BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[Marvin]

Hey, pal, look at the general critical response to the film. It's not good. Audience response? The word of mouth indicated a 65% drop. Sure, you can point to $650 million made worldwide, but Transformers made $709 million worldwide and ****ing sucked. Sure, you're going to throw the 'but critics are morons! even the RT lady said so'. Right...because 120 reviewers and countless others are all balls out wrong about the films' problems.

Amazing how you make posts where you seemingly argue with yourself. If you are going to strawman the man, atleast let him demonstrate that he might go there to begin with.

"hey pal"

I noticed people going on about how Rotten Tomatoes doesn't work, well here's a funny one. Even the positive reviews open mindedly acknowledge the film has problems. No one's creating issues. They exist. They're there. There's just more voracious defenders of the film CREATING hypotheses to defend said issues when there's a simple situation. It was not well executed. So you know what's flat out hilarious? Your myopia. Good morning.

The dude said you people are being nit picky and harping on things other people are not. You responded with the reviews back up your claims.

If that's so kindly, direct us that great many reviews that explicitly harp on the great failure that is "JorEl easily beating up Zod."
Just saying.

And what's with the constant belligerence if I may ask? Seems like something you would expect of a red lantern no?

 

[BlueLantern]

You're saying critics haven't discussed the problems we're considering? I'd say you should go through all the reviews again, sir. They've been discussed and then on RottenTomatoes itself you've got angry fans shouting expletives at how said critics don't know movies and don't understand what was being made. Furthermore, you're comparing a film like Man of Steel to the Godfather and Apocalypse Now. Good job. Let's throw the Amazing Spider-Man up against Dogday Afternoon.

First of all, they're not in the same league. Hell, Man of Steel is just about semi-pro compared to the nuanced style of filmmaking evident in those masterpieces. Moreover, the fact that those films as a whole are so riveting and engaging is why the more minute errors get given a pass. Because the whole is as good and better than the parts. Man of Steel has parts that are good, but the whole is flawed. It's why then the toxic parts get investigated with a biohazard suit instead of being ignored.

Why? Because people care. There's nothing more to be said. You want people to let it go? **** off out of the thread and go sit in a sunshine section where nothing bad or good gets discussed and people just watch a cam print of the film on repeat in emotional inertia. Marvin, my forum name doesn't mean I can't express a multitude of emotions. It's a net handle. But you were trying to be funny. Right. I argue with myself? No, I make a discursive point to avoid a back and forth which I can guesstimate.

Marvin, the Zod/Jor-El fight barely registers on my meter of problems with the film. The issues I have with the film are shared by folk who've supposedly given 'fresh' reviews too. For someone who's accusing others of being nitpicky, you're awfully guilty of having tunnel vision. Please don't write me an essay explaining why.

 

[Marvin]

High, ****ing five, sir. Finally someone said it. Marvin, you didn't respond to my question because you'd typed a similar response before, yet you've spent the last how many days arguing about previously raised problems in nauseating detail? Dude, let me put it in a polite way here.

Nope, I didn't respond for the precise reason I said I didn't respond. Kindly avoid asserting my intention plz. Not a big fan of that. Especially when you're wrong(as you seem to be often).
Like I said, I'm pretty sure I made my problems with the film. Apparent in the MoS review thread. If you must know again(because you care so much what I have to say) they were basically that of an unconventional narrative structure and I would have preferred a much more traditional one. Overuse of cgi during fights leading to videogame like detachment. Having the doomsday weapon shut off before the main conflict and what that doesn't to the psyche of the audience. Not enough metropolis and landscape identity, Hated the cinematography of the first flight, the list goes on.

Your long and potentially intelligent posts don't detract that you're ridiculously blind about this film, particularly since you've put more thought into your hypotheses than the writers probably put into the film.

Hell, if they'd thought things through as much as you had, they'd have likely made different decisions thinking '****, I have to go through this much to explain a skull with information or a fight between a scientist and a general? Screw it, let's do it another way that's simpler and better'.

I try to put a ton of thought into most things I receive. As it just so happens the last time we interacted, I was kindly letting you in on the finer points of Snyders rhetoric on mythic tradition and how you violently mistook, misconstrued and misread his basic explanation. I came away from that with the thought that you had at least considered that you may have missed something. Given your final post. Which is why we are here, people missing things.

If my explanations are long winded(no longer than my opponents strangely enough), that's actually my fault, not the films. I could simplify but I lack the eloquence.

I know some self righteous defender regarding freedom of speech and expression is going throw around the 'BUT THAT'S YOUR OPINION AND NOT FACT!' ********, so yes, it's my opinion. But they're a damn sight more rational than how many ever pages Marvin's written about the horrendous plot oversights in the film.

Sure.

 

[BlueLantern]

I love the passive aggressive tone of your posting. You're like an art major trying not to unleash himself in a pub brawl so you're politely going around and hitting people with the wrong side of a butter knife. Let loose, man. I think you're absolutely wrong in your thoughts on the film and furthermore seem almost afraid to actually criticize the film so stick to poking the aesthetics of it. I'm asserting your intentions because you seem very afraid to do so yourself and because I can. Nothing personal. Though I do find it funny how you accuse me of bastardizing Snyder's PR speak for what I think it is but don't dare get irritated at how the Superman mythos was manhandled in the film. We're both mired in hypocrisy.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

this thread... is pathetic... that is all.

 

[Marvin]

I love the passive aggressive tone of your posting. You're like an art major trying not to unleash himself in a pub brawl so you're politely going around and hitting people with the wrong side of a butter knife. Let loose, man. I think you're absolutely wrong in your thoughts on the film and furthermore seem almost afraid to actually criticize the film so stick to poking the aesthetics of it. I'm asserting your intentions because you seem very afraid to do so yourself and because I can. Nothing personal. Though I do find it funny how you accuse me of bastardizing Snyder's PR speak for what I think it is but don't dare get irritated at how the Superman mythos was manhandled in the film. We're both mired in hypocrisy.

