BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 2

[DA_Champion]

Honestly, what´s so bad about Zack Snyder? I agree that he is not the best director around, but he has made good movies, including MOS.

I know a lot of people don´t like it, but i don´t understand what´s the big problem with the movie. It is a pretty decent origin story. Most of the fight scenes are amazing. Everything looks great. We have good character development. We see more from young Clark, The Kents, Jor-El and Krypton than we see in any other Superman movie. We have a pretty good Zod whose motivations go a little further than simply "I want to rule the earth, for the sake of ruling something".

I mean, what else can you want from a Superman movie? MOS was a movie about Superman. It was more about Superman than the 1978 film, wich felt like a love story between Superman and an ultra dumb Lois Lane.

People say MOS has no substance. Really? What movie has substance? TA? Thor? Iron Man? None of those movies made me feel anything for any of it´s characters. They´re hollow. At least MOS gave me a couple of deep scenes. At least i could feel Clark´s dilemma. At least it felt like there were lifes at stake. Just look at the last scene with Zod. Look at Superman´s look of desperation. That´s a scene that sells very well the idea that something horrible is about to happen. Many acclaimed super hero couldn´t even do that.

I don't know. I spent a lot of time bashing MoS (about two months lol), and there are lots of problems with the film, but after much effort, and I'm a very intelligent guy, I cannot tell you that this movie warrants the hate it received. There are numerous problems with the film but not more than I could find for "more respected" films with less effort.

One aspect which I suspect is the case is psychological. Zack Snyder doesn't give perfectly happy endings the way the MCU does or the way the overrated David O. Russell does. In Zack Snyder's endings, there's always a cost, some source of unhappiness leading to ambiguity. That is neither good nor bad, but I'm sure it annoys a lot of audience members, without explaining "all" of the hate.

• Dawn of the Dead ends badly I think, but it's been too long.
• Watchmen ends with Dr. Manhattan needing to leave Earth.
• 300 ends with Leonidas dead.
• Didn't watch Legends of the Guardians, don't know.
• Sucker Punch ends with Babydoll having sacrificed herself -- she becomes lobitimized -- so that Sweet Pea can be freed.
• Man of Steel ends with Clark losing part of his humanity as he kills Zod.

I do think that if MoS had had a BS happy ending based on some nonsensical deus ex machina there would have been fewer complaints.

I'm not saying that this attribute of Snyder explains the full discrepancy, but I do think it contributes to it.

 

[DA_Champion]

What I don't understand is why at first the movie was well liked on here, and now it seems like the opinion is slowly declining about the movie as we are approaching the production of the sequel. Is it because the novelty has worn off? I don't understand why at first the majority seemed to really like and praise the film and the only complaint was the ending and now we are seeing a change. People were praising Snyder and now people are doubting him again.

I don't know if people's opinions are changing or if it's just different people posting now than six months ago.

 

[Superman_200]

I don't know. I spent a lot of time bashing MoS (about two months lol), and there are lots of problems with the film, but after much effort, and I'm a very intelligent guy, I cannot tell you that this movie warrants the hate it received. There are numerous problems with the film but not more than I could find for "more respected" films with less effort.

One aspect which I suspect is the case is psychological. Zack Snyder doesn't give perfectly happy endings the way the MCU does or the way the overrated David O. Russell does. In Zack Snyder's endings, there's always a cost, some source of unhappiness leading to ambiguity. That is neither good nor bad, but I'm sure it annoys a lot of audience members, without explaining "all" of the hate.

• Dawn of the Dead ends badly I think, but it's been too long.
• Watchmen ends with Dr. Manhattan needing to leave Earth.
• 300 ends with Leonidas dead.
• Didn't watch Legends of the Guardians, don't know.
• Sucker Punch ends with Babydoll having sacrificed herself -- she becomes lobitimized -- so that Sweet Pea can be freed.
• Man of Steel ends with Clark losing part of his humanity as he kills Zod.

