BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[Marvin]

I personally feel like the death of Kent was a way of honoring "tradition" while serving its shock-jock purpose. I still think that the monastery scene was worse, though. "I won't kill this dude, now let me divert attention away from-was that a candle?"

At least Cavill's Clark felt guilt afterward. It's like Bruce forgot about all the deaths he was kind of responsible for.

Except that one could say that there were people in buildings with a similar scenerio with a lot of accidental carnage

Okay, that's it, Goyer. Let's let the animation writers take over!

Not sure what you are trying to get at with this post but I would mention that there are far more collateral deaths in the bruce timm animated features and serials.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Good point. I guess if the dialog/structure/pacing's good enough, it doesn't really matter thay Supes and Captain Marvel are ripping Metropolis apart

But I stand by my word as far as the monastery scene goes.

 

[Marvin]

^ Good point. I guess if the dialog/structure/pacing's good enough, it doesn't really matter thay Supes and Captain Marvel are ripping Metropolis apart

Pretty sure the Captain Marvel fight was in a mock city, I was referring to the various other times things have gotten messy under Bruce Timm's eye. However you raise an interesting point. "if the dialog/structure/pacing is good enough, it really doesn't matter that superman rips an entire city apart"

Sometimes I wonder about this place.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Not me personally

Just the GA in general. Contrast TA with MOS reaction to the destruction.

The Avengers can eat Schwarma after saving the day, but Superman gets bashed for kissing Lois

 

[Marvin]

First, Clark wanting to be his own man is something that is jumped too. He was previously a nine year old. This would work better if we had previously seen Clark do some menial work on the farm that wasn't satisfying to him, or any conversation between Clark, Martha, and Jonathan about what Clark should do with his life, maybe college applications, maybe writing novels, et cetera. Unfortunately, Goyer and Snyder spent as little time as possible on character scenes.

He was previously a 9 year old, now he's a college student. Wonder if anything's changed...

This is my point about the spoon feeding I see being asked of goyer. It's not about using your imagination it's about basic concepts, often derived from real life. Did the film really need a scene first showing that the two butt heads on certain issues relating to clarks ability/future? Or was it simply not needed.

Pretty sure this isn't a science so, no point in answering, it's going to be different for everyone.

Second, the impression Goyer seeks to give is that Clark could save Jonathan but chooses not to because it's his father's wish. OK? You'll find here and elsewhere that there's a tremendous amount of confusion on this point, because in this version we have absolutely no idea what Superman's powers are at this point and whether or not he knows how to use them properly. Apparently, Clark cannot superspeed in faster than the eye could see and sweep Jonathan out to safety, which is a deviation from previous versions. Goyer is allowed to change Superman's powers, but don't you think he should show this? We, the viewers, first need to figure out what Goyer wants to communicate in order to understand what's going on, and then we need to reverse-engineer that this version of Superman has different powers. And only once all that is figured out, can we internally debate whether Clark did right in letting his father die.

The dude didn't use his powers cause he doesn't have them.

Does goyer need to have a scene where clark whispers to himself that he can't run at near light speeds yet, or should the audience be able to figure out that if he could he would. Or perhaps a scene where clark and jon are practicing and testing his speeds with a stop watch in the fields.."What's needed"
In a thread where the term subtlety keeps popping up I would hope for the latter.

Moreover, in previous versions Clark has demonstrated the power to fly into space and spin the world backwards. Sadly he didn't do so at the end of this film, it could have helped alot, no explanation why he didn't do it. Time to blame goyer.

Third, Jonathan sacrifices himself so that Clark can reveal himself when the world is ready. This would be a lot more poignant if the world's readiness had been explored in future scenes. This could have been achieved by having Clark share his secret with Pete or Lana, or Clark revealing himself on his own terms, or he could have joined the audience at some alien visitation discussion panel at some conference, or have Clark learn more about how human beings respond to events while travelling the world.

Take a quick look at all the "future scenes" where people here and there were made privy to the idea that aliens walk among us. Before or after Zod.

It wasn't. Zod showed up, scared the bejeezus out of the entire planet, and revealed Kal-El to the world as an illegal alien imposter masquerading as a human being. The first impression is the absolute worst, "one of the hostiles is among us", that is surely worse than Clark being caught saving Jonathan.