You're assuming I think or agree that the Superman mythos was manhandled. Sorry but no hypocrisy here. That was my description of the previous film.

As for my passive aggressive nature, that's me trying to be funny. Stringing that alliteration along was fairly deliberate.

As for my critique of the film. I mentioned plenty, aesthetics(very important to me) and otherwise. If I personally felt the film fundamentally flawed I probably wouldn't claim to also feel the nature to argue it's effectiveness. Just seems to make sense. I suppose the question is, what do you want me to hate about the film?

Are you asking for the plot holes I found?

 

[Marvin]

this thread... is pathetic... that is all.

If people feel strongly about something, good(character) or bad, they should be free to share their opinions. Otherwise the point of these forums is undermined entirely, don't you agree?

just saying.

 

[Marvin]

I think you misread what I wrote. I said I haven't read anything like that so I can't comment on how it works there. I can do it in MoS though as I've seen it and I find it poorly structured.

I guess that would explain it then.

Not what I said. But what you said is that it's fine that he doesn't act when he might be able to do it normally,

Dad has a shot and I have a greater responsibility, so I'll wait.

because he's afraid of exposing himself, but he's ready to act when he definitely has to use his powers, despite that he will expose himself.

Dad doesn't have a shot, screw my greater responsibility.
If you can't see the basic difference in that premise, god speed.

Notice the changing of dads situation and dads ability to get himself out of said situation. Also notice the stakes(the fate of the world) of clarks exposure remaining constant.

It doesn't even work on a metaphorical level. Calling squashing a fly a fight is so extremely dumb that nothing relevant can come out of it.

It's so dumb that I have to question my own mental faculties for keeping on with the discussion after reading that.

Next you'll be suggesting a bull "fighter" can't fight a bull. Not sure what your parameters are for the definition of that word to stop being the definition of that word but...

It's as simple as that I know what the word "average" means. After the debacle with the word "fight" I'm not so sure I can get that through though.

There is a fundamental difference between "The Average Person" and "A Person Who is Average".
Respectfully.

Trying to save Krypton in it's entirety isn't less of a motivation than to save your child. You mean to say that every man who's a father has more conviction than people that devoted their lives to make the world a better place? I'd the contrary. It's only the latter group that consistently shows conviction on a very high level.

Depends who you ask.
When it comes to movies, sure, it's a well known trope. It's a fine assertion you make here but it waves the flag of ignorance to the dozens of films where the hero puts the world at risk to save their own kin/kid. When's the last time you watched a film where the terrorist told the president they got his kid and he need hand over himself or his nuke codes and the president seemingly complied? Did everyone in the audience automatically disconnect? If not then it's not flawed. When's the last time Arnold or Mclane or some other hero lower their weapon in the middle of saving the world cause the bad guy had their daughter? Again audience disconnect? I'm guessing no.
And so on and so fourth.
A fathers conviction to save his son from a dying world vs Zod's conviction to obtain the codex from his old friend. The mcGuffin as you referred it earlier.

In the context of the discussion the difference is irrelevant. Both are something that would go beyond the development of anything we have in our world, and you treat it as it's nothing special.

As long as I don't have to hear "a thousand years of genetic optimization" anymore...

No one has said that it's all that matters, what was said is that it's enough to make someone a being with completely different potential. You just made a straw man, and a bad one at that. Since I haven't said that genetic potential is everything, but I have said that skill is the most important factor in a fight (which you even show that you remember while writing that paragraph), what could ever make you draw the conclusion you just did?

Simple, you said skill is the most important aspect of a fight. Now if you really believed that then what's with all this genetic modification mumbo? And no you never said that the genes are all that matters, you have however said the next best thing your utter disregard for how much fight training skill jor el has clearly learned.

You said believe the skills someone learns trump all other advantages in a "fight" correct? If that's so then what difference does it make that Zod has been bred genetically, how can that be the crux of your argument if you know deep down that all that really matters is who has learned more? If you didn't think it was all that mattered you wouldn't disregard the amount of learning Jor has done inspite of what you think his genes are. Is this because of the genetic potential to acquire skills? And here I thought the "perfect scientist" had a bigger brain.

And even if we disregard how wrong you were about my position, your counter argument is downright funny since who do you think gets the most, and the best, combat training? The soldier or the scientist? On Krypton the soldiers should be so suited for that job that it makes LeBron seem like a talentless oaf in his job. On top of that they are probably trained for their jobs from a far earlier age than any of us, because they only have one role in society and that's already determined at birth. But of course the person that was never meant to contribute to society as anything but a scientist can easily top that, right?

This is you strawmaning the film itself. First you say "should be this should be that" then when the film argues otherwise in classic show and tell fashion, you either deny it or claim the film itself is confused.

Soldiers tend to get the most and best training in these basic scenarios BUT I have no idea how much or what kinda of training this guy

has gotten. I do however know for a fact that the film clearly presents it as significant. That's probably because I'm drawing my conclusions from what the film is showing me and not what I think it "should be."

Curious though, at what point was it made explicit that Krytonians are bred for a singular role? That doesn't seem like the most logical direction for a society that has mastered genetic modification for centuries.

That Jor and Zod looks fairly different has to do with casting. Looks wouldn't need to be that important though as they could easily say that the genetic alteration of soldiers made their muscles more efficient, so even Faora would be far physically superior to a normal man. That would be a logical way to design the people that's supposed to protect your planet.

The other scientist guy. The one that doesn't look as capable as Jor

Spoiler

Just saying.

And the movie is terribly unclear on why. They are a product of Krypton. Ok, but what does it mean. According to people like you it's not because they are genetically altered, so I'll rule that out.

