BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[TheFlamingCoco]

Medicare films sound like an educational video one gets in the mail

But anyway, I actually understand what you are saying. Actually most Raimi bashers are probably on his case for creating a Spider-Man that lacks the smart-aleck persona of his comic counterpart. The people attacking Nolan pre-TDKR is for a lack of comic stylization and not emphasizing his detective attributes as much (among other things).

This will ALWAYS happen until someone who's into comics as much as he is directing takes the helm. I guess Whedon would be a prime example.

Hopefully Ben Affleck's a fanboy, and he certainly is more than a good enough writer/director to advance DC from a dramatic level.

I really feel like Snyder's fond of the genre. I don't think he's fond of SUPERMAN, but I think he's familiar with the character more than many directors would be.

But I think he's a pretty flawed storyteller, and a bad writer.

I do want his visuals to influence the look of DC movies, though. Maybe have him produce the DC movies and give a visual template for each installment (cuz he is good with budgets) and let better directors take the helm.

 

[Marvin]

There's a huge difference between subtle filmmaking and bad storytelling with tons of holes in it. The works of Stanley Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson are subtle. Zack Snyder is not. If you think Clark being told he is the bridge between two people, a god to the humans, the savior for mankind, him going to talk to the preach with a huge Jesus picture behind him are SUBTLE, then I'm not quite sure you know what subtle filmmaking really is.

I'm sure you are aware of the concept of "varying degrees"
For example Michael Bay movies tend to land on a certain point in the subtle spectrum, the farrelly brothers a little further along...and so on and so forth.
Simply referencing Kubrick(dude responsible for that 2001 thing) and saying because snyder is attempting something different makes snyder beyond subtlety in his execution of a singular concept in a singular scene is, obtuse, or something like it.

That's simply one example in the film. Clark's dad's death wasn't subtle at all. They bashed it in our heads 50 times 'OMG WHAT WOULD THE WORLD THINK IF IT KNEW PEOPLEZ LIKE THIZ EXISTED!?!? GASP'' No. It was easily understood why he let his father die. That still doesn't make it a storytelling device. It was horridly executed. The idea is interesting and could have been really emotional if executed right, but Jonathan Nolan wasn't there to hold Goyer's hand when writing the scene.

You'd be surprised by how many people didn't find said concept as easily understood as you did. In this very thread perhaps.

Secondly, I'm not quite sure the post you were replying to in this instance had anything to do with the issue you are latching it on to. But for arguments sake: What exactly was so horrid about the execution of said scene?

I find when people say things like "it could have been really emotional if executed right" to be odd. My date looked pretty emotional, I've heard reports of other people feeling pretty affected emotionally...whom exactly are you speaking for? Yourself I imagine? Well that's great.
Just seems like a fickle endeavor.

This is what baffles me. You guys get up in arms when people claim some of your favorite films are 'just comic movies' and you talk about the depth of the source material and then when someone expects something better than average, you go 'it's JUST a comic book movie '. When two guys, Nolan(TDK) and Raimi(Spiderman 2) sctually make a truly great comic film, you have fans calling it 'boring' or 'no fun'. Make up your minds. Can your favorite characters be interpreted into GREAT works of art or are they doomed to Medicare films at best?

To whom are you referring? Seems like strawman territory if you ask me. Especially if you are referring to Tempest, unless of course she owns up to all you have accused of her of here.
Just saying.

In MoS's words 'What if Someone aspired to be something greater?" I think it's a poor excuse to claim Superman films can have weak dialogue in their scripts because some of the comics have bad lines.

Luckily MOS did aspire to be something greater than what has come of the material before. Alot of these aspirations have been met with mixed to confused to heated response...

As for your question, I'm sure you fully understand that the answer is going to need to explain the same occurrences in the "two truly great comic book films" you referenced above?
I'd rather not speak on it, however I would add that has to do with understanding the traditions and expectations of the material. I'd throw costumes and lack of gov't action in there with those traditions.

 

[KangConquers]

I agree a lot of people need to realize 'your Superman' isn't the only accurate interpretation of the character. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that Goyer can't write consistent dialogue, give us real character developement or develope a consistent plot. All, literally all, of my problems with MoS are problems I have as a film fan. From a comic book fan perspective, I loved their interpretation of the characters, but they weren't able to fully manifest that interpretation into a great film.

This is exactly how I feel. The comic fan in my wanted to call this a 5 star triumph. The film fan in my wanted to call it a 2.5 star disappointment.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

The thing is I feel it could have easily been a 4 to 4.5 if only some slight things were changed. Jonathan's death, the pacing and editing, some more dialog and personality from the viewers who felt Clark was depressed and depressing. But definitely keep the neck snap, that's just something that Donner fans are going to have to deal with, Supes sometimes has to kill the bad guy.
And man I loved Supes line about the rule only being applied to humans. I don't see anything wrong with it. I feel the LnC romance isn't something epic it is something that is building throughout the movie which ends with a first kiss; not a wedding, not a declaration of love, not spinning the Earth backwards, just a kiss.

 

[jonathancrane]

The thing is I feel it could have easily been a 4 to 4.5 if only some slight things were changed. Jonathan's death, the pacing and editing, some more dialog and personality from the viewers who felt Clark was depressed and depressing. But definitely keep the neck snap, that's just something that Donner fans are going to have to deal with, Supes sometimes has to kill the bad guy.
And man I loved Supes line about the rule only being applied to humans. I don't see anything wrong with it. I feel the LnC romance isn't something epic it is something that is building throughout the movie which ends with a first kiss; not a wedding, not a declaration of love, not spinning the Earth backwards, just a kiss.