The first impression may not have been the most elegant but when it comes to telling a engaging story and not simply writing a fan fiction tribute what is actually more effective and why? I already outlined why I think superman's reveal at earths most dire hour has many dramatic positives. It also comes with some great consequences going forward. That's all good in my book, not so sure about the purists. I liked it in Earth One and I like it here.

And no, a young clark that doesn't even know why he has been sent to earth being, revealed to the planet is surely not too much better than Superman being revealed to the planet. Not as far as Jon kent is concerned.

The end result is that Jonathan Kent is now permanently removed as a character from the Superman continuity, and that this was done to deliver a lesson that could have been easily delivered by other means, and that in any case was not integrated into the plot. The weak payoff simply doesn't warrant the tremendous cost.

BooHoo. Jon's dead. Superman stories have survived with out him for decades. Of course there is that Lois&Clark approach...

The scene may work decently in isolation, unfortunately, it's not organically integrated within the greater plot. It could very well be an incredibly brilliant scene in some completely different movie, but not this one. The same could be said of most scenes of MoS.

Well if this post is a sign of how you would go about improving the script work, I'm glad I finally have a handle on your perspective.

 

[Marvin]

Not me personally

Just the GA in general. Contrast TA with MOS reaction to the destruction.

The Avengers can eat Schwarma after saving the day, but Superman gets bashed for kissing Lois

It does raise some suspicions.
I mean superman can kill in the TA and the avengers can wipe out entire fleets....
Maybe it's a matter of "pacing" as you put it, or maybe it's something else. I suppose we'll never know.

 

[DA_Champion]

He was previously a 9 year old, now he's a college student. Wonder if anything's changed...

This is my point about the spoon feeding I see being asked of goyer. It's not about using your imagination it's about basic concepts, often derived from real life. Did the film really need a scene first showing that the two butt heads on certain issues relating to clarks ability/future? Or was it simply not needed.

I'm completely familiar with your philosophy.

In the same movie where no detail is left undisclosed in the action scenes, where we see every single punch and every single collapsed building delineated in exquisite sophistication ...

Character development needs to be left to the imagination. To do anything else is "spoonfeeding".



Tell me, what would you be saying if the movie had skipped straight from Zod talking to Clark in the dream sequence on the Kryptonian ship, to the aftermath of Clark killing Zod, with nothing in between? Would you be satsfied, or would you be wanting to be "spoonfed" the action that happened in between?

To answer your question, yes, absolutely, the film really needed more character development scenes. I am not the only one who wanted to see more of Costner, Lane, Adams, and Fishburne.

BooHoo. Jon's dead. Superman stories have survived with out him for decades. Of course there is that Lois&Clark approach...

Yes, who cares if Jonathan Kent is never shown as part of Clark's life?

With the screen time saved, we got to see Superman fight the giant metal squid in the Indian Ocean. That is surely more interesting than more parenting moments involving Jonathan, Martha, and Clark. I'm happy that they killed him off and that we'll never have to see time wasted on him again.

 

[DA_Champion]

- delete -

 

[Project862006]

this is by far the worst thread on the hype

i think i face palmed 6 times past 3 pages or so

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Around here, David Goyer is more controversial than Zack Snyder. In the rest of the interwebz, Goyer gets a free pass as being part of the TDK team, and everything wrong with MOS is all the director's fault (which is kind of true, ULTIMATELY speaking, of course).

Nolan used to be overrated (a tad), but now he's been getting the backlash (even here).

Though I think SHH are more level headed than most of the internet.

Ben Affleck's annoucements on various websites-
Ben Affleck here:

 

[Marvin]

I'm completely familiar with your philosophy.

Apparently not.

In the same movie where no detail is left undisclosed in the action scenes, where we see every single punch and every single collapsed building delineated in exquisite sophistication ...

Every detail you say?
I assume you aren't being literal here..
For example, where were:
-the Xray shots of muscle contractions
-the tracking shots of beads of sweat
-the moans and breaths with each motion
-the rods and girders giving way
-the 9000 people? screaming as they utter their final words
-the 1080000 bones of those people being broken(with the xray shots again)
-tracking shots of each bullet fired
-the slow motion?
...but rather hyperbolic. The action was more or less comic book summer standard. Only bigger.

You're the one that proclaimed there was a 70/30 percentile split between character work and action correct. How do you figure? Surely not by screen time. And surely you take in to account the fact that a portion of development comes by way of action....
So I'm curious how you figure that ratio?