Let's try this again:
And the movie is terribly clear on why. They are a product of Krypton. Ok, but what does it mean. According to people like you it's because they are genetically altered, so I'll...
Fixed

By any chance, have you ever seen Andrew Niccol's Gattaca? The one that outlines the the basic aspects of fictional society krypton is modeled after?

Spoiler

Then it's because of cultural flaws, but those are obviously not shared by Jor-El, as he managed to break seemingly every law surrounding that. It's also a nonsense reason as the North Korea example shows. Cultural habits are not impossible to cast aside, especially not if you already are fighting the power.

Clearly. Alas this is you arguing with a point you yourself made.

 

[DA_Champion]

There's also somethign to be said for you guys creating issues where there really are none. I feel like most of the audience got it, understood it and accepted it, and you guys are still here complaining that your misunderstandings don't work. If you honestly think they didn't think this stuff through, you're kidding yourself. Do you not think nolan would have brought this stuff up when they met? Do you honestly think you would put in more effort criticizing than them creating it? It's borderline hilarious. You guys are asking for incredibly detailed explanations of things that don't need (but still has) an explanation. If your questions don't make sense to the story (ie regarding the Kryptonian class lineage), then guess what? You're missing something. You're interpretation of what the characters are saying is wrong. Most of us found the answers to your questions, but you keep dismissing them using facts you've created to justify the problems. But A+B must = the movie. If your interpretation doesn't = the movie, then you've misinterpreted it. Now, you're allowed to dislike the choice, but stop telling us we're seeing things, when the answers are there for us to see. Reminds me alot of some of the minute complaints regarding TDKR. Either way, like your last paragraph talks about, the minutia don't matter as long as the story works. And it does. Clark Kents' story is still great in this movie even IF those are regarded as being without any logical explanation.

Anyways, we've strayed so far off-topic, I think it would be more productive than harping on minute details that will not even be factors in the new film.



I'm truly excited to see where they go with Bruce and Clark here and how their stories will intertwine. There are tons of storylines I can think of, but I really hope they surprise us... In a good way, haha.

The following are not minutia:
- We're told that Krypton is a sterile society, but we see a lot of dynamism (civil wars, Jor-El, etc);
- Jor-El is modelled after Maximus from Gladiator;
- A lack of romance between Lois and Clark;
- The death of Jonathan Kent is poorly handled;
- Everybody is happy after Metropolis gets destroyed;
- Superman is introduced to the world in a manner that would cause people to resent him, as it's implied he is the reason 100,000 people died;
- Way too much action in the second half of the movie;
- Clark lacks agency, his choices are handed to him;
- Superman killing Zod is a scene added to the movie after the script was written and it's painfully obvious;
- The movie claims to be realistic, but we have the codex in the opening minutes, and we have Clark being hired by the Daily Planet without journalism experience in the closing minutes;
- A superficial Jesus metaphor that is so overt it pulls viewers out of the movie.

As for whether or not Nolan brought anything up... Nolan was barely involved with this work. He's a producer. He's getting a check and then he moves on. He might have put less time into MoS than we have.

I don't think that Goyer and Snyder thought about most of these issues. They are simply not the greatest talents. This happens in every industry, mediocre people sometimes rise to positions of influence due to various factors, such as being in the right place at the right time.

 

[DA_Champion]

Amazing how you make posts where you seemingly argue with yourself.

I for one like Blue Lantern's posts. He's an actual writer, and it shows, reading his posts is a painless experience.

For example:

You're like an art major trying not to unleash himself in a pub brawl so you're politely going around and hitting people with the wrong side of a butter knife.

That flows well. Goyer should hire BL to fix the dialogue in BvS.

ETA: Did any character in MoS other than Jor-El deliver a coherent sentence in the entire script with that many words in it?

 

[DA_Champion]

Of course bad things can be made. I just simply don't agree with the 'issues' you guys have brought up.

I literally just discussed the many problems the film has. Them being primarily cinematic issues such as pacing, dialog, etc. These are the problems discussed by actual respected film critics. And they are problems that certainly are warranted and need addressing. Another issue is many younger "critics" who complain about minutia without an actual understanding of storytelling. If they were to judge most great movies that way, there wouldn't be many great movies. ****, you can find these kinds of small problems that 'don't make sense' in great movies from Godfather to Apocalypse Now to Raging Bull. And it's not the small problems that make them great, it's the story and execution. What's lacking from MOS is most of all execution.

And this is getting ridiculous, but you show a very narrowminded view of how the 65% drop was achieved - it's pretty much standard when it's followed by two movies that pulled much of their audience the following weekend - Monsters U (kids), and World war Z (teen and young men). it grossing 650 mil over the long terms after such a drop is actually an example of GOOD word of mouth. But I digress. I don't think any of us is really enjoying this conversation, which is the reason we should be here to begin with. It would be more fun if we had more people's opinions on the matter, but right now it's like four people running in circles, lol.

A productive conversation would be to acknowledge the strengths and failings of MoS, and to discuss how these realities should or should not affect the sequel, also, how the failings could have been prevented and would have made for a better movie.

This is hard to do if people start off assuming that MoS has no serious imperfections. The fact Jor-El beat up Zod would be forgiven and forgotten in an otherwise great film, but not in this film. The fact people apologise for it here demonstrates their irrationality.

***

Anyway, here's an attempt.

1) No codex. The reason Zod searches the Galaxy is to find Kryptonian life, and he comes to Earth because of the Kryptonian distress signal. They decide to colonize Earth because it's one of the few planets that can be terraformed... it's plausible that very few planets in the Galaxy would be amenable to the world builder, particularly if the world builder is damaged or low on power.

