BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[SpideyFan866]

Hoo boy.

MAN OF STEEL has its flaws, script and otherwise.

What strikes me about this debate is that people are sort of simultaneously overthinking and underthinking things at the same time. They're nitpicking some irrelevancies and missing some subtleties. And I think that's largely because a lot of the analysis is designed to support a conclusion about its quality made based on what people wanted to see, VS taking the film for what it is.

A couple of thoughts...some of this has been covered, but I think it probably bears revisiting.

Someone asked what the Kryptonian civil war (it's a coup, as has been pointed out) is about. It's about seizing control of Krypton, because Krypton's leadership was botching things.



Also known as “human”.



That’s simply not true. Clark was presented with several sides of the issue, and had to decide how to act for himself. There was choice involved. There may have been logical choices, or choices that we consider "obvious" or "morally right", but Clark still made choices and chose to act or not to act in many respects.

Jonathan Kent’s death was hardly meaningless in terms of its impact on the character. It had an immense impact on Clark. It informed his life choices. Yes, Clark comes across as unsure and a little bit lost in the scene where Jonathan dies. Because he was supposed to be uncertain, and lost, and in great need of his purpose. Because he’s not Superman yet.

I think some here have trouble wrapping their minds around the fact that Clark and his parents are portrayed as flawed and imperfect. But in no way, shape or form can that inherently be considered “bad writing”

The whole “Zod is not a threat thing”…absurd statement. Zod's actions are quite threatening, regardless of his eventual failure/s.

It doesn’t matter whether Clark heard the mother and the son. The point is, Clark knew Pete and Mrs. Ross were there. After what had just happened, the reason for this should be obvious. Clark knows its about what happened with the bus.

Re: the tornado sequence. Really? It's come to this? Whining about specific physics in a science fiction/superhero movie?

The point of the dog is not to make some comment about what’s more important between human and animal life...it’s to show that Jonathan Kent is a GOOD MAN. A gentle man. One who would even risk his life for a dog, or to protect his son, and by extension, the world's interests. That’s it. And to let us see, without any speeches about morality, that for anyt doubts he may have had, this is the type of man who raised Clark Kent.

Re: Goyer, Nolan, etc...I'm pretty sure they complemented each other, in several respects. Aside from the obvious fact that it cannot really be ultimately proven who wrote exactly what in most scripts, there’s also nothing to suggest that there wasn’t a ghostwriter somewhere on THE DARK KNIGHT, or RISES, or MAN OF STEEL, or any movie. Who says Goyer is even responsible for all the content in MAN OF STEEL? One of the problems with assessing the film and its content, as I see it, is that people insist on looking at it as “David Goyer’s work”, instead of analyzing it for what it is. For the content, VS the name of whoever wrote it. Which causes inherent bias and confuses the issue, which is the quality of that work in the first place.



There quite clearly was, via the Kryptonian command ship.



1. Why is this inherently a bad thing?



I read through the pages of debate on this, and I just kind of giggled. The movie makes it obvious that Jor-El is no stranger to combat. He has a suit or armor and weaponry. He's obviously got some training and some skill. Its even hinted that he and Zod knew each other. For all we know, they even fought together at some point. The movie never, ever says that Zod is a better fighter, or that he was bred to the best fighter, or anything like that. The way its played, Jor-El more or less surprises them, and Zod is fighting with an unchecked rage due to Jor-El's revelation VS Jor-El's cool, calculating strikes. The fight between them is fairly even until Jor-El surprises him with his skill, gains the upper hand and presses the advantage. It's basic moviemaking.



Rubbish. Clark becomes a hero because he chooses to be a hero. That is, his actions are those of a hero. You can tell someone something all day. They still have to do it.



Again, simply not true.

Apparently lost on people is that some things are left vague on purpose…to make you think about the meaning of certain dialogue and concepts.

The film (wisely) never defines the specific methods and impact of genetic engineering and manipulating. Society and its funneling of people into roles obviously plays a role, not just the genetics. It is never stated that the people of Krypton have no free will…simply that as a society, they do not exercise it, at least in terms of their purpose in life, and Jor-El suggests that this is due to a system of society that imposes this. Which makes Jor-El a rebellious force, and unique on Krypton, along with Lara to some extent.