I do think that if MoS had had a BS happy ending based on some nonsensical deus ex machina there would have been fewer complaints.

I'm not saying that this attribute of Snyder explains the full discrepancy, but I do think it contributes to it.

I think that if they would have had Superman have a happier ending they may have liked it better. But it doesn't make any sense to have a moment of "Aha, if I do this with this machine then Zod and company will forever be trapped here again" because that feels like its a cop out. It feels like a plot device to stop him from killing Zod. I don't think they should be using a plot device to beat characters and inventions. That is why I am so opposed to Batman fighting Superman in the movie and beating him. People always say "He is smarter and would find a way". Okay, and that way is usually going to be what? Some invention? "Aha, thank goodness Batman is so smart he invented the 'Whatever Device' and that allows him to win!". That does not prove a character is smart, that proves that one line of dialogue can explain any ridiculous thing in a movie. Like "I am Batman and I invented an invisible Kryptonite radiation weapon which will poison Superman with the Kryptonite and he will not see it happen and it has nothing to do with his speed and reflexes and then I win". Really? In that case if we are going to be making stuff up, then why not make up one more thing and make Superman invulnerable to Kryptonite as well, then what? As long as we make up stuff, why not?

I don't know if people's opinions are changing or if it's just different people posting now than six months ago.

I don't know. Either way it seems like all of a sudden there is a lot more pointing out of the problems of Man of Steel which all still seem to come down to they wanted it to be campier and they wanted more jokes, and they wanted Zod to be beat some other way. No one mentions what other way though, and when they do it usually is some cop out like "He could reverse engineer this and send them back and then tricks them all, blah blah blah" some technical impossibility plot device to avoid killing Zod. If that happened they might as well have called the device that could send Zod and company back to where they came from "The Plot Device".

 

[Space Ghost]

What I don't understand is why at first the movie was well liked on here, and now it seems like the opinion is slowly declining about the movie as we are approaching the production of the sequel. Is it because the novelty has worn off? I don't understand why at first the majority seemed to really like and praise the film and the only complaint was the ending and now we are seeing a change. People were praising Snyder and now people are doubting him again.

Having watched the other 5 Superman movies made me appreciate MOS even more. I don´t think it is perfect, or even amazing. But it is the best Superman movie until now IMO.

I don't know. I spent a lot of time bashing MoS (about two months lol), and there are lots of problems with the film, but after much effort, and I'm a very intelligent guy, I cannot tell you that this movie warrants the hate it received. There are numerous problems with the film but not more than I could find for "more respected" films with less effort.

One aspect which I suspect is the case is psychological. Zack Snyder doesn't give perfectly happy endings the way the MCU does or the way the overrated David O. Russell does. In Zack Snyder's endings, there's always a cost, some source of unhappiness leading to ambiguity. That is neither good nor bad, but I'm sure it annoys a lot of audience members, without explaining "all" of the hate.

• Dawn of the Dead ends badly I think, but it's been too long.
• Watchmen ends with Dr. Manhattan needing to leave Earth.
• 300 ends with Leonidas dead.
• Didn't watch Legends of the Guardians, don't know.
• Sucker Punch ends with Babydoll having sacrificed herself -- she becomes lobitimized -- so that Sweet Pea can be freed.
• Man of Steel ends with Clark losing part of his humanity as he kills Zod.

I do think that if MoS had had a BS happy ending based on some nonsensical deus ex machina there would have been fewer complaints.

I'm not saying that this attribute of Snyder explains the full discrepancy, but I do think it contributes to it.

Maybe some people are too attached to the original Superman movie and can´t get themselves to love something different.

 

[Superman_200]

Having watched the other 5 Superman movies made me appreciate MOS even more. I don´t think it is perfect, or even amazing. But it is the best Superman movie until now IMO.

Maybe some people are too attached to the original Superman movie and can´t get themselves to love something different.