The screen time that was wasted on Jor-El/Tarzan stealing the codex is transferred to dialogue scenes between Jor-El and Lara, or between Jor-El and the council, or even to Earth-related events. This also liberates screentime further in the movie for when the Kryptonians again talk about the codex and how it's in Kal-El's cells.

Goyer wanted to establish an antagonism between Zod and Jor-El, so that the Zod / Kal-El antagonism would have more meaning. OK, have Zod attack Jor-El's compound becase he's heard that Jor-El has been developing technologies that can change the tide of the war, which takes the exact same amount of screen time as searching for the almighty codex. It's also correct and organically integrated into the plot: Jor-El has invented the phantom drive, and that can improve transportation between Krypton and its mining outposts. Zod easily kills Jor-El as Jor-El pleads, the baby flies off as in the movie.

Zod wins the civil war, he never gets sent to the phantom zone. He proceeds to rule Krypton from orbit and he shoots down ships trying to escape his blockade ... and then he sees his planet blown up. Or, he loses the civil war and goes to the phantom zone in a *****, whatever.

So, the net change of all this, is a bit of screentime liberated, and also no codex. Zod has had more victories and is more menacing. As engineers say, Keep it Simple Stupid.

ETA:

2) The Brain-USB. Simple: No Brain-USB. Clark instead gets a simple recorded message of love from Lara and Jor-El, as well as a history of what happened. They tell him something like they hope he becomes an ambassador for a fallen civilisation, and they give him the suit.

Thus, instead of Clark becoming a hero because Jor-El tells him it's his destiny to become a hero, he chooses what to do, without instructions from Jor-El and Lara.

This requires a major re-write of the script. Jor-El was needed as a brain USB because in Goyer's script he fixes every problem -- Jor-El is the greatest hero of Goyer's MoS. He helps Lois and Clark escape from the Kryptonian ship, and without his help they would have died there and Earth would have been destroyed. He also tells Lois to use the phantom drive to defeat the Kryptonians, without that Earth would have been terraformed.

An alternative would be to have Clark spend some time reading the Fortress of Solitude's computer and learning about the phantom zone. The end result is exactly the same as Brain-USB telling him what to do. For the Kryptonian ship, have Lois and Clark escape due to their own abilities, or due to a conscientious objector among the Kryptonians. Either one is good, I'd prefer if Lois had arranged the escape of her own agency rather than Jor-El telling her what to do.


*****

And therein lies my biggest fear for BvS. Goyer will come up with an extremely complex script, involving various technologies and gadgets... Batman and Superman will fight each other, then team up to fight other villain(s) ... oh no.

 

[TheBat812]

The following are not minutia:
- We're told that Krypton is a sterile society, but we see a lot of dynamism (civil wars, Jor-El, etc);
- Jor-El is modelled after Maximus from Gladiator;
- A lack of romance between Lois and Clark;
- The death of Jonathan Kent is poorly handled;
- Everybody is happy after Metropolis gets destroyed;
- Superman is introduced to the world in a manner that would cause people to resent him, as it's implied he is the reason 100,000 people died;
- Way too much action in the second half of the movie;
- Clark lacks agency, his choices are handed to him;
- Superman killing Zod is a scene added to the movie after the script was written and it's painfully obvious;
- The movie claims to be realistic, but we have the codex in the opening minutes, and we have Clark being hired by the Daily Planet without journalism experience in the closing minutes;
- A superficial Jesus metaphor that is so overt it pulls viewers out of the movie.

As for whether or not Nolan brought anything up... Nolan was barely involved with this work. He's a producer. He's getting a check and then he moves on. He might have put less time into MoS than we have.

I don't think that Goyer and Snyder thought about most of these issues. They are simply not the greatest talents. This happens in every industry, mediocre people sometimes rise to positions of influence due to various factors, such as being in the right place at the right time.

Really quick: If you've ever been involved in films, you'd know that is hardly the sole job of a producer. Executive Producer, sometimes, but not just a producer. Especially when said producer is good friends and has a great past relationship with the feature's writer who happens to be one of the best cinematic minds film has seen. In fact, most of the time you get a director's cut is because the producer typically has most of the final say in a film. Why do you think producer's get the Oscar, not directors? Not saying that Nolan was THAT hands on of a producer, but he definitely didn't just turn a blind eye to everything going on. He also shares story credit, so I doubt he just would let them do whatever they wanted.

Much of what you listed is a result of poor execution (this is definitely where we missed having Nolan improve the screenplay rather than accentuate its shortcomings the way Snyder did), or is something I do not agree with, so we'll have to agree to disagree.


Overall, I think we all agree: Goyer is solid as a story guy, but his stories always benefit from a more objective viewpoint steering them clear of the less than stellar parts. Snyder isn't a great writer, but Affleck is, so hopefully he can help fix those parts and turn what I expect to be a great blend of comic book story and thematic resonance into a great film. Hopefully both Snyder and Goyer have listened to some of the criticism of the film and will wholeheartedly take them into account while working up the next one.


EDIT: Funnily enough, that last post were points of contention for me after my first viewing. After my second viewing I actually found them to fit quite nicely within the world, even though I know there probably could have been a better way to do it. I think our main thing here is that I think they could be done better but they work as they are within their own context, but you find them not working at all. To each his own.

 

[DA_Champion]

Really quick: If you've ever been involved in films, you'd know that is hardly the sole job of a producer. Executive Producer, sometimes, but not just a producer. Especially when said producer is good friends and has a great past relationship with the feature's writer who happens to be one of the best cinematic minds film has seen. In fact, most of the time you get a director's cut is because the producer typically has most of the final say in a film. Why do you think producer's get the Oscar, not directors? Not saying that Nolan was THAT hands on of a producer, but he definitely didn't just turn a blind eye to everything going on. He also shares story credit, so I doubt he just would let them do whatever they wanted.

