BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[Marvin]

I was talking about how Tony Stark has a really advanced computer help him with his engineering and the implications of what kinda computers Kryptonians such as Jor El have. How that might make an "engine modification" not as great a feat as you are selling here. What did you say again: "Let's take a moment to pause and think about: this alone arguably makes Jor-El a greater scientist and engineer than any human being who has ever lived"

I also just wanted to point out that you assumed Zod didn't modify his craft by himself based on the fact that he wasn't alone. Yet you seemingly assumed Jor el did when he in fact was also not alone. I would point out that he, as a matter of fact mentioned that himself and Kal's mother dedicated their lives to their sons survival/escape. Any guess what Lara was born and bread to be? Warrior maybe? Guess we could always assume.

 

[SpideyFan866]

I think Goyer gets WAAAAY too much flack for MOS.

Honestly, everything wrong that film that I can think of, story and editing wise (save for perhaps the flashbacks) was Nolan's fault and/or goes back to him in some way.

It was Nolan's decision to take the grounded take on Superman in a more action oriented direction, cutting the story waaay down in favor the action, as well as excerbating this by shortening the runtime. And all of that that was, arguably, the main issue people had.

The story and ideas Goyer crafted were fantastic for what little we saw.

I really feel that if we were able to have more of what was cut featured, it would made ALOT more sense and been seen as a much better film.

I kinda see this being a Daredevil situation where, should we get a directors cut, the directors cut will be favored over the original version.

 

[DarkSentinel]

I think Goyer gets WAAAAY too much flack for MOS.

Honestly, everything wrong that film that I can think of, story and editing wise (save for perhaps the flashbacks) was Nolan's fault and/or goes back to him in some way.

It was Nolan's decision to take the grounded take on Superman in a more action oriented direction, cutting the story waaay down in favor the action, as well as excerbating this by shortening the runtime. And all of that that was, arguably, the main issue people had.

The story and ideas Goyer crafted were fantastic for what little we saw.

I really feel that if we were able to have more of what was cut featured, it would made ALOT more sense and been seen as a much better film.

I kinda see this being a Daredevil situation where, should we get a directors cut, the directors cut will be favored over the original version.

I will have to agree here. Nolan did a fine job with Batman (especially Begins, not to knock TDK) but Superman is a whole different animal. Nolan wants too much realism in the stories he tells, everything has to fit in perfectly and be rationalized to the audience, and that can often actually hinder the story.

Either way, I hope World's Finest (which is what I'm calling Superman/Batman until we get an official title ) is more like the film Goyer and Snyder wanted in the first place with MOS.

 

[DA_Champion]

I was talking about how Tony Stark has a really advanced computer help him with his engineering and the implications of what kinda computers Kryptonians such as Jor El have. How that might make an "engine modification" not as great a feat as you are selling here. What did you say again: "Let's take a moment to pause and think about: this alone arguably makes Jor-El a greater scientist and engineer than any human being who has ever lived"

I also just wanted to point out that you assumed Zod didn't modify his craft by himself based on the fact that he wasn't alone. Yet you seemingly assumed Jor el did when he in fact was also not alone. I would point out that he, as a matter of fact mentioned that himself and Kal's mother dedicated their lives to their sons survival/escape. Any guess what Lara was born and bread to be? Warrior maybe? Guess we could always assume.

Marvin,

You misunderstand me. I have no qualms with Jor-El being a greater scientist and engineer than any human who has ever lived. If a society as advanced as Kryptons breed and raises people with a singular focus, then that will happen, probably frequently. I think that's good characterisation. Even if he had a staff of 100 others to help him out - which he should - just leading that kind of project is a tremendous achievement, but one I can believe Jor-El would pull off because it emerges coherently from the source material.

The problem is that Jor-El can do this while simultaneously excelling at so many other things.

I also just wanted to point out that you assumed Zod didn't modify his craft by himself based on the fact that he wasn't alone.

Zod wasn't alone, and I think he used the word "we", and we saw him defer to Jax-Ur's scientific judgment.

Yet you seemingly assumed Jor el did when he in fact was also not alone. I would point out that he, as a matter of fact mentioned that himself and Kal's mother dedicated their lives to their sons survival/escape. Any guess what Lara was born and bread to be? Warrior maybe? Guess we could always assume.

I'm assuming Lara was a scientist as well. The script states that she picked the planet for Kal-El to go to. That might appear like a trivial thing, but imo, it's not. It implies some sort of technical literacy.

 

[TheBat812]

First of all, you should stop assuming that people who critique the movie don't understand storytelling or are less intelligent than you. It's an ad hominem attack and thus a logical fallacy, it's not an advantage as only a small fraction of this forum has seriously studied literature, and finally people who are experts on storytelling, who know more than all of us, have criticised this movie aggressively.