The problem is that killing is a trend in DC's filmography, thanks to Goyer. If Goyer spent more of his time focusing on writing a good screenplay instead of repeatedly asking the question, "what would it take for hero x to murder somebody," he would churn out some even more refined scripts. Instead, the viewer's ears are assaulted with the horrible popcorn dialogue and humor, and the film's exist as an excuse for a superhero to off someone. Boring.

 

[Mjölnir]

Am I to assume you think this movie wants us to think that the literal consequence to clark revealing himself before the age of 33 will be jon having to sit down and tell people otherwise? Also, that all that stuff he said in the barn(his character motivation) was just jon making jokes about his fears? This implies you need things spelled out for you I think.

They quelled that first lady who had no proof other than the word of her young son. The same couldn't be said for Jon's ability to do the same for the entire town.

I could answer these things in detail, as I do have opinions on it, but I feel that I should start steering this towards the actual issue and the topic of this thread; the writing.

My basic point with this is that Jon does have a legit fear about how the world might react, no one knows what will happen. My issue with the writing is that the movie never supports that legit fear, it only undermines it. A good script builds upon itself.

She didn't look to happy but you are right I suppose, she wasn't under the impression that her son's life being saved was much of a downer. That being said, her response was very much a negative response as far as Jon's perspective is concerned.
Again see his speech in the barn:
"People are afraid of what they don't understand."

From the xmen to jesus. It happens.

That people fear what they don't understand is again a legit fear in this circumstance, but it's another thing that the movie doesn't actually support at this stage. There's no reason to think that this woman feared what happened as she was talking about providence. If anything it would be the best thing that's happened in her life (her son was saved and God had shown himself).

The fear of the unknown that's being shown in Clark's past is just from children, who doesn't really need more than a different hair color to start picking on someone for being different. It would have been more effective to show some more unusual fear.

I don't recall what she said about that. I mean if they are talking about stuff like clark's younger school days than it proves nothing but that he's an odd kid. If he was running around saving people as a kid, that's a whole other can of worms.

The discussion never goes into what things he had done before they cut to outside with Jon and Clark talking.

It actually is pretty simple, but so are pretty much all superhero movies.

My issue isn't that there is no nuance whatsoever, it's how the strong themes play poorly to the end goal in my opinion. And the "maybe" does include that it can be worth letting others die to protect a secret.

The movie also goes to show where Clark ends up with the advice given by Jonathan. Out in the edges of nowhere, trying to get away from everything and remain hidden. If his upbringing could have led him to being a hero (that is the kind that actively seeks out to help people) it would likely have done so by that age.

If that was the case than why did Lois threaten Clark by telling him that he won't be able to hide as long as people are in danger? This implies that the "hero" in clark is prominent long before jor el.
I am curious what you mean by "sought to help people"? I've always seen superman saving lives as reactionary.

I don't remember that particular conversation, but what I do remember from the movie is that she's wrong. When he was hiding he might have to help someone here and there, and then just moved on to another place. He remained hidden for a long time, without ignoring people that really needed help. He was always a good person, just not the one to really put himself into a place where he had a lot of chance to do good.

And that's what I mean by seeking to help people. Being in a place where you'll have a good chance to help people. When he later makes himself known he also gives people someone to actively look to for help. You're right of course in that he's reactionary in the sense that he's saving people that have gotten into danger, rather than preventing things or helping the third world build up better infrastructure or something like that. As said it's about making it likely that you can help.

You're right, Peter does need to be told that, which is very different from young clark. That being said, it says alot of about Peter's character that he would listen, especially to the self sacrificing level he seems to do so on a daily basis. Ergo why I suggest he was raised by his parents to be this person.

Yeah, Peter is irresponsible and doesn't learn some things until he's caused great damage. He learns about responsibility to help people trough the traumatic event he causes and translates that into the idea of being a superhero (as no one knew about his powers).

Clark is in the movie raised to be a good person, but not exactly in the same kind of way as he isn't told that he has a responsibility to help people. Hiding his nature, at least as long as Jon is around to talk, was seen as larger. The encouragement to actually be an active hero comes from Jor-El.

The difference between the two is that Peter has a death that sends him to be a superhero with a very strong drive to help people around him. The death for Clark sends him in hiding, not actively trying to help anyone but doing so when he stumbles upon people in danger.

As said in another post I'd rather have seen that Clark fails to save his father, despite him trying, and that makes him not become a hero because he sees himself as a failure until he comes to terms with it. For me that would have both added more sense to his actions and made him more sympathetic. Other people might disagree.

 

[DA_Champion]

You must either have me on your ignore list or just conveniently go about ignoring what I also mention regarding your posts on this matter, but I'm just curious, assuming if I'm not on your ignore list and you're reading this..

I don't have you on ignore. I don't have anybody on ignore.

What do you exactly define as a "courtship"?

The period where two people get to know each other prior to being romantically involved.

The two just survived a life and death experience with each other and considering that they were both out of breaths and were in the moment, that energy alone helped fuel the kiss. I wouldn't go about and say that they were "in love" with each other yet, but they were definitely set on a path that will eventually lead them there somewhere down the line.

Do you sleep with everybody you survive a near-death situation with? I don't. I once got hit by a car, I didn't go have sex with anybody because of that. It's not a foundation for a relationship.

In both Lois and Clark and Smallville, what we saw was an instant chemistry between the characters, who then proceeded to make friends first. Here, they skipped the instant chemistry phase, Goyer couldn't or wouldn't generate a casual conversation lasting a few minutes that would have them just speak to each other in some entertaining way.

And you do realize that this is the first film of an intended franchise?