Maybe because the character is 75 years old and there have been so many different ways to interpret him they don't accept a darker version of it. I think the younger audience probably accepts more the darker more realistic tone of it while the older audience that grew up with the camp wanted something like that. For them it may be like remaking Mary Poppins and turning it dark when she does indeed have a flying umbrella. The younger audience (especially those who are more into science and know more about the universe) see it as "Well, the universe has endless possibilities for life, so I don't see what is so funny and campy about that there could be life elsewhere". Scientists are looking for life in other planets at this moment and the majority if not all accept that it is almost 100% certain that life exists in other planets, maybe even in this galaxy.

People take stories like "Heaven is for Real" serious or horror movies about the impossible like "Exorcist" and "The Marked Ones" and all this other stuff and religious movies seriously, but one like Superman (which is scientifically speaking more plausible than any of those religious/horror movies) can't be taken seriously and must be campy. They don't have to present the material as campy. If you think what you see is silly then laugh, that is fine, but they don't have to present it as a funny/campy little movie.

 

[Space Ghost]

Maybe because the character is 75 years old and there have been so many different ways to interpret him they don't accept a darker version of it. I think the younger audience probably accepts more the darker more realistic tone of it while the older audience that grew up with the camp wanted something like that. For them it may be like remaking Mary Poppins and turning it dark when she does indeed have a flying umbrella. The younger audience (especially those who are more into science and know more about the universe) see it as "Well, the universe has endless possibilities for life, so I don't see what is so funny and campy about that there could be life elsewhere". Scientists are looking for life in other planets at this moment and the majority if not all accept that it is almost 100% certain that life exists in other planets, maybe even in this galaxy.

People take stories like "Heaven is for Real" serious or horror movies about the impossible like "Exorcist" and "The Marked Ones" and all this other stuff and religious movies seriously, but one like Superman (which is scientifically speaking more plausible than any of those religious/horror movies) is supposed to be campy.

If you think about it, in live action Superman has been portrayed the same way since 1978.All Superman movies and tv shows are based on that version. With Batman, people were exposed to more versions, wich made it easier to accept something like TDK. With Superman, the 1978 version it´s all most people know. For decades, when they think about superman, they think about that goofy romantic character. It has been that way in movies and tv shows.

 

[Lord]

Actually, i became a fan after knowing more about Superman and the versions that are not like the 1978 film.

 

[Superman_200]

If you think about it, in live action Superman has been portrayed the same way since 1978.All versions of movies and tv shows are based on that version. With Batman, people were exposed to more versions, wich made it easier to accept something like TDK. With Superman, the 1978 version it´s all most people know. For decades, when they think about superman, they think about that goofy romantic character. It has been that way in movies and tv shows.

I agree. I think though that if people sat there and thought about all those things they see on the science channels and history channels about the possibility of life in other planets and the risk involved in attempting to contact them they might take the character more seriously. If you take it more seriously, then you can start to "get into it" more and actually buying into that it could happen. I had always wanted to see the character taken seriously. I think it is weird that so many people know so little about science because if you look at what is more likely, a demonic possession or an alien seeing the planet, thinking apparently there is life there and a suitable environment and going there, well the alien is more likely. Life on other planets must exists, look at any documentary and read what Stephen Hawkings and Richard Dawkins among others mention about life on other planets. And then read what those same people say about possessions and gods and monsters and stuff.

After that, then people need to ask themselves, well then why can't Superman today that we know all this about science be taken seriously? In fact, it should be the opposite, the movies like Noah and Son of God and all those horror movies should be silly and campy and movies about possible alien invasions are the ones that should be taken more seriously and treated as horror movies.

[YT]watch?v=Dgc4GaHrs0E[/YT]

[YT]watch?v=JbvDYyoAv9k[/YT]

[YT]watch?v=6mmskXXetcg[/YT]


I think learning about science just makes it painfully obvious which stories should be taken more seriously.