Superman needs to have good parents. The movie did not show us this. Jor-El was modelled on Tony Stark to be elite at everything, that's true, but we see precious little of Lara, Martha, and Jonathan: Jor-El has more screen time and better character development than all three of them combined. We see Kal-El's birth on Krypton and how Jor-El reacts, we never see the arrival of his ship on Earth and how Martha and Jonathan react: that is because Goyer considers the human parents less important.

You may dismiss this criticism as being due to my ignorance, but again, people far wiser than either of us in these matters have made this point.

There certainly are issues with the film, most of them execution issues, but most people actually have praised the story elements from what I've seen. I've never heard anything about the parental elements being criticized 'aggressively'. Also, given the context of the story presented, it's hardly an objective observation that he considers the human parents less important. He uses both parents to symbolize the nature vs nurture portions of a childs' development.

Back in the day when Supes was first created, the ideal parent essentially brainwashed their kids with notions of right and wrong. That's why Supes seemed to just be good and abide by these rules for no apparent reason. But today it's very much about explaining the importance of actions and their consequences and letting them choose for themselves, which is why the Kents' are presented as they are. It's a slight deviation from the original, but imo is a brilliant move because they're still great parents dealing with an extraordinary circumstance in a way more believable way then I've ever seen, but it also puts the burden of his choice to be a hero upon himself - he could use these powers for bad, use them for good, use them selfishly, or not use them at all, but he chooses to use them for good. in my estimation, the two sets of parents are treated quite equally in terms of their importance in clarks' development. We see the most of Jorel because it was Clark was searching for, and because he is the one to facilitate Clark's ability to choose his own destiny. The audience doesn't need to have them all share screentime equally in order to tell the story at hand.


I apologize for sounding condescending, which wasnt' my intention, but when you're telling a story, you do not try to find the best balance to give each parent equal say or have equal importance. You work from where you want your character to end up backwards and see who seems to most shape the character and how each will facilitate that through their own roles. Jorel was so important cause he was Clark's final link to the past, which he ends up giving up to save Earth by the end of the film. Sure Goyer COULD have had Lara also be a 'ghost in the machine' but how does that actually improve or enhance the story? Now you've got two characters you're trying to develop in an already very full movie when only one actually is needed to get the story through to the audience.

 

[DA_Champion]

There certainly are issues with the film, most of them execution issues, but most people actually have praised the story elements from what I've seen.

It's precisely because it's a better story than a lot of the garbage we've seen recently (i.e. Green Lantern) that I find the mistakes so frustrating. It really seems like if Goyer had handed that script to another talented writer (he's on good terms with J. Michael Straczynski for example), and asked him to polish it for four weeks... we would have had a grand slam. I don't think the movie is that far off:
- hire a dialogue editor
- remove the giant metal spider in the Indian Ocean
- a few more scenes involving Martha, Jonathan, Lois
- Some acknowledgment of the destruction at the end
- Make the Jor-El/Zod fight more coherent

I still voted the movie 7/10 on imdb. I see a lot of problems, but it's a step up from the rest of the genre. Most of the problems in the film, in my opinion, are due to the script. I blame Goyer.

I've never heard anything about the parental elements being criticized 'aggressively'.

Agressive refers to the general criticisms, not specifically the parents.

The most common criticism I found of the movie, in numerous reviews, was that the first half was better than the first half, and of course other criticisms that mean almost the same thing, such as "too much destruction".

The audience doesn't need to have them all share screentime equally in order to tell the story at hand.

The audience doesn't "need" anything. However, it wants to be entertained and moved, and the previews were promising a movie that would be intellectually stimulating and be a coming-of-age story. Instead, they got inconsistent world building from Goyer, and an action-packed pop corn flick in the legacy of 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow.

Jorel was so important cause he was Clark's final link to the past, which he ends up giving up to save Earth by the end of the film. Sure Goyer COULD have had Lara also be a 'ghost in the machine' but how does that actually improve or enhance the story? Now you've got two characters you're trying to develop in an already very full movie when only one actually is needed to get the story through to the audience.

It's either a plot hole that Lara doesn't show up, or it makes Jor-El look like a prick. If it doesn't bother you then that's fine, but it shows up in a litany of criticisms as a "WTF?" moment.

It would have actually made more sense to have only Lara than to have only Jor-El. Jor-El's absence could be excused by the fact he was killed off right before he was going to make his USB-brain. It would also better explain Superman's character to the audience, to see the other half of his nature.

If the movie was supposed to be about Clark choosing Earth over Krypton -- and it does look like that -- then they should have shown more happiness from Clark on Earth, so that it makes sense for him to choose EArth. Instead, he lives a lifetime of bullying and as a loner, and finally a priest told him to choose Earth as a "leap of faith", i.e. a meaningless choice. As Snyder himself said, humanities doesn't have much to offer Clark, and indeed that's what they presented in the film.