That is exactly the problem. If this was going to be a one-shot film. I wouldn't mind if Lois and Clark were to finish the movie married with children. However, we are ostensibly getting a franchise with multiple movies. Given that, the writers might as well stretch the romantic arc in a coherent manner, over a few films.

Plus, the desert scene where they held hands with each other, along with when Clark saved her from crashing into the ground from the broken space pod somewhat establishes that they've both realized that there's some kind of special connection/attraction between them.

OMG a "special connection", sounds like what a 19 year old says after grinding a stranger in a bar.

Seriously, you talk as if Goyer butchered and destroyed the relationship.

He has a weaker representation than the firat donner film, Lois and Clark, and Smallville. It's not just me, it's a common criticism of the movie. They made the romantic angle the B-plot of the film. This article expands on the issue:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/man-of-steel-2013

The problem is quite simply, Lois was not a major part of the plot, and by extension Lois and Clark's romance were not a major part of the plot. Goyer and Snyder's number 1 priority were to have as many action scenes as possible:

- Lois and Clark fight the kryptonians on the spaceship
- Battle of Smallville
- Battle of helicopters against Faora
- Battle of Superman against the giant metal squid in the indian ocean
- Superman vs Zod fight

That's five major action scenes in the second half of the film, way too much, and all at the expense of more dialogue and better character development. It was clearly Goyer and Snyder's priority, as stated previously. The one scene they cut from the movie was a flashback scene. The one scene they added to the movie was the Superman vs Zod fight. They wanted as much action, and as little characterisation, as possible.

As such, everything else was rushed. Clark grew up as fast as possible, Lois and Clark became a couple as fast as possible, etc.

And I honestly don't get why you're so defensive about the lines that were exchanged during the kiss. I felt that it was something natural for Lois to say given her character in general (comics and mythology included) and that Clark's response to her was just him retorting back with the same witty comment that she just threw at him.

You seriously call that witty?

ETA: Related,
I wonder: did Russel Crowe have more screen time than Kevin Costner and Diane Lane?

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Lois and Clark slept together? Damn I must have missed that in my theatre. Good gracious they aren't even dating yet.

 

[Marvin]

That people fear what they don't understand is again a legit fear in this circumstance, but it's another thing that the movie doesn't actually support at this stage. There's no reason to think that this woman feared what happened as she was talking about providence. If anything it would be the best thing that's happened in her life (her son was saved and God had shown himself).

The fear of the unknown that's being shown in Clark's past is just from children, who doesn't really need more than a different hair color to start picking on someone for being different. It would have been more effective to show some more unusual fear.

People suggesting Jon's boy is walking providence or rather evidence of god's intervention is a dangerous thing as far as Jon is concerned. What happens when the next person suggests he's an act of the devil? What happens when you multiply that on a global scale(in our world)? What happens when half of these people aren't showing up to say thanks for saving my boys life but are simply bystanders? What happens when people start looking to the boy to cure them and he can't, what happens when the truth comes out that he's an alien, what happens when the gov't finds out there are aliens in america that look just like the rest of us, what happens when china finds that out...etc.
"People are afraid of what they don't understand". I don't think the movie needs to spell this out by way of a more transparent display. It let's the audience do alittle of the work. Sure there could have been a scene of a man that spits on jons lawn but then again....

Whether jons right or wrong, his fears are very much verified in this woman's ramblings, People won't understand! As far as I'm concerned the script worked on that front.

The discussion never goes into what things he had done before they cut to outside with Jon and Clark talking.

So all we got to go on is what the movie showed us....
Considering how he was treated on the school bus and the simple fact that jon didn't want him ripping his shirt open in the face of the tornado...it's safe to assume that his childhood bursts were more of the same as the xray vision flashback.

It actually is pretty simple, but so are pretty much all superhero movies.

I for one commend them for aspiring to something a little more complex than the usual, especially with this brand. I mean Jon Kent usually has one mode, one we can all see coming a mile away. Considering the state of this property 2 years ago and the many discussions about it, a complex change and approach to script conception is a welcomed changed.

My issue isn't that there is no nuance whatsoever, it's how the strong themes play poorly to the end goal in my opinion. And the "maybe" does include that it can be worth letting others die to protect a secret.

Not sure what you think the end goal is. I know the film makes the point that choices aren't all that easy. But I believe that jon's answer had plenty of nuance. He was asked a simple question and he didn't answer. He actually went on to add that "he doesn't know".
Basically, jon is not suggesting clark hold back simply to protect a secret(identity), that's where you got it wrong.That's the simple way of looking at it and given the material I don't blame you. However what jon is in fact talking about, is the concept of the greater good.
If clark is to be the saviour of the world, then jon believes revealing himself to the world prematurely won't be serving the "greater good".
Considering jon has probably read the new testament once or twice, it's a safe assumption.

I don't remember that particular conversation, but what I do remember from the movie is that she's wrong. When he was hiding he might have to help someone here and there, and then just moved on to another place. He remained hidden for a long time, without ignoring people that really needed help. He was always a good person, just not the one to really put himself into a place where he had a lot of chance to do good.

It was during their conversation at the grave site when he was wearing the cap. It was right before he convinced her to keep her trap shut by way of pa kent's death flashback. She confronted him and he said he would just disappear again, she then said "as long as people need help that it will be impossible for you to do so completely, and that she would just find him again due to the trail he leads". It's quite the threat and one completely dependent on clark being a bonafide hero(pre jor el).

And that's what I mean by seeking to help people. Being in a place where you'll have a good chance to help people. When he later makes himself known he also gives people someone to actively look to for help. You're right of course in that he's reactionary in the sense that he's saving people that have gotten into danger, rather than preventing things or helping the third world build up better infrastructure or something like that. As said it's about making it likely that you can help.

