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

[The Endless]

It never ends.
So what does Cap tell us about what the world thinks of mopey heroes exactly? Given that he mopes alot? Yes a generalization seeing as he does more than just mope, kinda the way superman did more than just mope...
His dad told him to keep his secret identity till he knew why he was sent to earth and so he could stand proud(good man or bad) with a sense of self. GOOD ADVICE given the superman lore, and precisely what he went on to do though his childhood and into manhood.
There was nothing needless about Jon's death unless you are being willfully obtuse here

He sacrificed himself for a dog. So he's willing to advise that Clark should have perhaps let some kids die on a bus... but he's willing to sacrifice himself for a dog.

If you can't see how stupid that is, you're being wilfully obtuse here.

The only thing the film showed differently is what would happen if Jon kent was faced with a son that was motivated to start saving people at a really young age. Kinda new ground there.

I liked the idea. The execution was poor

So the truck incident revealed his powers then? The only thing confused right now is me, clearly.

So a regular human being can wrap a semi-truck around an electricity pole or whatever it was yes? Of course it reveals he has super powers.

This isn't even mentioning the fact that personal retribution for a slight is the complete total opposite of something Superman would do.

It's funny you bring Cap up. The personal retribution with the truck was the film makers trying to make Superman more human. He gets angry, like any human would. But it compromised his character. Captain America also gets those criticisms. That he's too self righteous, too much of a goody two shoes. But notice that his portrayal in the movies, particularly The Winter Soldier, is immensely popular. But the film makers didn't have to compromise his ideals and his character.

 

[MrsKent26]

The point is, some people deal with tragedy differently. Ever heard the saying "Laugh now, cry later"? Stark uses his humour as a defense mechanism, like a lot of people.

And the example with Lois and Supes kissing is even worse. They are literally standing in the remains of Metropolis. It's literally still smouldering.

As for the Avengers being more light hearted? Sure it is. And it was a huge success for it. But it still had dramatic and emotional moments. And it dealt with the aftermath of the attack a whole lot better than MoS did. We actually saw reactions from New Yorkers. We see some supporting the Avengers. We see some disbelieving of their existence. We see some suspicious of them.

Metropolis had zero characterisation in the whole film. The heroes home city is a huge thing. MoS missed the boat on that.

So, you excuse Stark using humor to cope, but when two people who just barely survived a near-apocalyptic event kiss, it's inexcusable? Weird logic. The city was still smouldering when "swarma" happened too, you know.

Also, you know there are Marvel boards right? You seem to really like praising them and criticizing MOS. Why come here, a DC board, to hate on MOS when you could talk about what you like on another board? Unless you just like to argue.

 

[Marvin]

And the example with Lois and Supes kissing is even worse. They are literally standing in the remains of Metropolis. It's literally still smouldering.

And people said it had no light hearted throwaway humor
When the city is saved heroes tend to joke and head off to schwarma or whatever, regardless of how many buildings are still smouldering.
comic book movies.

Metropolis had zero characterisation in the whole film. The heroes home city is a huge thing. MoS missed the boat on that.

That's another expectation external to the movie. In Batman and Spiderman, they live and grew up in their cities, in film. In MOS, Metropolis isn't his home city 'huge thing'. Maybe next time, perhaps after he has an apartment and hasn't only visited it for 12 minutes.

 

[SofNascimento]

The kiss scene in MoS bended my mind to its utttermost limits. It really is that bad.

 

[The Endless]

So, you excuse Stark using humor to cope, but when two people who just barely survived a near-apocalyptic event kiss, it's inexcusable? Weird logic. The city was still smouldering when "swarma" happened too, you know.

Also, you know there are Marvel boards right? You seem to really like praising them and criticizing MOS. Why come here, a DC board, to hate on MOS when you could talk about what you like on another board? Unless you just like to argue.

Not the kiss. The joke. And i'm not criticising it really, just pointing out the other fellows double standards.

And i like the film overall. But these are things i didn't like about Goyer's screenplay.

And i criticise plenty about Marvels films. TIH, IM2 and Thor 2 are crap and i've gone into detail why i think that before.

And people said it had no light hearted throwaway humor
When the city is saved heroes tend to joke and head off to schwarma or whatever, regardless of how many buildings are still smouldering.
comic book movies.

Yes. Again not criticising it per say, just pointing out the double standards.

That's another expectation external to the movie. In Batman and Spiderman, they live and grew up in their cities, in film. In MOS, Metropolis isn't his home city 'huge thing'. Maybe next time, perhaps after he has an apartment and hasn't only visited it for 12 minutes.