Oh yeah, add that to the list on top, the priest scene was dumb. Nobody would ever go to a random priest, it was just Goyer trying to force his failed Jesus metaphor.

 

[Gianakin_]

I think Goyer gets WAAAAY too much flack for MOS.

Honestly, everything wrong that film that I can think of, story and editing wise (save for perhaps the flashbacks) was Nolan's fault and/or goes back to him in some way.

It was Nolan's decision to take the grounded take on Superman in a more action oriented direction, cutting the story waaay down in favor the action, as well as excerbating this by shortening the runtime. And all of that that was, arguably, the main issue people had.

The story and ideas Goyer crafted were fantastic for what little we saw.

I really feel that if we were able to have more of what was cut featured, it would made ALOT more sense and been seen as a much better film.

I kinda see this being a Daredevil situation where, should we get a directors cut, the directors cut will be favored over the original version.

I will have to agree here. Nolan did a fine job with Batman (especially Begins, not to knock TDK) but Superman is a whole different animal. Nolan wants too much realism in the stories he tells, everything has to fit in perfectly and be rationalized to the audience, and that can often actually hinder the story.

Either way, I hope World's Finest (which is what I'm calling Superman/Batman until we get an official title ) is more like the film Goyer and Snyder wanted in the first place with MOS.

You guys aren't serious, right? You're blaming Nolan for MoS editing, acting, dialogue, fleshing out of themes? Really?

 

[BlueLantern]

Obviously. Why would you blame the writer and director? Much rather blame the name only producer since he's the one who wanted realism. Realism where a scientist can beat a genetically perfected soldier. Realism where said genetically perfected soldier was also beaten by the scientist's son, who has never engaged in meaningful combat. Realism where human beings act out nonsensical actions purely created to drive a hole ridden plot. That's all the producer's fault. Come on. It's realism's fault.

 

[Gianakin_]

Yeah, I mean, the whole Codex things took the already fantastical concept of Superman and Krypton and pushed it further. I don't get it.

 

[DA_Champion]

Yeah, I mean, the whole Codex things took the already fantastical concept of Superman and Krypton and pushed it further. I don't get it.

I think that a lot of people, possibly including Goyer, don't realise that putting all the genetic information of an entire planet in a computer shaped like a fossiised skull, in a single location without backup, protected by poor security, is a weak science fiction concept.

If you're not actually thinking, then the codex sounds like serious business and a legitimate plot driver.

*****

[[ Wait a second, is the codex shaped like a skull to represent the fact that Krypton's political ideology is a relic, a fossil, an evolutionary dead end?

OMG mind blown by the depth of the symbolism !!!! ]]

 

[Gianakin_]

Hey, if you didn't get the subtext for Krypton's society behind scientist Jor fighting like Scott Adkins, all foreshadowed in Snyder interviews ("It's awesome"), then you don't get good storytelling.

 

[Marvin]

Jor-El's absence could be excused by the fact he was killed off right before he was going to make his USB-brain.

We have no idea as to the process or demands of uploading a functional "conscious" onto a "usb drive".
Pretty sure that would be right up there with the insanely impossible once in a life time scientific feat you described a hyperdrive modification as, if not more so. Just saying.
If he could do it for lara, spend some time trying to piece together why he didn't. Given that it would have been something he might have wanted to do and all.

If the movie was supposed to be about Clark choosing Earth over Krypton -- and it does look like that -- then they should have shown more happiness from Clark on Earth, so that it makes sense for him to choose EArth. Instead, he lives a lifetime of bullying and as a loner, and finally a priest told him to choose Earth as a "leap of faith", i.e. a meaningless choice. As Snyder himself said, humanities doesn't have much to offer Clark, and indeed that's what they presented in the film.

So the hero choosing to save a place that hasn't been really nice to him(outside of the times it was) is lacking of story sense? This is where the debate of simple vs not simple story telling rears it's head.
That aside, how "nice" has Krypton been to him?

Oh yeah, add that to the list on top, the priest scene was dumb. Nobody would ever go to a random priest, it was just Goyer trying to force his failed Jesus metaphor.

Always wanted to use that.

How was it a failed jesus metaphor? I mean I've heard people say that but never really got anyone's explanation for how it failed.

 

[Marvin]

You guys aren't serious, right? You're blaming Nolan for MoS editing, acting, dialogue, fleshing out of themes? Really?

They probably blame him for helping develop the story(pretty sure that's where all these plot points came from) and also executive producing(pretty sure he has final approval on everything going through the creative pipeline).

just saying.
I think he did a great job.

 

[Gianakin_]

Ah, yes, plot points like Superman killing Zod... oh, wait. Nolan's already stated what his role in MoS was. And he ain't to blame. He did a great job letting Snyder and Goyer roam free... which was a bad decision to me.