Well I'm glad we can at least agree on that first part. I mean the oil rig rescue in MOS isn't that much different than the power plant rescue in the donner era. The only difference is that this clark does it before meeting jor el and without a costume.

That being said, if what you are faulting jon kent for is a matter of how available Clark makes himself...meaning your requirement for jon's influence is that superman be a well known superhero, then that's you. I for one think the level of heroism attained prior to Clark meeting Jor is far and away greater than anything we've seen from most the property(not titled superboy).
The thankless ghost serves it's purpose well enough for me.

The difference between the two is that Peter has a death that sends him to be a superhero with a very strong drive to help people around him. The death for Clark sends him in hiding, not actively trying to help anyone but doing so when he stumbles upon people in danger.

Time out.
Is that what you honestly believe? That Jon's death sent clark into "hiding." I was under the impression that the death sent him out in to the world to find his purpose....kinda like the original, only this time he found the fortress after about 12 years of being a thankless/selfless hero.

As said in another post I'd rather have seen that Clark fails to save his father, despite him trying, and that makes him not become a hero because he sees himself as a failure until he comes to terms with it. For me that would have both added more sense to his actions and made him more sympathetic. Other people might disagree.

Hard to believe the position clark was put into in this film doesn't generate sympathy.
I find myself more sympathetic to Jon Kent than ever before. Good for them.

As for more sense to his actions, this scene served as a building payoff to an earlier concept of the story. The literal payoff to a discussion between the two characters. If you are going to make a post that starts off with, "A good script builds upon itself." We are going to find ourselves in a very ironic situation.

 

[Herolee10]

I don't have you on ignore. I don't have anybody on ignore.


The period where two people get to know each other prior to being romantically involved.


Do you sleep with everybody you survive a near-death situation with? I don't. I once got hit by a car, I didn't go have sex with anybody because of that. It's not a foundation for a relationship.

In both Lois and Clark and Smallville, what we saw was an instant chemistry between the characters, who then proceeded to make friends first. Here, they skipped the instant chemistry phase, Goyer couldn't or wouldn't generate a casual conversation lasting a few minutes that would have them just speak to each other in some entertaining way.


That is exactly the problem. If this was going to be a one-shot film. I wouldn't mind if Lois and Clark were to finish the movie married with children. However, we are ostensibly getting a franchise with multiple movies. Given that, the writers might as well stretch the romantic arc in a coherent manner, over a few films.


OMG a "special connection", sounds like what a 19 year old says after grinding a stranger in a bar.


He has a weaker representation than the firat donner film, Lois and Clark, and Smallville. It's not just me, it's a common criticism of the movie. They made the romantic angle the B-plot of the film. This article expands on the issue:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/man-of-steel-2013

The problem is quite simply, Lois was not a major part of the plot, and by extension Lois and Clark's romance were not a major part of the plot. Goyer and Snyder's number 1 priority were to have as many action scenes as possible:

- Lois and Clark fight the kryptonians on the spaceship
- Battle of Smallville
- Battle of helicopters against Faora
- Battle of Superman against the giant metal squid in the indian ocean
- Superman vs Zod fight

That's five major action scenes in the second half of the film, way too much, and all at the expense of more dialogue and better character development. It was clearly Goyer and Snyder's priority, as stated previously. The one scene they cut from the movie was a flashback scene. The one scene they added to the movie was the Superman vs Zod fight. They wanted as much action, and as little characterisation, as possible.

As such, everything else was rushed. Clark grew up as fast as possible, Lois and Clark became a couple as fast as possible, etc.


You seriously call that witty?

ETA: Related,
I wonder: did Russel Crowe have more screen time than Kevin Costner and Diane Lane?

Technically speaking though, Lois and Clark aren't romantically involved with each other in this film. By the end of it, they just shared two passionate kisses with each other, but nowhere did the film suggest that the two were in a "relationship" with each other yet. They were most likely on the process of getting there at the end of the film, but nevertheless, they weren't officially "involved" with each other yet and I don't know about your standards, but just because two people "kiss" each other, doesn't automatically mean that they're a couple right away. If all it took for two people to become a couple was a simple kiss, then we'd have many more couples today.

And dude, no one said about them having sex with each other in the heat of the moment. Now you're just adding words there. However, people have been shown to kiss as a result of being "in the moment' like I've mentioned in several stories/films (hell, even in real life situations).

And I don't see why you're so bent up about all of this. They weren't even a couple at the end of the film and you're saying that they might as well should have gotten married and have children at the end of the film? You do realize that the next films can actually show on how they learn to balance their lives while being in a actual relationship with each other, and even show on how they got to the point where Clark proposed to Lois and where she accepted, etc.

And I'm sorry, but MOS's take on the relationship is far better than what Donner was able to do in his first film. Superman and Lois didn't even kiss yet (when both were conscious) in the first film, and she didn't even really know him that well other than what he had told her for the interview and her infatuation with him was nothing more than an heightened crush.

It's true that we could have used more scenes between Superman/Clark and Lois, but it's nowhere near as bad as you're making it out be.

 

[Marvin]

Technically speaking though, Lois and Clark aren't romantically involved with each other in this film. By the end of it, they just shared two passionate kisses with each other, but nowhere did the film suggest that the two were in a "relationship" with each other yet. They were most likely on the process of getting there at the end of the film, but nevertheless, they weren't officially "involved" with each other yet and I don't know about your standards, but just because two people "kiss" each other, doesn't automatically mean that they're a couple right away. If all it took for two people to become a couple was a simple kiss, then we'd have many more couples today.