It's an expectation of the Superman mythos. It's a film about Superman. Metropolis is a pretty big part of his mythos, as is Smallville. Again, Smallville has no character of it's own. We don't get any reaction after it's pretty much completely destroyed. If the film makers don't give a crap about it, why should the viewer?

Great action scenes are only great when there is something to care about. Otherwise you're just watching pretty computer graphics. Yaaawn.

 

[Space Ghost]

It's an expectation of the Superman mythos. It's a film about Superman. Metropolis is a pretty big part of his mythos, as is Smallville. Again, Smallville has no character of it's own. We don't get any reaction after it's pretty much completely destroyed. If the film makers don't give a crap about it, why should the viewer?

A lot of things are a big part of the Superman mythos. You can´t show them all in 130 minutes. Fake Kent is also a big part of the mythos but we didn´t get that. Maybe in the next film.

At least the villain received proper characterization. The same can´t be said for the winter soldier. Just a dude walking around with a gun. Pretty generic and uninteresting.

 

[Marvin]

He sacrificed himself for a dog. So he's willing to advise that Clark should have perhaps let some kids die on a bus... but he's willing to sacrifice himself for a dog.

If you can't see how stupid that is, you're being wilfully obtuse here.

That he would do so for a simple dog reinforces that he cares about life(to all those that thinks he doesn't). That he would rather risk his existence to do so rather than risking his sons secret getting out speaks volumes about how important he thinks his son is to the fate of everything.
Not so much different than if you were told your son is Jesus Christ at age 8. Not so much different than that I am number four guardian/alien paradigm.

So a regular human being can wrap a semi-truck around an electricity pole or whatever it was yes? Of course it reveals he has super powers.

This isn't even mentioning the fact that personal retribution for a slight is the complete total opposite of something Superman would do.

I'll stop dancing around the issue and just say it, what clark did to the truck he did with no witnesses. Before you suggest that's not likely, the film clearly says it is and it was. So yes, his truck stunt falls inline with keeping his existence a secret.

As for personal retribution, I'd hate to cite the beloved donner films which were rich with this(cause superman is fun) in this, a superman thread so I'll
point to the Lois and Clark...Smallville television series that did the same. I'd also point to the idea that what you people believe as 'in character' doesn't necessarily apply to a pre-superman incarnation of the man. Especially in a story where character development is expected. Pre-spiderman parker and who 'spiderman is' in the hearts and minds of fans is one of the most celebrated bits of character development in comics imo. I get how people don't care about such deconstructions with old superman but maybe it's time for a change towards the functional.

Not sure what you are talking about with the Cap stuff tbh but I'd rather not in this thread. What I said about him was in response to the observation about heroes moping around.

Yes. Again not criticising it per say, just pointing out the double standards.

yes clearly they work both ways and depending mostly on the agenda at hand. Something to keep in mind given how much marvel seems to come on top in this regard.

It's an expectation of the Superman mythos. It's a film about Superman. Metropolis is a pretty big part of his mythos, as is Smallville. Again, Smallville has no character of it's own. We don't get any reaction after it's pretty much completely destroyed. If the film makers don't give a crap about it, why should the viewer?

Great action scenes are only great when there is something to care about. Otherwise you're just watching pretty computer graphics. Yaaawn.

That really shouldn't be how we receive and analyze film imo. They should all be measured onto themselves, for that's the only way they will be fairly scored. Two equally great films but one is the sequel to the greatest film ever....the analysis should be in the hear and now and not influenced by baggage coming in. That's what I think anyways.

Smallville is more than one street. As scene when clark took faora to ihop and then the bank and then...etc. I'm also sure whatever damage the military does on it's homeland it pays for immediately. But I digress, a battle field having no character isn't all that important given the many places a battle can go down(see desert/moon/space/warehouse). You wanting these places to have character seems like a personal request. I do agree about needing something to care about. I guess it depends on the person but I would imagine some people cared about whether superman would live or die at the end there. Seems pretty cynical not to imo.

 

[The Endless]

A lot of things are a big part of the Superman mythos. You can´t show them all in 130 minutes. Fake Kent is also a big part of the mythos but we didn´t get that. Maybe in the next film.

At least the villain received proper characterization. The same can´t be said for the winter soldier. Just a dude walking around with a gun. Pretty generic and uninteresting.

The villain of Cap 2 was [BLACKOUT]Alexander Pierce[/BLACKOUT] and Hydra. Winter Soldier was Hydra's brain washed assassin. Criticising the lack of development for Winter Soldier is like saying The Terminator didn't have enough development.

Although yea Shannon's Zod was a great villain.