Character development needs to be left to the imagination. To do anything else is "spoonfeeding".

Character development need not be left to the imagination.However logical conclusions can be, such as the fall out Jon kent was imagining. Or a young adolescents need to challenge their parents at a particular stage in their lives.

Sometimes in well written screenplays, scenes come chalk full of their own exposition. For example, do you recall exactly what it was clark and jon where talking about in said scene? Might be worth looking into.

Tell me, what would you be saying if the movie had skipped straight from Zod talking to Clark in the dream sequence on the Kryptonian ship, to the aftermath of Clark killing Zod, with nothing in between? Would you be satsfied, or would you be wanting to be "spoonfed" the action that happened in between?

I'd definitely be asking what were the key events that the screenplay missed out on and why the movie has seemingly ended only 45minutes in. Whatever came of the terraforming machine and where are the rest of the deadly kryptonians...etc.

That's a little different than demanding to know what happened between one flash back and another flash back 10 years later. Then again, I'm also capable of piecing together the basic shift in dynamic between the the time Bruce and Rachel Dawes were childhood friends, then young adult fiends, then older adult estranged friends..go figure.

When Captain America meets up with this long lost love after 50 years, I'm probably going to be able to discern the basics of why their relationship has changed, partially do to the dialogue in the very sequence(will tell me where they stand good or bad), I probably won't be needing to see 50 years worth of peggy carter aging alone for this scene in question to work for me. But that's me, can't speak for anyone else.

 

[DA_Champion]

Marvin,

I came out of MoS impressed with the movie. Part of it is that it did do a few things right, that several other comic book movies (Iron Man 2, etc) have been awful, and part of it is that I really wanted to see a Superman movie, and I really wanted it to be good. Over time however, reality set in, and I realised that the movie was a disappointment, that it was a missed opportunity.

I could go on debating you, but quite frankly it's just too frustrating to make the case that additional screentime involving Clark-Jonathan father-son moments would be inherently more interesting and more productive to storytelling than a superfight against a giant metal squid in the Indian Ocean. I shouldn't need to make that case, and thus I no longer will.

 

[DA_Champion]

Around here, David Goyer is more controversial than Zack Snyder. In the rest of the interwebz, Goyer gets a free pass as being part of the TDK team, and everything wrong with MOS is all the director's fault (which is kind of true, ULTIMATELY speaking, of course).

Nolan used to be overrated (a tad), but now he's been getting the backlash (even here).

Though I think SHH are more level headed than most of the internet.

Ben Affleck's annoucements on various websites-
Ben Affleck here:

It's true that we can't know which of Goyer, Snyder, Nolan is responsible for exactly what. It may be that I am blaming/crediting the wrong people.

I think the casting and visuals were well-done, and for that I credit Snyder. Snyder, however, did make the incorrect decision of adding in a scene of Superman killing Zod. Out of everything he could have added to the movie, he added another action scene in a movie bursting at the seams with action, and then he made it a significant one while simultaneously ignoring the consequences. He also cut a character scene. He is thus partly responsible for the excess of action over character.

The dialogue I found mediocre, most critics found it puerile, and that is largely Goyer's responsibility. Many of the problems in MoS, such as an overly complicated plot that doesn't resolve its own issues, are characteristic of Goyer movies. I also think the story made some strategic errors in world building, such as destroying the fortress of solitude, killing off Pa Kent in a meaningless manner, skipping the friendship phase of the Clois romance, giving more screen time to Russel Crowe than to Diane Lane and Kevin Costner, and for that I blame Goyer, though you're right it could have been Snyder or Nolan.

 

[BlueLantern]

The destruction in the Avengers was explained, reflected on and taken from there. All of that in a thoroughly entertaining film. The destruction in Man of Steel was slid under the rug to make a way for a terribly thought out conclusion to a horrendously narrative with clichéd characters. Not hard to see why one gets forgiven.

Marvin, you can continue your propaganda style posting of Chemical Ali. Though I'll admit the rhetoric is getting extremely grating and predictable.

 

[spider-neil]

Here's hoping Goyer drops a line as to what the heck Batman was doing when half of Metropolis was being destroyed.