And dude, no one said about them having sex with each other in the heat of the moment. Now you're just adding words there. However, people have been shown to kiss as a result of being "in the moment' like I've mentioned in several stories/films (hell, even in real life situations).

The romantic structure reminds me of the movie Speed in a lot of ways. But with a more intimate partnership.
Right down to the witty post kiss quip at the end there.

 

[DA_Champion]

And I'm sorry, but MOS's take on the relationship is far better than what Donner was able to do in his first film.

You are allowed to have a personal opinion which is at odds with those of the vast majority of film critics.

Superman and Lois didn't even kiss yet (when both were conscious) in the first film,

Exactly right. They took their time. Those writers didn't try and tick off all the marks as rapidly as possible.

and she didn't even really know him that well other than what he had told her for the interview and her infatuation with him was nothing more than an heightened crush.

Lust usually precedes love bro. It's a frequent, logical, and natural progression.

Lois and Clark did the same thing. Lois had a crush on Superman, but she was friends with and fell in love with Clark.

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

Bottom line is that everything that wasn't action-related was extremely rushed in this film, as Goyer and Snyder wanted to cram in as much action as possible. Lois learns that Clark is different when they first met, and then she tracks him down to Smallville in what was ~45 seconds of screen time. It's good that you're satisfied with how Lois and Clark met each other, and with Clark's childhood, because we might not see another reboot for decades, if ever. You're going to get more action scenes every 2 years, for a very long time, but in terms of Lois and Clark getting to know each other, in terms of Martha and Jonathan raising Clark, this is it. But you know... Batman might beat up Superman and read out those amazing lines from the Dark Knight Returns... oh my god let's all salivate !!!

John Connor had more and better father-son moments with the T-800 in Terminator 2: Judgment Day than Clark Kent did with Jonathan Kent in Man of Steel.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Yeah they took their time that they had Superman spin the world backwards for her. Atleast MOS Superman kissed her before defying logic physics history etc.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Unless Affleck takes over the DcU

 

[Mjölnir]

People suggesting Jon's boy is walking providence or rather evidence of god's intervention is a dangerous thing as far as Jon is concerned. What happens when the next person suggests he's an act of the devil? What happens when you multiply that on a global scale(in our world)? What happens when half of these people aren't showing up to say thanks for saving my boys life but are simply bystanders? What happens when people start looking to the boy to cure them and he can't, what happens when the truth comes out that he's an alien, what happens when the gov't finds out there are aliens in america that look just like the rest of us, what happens when china finds that out...etc.
"People are afraid of what they don't understand". I don't think the movie needs to spell this out by way of a more transparent display. It let's the audience do alittle of the work. Sure there could have been a scene of a man that spits on jons lawn but then again....

Whether jons right or wrong, his fears are very much verified in this woman's ramblings, People won't understand! As far as I'm concerned the script worked on that front.

We'll disagree on this one then as I think it's sloppy writing to not be able to back up it's own themes and ideas better.

So all we got to go on is what the movie showed us....
Considering how he was treated on the school bus and the simple fact that jon didn't want him ripping his shirt open in the face of the tornado...it's safe to assume that his childhood bursts were more of the same as the xray vision flashback.

If he had lots of such episodes he'd be in regular medical care and probably in some special class. Then again I'm willing to disregard that as the very idea of Clark ever visiting a doctor breaks the entire concept.

I for one commend them for aspiring to something a little more complex than the usual, especially with this brand. I mean Jon Kent usually has one mode, one we can all see coming a mile away. Considering the state of this property 2 years ago and the many discussions about it, a complex change and approach to script conception is a welcomed changed.

I don't think it's very complex at all, it's pretty straight forward at all turns. Not exactly like trying to figure out 2001. If it tried to be more complex it should have spent far less time on the numerous battle scenes and given more time to things that have nuances to them. Then again it wouldn't help me if the writing didn't become tighter and had better characterization, as I'm of course not a fan of those parts.

It's not even hard to see what Goyer intended to say in the points where I don't think he succeed in saying them. Intentions aren't good enough, you need to manage to carry through with them.

Not sure what you think the end goal is. I know the film makes the point that choices aren't all that easy. But I believe that jon's answer had plenty of nuance. He was asked a simple question and he didn't answer. He actually went on to add that "he doesn't know".
Basically, jon is not suggesting clark hold back simply to protect a secret(identity), that's where you got it wrong.That's the simple way of looking at it and given the material I don't blame you. However what jon is in fact talking about, is the concept of the greater good.
If clark is to be the saviour of the world, then jon believes revealing himself to the world prematurely won't be serving the "greater good".
Considering jon has probably read the new testament once or twice, it's a safe assumption.

My point is that the script does a poor job of showing that Clark is also encouraged to be a hero, it's almost solely a negative attitude towards that. In part due to the movie spending so little time building up his background since it so hard tries to avoid to be a dedicated origin story.

It was during their conversation at the grave site when he was wearing the cap. It was right before he convinced her to keep her trap shut by way of pa kent's death flashback. She confronted him and he said he would just disappear again, she then said "as long as people need help that it will be impossible for you to do so completely, and that she would just find him again due to the trail he leads". It's quite the threat and one completely dependent on clark being a bonafide hero(pre jor el).

Now I remember. I've consistently said that he does help people when they are in need but I was here talking about a willing hero, the one that actively tries to be the hero. Clark at that point seems to seek himself away from people as much as he can but feels obligated to help when something comes up since he's a good person.

In a superhero movie, especially with a real good guy, the word 'hero' is about more than just having helped some people. It's about striving to do so.

Well I'm glad we can at least agree on that first part. I mean the oil rig rescue in MOS isn't that much different than the power plant rescue in the donner era. The only difference is that this clark does it before meeting jor el and without a costume.