 

[Space Ghost]

Nahhhh. He is clearly promoted as the villain. Not saying he is the only one, bue he is promoted as the main attraction. He is simply not interesting.

 

[The Endless]

The idea that Captain America's best friend who fought with him against Nazi's has been brainwashed by the Nazi's and used as their weapon to create fear and paranoia... whilst Cap is still frozen, is pretty tragic and interesting to me.

He's promoted as the villain in trailers yes. But if you watch the film you realise he isn't. Plus Captain America is also the Winter Soldier.

 

[Space Ghost]

The idea that Captain America's best friend who fought with him against Nazi's has been brainwashed by the Nazi's and used as their weapon to create fear and paranoia... whilst Cap is still frozen, is pretty tragic and interesting to me.

He's promoted as the villain in trailers yes. But if you watch the film you realise he isn't. Plus Captain America is also the Winter Soldier.

It doesn´t matter if he is the good guy or the bad guy. He is clearly one of the most important characters but isn´t treated as such. And i didn´t see him create that much fear and paranoia. He was barely in the movie.

 

[The Endless]

He was killing for Hydra since the 60s. Taking out political figures etc. He "shaped the century" remember. That was the point of Hydra. The allegory is basically "what if the CIA created terrorist threats, assassinated key figures (like JFK) so people like us would think the world has gone to **** and allow them to infringe on our rights".

Considering the CIA armed and trained the Taliban and Iran it's not really that far fetched.

 

[Space Ghost]

He was killing for Hydra since the 60s. Taking out political figures etc. He "shaped the century" remember. That was the point of Hydra. The allegory is basically "what if the CIA created terrorist threats, assassinated key figures (like JFK) so people like us would think the world has gone to **** and allow them to infringe on our rights".

Considering the CIA armed and trained the Taliban and Iran it's not really that far fetched.

The thing about Cap 2 is that it "mentions" a lot of stuff, but stops right there. Mentioning isn´t enough.

 

[The Endless]

Seems the majority of people perfectly understood what was implied. The scene with Zola in the bunker told us all we needed to know. Any more and it would have gone into full blown spoon feeding.

I do think that the emotional connection between Steve and Bucky wasn't that strong. But i'd say that is more a fault of the first movies portrayal. If it was stronger in the first movie, we wouldn't have needed the flashback at all.

 

[Space Ghost]

Yeah, it´s not difficult to understand. I´m simply saying that the character itself isn´t great and could have been developed in a much more interesting direction. Two fights and two lines is not my definition of a great character. That´s a glorified goon, basically.

 

[weezerspider]

His best reviewed film was Dawn of the Dead actually. I personally think there is alot more to watchmen than the zombie film but people have their standards of genre.

I also think making specific assertions based on a filmography of 6 isn't prudent. I can imagine if he had Spielberg quantity...

Paul Thomas Anderson has only directed six films and he's widely considered one of, if not the best director in his prime years right now among people in the industry. He's been called the next Scorsese by Empire magazine, the next Kubrick by fans ect. The point is, six films is plenty of a filmography to start making assertions. Heck, Snyder's already directed half as many features as Kubrick did his whole career. Scorsese had already directed Mean Streets, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull during his first six features. Spielberg directed Jaws, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, and Raiders Of The Lost Ark in his first six theatrical features. Six films is easily a large enough filmography to start making assertions.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Shortly before Signs came out M. Night was also being called the next Spielberg. Now he's the guy who made After Earth and The Last Airbender.

Careers can turn around.

I personally don't see much to complain with Zack's directing, it's better than some of his editing at least.

 

[weezerspider]

Shortly before Signs came out M. Night was also being called the next Spielberg. Now he's the guy who made After Earth and The Last Airbender.

Careers can turn around.

I personally don't see much to complain with Zack's directing, it's better than some of his editing at least.

Yeah, sure they can, but one: that was after only two films and two: if Snyder does end up becoming an all-time great, that doesn't mean any of the criticism to his earlier work becomes invalid. I love what Mathew McConaughey has been doing lately, but that doesn't automatically make Ghosts Of Girlfriend's Past or Failure To Launch masterpieces now. Likewise, The Last Airbender didn't make The Sixth Sense any less of a film. Six films is plenty enough to make assertions based on his career now and regardless of what happens in the future, those assertions about these six films will still be perfectly valid.