I'm not sure if you're saying that this movie can't possibly have this many problems due to Nolan being involved.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

We can debate whether it's possible to be a master of trades, I say it's not, but what you're saying is not supported by the plot that says nobody on Krypton has choices, it needs to be added in.

I think it's the case of nearly every movie ever made that the plot holes can be explained away by adding in world building elements that are not there at all.

Example: Perhaps Jor-El was able to defeat Zod because Zod was suffering from a viral infection that weakened him, and Jor-El somehow knew about the infection, but since Zod did not realise he was infected he did not ask his soldiers to go inside instead. That would explain Jor-El confidently beating up Zod.

However, that's not in the script. It's a mental gymnastic that is added in externally, which should not be necessary.

Like you said, though, plot holes can be found in just about every film known to man; and I've seen plenty worse than what you perceive as Jor-El's ability to complete a task that someone of his class/type should not have been able to perform. I suppose my explanation can be described as a form of mental gymnastics, but I also liken it to suspension of disbelief. MOS is a science-fiction fantasy after-all; and there are already a number of things about Superman's world (in both the comics and the films) that don't make any sense. As fans of the character and either one of the aforementioned genres, I think it falls upon our shoulders to "mentally" fill in some of the gaps with a little creative imagination when it's called for. For me, it's only a problem when a plot hole is so ridiculous that you just can't make it work.

In reference to Jor-El specifically, what we are shown is this:

1) He's a scientist
2) He's a warrior; even though it isn't explicitly stated, the proof is in the battle
3) He has already broken Kryptonian tradition

We're also told that those who dwell on Krypton are bereft of choice; that is correct. Of course, both Jor-El and Lara's divergence can be interpreted as an exception to this rule.

Note: I think you're taking the "absence of choice" concept a bit too literally instead of thinking outside the box.

In light of the facts presented to us, one need only make sense of how and why Jor-El exhibits proficiency as both a scientist and a warrior; and I provided a plausible explanation for that. Even in adhering to the notion that choice on Krypton is a luxury long gone, it's still within the realm of possibility that certain individuals were bred as hybrids belonging to a separate tier of their own. My explanation, as opposed to your example (which I understand you didn't put much thought into), was derived mostly from what is actually shown on screen. Jor-El is a scientist, and he has also shown prowess as a warrior. Therefore, he is, in fact, a hybrid of sorts. Suggesting that Zod's defeat at the hands of Jor-El can be attributed to a virus/infection, on the other hand, isn't quite the same thing because there is no evidence that such a virus exists.

 

[BlueLantern]

Dude, did you even read what DA Champion wrote? He's saying the virus could've been a plausible solution to the question of why Zod was dispatched so easily. Not that it was. Furthermore the point you've raised is just another example of convenient writing. Jor-El's a proficient Warrior/Scientist hybrid? Why is that he's so in a world where people are created to fulfill certain requirements and those specific ones only? Well because the plot demands it. Pretty stupid.

Every child was designed to perform a predetermined role in our society as a worker, a warrior, a leader, and so on. Your mother and I believed Krypton lost something precious, the element of choice, of chance. What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended? What if a child aspired to something greater? You were the embodiment of that belief Kal. Krypton's first natural birth in centuries. That's why we risked so much to save you.

Sorry if this comes across as rude, but suck it, Marvin. If that isn't explicitly confirming that people were bred for specific and singular roles then there's no reason to discuss it. Obviously, you're going to say 'WELL JOR-EL DIDN'T SAY JUST ONE THING!'. He did. Predetermined role. That doesn't include convenient hybrids like Chef-***-Biochemical-Engineer or Scientist-***-Badasswarriorwho'sbetterthanourmilitaryleader. Oh and cut out using the word strawman as a retort for everything someone says that you don't agree with. It's condescending considering all your arguments seem hideously myopic and themselves suffering from confirmation bias.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Dude, did you even read what DA Champion wrote? He's saying the virus could've been a plausible solution to the question of why Zod was dispatched so easily.

An idea is less plausible when the events of a film/story simply do not support it.

Jor-El is a scientist; and he's a warrior. Otherwise, he wouldn't be shown defeating Zod in combat so easily. Get over it.

 

[Marvin]

I for one like Blue Lantern's posts. He's an actual writer, and it shows, reading his posts is a painless experience.

For example:

You're like an art major trying not to unleash himself in a pub brawl so you're politely going around and hitting people with the wrong side of a butter knife.

That flows well. Goyer should hire BL to fix the dialogue in BvS.

ETA: Did any character in MoS other than Jor-El deliver a coherent sentence in the entire script with that many words in it?

I actually took his snide misreading of my demeanor on the forum as a compliment. Especially coming from him given how he approaches frustrating discussions.

To your point however, I don't understand what you are getting at:
-First you suggest that the longer a "sentence" the better a sentence?
This is you once again mis-defining what good is. And then criticizing the piece of work based on your own fickle terms. Nothing new btw.

-Then you imply that Blue's statement is actually one sentence and not two or a run-on sentence even.
As english grammar isn't my strong suit or first language I won't really speak on this other than to beg the question, then assert that Goyer's final scripts probably don't have any such grammatical errors as they were. Unlike most of us here who just like to call good and bad when we see it, most of the professionals have formalized training.

To that end I doubt Goyer gave even Jor a 25plus word sentence.

-Lastly I assume you weren't talking grammar but rather uninterrupted line utterances? I'd hate to say anything for certain without having read the script, but to answer your question simply: I'd say yes.

btw what did you mean in your use of ETA, I'm not familiar with all the internet acronyms and their use.(honest question)

 

[Marvin]

This is hard to do if people start off assuming that MoS has no serious imperfections.

Name one person here who has done this? If you can't then stop with the generalizations.

The fact people apologise for it here demonstrates their irrationality.