As far as "Why didn't the council, who was bred to lead, do something?" Because they were created to be politicians, and doing what they do best wasn't productive in the end. Zod flat out says something to that effect, doesn't he? Something about endless debating, etc? There's a nod to modern cultures and the relative ineptitude of their political systems.



I don't know about "terrible childhood". A hard time with certain things, like many children have. There is nothing to suggest that he has no friends at all. He is supposed to be a loner, so that's on point.



I think it is stated that Earth has the right mixture of existing atmospheric similarities to Krypton, isn't it? Doesn't Jor-El say something along those lines?



The reason for her being brought aboard was then revealed, and made perfect sense in context.





How do you know he has no prior journalism experience? Why does it matter? How is this even relevant to the events of the film?



How is that, in any respect, "bad dialogue"? It's simple dialogue, but I don't think it's bad by any objective standard.



So you just assume there are none?



I didn't think it was that confusing. At all.



Right, because Superman and Lois' classic relationship was always forged in "relaxing, emotional moments". Nevermind that they haven't started a relationship yet. Not in the traditional sense.



So?



Not really. It's an advanced computer program/AI, not actually Jor-El himself. What would be silly is to make two random computer programs just so Lara wouldn't feel left out.



Yeah...no. Pretty sure anybody with a heart can relate to the crisis they're in and Perry and Steve's actions in context.



It's not a spider. It's a squid more than anything else. And it's not randomly showing up...it's the advanced defenses of the world engine.



I feel like a lot of people likely died...but I guess if you ultimately fail, you're not a threatening presence?



A lot of it certainly does. I don't think it was actually supposed to be a successful sterile society. It was an attempt at one. An attempt that, as we saw, ultimately failed.



Yes it is. Emotions are down to the person experiencing them, but it is integrated into the broader plot.



I don't understand your issue.



Seeing as how it's the villain's exit...yes it is a major plot point. There's a whole battle and escalating tension and violence leading up to it. Pretty sure it was shocking because it was abrupt and brutal and his emotional reaction to what has happened is intense... I don't remember any characters going "But, but Superman doesn't kill!"

I could hug you.

 

[Marvin]

classic Guard.

 

[Tempest]

Aw hell. I can't stay away.

The_Guard did a fabulous job with your post, but I have to go through this (again):[/quote]

• The killing of Zod is not integrated into the script as a major plot point, and thus is only shocking because Superman doesn't kill in other continuities;[/quote]

Yes. He. Does.

I realize in the current canon that he hasn't killed, but he killed in Superman II, he's killed Zod and two other Kryptonians, he killed Doomsday. He's killed the Joker.

In one arc of Superman/Batman, he killed Green Arrow (incineration) and Wonder Woman (beaten and strangled with her lasso) He and Batman fixed everything they broke, but they both still killed people.

I think he killed Joe Chill once.

And Parademons, which I think are considered sentient beings.

Did I forget anything?

 

[Gianakin_]

What's to like about the overall characterisation? He's the ultimate badass. It's silly.

He's a great political theorist, he can see the problems in his society in spite of being privileged, he's the most eloquent character in the story, he's a tremendous athlete, he builds the phantom drive, I think he might have built the USB-brain, et cetera. It might be good for a movie called "Jor-El", but the movie is called "Man of Steel", further it's supposed to be "realistic" so a character like Jor-El who is such a ridiculous polymath simply does not fit.

Russel should have played the character from A Beautiful Mind, not the character from Gladiator.


Which is why those lines don't work. We know that Zod will eventually find Kal-El... because the plot demands it. If this were reality he would have no leverage or power whatsoever, he's being sent to the phantom zone and thus to a futuristic and sophisticated re-education program for "300 cycles" ... everybody in the room should be laughing at him.

I think the difference between you and me is that I'm willing to isolate single traits or elements from MoS that work.

 

[Gianakin_]

Personally I had no problems with Costner and Shannon. In fact I thought Costner was better than most in this movie and while I thought Shannon was absolutely terrible in the trailer I think he at least did everything he could with what he was given when I saw the movie. The problems with those characters were in my opinion purely due to the script, although those were significant problems.