That being said, if what you are faulting jon kent for is a matter of how available Clark makes himself...meaning your requirement for jon's influence is that superman be a well known superhero, then that's you. I for one think the level of heroism attained prior to Clark meeting Jor is far and away greater than anything we've seen from most the property(not titled superboy).
The thankless ghost serves it's purpose well enough for me.

Saving the oil rig people is nice but he wasn't seeking to help anyone. He had taken a job on a fishing boat, which to me shows that he really seeks the extreme outskirts of society.

What I was seeking was for Jon to be more of an influence to wanting to actively help people. He doesn't have to become the costumed Superhero, but I'd like to see him more actively try to help with what he's got. As it looks he has no idea what he wants to do and just wanders around, taking menial jobs. To compare to another hero you could take Bruce Banner in Avengers. He has a bigger problem with his superpower, and certainly has no thoughts about that he could be a superhero, but he's still dedicated his life to helping people as much as he can. That's the general concept I'd have liked the Kents to have instilled in Clark at that point (although I would, as said, at that point have had him doubt that he could do that due to failing to save his father rather than choosing not to).

Time out.
Is that what you honestly believe? That Jon's death sent clark into "hiding." I was under the impression that the death sent him out in to the world to find his purpose....kinda like the original, only this time he found the fortress after about 12 years of being a thankless/selfless hero.

He's hiding from being an active hero, so it's about hiding from what he can be rather than hiding from anything external. He seemingly just wanders around with no idea what to do. He does heroic things but it seems to come fairly unwillingly. He's not wandering the world like Kwai Chang Caine.

Hard to believe the position clark was put into in this film doesn't generate sympathy.
I find myself more sympathetic to Jon Kent than ever before. Good for them.

As for more sense to his actions, this scene served as a building payoff to an earlier concept of the story. The literal payoff to a discussion between the two characters. If you are going to make a post that starts off with, "A good script builds upon itself." We are going to find ourselves in a very ironic situation.

When I see someone being able to just stand there and watch his father die, especially with the poorly built up threat around that, I unfortunately can't do anything else but think "what's wrong with you?".

I know well what the scene was supposed to be. Unfortunately I both dislike the choice (I've given an example of an alternative theme) and the execution. I dislike the actions of all three persons involved, it has impossible physics for something mundane and it goes over the line with the sad, dramatic moment. It could have been a great scene but unfortunately I find it downright terrible (partially due to the potential and expectations), and I'm honestly pretty sad about that I think so.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

To be fair I don't think Clark helps people unwillingly, he didn't hesitate to head for the rig to save those men. He isn't flying above the Earth looking for people to help but if he is aware of his help being needed he goes for it.

 

[Herolee10]

You are allowed to have a personal opinion which is at odds with those of the vast majority of film critics.


Exactly right. They took their time. Those writers didn't try and tick off all the marks as rapidly as possible.


Lust usually precedes love bro. It's a frequent, logical, and natural progression.

Lois and Clark did the same thing. Lois had a crush on Superman, but she was friends with and fell in love with Clark.

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

Bottom line is that everything that wasn't action-related was extremely rushed in this film, as Goyer and Snyder wanted to cram in as much action as possible. Lois learns that Clark is different when they first met, and then she tracks him down to Smallville in what was ~45 seconds of screen time. It's good that you're satisfied with how Lois and Clark met each other, and with Clark's childhood, because we might not see another reboot for decades, if ever. You're going to get more action scenes every 2 years, for a very long time, but in terms of Lois and Clark getting to know each other, in terms of Martha and Jonathan raising Clark, this is it. But you know... Batman might beat up Superman and read out those amazing lines from the Dark Knight Returns... oh my god let's all salivate !!!

John Connor had more and better father-son moments with the T-800 in Terminator 2: Judgment Day than Clark Kent did with Jonathan Kent in Man of Steel.

Look, I'm not saying that things were perfect in MOS and there are a goo amount of things that I would have wanted to see more.

My entire point was that I was trying to state that I don't think the courtship was skipped at all and I think I'm not alone when I say that i'd rather see a relationship between Superman and Lois start based on the truth than a facade filled with lies like how it did in the donner era.

 

[Marvin]

I don't think it's very complex at all, it's pretty straight forward at all turns. Not exactly like trying to figure out 2001. If it tried to be more complex it should have spent far less time on the numerous battle scenes and given more time to things that have nuances to them.

It presented a typical question and responded with a complex and layered answer. If I was to ask a similar question in 1939's wizard of Oz kansas I'd probably get a simple straight forward answer. If I were to ask the question in a modern and consequence ridden world such as ours, I'd probably get a non answer such as was given in this film.

If Clark had the power to bring people back from the dead and he then asked Martha, should I bring daddy back to life? what do you think the simple righteous answer would be in a film like the wizard of oz? Now what do you think the realistic complex answer would be in our world? Sorry but this doesn't need to be that 2001 thing to be considered a more complex take on the material. It's already achieved that. Could it have been a more complex film, hard to find a film that couldn't.

My point is that the script does a poor job of showing that Clark is also encouraged to be a hero, it's almost solely a negative attitude towards that. In part due to the movie spending so little time building up his background since it so hard tries to avoid to be a dedicated origin story.

To be honest with you, I personally don't need to see a film where the hero has to be encouraged to be anything. I'd rather he himself do it, cheerleading squad behind him or not. The more difficult the circumstances the more heroic.

In a superhero movie, especially with a real good guy, the word 'hero' is about more than just having helped some people. It's about striving to do so.

That seems like a set of personal standards. Again, fine.

Saving the oil rig people is nice but he wasn't seeking to help anyone. He had taken a job on a fishing boat, which to me shows that he really seeks the extreme outskirts of society.