People disagreeing with you on specific points of a film aren't irrational, they simply have a difference of opinion. Unless of course you are right, which clearly, you are.

 

[Marvin]

The only myopia going on here is that instead of working to get to the root of a discussion, some people have to resort to belittling the opposing views. This comes by way of either calling the opposition "irrational" or basically just calling them names.

Also Blue, I tend to use Strawman to illustrate when someone misinterprets a stance(not sure if you've read DA's posts or even your own lately) and then proceeds to argue that same fickle point they made. I hardly as a retort for every disagreement. I'll "cut it out" when when I deem necessary. What you are asking, is that I stop using it appropriately. If that's what you want just ask, for I can see how it can become an annoyance.

Sorry if this comes across as rude, but suck it, Marvin.

I doubt you're sorry, given your track record. But apology accepted.

If that isn't explicitly confirming that people were bred for specific and singular roles then there's no reason to discuss it. Obviously, you're going to say 'WELL JOR-EL DIDN'T SAY JUST ONE THING!'. He did. Predetermined role. That doesn't include convenient hybrids like Chef-***-Biochemical-Engineer or Scientist-***-Badasswarriorwho'sbetterthanourmilitaryleader. Oh and cut out using the word strawman as a retort for everything someone says that you don't agree with. It's condescending considering all your arguments seem hideously myopic and themselves suffering from confirmation bias.

What is the purpose of Jor El's exchange to Kal in that moment? To in fact explain the basic lack of choice and chance allowed in his society and why clark is different. Does that dialogue at all require the use of the words such as "Scientist-***-Badasswarriorwho'sbetterthanourmilitaryleader"? Rather did he have to explain the specifics pertaining to the singularity of each role to make the particular point of Dystopian genetics? No.

Given the title of this thread you would think purpose driven exposition would be a worth while venture. But then again in this thread I've heard it argued the quality of dialogue is measured by it' length...
Is it so hard for a thinking audience to derive that because Jor later demonstrates a clear mastery of two disciplines and never once disputes the presence of such a thing that such a thing in fact not only exists but is what he is? "Oh and guess what Kal, here are the specifics of what I am, it doesen't dispute what I am talking about right now but I thought you might want and need to know this pertinent information because it will contribute to your decision to reje...etc"

If it's not disputed and not impossible in the the world of the script, then later demonstrated to infact be true, then what is the most logical take way?

Every child was designed to perform a predetermined role in our society

Since you are one for quoting and appealing to authority:
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
-Arthur Conan Doyle

this of course requires a thinking audience.

 

[BlueLantern]

I asked you to cut out the strawman retort because you're using it in a subjective manner. Your perspective is that DA and I are both bringing up false evidence supporting cases pinpointing the shortcomings of that film. You aren't actually looking at both sides of the coin, which is leading to a situation where everyone's going round in circles. I'm not asking you to bash the film, but maybe understand what other people dislike and not come up with essay length responses as to why they're wrong. Especially when the responses are ridiculously outlandish and based on your own theories. Fickle theories I might add given the basis in the actual film made.

Furthermore, based on that Doylian quote all potential plot holes can be excused by outlandish assumptions regarding what they might possibly or just say 'oh well that's what it is'. Fair enough, if that's your view on it, okay. Also, let me just clarify something here and now. I have no issues whatsoever with getting to the root of any potential problems. However, a problem presents itself therein. That being your refusal of acknowledging problems. You see what I mean? You're in denial. You've got to accept the problem before it can actually be tackled. But nope, you're coming up with self-generated hypothesis after hypothesis to excuse the issues.

Until you accept the problems and stop writing condescending defenses of them, I will absolutely continue to go on the assumption that you're a blind/myopic/shortsighted individual who's desperately caught up in a failing defense of this film. Why? Because once you eliminate the impossible - that being your assumptions being true or that Goyer created a detailed dossier explaining each character motivation and plot point in extreme detail, but yet withheld it from presentation in the film and hence left holes in - whatever remains - the assumption that you're a blind/myopic/shortsighted individual - must be the truth.

Am I getting through to you? Because like I offered before, we can go down the sock puppet route. But even that would require rational thought on your part. And like I said, you're a passive aggressive poster who signs off with little insults directed at people disagreeing with you. I'd ignored it until recently but then thought, **** it, let's join in. But instead of being a sharp voiced moral science Professor, I just cut to the chase instead of clearing my voice repeatedly to gain my opposition's attention. Much more straight forward like that. Cuts out the ********. I'd much rather a razor sharp sword in hand than the blunt butter knife against my knuckles.

P.S The dialogue confirms singular roles assigned. It's clear. You're just again going down the denial route by claiming that just because nothing in the script confirms the presence or absence of dual-roles it doesn't mean they don't exist or do exist. I think Clark's actually bi-sexual. There's nothing to confirm or deny such a possibility so it might well be true. Is it so hard to assume that a conflicted manchild couldn't like both sexes? I mean not once does Clark in the film say 'Hello, Lois. I'm completely straight in case this skin tight suit gives off any overly homoerotic vibes. I'm straight. Honest.' Once you eliminate th...**** it, you're better at being irrational than me.

 

[Mjölnir]

Mjolnr,

Let's try and raise the level of discussion from debating the narrative merits of Jor-El easily beating up Zod.

How could Krypton have been portrayed? It needs to be a world with limited choice, but even if we remove a lot of our complaints, there's a choice necessary to the plot:
Jor-El, a man of privilege, makes the revolutionary choice of sending his son elsewhere. He is the head of a noble house, and he goes against the norms of his society in that manner... which is really incredible. To give an analogy... imagine if Warren Buffet thought the US was doomed, and sent his kid to be educated in boarding school in China... it would simply be an incredible thing, as this doesn't happen.

Looks like something that's hard to write. Explains why Goyer phoned it in.