 

[DA_Champion]

Ah, yes, plot points like Superman killing Zod... oh, wait. Nolan's already stated what his role in MoS was. And he ain't to blame. He did a great job letting Snyder and Goyer roam free... which was a bad decision to me.

It's professional courtesy not to micromanage Snyder, and anyway since thje project was not his first priority there is no reason to think that he would have made good decisions. We know he makes good decisions when he's obsessed with something, when it's his top priority.

Do we know that there was anyone better than Goyer and Snyder available?

 

[Boom]

Still in the "Let Affleck have a go at the script" camp.

 

[Gianakin_]

It's professional courtesy not to micromanage Snyder, and anyway since thje project was not his first priority there is no reason to think that he would have made good decisions. We know he makes good decisions when he's obsessed with something, when it's his top priority.

Do we know that there was anyone better than Goyer and Snyder available?

I was only joking, don't worry, we're agreeing on this.

 

[Gianakin_]

Still in the "Let Affleck have a go at the script" camp.

My sig agrees with you, and since I'm her slave (yes, my sig's a "she"), I agree with you, too.

 

[DA_Champion]

We have no idea as to the process or demands of uploading a functional "conscious" onto a "usb drive".
Pretty sure that would be right up there with the insanely impossible once in a life time scientific feat you described a hyperdrive modification as, if not more so. Just saying.
If he could do it for lara, spend some time trying to piece together why he didn't. Given that it would have been something he might have wanted to do and all.

The USB-brain is a made-up concept, and thus the amount of time/energy whatever it takes to make one is entirely up to Goyer. He convinced himself it makes sense to have Jor-El have more lines than all 3 other parents combined... but audiences and critics and myself alike have said "WTF?". It just looks mean and dumb.

I hope Maximus-El never comes back.

So the hero choosing to save a place that hasn't been really nice to him(outside of the times it was) is lacking of story sense? This is where the debate of simple vs not simple story telling rears it's head.
That aside, how "nice" has Krypton been to him?

Choosing Earth over Krypton on a "leap of faith", the most important choice in a movie where free will is supposed to be about free will, is completely nonsensical.

Behold: David Goyer's A Treatise on Free Will. Daniel Dennett better watch out.

How was it a failed jesus metaphor? I mean I've heard people say that but never really got anyone's explanation for how it failed.

Seriously?

They did get one part right: Kal-El is very much the son of God.

 

[DA_Champion]

Completely aside,

A great example of a meaningful choice on screen is in the season four finale of Mad Men.

Spoiler

Don Draper chooses Megan Calvet over Faye Miller. It's not done on a "leap of faith", and not because one of the two women is much more beautiful/intelligent/nice than the other, like in most trivial love triangles. They're both very desirable women, a lot of men would choose Faye Miller... but Don chooses Megan. It reveals a lot about the character. When the finale happened, I and a friend of mine were both thinking "WTF? Faye is a much better catch to us". Yeah, she is, to us. A lot of men would prefer Megan, specifically men like Don who might be seeking a calmer direction.

In contrast, in a film (MoS) in which choice is supposed to be a guiding theme rather than a plot element, Clark's most significant choice is picking Earth over Krypton. It's fairly mediocre, it's the opposite situation as that of Mad Men.

Whereas both Faye Miller and Megan Calvet have a lot to offer Don, neither of Earth or Krypton has a lot to offer Clark, as acknowledged by Zach Snyder. Earth offers him solitude, Krypton offers him the guilt of genocide and the risk of founding a society led by political crackpot General Zod. So, he makes his choice on a "leap of faith".

 

[Gianakin_]

Wish I could read your post, but I haven't seen Mad Men and I plan to, so...

 

[BlueLantern]

Just out of curiosity, Marvin. What are your problems with the movie?

 

[Gianakin_]

Thanks for that, DA. I didn't even think of asking for spoiler tags!

 

[The Infernal]

Still in the "Let Affleck have a go at the script" camp.

It could be good to have Affleck give some advice about Batman/Superman, but judging by the general conversation here about Goyer, Snyder and Nolan, I can't help but feel we'll be right back here when certain fanboy wishes aren't met.

 

[Caekzor]

Honestly, everything wrong that film that I can think of, story and editing wise (save for perhaps the flashbacks) was Nolan's fault and/or goes back to him in some way.

It was Nolan's decision to take the grounded take on Superman in a more action oriented direction, cutting the story waaay down in favor the action, as well as excerbating this by shortening the runtime. And all of that that was, arguably, the main issue people had.

I will have to agree here. Nolan did a fine job with Batman (especially Begins, not to knock TDK) but Superman is a whole different animal. Nolan wants too much realism in the stories he tells, everything has to fit in perfectly and be rationalized to the audience, and that can often actually hinder the story.

You guys are kidding... right?