I really really think Kevin phoned it in and it's easily the worst effort I've seen from him. It's apparent to me he didn't give a flying f**k that he was on that set. He was like a robot. And that's got nothing to do with the script.

Michael had a terrible role to work with, he cared a bit more than Kevin, but he just didn't do enough to add anything to that role. That's the difference I see between the two actors in MoS.

 

[DA_Champion]

I really really think Kevin phoned it in and it's easily the worst effort I've seen from him. It's apparent to me he didn't give a flying f**k that he was on that set. He was like a robot. And that's got nothing to do with the script.

Michael had a terrible role to work with, he cared a bit more than Kevin, but he just didn't do enough to add anything to that role. That's the difference I see between the two actors in MoS.

One thing to keep in mind, which doesn't detract from what you're saying, is that Jonathan Kent might be one of the most minor roles that Kevin Costner has played in decades. He was a tertiary character with very few lines, a character who behaved incoherently for no particular reason, and a character that made no fundamental contribution to the plot, it must have been really hard to prepare. If he wasn't a famous actor, his name would not have been on the poster, and we would not have seen him in the previews, because the role was extremely minor. I don't think it makes sense to criticize the acting of very minor roles like Lara Vor-Van, Jonathan Kent, Perry White, Jenny Jarwich, Steve Lombard, and Carol Ferris. They are tertiary characters, take what you can.

With that said, I liked his intonation in the scene with the spaceship,
Clark: I just want to be your so.
Jonathan: you ARE my son.

 

[DA_Champion]

This is all very true. But we can't froget the fact that, on top of all of this, Zak Snyder is directing. Zack Snyder, who has proven himself in every movie he's done that he's quite bad at directing dialogue and character driven scenes. Zack Snyder, who overindulges action sequences and makes them go on for far too long while not giving enough focus to story building moments and moving through them too quickly. Zack Snyder, who's in love with the spectacle of action but rarely imbues it with any kind of motivation or purpose besides looking cool.

The movie is fairly screwed on all sides.

Zach Snyder was the director (italicised) but he did not have full control like most directors do, he could not make arbitrary changes to the script. He had to lobby for every single change he wanted to make to the script. He made some mistakes, but his mistakes are nowhere near as bad as Goyer's.

One thing I didn't like, and this is very minor, is that Clark's spaceship was too big. It's much larger than his spaceship in Smallville and Lois and Clark. When I saw it, I thought to myself "ummmmm how did Jonathan drive that home without being noticed?". That's the fault of Snyder... but it's a very minor thing, particularly compared to some of Goyer's failings.

I'm a little biased. I like Snyder. I liked Dawn of the Dead, I liked 300, and I liked Watchmen.

 

[DA_Champion]

Hoo boy.

MAN OF STEEL has its flaws, script and otherwise.

What strikes me about this debate is that people are sort of simultaneously overthinking and underthinking things at the same time. They're nitpicking some irrelevancies and missing some subtleties. And I think that's largely because a lot of the analysis is designed to support a conclusion about its quality made based on what people wanted to see, VS taking the film for what it is.

The Guard,

Rather than approach this from the perspective that a lot of people are dumb and need to be educated to appreciate the logic in Goyer's work, you might instead ask yourself that it's worth finding out why this movie was such a critical disappointment and several criticisms show up again and again in independent reviews.

There are actual problems with the movie, and this time I listed problems I've seen mentioned in several reviews, rather than my own criticisms, though there is overlap. For the most part, it's not "that people are too dumb" as you're implying. Since you're closed minded to a lot of forum posts, go and read a few professional reviews.

Someone asked what the Kryptonian civil war (it's a coup, as has been pointed out) is about. It's about seizing control of Krypton, because Krypton's leadership was botching things.

Incredibly vacuous, as all civil wars and coups are always about differences of opinion. If a high school history student is asked what the US civil war was about on a test, and writes "the leadership in Washington was botching things", what grade do you think they're going to get? Probably 0. The explanation would begin with something as simple as "slavery", and different economic systems between the north and south. Similarly, if a German history student is asked about von Stauffenberg's attempted coup (not a civil war in this case) against Hitler, he will have to do better than "Hitler was botching things."