Here are some of the great modern thinkers of the world today discussing the possibility of life in other parts of the universe. How can someone say well Superman is supposed to be campy and not taken seriously but a horror movies about ghosts and movies based on religious books, now that should be taken seriously.

[YT]watch?v=Uhj45BFK5dw[/YT]

 

[Micromind]

I don't know. Either way it seems like all of a sudden there is a lot more pointing out of the problems of Man of Steel which all still seem to come down to they wanted it to be campier and they wanted more jokes, and they wanted Zod to be beat some other way. No one mentions what other way though, and when they do it usually is some cop out like "He could reverse engineer this and send them back and then tricks them all, blah blah blah" some technical impossibility plot device to avoid killing Zod. If that happened they might as well have called the device that could send Zod and company back to where they came from "The Plot Device".

You mean like how Eric Selvig and Darcy (and her intern) used a "device" to help Thor in his final fight against Malekith ?

Imagine a similar approach being used in MOS against Zod, Dr. Hamilton's assistant hands over a device to Superman, to help him send Zod back to the Phantom Zone, problem solved, happy ending. fans and and critics are not too much critical, everyone is happy !

Superman then goes to do some token rescue work... to save people from rubble and then smiles and flies away.

 

[Space Ghost]

You mean like how Eric Selvig and Darcy (and her intern) used a "device" to help Thor in his final fight against Malekith ?

Imagine a similar approach being used in MOS against Zod, Dr. Hamilton's assistant hands over a device to Superman, to help him send Zod back to the Phantom Zone, problem solved, happy ending. fans and and critics are not too much critical, everyone is happy !

Superman then goes to do some token rescue work... to save people from rubble and then smiles and flies away.

That sounds horrible. I´m glad you´re not in charge of a movie. Lol.

Marvel plays way too safe. I´m glad he just snapped his neck. I´m sick of excuses to not to kill such a big threat. Kill the bastard and that´s it.

 

[Superman_200]

You mean like how Eric Selvig and Darcy (and her intern) used a "device" to help Thor in his final fight against Malekith ?

Imagine a similar approach being used in MOS against Zod, Dr. Hamilton's assistant hands over a device to Superman, to help him send Zod back to the Phantom Zone, problem solved, happy ending. fans and and critics are not too much critical, everyone is happy !

Superman then goes to do some token rescue work... to save people from rubble and then smiles and flies away.

Again, that would be my problem with it. It seems like a plot device, it seems like when a script writer digs a hole for himself and we are just watching to see how he gets himself out of the hole he has made for himself. Realistically, Hamilton hands him a device? How would that be accomplished?

This gives you an idea of where I am coming with it.

[YT]watch?v=tykCWO-abUU[/YT]

If a scientist could figure that out so quickly in a movie for the sake of that, the audience would just laugh and they might as well call the invention "Plot Device". And the Plot Device from Thor and any of The Avenger-esk movies should also be called Plot Device. Only in a movie could a scientist understand and create that, especially that quickly without years of research, etc. If it takes us years to understand sometimes the smallest things from this planet. Think about what deGrasse mentions about our intelligence. Those are real life scientists. It is a science fiction movie but the fiction is that an alien has arrived, not our ability to create things and understand technology, etc. That Plot Device would not fit into that movie.

 

[Space Ghost]

If a scientist could figure that out so quickly in a movie for the sake of that, the audience would just laugh

That´s the sort of thing that used to happen in the old Superman movies that people love so much, so i can see the majority being pleased by it. It´s also the sort of thing that happens in Marvel movies. And again, people love it.

 

[Micromind]

That sounds horrible. I´m glad you´re not in charge of a movie. Lol.

Marvel plays way too safe. I´m glad he just snapped his neck. I´m sick of excuses to not to kill such a big threat. Kill the bastard and that´s it.

Hey, That's Not how I would have solved the problem, I am merely applying "The Marvel formula" here.