Bruce - 'Not my city' *shrugs*

 

[Marvin]

Marvin,

I came out of MoS impressed with the movie. Part of it is that it did do a few things right, that several other comic book movies (Iron Man 2, etc) have been awful, and part of it is that I really wanted to see a Superman movie, and I really wanted it to be good. Over time however, reality set in, and I realised that the movie was a disappointment, that it was a missed opportunity

.
It's one thing to feel that way, it's another thing to try and prove it. Ultimately we have to come to terms with the "reality" that we are all in individuals in an art gallery trying to telling people why paintings work and don't work.

In your opinion you wanted a different movie. That piece would have been what you consider better. Great.

I could go on debating you, but quite frankly it's just too frustrating to make the case that additional screentime involving Clark-Jonathan father-son moments would be inherently more interesting and more productive to storytelling than a superfight against a giant metal squid in the Indian Ocean. I shouldn't need to make that case, and thus I no longer will.

This stuff really only becomes frustrating if you stop having fun with it and start taking it too seriously. I can only speak for myself however.

On action, I'm sure there are people out there than can argue that Avengers would have benefited from literally 70% less action and 70% more raw development. They will argue that it would yield a "better film". Screw them.

As for the world engine fight scene, it's really not all that much longer than superman lifting the landmass in Superman Returns. Just a thought.

 

[DA_Champion]

The destruction in the Avengers was explained, reflected on and taken from there. All of that in a thoroughly entertaining film. The destruction in Man of Steel was slid under the rug to make a way for a terribly thought out conclusion to a horrendously narrative with clichéd characters. Not hard to see why one gets forgiven.

I think that you're right, but I also think there's a bit more to it.

Avengers does not take itself as seriously. It's primarily a comedy/adventure, and thus it makes sense that a lot of audience members don't feel sorry for the 100,000 fictional deaths in the movie, you need to make the effort to get people to care, and Avengers doesn't make that effort. These are fictional deaths after all, it's irrational to remotely care.

Man of Steel, on the other hand, does take itself seriously. Very Seriously. It asks, what if Superman was part of our world, and what if Zod invaded and wiped out a quarter of Metropolis? The creative team may have failed at other things, but I think here they succeed, I, and many other audience members, actually did relate to the fictional deaths. I did think "Oh no!" Snyder has stated in interviews that this was an actual goal, and they succeeded. Unlike in the Avengers, the destruction feels real. Snyder was successful in this.

Which thus makes it a lot worse that Superman and Lois decided to make out while being in a sea of death... I spent a month in a palliative unit of a hospital once, and trust me, making out was not my first priority. It also makes it worse that there was no acknowledgment of all the destruction, and that the movie ends on a happy ending with people joking around.

*****************

Aside,

- Lois first learns of a Superman when she is almost dying after being attacked by a sentinel;
- Lois first learns that Superman is Clark when they meet at a cemetary;
- Lois and Clark first kiss when they are surrounded by death and destruction in every direction;

 

[Marvin]

The destruction in the Avengers was explained, reflected on and taken from there. All of that in a thoroughly entertaining film. The destruction in Man of Steel was slid under the rug to make a way for a terribly thought out conclusion to a horrendously narrative with clichéd characters. Not hard to see why one gets forgiven.

Marvin, you can continue your propaganda style posting of Chemical Ali. Though I'll admit the rhetoric is getting extremely grating and predictable.

You would find it grating, it does kinda fly in the face of your own. Still, what can I say, it would be almost rude if I ignored a post directed at me.

While we are admitting things, I should add that I don't take kindly to silly comparisons to anyone in the trade of terrorism, let alone relatives to mr Hussein. I have too many friends affected by such things.

Avengers was explained? Reflected?
Keep telling yourself that. I must have missed the scene where stark reflected and or regretted the legions of lives he callously wiped from existence... all the jokes made at ground zero you would think the heroes were having a good time whilst lives were being snuffed out all around them, that one giant slug laying on top of the apartment complex at the end there, you would think maybe someone could check for survivors..."ya but then snacks".

The destruction in Man of Steel was slid under the rug to make a way for a terribly thought out conclusion to a horrendously narrative with clichéd characters

Funny, the same could be argued for Avengers.
I digress, it's been argued and ignored to death.

 

[Marvin]

Aside,

- Lois first learns of a Superman when she is almost dying after being attacked by a sentinel;
- Lois first learns that Superman is Clark when they meet at a cemetary;
- Lois and Clark first kiss when they are surrounded by death and destruction in every direction;

You may have missed a few beats.
As I'm sure you know.