The fishing job is no different than the newsroom job. Only that it's out of the way, however no more out of the way than smallville. Given he was on a journey of self discovery it actually makes sense(character wise), he my not have been climbing mountains in tibet like bruce wayne but....
He hears about danger he races off to help. I personally don't see how this is all that removed than what he does in costume outside of the fact that he does it undercover. For all intents and purposes Batman isn't actually a public hero in most stories, just a myth. No different and no less heroic imo.

To compare to another hero you could take Bruce Banner in Avengers. He has a bigger problem with his superpower, and certainly has no thoughts about that he could be a superhero, but he's still dedicated his life to helping people as much as he can.

Interesting comparison however Banner is clearly trying to hide seeing as he is the equivalent to a fission bomb and he knows it, where as clark is trying to find his purpose/place in the world. The fishing boat is a great touch too because it's just another sort of farming and feeding of the community(as jon mentioned).

When I see someone being able to just stand there and watch his father die, especially with the poorly built up threat around that, I unfortunately can't do anything else but think "what's wrong with you?".

Take the exact same scene. Replace jon's last moments with with Jon begging for his son's help. Have Clark then turn away Bingo.

You seem to be ignoring the actual point of the scene. Clark hardly just stood there.

Moreover, the situational threat was very well built up imo.
-First you get a scene with the son questioning the patriarch on an issue of gumption no less. Clark doesn't seem all to interested in listening to his adoptive father.
-Then you get the shot of the dog being locked in the car for safety.
-Then you get the protect your mother order from Jon(foreshadowing)
-Then you get the injured leg
-Then you get the inability for jon to escape due to that injury(cause&effect)
-Then you get clark clue in to the situation, literally look back at the crowd, fully acknowledging the the decision he's about to make(otherwise it may have just been seen as an oversight).
-Then you get jon, knowing what he's good son is about to do(again bingo), stop him in an intimate short hand between the two. So now Clark will listen to his adoptive father? Must be important.
-Then you get the the scream
-Then you get the cry

The strength of the writing here is that clark and jon are clearly two people that butt heads, typical one when a family enters a dual man of the house dichotomy. Towards the end of the initial argument, clark means to apologize but is interrupted. In the end, Clark learns of his fathers love and gumption by way of action and sacrifice and Jon goes out knowing he has his sons trust by way of painful inaction.

I personally think this was well done, both subjectively and objectively. You wanna see a poorly crafted sequence go watch the Room. Specifically the scene where dude walks into the flower shop. It's classic.

 

[DA_Champion]

Look, I'm not saying that things were perfect in MOS and there are a goo amount of things that I would have wanted to see more.

My entire point was that I was trying to state that I don't think the courtship was skipped at all and I think I'm not alone when I say that i'd rather see a relationship between Superman and Lois start based on the truth than a facade filled with lies like how it did in the donner era.

Things were neither perfect in MoS nor as catastrophic as Green Lantern. However, due to it being Superman, a lot of us have higher standards. He's a popular character. The movie made 150 million on opening weekend (one of the highest of all time) in spite of significantly below-average reviews. There's a lot of demand for a good Superman movie.

There were a few good things about the movie. It was indeed superior to all previous Superman movies when viewed as a whole. The casting was phenomenal for all primary and secondary characters. Several of the action scenes were fabulously executed by Zach Snyder: compare the battle of smallville to the similar battle in Thor. The battle of Smallville was a perfect action sequence in my opinion. It is for these reasons that I thought MoS was good coming out of the theatre, though I eventually realised the critics were right.

It's a big missed opportunity. The movie was 30% character development and 70% action when it should have been the other way around. For the action scenes, everything is shown, in full detail, nothing is left to the imagination. A $225 million budget will buy you a lot of special effects. For the character scenes, however, people like Marvin tell us that we should have the imagination to fill in the blanks as we're not sophisticated enough to deal with the subtlety of Goyer. Even if that were true, it's stupid as the very point of a movie is to show things, and in fact, there's little subtlety, and the movie contradicts its own themes.

I get that you want to see Lois and Clark as a fully developed couple, I do too. There will be plenty of movies to do so. There might be a movie every 2 years indefinitely, and we'll see Lois and Clark played by several acting pairs under several directors, we'll see a lot of Lois and Clark in relationship. However, if there's a single continuity, we won't be getting the early phases again. The fun parts where Lois and Clark are attracted to each other but might not realise it yet, or know that the attraction is reciprocated, et cetera. They've skipped over all that, because Goyer/Snyder wanted to get past all plot points that were not action-related as fast as possible.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

... subtlety of Goyer.

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think part of it, though, is that they wanted to "save" the character development for a sequel. Hence the tonal change near the end. And that might not even happen. What's to stop WB of ONLY doing team up films once Superman/Batman makes a billion at the BO?

The more I think of it, the more bothered I am at Snyder/Goyer for chugging the Begins template that worked so well, and going experimental/actioney with Superman.