I don't think critics are out to get Snyder. His average RT score is like 56% which is mixed. That seems pretty fair to me. The guy is really talented in some areas and not so much in others. He's made a few pretty good films and a few meh ones. The only film I think of his that is really bad is Sucker Punch. It's also the only one of his films that got really bad reviews. His other films were either right down the middle or slightly positive(or mostly positive in Dawn of The Dead's case). Man of Steel's problems were not so much Snyder as they were Goyer, which is the topic of this thread anyway. I think Snyder could/should have made a better effort to tweak the script during production as so many directors famously do, and he and his editor should have let the emotional moments breathe more(again partially caused by the writing). He wasn't the main problem, but a director will always get blame in the weak areas of a film. Snyder/Goyer on the story, with Chris Terrio actually writing is a pretty solid ground and a huge improvement from the first film.

 

[Marvin]

Paul Thomas Anderson has only directed six films and he's widely considered one of, if not the best director in his prime years right now among people in the industry. He's been called the next Scorsese by Empire magazine, the next Kubrick by fans ect. The point is, six films is plenty of a filmography to start making assertions. Heck, Snyder's already directed half as many features as Kubrick did his whole career. Scorsese had already directed Mean Streets, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull during his first six features. Spielberg directed Jaws, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, and Raiders Of The Lost Ark in his first six theatrical features. Six films is easily a large enough filmography to start making assertions.

Yea I'm not talking about judging an artist by their first six pieces, that in itself is an interesting but different discussion.

I'm talking about judging that a man can only do his best work when working on graphic novels(in which visual stories are supposedly laid out), and based on a 2 out of 6 record. That's what I meant by specific assertion.
Next we'll be deciding the best starting line up for a team based on a 2 for 3 record. I see how one can make a simple observation after the fact but not so much an assertion about what dude can do and can't. Which is what we were talking about if I recall correctly.

imo.

 

[weezerspider]

Yea I'm not talking about judging an artist by their first six pieces, that in itself is an interesting but different discussion.

I'm talking about judging that a man can only do his best work when working on graphic novels(in which visual stories are supposedly laid out), and based on a 2 out of 6 record. That's what I meant by specific assertion.
Next we'll be deciding the best starting line up for a team based on a 2 for 3 record. I see how one can make a simple observation after the fact but not so much an assertion about what dude can do and can't. Which is what we were talking about if I recall correctly.

imo.

Sorry, I was misguided due to the bolded statement below.

I also think making specific assertions based on a filmography of 6 isn't prudent. I can imagine if he had Spielberg quantity...

It seems you were implying we can't make any assertions on his filmography because he's "only made six films".

That said, 2 out of 6 is 1/3 of his filmography, and 5 out of 6 are adaptions in one form or another.

 

[Marvin]

It seems you were implying we can't make any assertions on his filmography because he's "only made six films".

That said, 2 out of 6 is 1/3 of his filmography, and 5 out of 6 are adaptions in one form or another.

no need to apologize. Yea I mostly meant if he had the quantitative output of Spielberg(can't even remember the number that man has).

most are adaptations but we were talking about his quality derived from the celebrated graphic novel.

 

[DA_Champion]

Man of Steel and The Winter Soldier actually have comparable screenplays.

TWS has better dialogue and jokes. MoS has a more interesting villain, more coherent plot, and more competent climax resolution.

Zod committing suicide: B+

Spoiler

Rogers stopping project insight by inserting the magic USB key on tbe aircraft carrier: F.

Which is worse, the Jor El exposition dump or the Zola exposition dump?

 

[DA_Champion]

He was killing for Hydra since the 60s. Taking out political figures etc. He "shaped the century" remember. That was the point of Hydra. The allegory is basically "what if the CIA created terrorist threats, assassinated key figures (like JFK) so people like us would think the world has gone to **** and allow them to infringe on our rights".

Considering the CIA armed and trained the Taliban and Iran it's not really that far fetched.

Actually, the idea that a small cabal of rogue Nazis have been controlling the government or even just the CIA for 65 years is not just far-fetched, it's just plain stupid.

 

[TheBat812]

Man of Steel and The Winter Soldier actually have comparable screenplays.

TWS has better dialogue and jokes. MoS has a more interesting villain, more coherent plot, and more competent climax resolution.

[blackout]Zod committing suicide: B+
Rogers stopping project insight by inserting the magic USB key on tbe aircraft carrier: F. [/blackout]

Which is worse, the Jor El exposition dump or the Zola exposition dump?

spoiler tags please.....

 

[DA_Champion]

The villain of Cap 2 was [BLACKOUT]Alexander Pierce[/BLACKOUT] and Hydra. Winter Soldier was Hydra's brain washed assassin. Criticising the lack of development for Winter Soldier is like saying The Terminator didn't have enough development.

Although yea Shannon's Zod was a great villain.

Are you seriously comparing the Winter Soldier to the Terminator, one of the most interesting blockbuster villains of all time?