 

[bluerayer]

That sounds horrible. I´m glad you´re not in charge of a movie. Lol.

Marvel plays way too safe. I´m glad he just snapped his neck. I´m sick of excuses to not to kill such a big threat. Kill the bastard and that´s it.

Haha, you sound like my dad. He was all like: "that guy had it coming!". I have told him that people didnt like the neck snapping and he thinks "people these days are too soft!".

 

[Space Ghost]

Haha, you sound like my dad. He was all like: "that guy had it coming!". I have told him that people didnt like the neck snapping and he thinks "people these days are too soft!".

You people are very lucky it was Snyder directing this. If it was me, Superman would have been snapping necks left and right for the whole movie. Instead of letting his father die, he would have just snapped his neck for no reason at all.

 

[Superman_200]

That´s the sort of thing that used to happen in the old Superman movies that people love so much, so i can see the majority being pleased by it. It´s also the sort of thing that happens in Marvel movies. And again, people love it.

I know they do. I don't know if it is because they just don't understand science or just don't care. Either way, the thinking audience would probably be alienated by those things happening. For me, in Superman Returns the EMP happening and the technology just booting back up again just left be dumb. That could not happen. But to some people in the audience it just doesn't matter, or they don't care, but when you decide to bend the rules of what is possible like that, you are just creating plot device solutions. Then we are not playing by the rules of "How will he solve this?" and being amazed by the solution. We are just wondering what the next plot device will be.

 

[bluerayer]

You people are very lucky it was Snyder directing this. If it was me, Superman would have been snapping necks left and right for the whole movie. Instead of letting his father die, he would have just snapped his neck for no reason at all.

Hey, i never said I had a problem with it either.
I think it was handled nicely, IMO.

 

[The Endless]

I didn't have a problem with Supes killing Zod.

1. It's a believable way for Superman to develop his no killing rule. It makes sense that after he felt the guilt and pain, he'd swear to never do it again.

2. It's the only moment of tension in the final fight. Up to that point it's too indestructible CGI characters who can't be hurt punching each other around a CGI city that has had no development of it's own.

That's why so many people criticise the ending of MoS. They just don't care about the characters or story. Their mind isn't engaged on the important aspects, so it moves on to criticising the overkill Michael Bay-esque destruction. Spectacular CGI visuals don't mean a thing if you don't actually care about whats going on.

 

[Space Ghost]

That's why so many people criticise the ending of MoS. They just don't care about the characters or story. Their mind isn't engaged on the important aspects, so it moves on to criticising the overkill Michael Bay-esque destruction. Spectacular CGI visuals don't mean a thing if you don't actually care about whats going on.

The characters were well developed within the context of the story. You saw more about Clark than in any other Superman movie. Maybe the Superman character is just not very interesting for most people. But you can´t say we didn´t have a story. You know who Zod is, you know what happened to him, you know what he wanted and you know why they´re fighting. You see Clark growing up, you see him discovering his powers, you see him dealing with his identity crisis, you see his relationship with his parents and you see what he is capable of do with his powers. I mean, for an origin story you pretty much see everything you needed to see about Superman.

The problem is maybe with this being an origin story. Origin stories don´t leave much room for interesting plots because for the most part of the movie you´re being told something that you more or less already know. But to say the movie has no story or character development is a big overstatement.

I cared much more about what´s going on here than in Iron Man, for example. What´s so interesting about the Iron Man story? The man is a *****ebag who builds a super advanced suit in a cave. Is there anything to care about? He spends half of the movie being a jerk or building and testing suits. But it has RDj in it, wich makes it funny to watch, And it has comedy.

 

[Jekecy]

I'll note that the no-name actresses selected by Snyder for Sucker Punch are doing decently.

Jena Malone almost outshone Jennifer Lawrence in Catching Fire. Everybody loved her portrayal.