 

[slumcat]

The destruction in the Avengers was explained, reflected on and taken from there. All of that in a thoroughly entertaining film. The destruction in Man of Steel was slid under the rug to make a way for a terribly thought out conclusion to a horrendously narrative with clichéd characters. Not hard to see why one gets forgiven.

Yes. Avengers constantly had shots of people on the streets. It had street level or people level fighting too. After the battle, there was a montage of people recovering and mourning over the deaths and some reconstruction plus acceptance of what had happened and celebration of the heroes.

MOS had Metropolis flattened with the world engine and then Zod and Superman smashing each other through buildings without care for life, smashing satellites and trucks at each other. It was like a meat head brawl.

And he consequence. They just showed a scene where Clark the reporter goes to office! They did not acknowledge the devastation or the loss of life. Not even a token scene! Clark and Jenny and Lois looked perfectly cheerful inspite of half the city being devastated and a million deaths.

They just IGNORED THE CATASTROPHE. The Daily Planet Office was surely destroyed because the building next to it fell on top of it, yet the office seems perfectly okay when Clark joins.

And there was time, Clark went and met Martha, but there wasn't a single scene to even show a shot of the ruined city recovering?

A giant fail.

 

[Gianakin_]

To be fair, the Avengers didn't show one single casualty. People were looking at the mayhem behind cafeteria windows. Then again, the movie wasn't interested in any kind of seriousness, so it didn't exactly betray expectations and tone.

 

[D.P.]

Maybe they will deal with the consequences of the devastation in the sequel?

I mean, if that's ok with you guys.

Maybe Snyder and Goyer will stop by the forums personally and run their early draft by you guys for your approval.

 

[Gianakin_]

Maybe they will deal with the consequences of the devastation in the sequel?

I mean, if that's ok with you guys.

Maybe Snyder and Goyer will stop by the forums personally and run their early draft by you guys for your approval.

The "filmmakers don't care about what you think" thing is so 1999.

 

[slumcat]

I think that you're right, but I also think there's a bit more to it.

Avengers does not take itself as seriously. It's primarily a comedy/adventure, and thus it makes sense that a lot of audience members don't feel sorry for the 100,000 fictional deaths in the movie, you need to make the effort to get people to care, and Avengers doesn't make that effort. These are fictional deaths after all, it's irrational to remotely care.

Man of Steel, on the other hand, does take itself seriously. Very Seriously. It asks, what if Superman was part of our world, and what if Zod invaded and wiped out a quarter of Metropolis? The creative team may have failed at other things, but I think here they succeed, I, and many other audience members, actually did relate to the fictional deaths. I did think "Oh no!" Snyder has stated in interviews that this was an actual goal, and they succeeded. Unlike in the Avengers, the destruction feels real. Snyder was successful in this.

Which thus makes it a lot worse that Superman and Lois decided to make out while being in a sea of death... I spent a month in a palliative unit of a hospital once, and trust me, making out was not my first priority. It also makes it worse that there was no acknowledgment of all the destruction, and that the movie ends on a happy ending with people joking around.

*****************

Aside,

- Lois first learns of a Superman when she is almost dying after being attacked by a sentinel;
- Lois first learns that Superman is Clark when they meet at a cemetary;
- Lois and Clark first kiss when they are surrounded by death and destruction in every direction;

And herein ultimately lies the fail of MOS and TDKR and the triumph of Avengers. If you embalm your narrative, monumentalize and load it with seriousness and pretensions of seriousness have layer it with THIS IS IMPORTANT, any logical fallacy would seem 10 times more jarring. That is why all the plot holes in MOS and TDKR are so ludicrous, because the movie is asking you to take everything in it like life and death, with heart attack seriousness.

Avengers simply from a script perspective is a infinitely superior over TDKR and MOS. Sure Avengers has flaws to but writing is not one of them.

 

[slumcat]

To be fair, the Avengers didn't show one single casualty. People were looking at the mayhem behind cafeteria windows. Then again, the movie wasn't interested in any kind of seriousness, so it didn't exactly betray expectations and tone.

Avengers showed a mourning montage where they showed many many people mourning and candle vigils for those that had died in battle. Even something as minor as that added humanity to it. And far far far less people died in the battle of Avengers.

MOS simply did not acknowledge the death of millions.