I'm not asking for a PhD dissertation. I'm asking for anything as deep as what would be satisfactory for a high school level history test.

Who says Goyer is even responsible for all the content in MAN OF STEEL? One of the problems with assessing the film and its content, as I see it, is that people insist on looking at it as “David Goyer’s work”, instead of analyzing it for what it is. For the content, VS the name of whoever wrote it. Which causes inherent bias and confuses the issue, which is the quality of that work in the first place.

I'm definitely assuming that David S. Goyer is responsible for the script. He's the scriptwriter.

 

[Gianakin_]

The Guard,

Rather than approach this from the perspective that a lot of people are dumb and need to be educated to appreciate the logic in Goyer's work,

Good luck with that. You'll need it.

 

[The Question]

I'm a little biased. I like Snyder. I liked Dawn of the Dead, I liked 300, and I liked Watchmen.

This is where you and I differ. I never saw Dawn of the Dead, I thought 300 was fun but I also thought it was incredibly dumb and kinda racist, and I really strongly disliked Watchmen. Zack Snyder is gifted as far as visuals go, but he's a pretty bad director in all other respects.

There are actual problems with the movie, and this time I listed problems I've seen mentioned in several reviews, rather than my own criticisms, though there is overlap. For the most part, it's not "that people are too dumb" as you're implying. Since you're closed minded to a lot of forum posts, go and read a few professional reviews.

I feel like Film Critic Hulk summed up what I don't like about the movie better than anyone:

http://badassdigest.com/2013/07/03/film-crit-hulk-man-of-steel/

 

[Gianakin_]

Yes, Film Critic Hulk's analysis finds me 200% in agreement.

But, to be fair to Snyder, the 300 novel was were the racist undertones originated from.

 

[DA_Champion]

How would you all rate Jonathan Kent's death relative to some other deaths we've seen in movies?

Think:
- Mufasa's death in The Lion King
- George Kirk's death in the Star Trek reboot
- Martin Jordan's death in the Green Lantern
- Thomas Wayne's death in Batman Begins
- The T-800 sinking into the lava in Terminator 2: Judgment Day
- The death of Magneto's parents in X Men: First Class
- Any other parental deaths I'm forgetting, of which there must be thousands

Of those I listed, I'd say Jonathan Kent's death was the second least well handled ... it did at least work much better than Martin Jordan's death in Green Lantern.

 

[The Question]

Yes, Film Critic Hulk's analysis finds me 200% in agreement.

But, to be fair to Snyder, the 300 novel was were the racist undertones originated from.

True, but it was an adaptation he could have changed things to underplay them.

 

[Gianakin_]

True, but it was an adaptation he could have changed things to underplay them.

Who, Snyder? Good one.

I'm serious, though, the last thing I'll blame him for when it comes to 300 (or Watchmen) is being slavishly faithful to the source material.

 

[Gianakin_]

How would you all rate Jonathan Kent's death relative to some other deaths we've seen in movies?

Think:
- Mufasa's death in The Lion King
- George Kirk's death in the Star Trek reboot
- Martin Jordan's death in the Green Lantern
- Thomas Wayne's death in Batman Begins
- The T-800 sinking into the lava in Terminator 2: Judgment Day
- The death of Magneto's parents in X Men: First Class
- Any other parental deaths I'm forgetting, of which there must be thousands

Of those I listed, I'd say Jonathan Kent's death was the second least well handled ... it did at least work much better than Martin Jordan's death in Green Lantern.

It's a shameful piece of s**t of a scene. It's insulting to those movies even answer your question seriously.

Edit: Ok, maybe Green Lantern, but I don't remember that death scene, so...

 

[DA_Champion]

It's a shameful piece of s**t of a scene. It's insulting to those movies even answer your question seriously.

Don't hold back, let us know how you really feel Gianakin.

 

[Gianakin_]

Don't hold back, let us know how you really feel Gianakin.

You have no idea how hard I'm trying not to sound like a non-legit hater. That's why I post in the Cavill thread at times to times, to gush about him as Superman.

