific inaccuracies'. It's a perfect example of clutching at straws. If you didn't like the movie...that's fine but don't invent stuff. No one walked out of Man of Steel, disliking it because of the science.

Pretty much. The foundation for Superman having powers on Earth is traditionally Earth has a yellow sun.

But Earth doesn't have a yellow sun. It's white.

When that is the starting point of your mythology, it doesn't really matter.

 

[roach]

Pretty much. The foundation for Superman having powers on Earth is traditionally Earth has a yellow sun.

But Earth doesn't have a yellow sun. It's white.

When that is the starting point of your mythology, it doesn't really matter.

Exactly. Before my turn as a screenwriter I did 11 years in the US Navy. I have yet to see a movie that accurately depicted the military (the navy seal movie came very close). However I am able to let it slide because it's movies.

 

[Marvin]

He had no leg to stand on with his criticisms and when they were debunked he decided to lean on 'scientific inaccuracies'. It's a perfect example of clutching at straws. If you didn't like the movie...that's fine but don't invent stuff. No one walked out of Man of Steel, disliking it because of the science.

Impossible to speak for everyone.
Some people like Dr. Niel Tyson for example have a habit of doing just that.