As I said somewhere in my long posts there is an inherent and necessary contradiction in the Krypton part that really makes it hard to write. Krypton is supposed to be locked down in it's ways so people don't really have free will, as Kal-El puts it when he states why Krypton failed. Still you need someone like Jor-El to go against this so you can get Kal-El, but by having someone go against it you automatically show that Krypton isn't that locked down. If he and Lara can change, so could theoretically everyone (although not before the planet is destroyed).

I'm not really sure how to depict this. I'd probably show Krypton as very efficient but lack real spirit. Everyone are beyond extraordinary in what they do, but they don't have the "human spirit" which is so often brought up to explain why Earth is special in sci fi. The biggest reason why they differ from Earth is why they failed in the end.

Why Jor-El can break the thinking will have to be left to that he's a scientist and not locked into doing the same things but breaking boundaries. I wouldn't have him make the decision that he shouldn't leave (I don't see any reason why) so I'd instead have the only way to get Kal-El away to use a small ship, only big enough for him, which can sneak by detection from Krypton's planetary defenses. Jor-El and Lara can't get away, but they have a shot of sending their son away. As Kal-El is natural born, he isn't forced to be one single thing. He can do what he wants with his life if he gets to Earth.

This is just off the top of my head. Certainly not ideas ready to be formed into a script, but I think the overall logic and themes work better like this.

 

[Marvin]

I asked you to cut out the strawman retort because you're using it in a subjective manner. Your perspective is that DA and I are both bringing up false evidence supporting cases pinpointing the shortcomings of that film. You aren't actually looking at both sides of the coin, which is leading to a situation where everyone's going round in circles. I'm not asking you to bash the film, but maybe understand what other people dislike and not come up with essay length responses as to why they're wrong. Especially when the responses are ridiculously outlandish and based on your own theories. Fickle theories I might add given the basis in the actual film made.

Never said the evidence you bring up isn't "factual". My specific use of the term strawman in your case, was to call you out on asserting a weak argument onto your opponent and then to proceed to dispatch that same argument. Point in case below

This is you, note the bolded.:
"Hey, pal, look at the general critical response to the film. It's not good. Audience response? The word of mouth indicated a 65% drop. Sure, you can point to $650 million made worldwide, but Transformers made $709 million worldwide and ****ing sucked. Sure, you're going to throw the 'but critics are morons! even the RT lady said so'. Right...because 120 reviewers and countless others are all balls out wrong about the films' problems."

And all this in regards to what he said about the specific plot point misunderstandings brought up in this thread? I just call it as I see it friend.

Furthermore, based on that Doylian quote all potential plot holes can be excused by outlandish assumptions regarding what they might possibly or just say 'oh well that's what it is'. Fair enough, if that's your view on it, okay. Also, let me just clarify something here and now. I have no issues whatsoever with getting to the root of any potential problems. However, a problem presents itself therein. That being your refusal of acknowledging problems. You see what I mean? You're in denial. You've got to accept the problem before it can actually be tackled. But nope, you're coming up with self-generated hypothesis after hypothesis to excuse the issues.

No, based on that quote I am saying(and let me specify MY intent before we get into another scarecrow simile), is not that all plot holes can be explained away by a simple lack of evidence to the contrary, but rather the logical conclusion can and should only be derived from the full bounty of evidence offered in the story and characterization, not simply from one item.
If a character says he "likes to eat food" and later is eating a piece of metal, the conclusion isn't that of a plot hole cause metal "metal isn't food" but rather and simply, that metal is his food. You get this from the the full enacted exposition and not just one dialogue. Jor said his people have a role, we were later shown what that role is in fact.

You claiming someone that doesn't agree with you isn't evidence of them being in denial. You simply need to do better than that.
That being said, I have stated the script could have been clearer, simpler, more straight forward...I just never said as some of your friends here have said that it's this big failure of sorts and needs creative replacement. I've said similar about the script work on Inception and The new world. That's a different assertion when it comes to critique when saying something simply doesn't make sense/is a plot hole/weak. Ask me again if I think the film is flawless. We don't have to see the same way on every single issue and then dissolve to name calling.

Until you accept the problems and stop writing condescending defenses of them, I will absolutely continue to go on the assumption that you're a blind/myopic/shortsighted individual who's desperately caught up in a failing defense of this film. Why? Because once you eliminate the impossible - that being your assumptions being true or that Goyer created a detailed dossier explaining each character motivation and plot point in extreme detail, but yet withheld it from presentation in the film and hence left holes in - whatever remains - the assumption that you're a blind/myopic/shortsighted individual - must be the truth.

lol this made me laugh, nice touch. Here's the appropriate retort:
For two and a half months now you have filled these forums with a great majority of negativity towards this film. I'm hard pressed to recall any such unasked for praise, you just hang around, pop in and out and drop some knowledge about how lame it all is. I vaguely recall your first batch of post screening review posts, tracking all the way to this last little handful. Safe to assume you are a blind/myopic/shortsighted individual who's desperately caught up in a failing attack of this film. Why? Because I don't agree with your posts and they are longer than my allotted patience...oh and they are condescending, all that name calling.

As fun as this approach to posting is, I still very much prefer my own.

Am I getting through to you? Because like I offered before, we can go down the sock puppet route. But even that would require rational thought on your part. And like I said, you're a passive aggressive poster who signs off with little insults directed at people disagreeing with you. I'd ignored it until recently but then thought, **** it, let's join in. But instead of being a sharp voiced moral science Professor, I just cut to the chase instead of clearing my voice repeatedly to gain my opposition's attention. Much more straight forward like that. Cuts out the ********. I'd much rather a razor sharp sword in hand than the blunt butter knife against my knuckles.