Incidentally, Sucker Punch bombing so hard financially and critically, almost drove Malone to retire from acting permanently. She noted how lucky she was to stick it out a little while longer, otherwise she would've never been in the successful Hunger Games series.

I didn't have a problem with Supes killing Zod.

1. It's a believable way for Superman to develop his no killing rule. It makes sense that after he felt the guilt and pain, he'd swear to never do it again.

I can buy into the argument that Supes was in a desperate situation with no easy solution, so killing had to be considered. But "learning" murder is bad through actually doing it? That just sounds like terrible logic. It's quite clear why it is frowned upon, and especially someone of Clark's character should be aware of that.

 

[The Endless]

The characters were well developed within the context of the story. You saw more about Clark than in any other Superman movie. Maybe the Superman character is just not very interesting for most people. But you can´t say we didn´t have a story. You know who Zod is, you know what happened to him, you know what he wanted and you know why they´re fighting. You see Clark growing up, you see him discovering his powers, you see him dealing with his identity crisis, you see his relationship with his parents and you see what he is capable of do with his powers. I mean, for an origin story you pretty much see everything you needed to see about Superman.

The problem is maybe with this being an origin story. Origin stories don´t leave much room for interesting plots because for the most part of the movie you´re being told something that you more or less already know. But to say the movie has no story or character development is a big overstatement.

Oh there was characterisation and a story. But evidently, not many people liked it.

I cared much more about what´s going on here than in Iron Man, for example. What´s so interesting about the Iron Man story? The man is a *****ebag who builds a super advanced suit in a cave. Is there anything to care about? He spends half of the movie being a jerk or building and testing suits. But it has RDj in it, wich makes it funny to watch, And it has comedy.

People like Tony Stark because he isn't a sad sack. The way he deals with things is to laugh them off, but deep down it still effects him.

He had a great character arc. At the start of the film he is happy to be a weapons manufacturer. He thinks by providing weapons to the army he's doing the right thing. Then he sees he has been naive and sets about righting the wrongs he himself has made. But it doesn't mean he has to be a miserable sod.

It's redemption and evidently a lot of people liked it. The fact that Iron Man the character was a nobody in 2007 and now has a 2 billion dollar franchise speaks volumes.

Point is, obviously not many people connected or felt engaged by this portrayal of Superman.

 

[The Endless]

I can buy into the argument that Supes was in a desperate situation with no easy solution, so killing had to be considered. But "learning" murder is bad through actually doing it? That just sounds like terrible logic. It's quite clear why it is frowned upon, and especially someone of Clark's character should be aware of that.

I don't consider it murder though. He was killing a fellow combatant. Would you consider killing a terrorist who has a family hostage murder?

 

[Jekecy]

I don't consider it murder though. He was killing a fellow combatant. Would you consider killing a terrorist who has a family hostage murder?

Yes? By all accepted definitions it is a homicide, and specifically, second-degree murder. Or voluntary manslaughter depending on how you look at it. But this is delving into a discussion that's going to turn nitpicky.

Would you prefer "he strongly cuddled Zod's neck until he went to sleep...permanently"?

 

[The Endless]

So you'd let the terrorist kill the family then?

 

[Jekecy]

So you'd let the terrorist kill the family then?

I know where you're going with this and you would still be missing the point. I'm not interested in indulging into fantasy life/death scenarios where a decision can be made from the comfort of my air-conditioned room. There is no truthful answer there because the fact is I've never been put in that situation and therefore I cannot possibly replicate what would be going on in my head in that moment. I have no honest answer for that question, nor do most people. But this was discussion was never about what you should do in such situations.

I was originally pointing out how naive it would be to assume Clark needs to personally learn the weight of a life, by actually taking it himself. I think that's a stretch, especially for someone like Clark who has inherently been compulsory to save. I can understand his reasoning in that instant for snapping Zod's neck, but I'm not fond of Snyder's reasoning for creating those circumstances in the first place.