 

[The Question]

Pa Kent's death scene was really bad. It was over the top, came out of nowhere, it felt super contrived, and also didn't really add anything on a plot or narrative level. They use that to explain why Clark is apprehensive about going public but then after Zod shows up they kind of forget about that story point entirely.

 

[spider-neil]

I wanted a scene where they show how dangerous and life threatning it was to raise a super powered baby/child. Maybe young Clark breaking Ma's ribs with a hug or Clark heat vision narrowly missing Jonation when they come out for the first time. Really build up the tension and show how brave and selfless the Kent's were to raise Clark.

Hey, who needs that when you have can have a 40 minute end battle, right?

 

[DA_Champion]

The review of MoS from Hulk is a masterpiece.

It took me a few hours to read. Overall I have mixed feelings about this movie. In hindsight, I did not get the movie I wanted in spite of what I thought originally, and its lacklustre performance and reception is in fact detrimental to the long-term health of the franchise. I came out of the movie a huge fan, I went to see it a second time, and now I realise I was probably enjoying what is an indulgence.

On the other hand, I think I come out with a better understanding of storytelling and film. I wanted to know why others hated the movie I loved, I slowly saw that many of my defenses of the film were quite bad or irrelevant, and that many of the criticisms were quite meaningful. I've never read so many reviews and critiques of a movie. I kind of wish I could go back to college freshman literature class with what I've learned in the past few months.

 

[DA_Champion]

I wanted a scene where they show how dangerous and life threatning it was to raise a super powered baby/child. Maybe young Clark breaking Ma's ribs with a hug or Clark heat vision narrowly missing Jonation when they come out for the first time. Really build up the tension and show how brave and selfless the Kent's were to raise Clark.

Hey, who needs that when you have can have a 40 minute end battle, right?

There's a brilliant movie that could be written entirely about Jonathan and Martha Kent.

 

[Marvin]

I wanted a scene where they show how dangerous and life threatning it was to raise a super powered baby/child. Maybe young Clark breaking Ma's ribs with a hug or Clark heat vision narrowly missing Jonation when they come out for the first time. Really build up the tension and show how brave and selfless the Kent's were to raise Clark.

Hey, who needs that when you have can have a 40 minute end battle, right?

There's probably a bunch of other reasons why they avoided that, no doubt tonal and or thematic. A better question is to ask is why they have seemingly always avoided this. Might not have all that much to do with the length of the segmented end battle.

Point being, one can't just attribute everything they personally want in a film to the length of a final set piece. See summer 2012

Unless one can somehow prove that if the battle was removed, said piece would have been implemented.

How would you all rate Jonathan Kent's death relative to some other deaths we've seen in movies?

Think:...

...1978
seems like a reasonable place to begin.

There are actual problems with the movie, and this time I listed problems I've seen mentioned in several reviews, rather than my own criticisms, though there is overlap.

There is a "professional review"(or several rather) that specifically list, “Jor-El beats up Zod;” and all these other points on your list as a criticism?
I was under the impression that these were just your issues.

 

[Marvin]

Tempest.

I've been told he's killed and or tried to, in the current 2 year continuity.

 

[BlueLantern]

Not really much to go by though, considering how horrendously bad most of the Superman stories have been so far.

 

[Tempest]

Not really much to go by though, considering how horrendously bad most of the Superman stories have been so far.

Oh, so now that we've shown that MOS has canon base in it, now we're just going to say that canon sucks too.

I would really like to know, more than anything else about the details of your hatred of MOS, what Superman story fits the mold of what you think Superman should be.

Because that is the root of all the problems in MOS for most people (I get that the shaky cam is a legitimate issue, and the choppy editing. Those are critiques I have no problems discussing).

But honestly, dig deep. Think about it. Are you disappointed with MOS because of legitimate script issues, or are you using the 'horrible script' as a cover because you simply don't like this version of Superman?

Now...I know you may try to say that the issue with Superman is in large part a problem with the script, but that's not true. If you pretend that this is not Superman, the characterization makes perfect, logical sense in the story.

So...is it the version of Superman that upsets you more than anything else?