A more well-rounded BB with more comic-bookish aesthetics (inevitable because of Zack) with Superman was the way to go. Sure, it's origin all the way. But there would be NO way of pleasing the "origin again?" people. So don't try

 

[DA_Champion]

Moreover, the situational threat was very well built up imo.
-First you get a scene with the son questioning the patriarch on an issue of gumption no less. Clark doesn't seem all to interested in listening to his adoptive father.
-Then you get the shot of the dog being locked in the car for safety.
-Then you get the protect your mother order from Jon(foreshadowing)
-Then you get the injured leg
-Then you get the inability for jon to escape due to that injury(cause&effect)
-Then you get clark clue in to the situation, literally look back at the crowd, fully acknowledging the the decision he's about to make(otherwise it may have just been seen as an oversight).
-Then you get jon, knowing what he's good son is about to do(again bingo), stop him in an intimate short hand between the two. So now Clark will listen to his adoptive father? Must be important.
-Then you get the the scream
-Then you get the cry

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

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

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

Third, Jonathan sacrifices himself so that Clark can reveal himself when the world is ready. This would be a lot more poignant if the world's readiness had been explored in future scenes. This could have been achieved by having Clark share his secret with Pete or Lana, or Clark revealing himself on his own terms, or he could have joined the audience at some alien visitation discussion panel at some conference, or have Clark learn more about how human beings respond to events while travelling the world. It wasn't. Zod showed up, scared the bejeezus out of the entire planet, and revealed Kal-El to the world as an illegal alien imposter masquerading as a human being. The first impression is the absolute worst, "one of the hostiles is among us", that is surely worse than Clark being caught saving Jonathan.

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

 

[Herolee10]

Things were neither perfect in MoS nor as catastrophic as Green Lantern. However, due to it being Superman, a lot of us have higher standards. He's a popular character. The movie made 150 million on opening weekend (one of the highest of all time) in spite of significantly below-average reviews. There's a lot of demand for a good Superman movie.

There were a few good things about the movie. It was indeed superior to all previous Superman movies when viewed as a whole. The casting was phenomenal for all primary and secondary characters. Several of the action scenes were fabulously executed by Zach Snyder: compare the battle of smallville to the similar battle in Thor. The battle of Smallville was a perfect action sequence in my opinion. It is for these reasons that I thought MoS was good coming out of the theatre, though I eventually realised the critics were right.

It's a big missed opportunity. The movie was 30% character development and 70% action when it should have been the other way around. For the action scenes, everything is shown, in full detail, nothing is left to the imagination. A $225 million budget will buy you a lot of special effects. For the character scenes, however, people like Marvin tell us that we should have the imagination to fill in the blanks as we're not sophisticated enough to deal with the subtlety of Goyer. Even if that were true, it's stupid as the very point of a movie is to show things, and in fact, there's little subtlety, and the movie contradicts its own themes.

I get that you want to see Lois and Clark as a fully developed couple, I do too. There will be plenty of movies to do so. There might be a movie every 2 years indefinitely, and we'll see Lois and Clark played by several acting pairs under several directors, we'll see a lot of Lois and Clark in relationship. However, if there's a single continuity, we won't be getting the early phases again. The fun parts where Lois and Clark are attracted to each other but might not realise it yet, or know that the attraction is reciprocated, et cetera. They've skipped over all that, because Goyer/Snyder wanted to get past all plot points that were not action-related as fast as possible.

To be honest, I think it was more like 40% to 50% character and 60% to 50% Action.

And yeah, Superman is just one of those characters where people have incredibly high standards because every small thing that doesn't fit someone's take on Superman is chastised for.

Hell, a lot of the so called "professional" reviews were bashing the film simply because it wasn't anything like the Donner films that they got with CR in it; talk about being objective huh?

And honestly, films don't have the luxuries in being able to fully draw out an "romantic" relationship between a couple like television shows can do, so it's not really fair to compare the development between Clark and Lois on film towards their television counterparts because they had several hour length episodes devoted towards expanding on that.

If you go by film standards alone, this film took the couple to new places; it actually allowed them to develop and grow more than any of the previous films by the end of it (MOS).

And considering how long people have been waiting to see a superman film where Lois retained her memory of Superman being Clark at the end of the film, along with how we've been waiting for a more dynamic portrayal of their relationship; I'll gladly take what we got in MOS than having to see the same old "chase" game that could take several years of waiting to see happen on screen.

And it's funny on how much the film is being bashed for all of the action that it had considering on how bloodthirsty people were for action in a superman film.

If I had a dollar for the amount of comments that I've seen posted by fans on how they wanted battles involving Superman on film that rivaled the ones that were shown on Television, I'd be a rich man right now.

And yet, when we finally get to see Superman punch someone and get thrown through buildings, just like in the JLA cartoons, people are crying blasphemy, saying on how Superman should never do that, and how their Marvel or other DC heroes should never follow that route, despite the fact that it happens ALL THE TIME within the comics and other portrayals of their said characters.

A good amount of the problems that I've seen people had with the film are so stupid and downright silly since there's no actual thought behind them.

People hate the film just because Amy isn't Olivia or is too old, or doesn't have dark black hair like they always wanted; people hate on how Superman isn't always smiling and didn't take time to save people despite the fact that he did save the rest of the Earth by destroying the World Machine, which is why he couldn't be in Metropolis and helping out there.

Yeah, I get that people had issues with MOS, I had it to, but there's no way people can tell me that there haven't been those who just bash the film simply for the sake that their own little perfect fanboy scenario didn't play out in the film, thus preventing them from seeing all of the good stuff the film actually accomplished.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

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

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

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

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

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I think the news that Affleck will have script approval shows a begining to his overall involvement with DC movies. I thought Snyder would direct JL, but now I'm wondering if Affleck is part of the discussion if his input positively effects the MOS sequel.

 

[Herolee10]

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

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

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

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

I think Man of Steel is just another good example on how Goyer needs someone to really help him with his screenplays. He even admitted that MOS was by far the hardest story that he's ever had to write for.

And yeah, Goyer didn't exactly choose the best means towards giving out the message that they were aiming for in Pa Kent's sacrifice since it really rubbed people the wrong way with how Clark just listened to his father in allowing him to die like that.

And honestly, I really don't want any of the writers from the DCU to ever come near the live action films since they're so batman bias that it's not even funny.