I'm glad you at least have attempted rationalizing calling people names, in your mind. However you have been receiving my posts(all I know is my intent), escalation is hardly an acceptable excuse...unless of course one is in fact a batman villain. Equal measure retaliation I'd understand and even get behind... Do what you like is what I say.

P.S The dialogue confirms singular roles assigned. It's clear. You're just again going down the denial route by claiming that just because nothing in the script confirms the presence or absence of dual-roles it doesn't mean they don't exist or do exist. I think Clark's actually bi-sexual. There's nothing to confirm or deny such a possibility so it might well be true. Is it so hard to assume that a conflicted manchild couldn't like both sexes? I mean not once does Clark in the film say 'Hello, Lois. I'm completely straight in case this skin tight suit gives off any overly homoerotic vibes. I'm straight. Honest.' Once you eliminate th...**** it, you're better at being irrational than me.

I would question Clarks (bi) sexuality if he gave me strong evidence to do as such. I however don't question Jor El's ability to be both a warrior and scientist because well...it's in the actual movie.
See the difference? Or should I cut out the bs and say it another way.

ps. sorry for the length but as I always say, I tend to respond in kind.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

This whole thread feels like

to me

 

[Mjölnir]

I'll omit parts of the discussion where the fruitful answer is just "we'll agree to disagree" since we're just going in circles.

Next you'll be suggesting a bull "fighter" can't fight a bull. Not sure what your parameters are for the definition of that word to stop being the definition of that word but...

The comparison to swatting a fly and fighting a bull doesn't have any merit either. But you can go tell people that you've been in a fight when you've swatted a fly if you want.

Depends who you ask.
When it comes to movies, sure, it's a well known trope. It's a fine assertion you make here but it waves the flag of ignorance to the dozens of films where the hero puts the world at risk to save their own kin/kid. When's the last time you watched a film where the terrorist told the president they got his kid and he need hand over himself or his nuke codes and the president seemingly complied? Did everyone in the audience automatically disconnect? If not then it's not flawed. When's the last time Arnold or Mclane or some other hero lower their weapon in the middle of saving the world cause the bad guy had their daughter? Again audience disconnect? I'm guessing no.
And so on and so fourth.
A fathers conviction to save his son from a dying world vs Zod's conviction to obtain the codex from his old friend. The mcGuffin as you referred it earlier.

I'm not saying a child isn't a big motivator, I'm saying that the survival of your people is as well. I don't see any of them failing to reach their potential due to lack of motivation.

As long as I don't have to hear "a thousand years of genetic optimization" anymore...

Since you keep bringing it up I guess you do. You keep mentioning it despite that I flat out said I remembered wrong, which is a pretty low thing to do, but I'm not surprised.

Simple, you said skill is the most important aspect of a fight. Now if you really believed that then what's with all this genetic modification mumbo? And no you never said that the genes are all that matters, you have however said the next best thing your utter disregard for how much fight training skill jor el has clearly learned.

Saying that something is the most important doesn't mean that it's the only thing that's important. That's why you put a Flyweight UFC fighter vs a Heavyweight he won't win, because the gap in other areas is much larger than in skill and therefor become the deciding factor. Even if you don't take this from me you'll hear it from plenty of fighters if you listen to interviews etc.

If you have two people that have practiced to the same general skill level the better athlete will win. I was talking about the genetic modification since that would make someone fitting to their job in a way that exceeds all normal human potential. Even if Zod hadn't gotten to train more than Jor it seems like the genetic modification is a huge failure if it didn't help him there.

This is you strawmaning the film itself. First you say "should be this should be that" then when the film argues otherwise in classic show and tell fashion, you either deny it or claim the film itself is confused.

Soldiers tend to get the most and best training in these basic scenarios BUT I have no idea how much or what kinda of training this guy

has gotten. I do however know for a fact that the film clearly presents it as significant. That's probably because I'm drawing my conclusions from what the film is showing me and not what I think it "should be."

Curious though, at what point was it made explicit that Krytonians are bred for a singular role? That doesn't seem like the most logical direction for a society that has mastered genetic modification for centuries.

I've already explained how I think show and tell works poorly, so no need to circle this around for the x time.

As Jor-El was the leading scientist on Krypton I find it highly unlikely that he'd have time to train as much as someone that is living as a soldier.

To answer your question, Jor tells Kal that every child was bred to fulfill one role in society and that there was no element of choice. And from an efficiency stand point making people perfect for one role is great. A scientist shouldn't have an athlete's body since that requires too much energy, etc. That kind of society doesn't seem very pleasant, but that's one of the main points of the movie. Krypton has lost much by doing this and it's ultimately led their civilization to fail.

The other scientist guy. The one that doesn't look as capable as Jor

Spoiler

Just saying.

Hard to say how much the clothes do on these actors but that guy looks pretty fit. Probably in better overall shape than Russel, who seems to carry a bit of fat.

Let's try this again:
And the movie is terribly clear on why. They are a product of Krypton. Ok, but what does it mean. According to people like you it's because they are genetically altered, so I'll...
Fixed

My point is that it doesn't work well either way.

In both scenarios he's apparently not had any problems with breaking the Kryptonian way in his mind, seeing what he's done. If his mind is that capable of grasping a different way of thinking, even without outside influence, what's the problem? To me he rather seems like he doesn't fit in on Krypton.

You seem to disagree with me when I think the movie is unclear and/or contradictory on many points. It seems like you should be able to explain very clearly to me why he couldn't go.

Your image didn't work by the way.

Clearly. Alas this is you arguing with a point you yourself made.

No, you did. You've been the one saying that the genetic modification isn't locking people into being certain things, which then means that they can't aspire to something else due to cultural pressure. Those the only two alternatives, unless Jor-El is just lying to his son.

 

[Mjölnir]

This whole thread feels like

to me

I disagree. That gif is more entertaining.