BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[TheFlamingCoco]

I agree with you except with the Swanwick part. Waller could be saved for sequels. But I like the general, for what its worth

 

[Herolee10]

I do hope that Snyder and Goyer have gotten the message that fans got more than what they asked for regarding the "action sequences" department.

I do feel that due to all of the criticisms that SR got for not presenting a more exciting and action packed film, that Snyder and Goyer overcompensated in that department. Now that they've established on what Superman can do visually wise, I hope they focus more on core character dynamics.

I want an exciting film but one that doesn't rely so much on action sequences as opposed to character arcs/dynamics/interactions. I want the journey in going from point A to point B being an exciting one.

Let's see some strong character interactions/dynamics...hell, bring in mysteries that can be solved that relate to the main plot that doesn't require so much on CGI.

Honestly, some of the things that I loved most about MOS were the quiet moments that didn't require CGI, that just had the natural/real world environment present.

 

[BlueLantern]

David Goyer's written some of the best comic book movies in the last how many of years? Really? He's been credited as a screenwriter for the three Blade films, Batman Begins and Man of Steel. One of those is a sure fire win, the others are all entirely debatable.

People keep referring to the first Blade film as some masterpiece. It's a really average film but is well remembered since it was one of the first successful comic book films out there outside of the Batman/Superman films. That's about it. So yeah, some of the best comic films in the last how many years? Bollocks.

 

[slumcat]

1. Instead of Clark just wandering aimlessly around in the middle of nowhere, incorporate the segment from the "Birthright" mini-series where Clark travels to Africa and finds himself in the middle of a bloody civil war going on there.

2. I would have placed the World Engine in Metropolis, with Black Zero hovering over the Indian Ocean instead. Superman races off and saves some people from the ensuing chaos caused by the World Engine in Metropolis and ultimately stops the machine like he did in the film. The difference here is that when Superman is laying unconscious on the ground, the people of Metropolis gather to him and help him get back on his footing; something similar to the scene from Spider-Man 2 involving the train, thus showing that people are warming up to Superman.

1. and 2. are very good suggestions. I would have like to see 1. but I must say the Oil Rig scene was one of the two really great scenes in the film so I am glad they opened with that.

 

[Herolee10]

And honestly, I feel like one of the themes that MOS was trying to give out was the theme of "choice" and how a person must choose for themselves on who they are and that it's not society that dictates on what their identity will be.

If they had gone with that even more, they could have made Clark wondering as to where he should go after having felt like he was forced to kill Zod and wandering what he should do. Ultimately he would choose to remain Superman and start helping people under that alias.

 

[DA_Champion]

This script has so many problems that it's hard to see how it could be fixed. But here is one small change I'd make.

Don't have the world builder split into two. That is simply a dumb plot device invented by Goyer to have two action sequences, because more action sequences was his number one priority. Just have it e one piece, one world builder, so that we get one action scene, which is sufficient. Remove the giant metal squid. Redistribute the screen time to Costner, Lane, Adams, Fishburne, and Lennix.

Other changes, which would have taken a substantial rewrite of the script:
- Have Clark meet Lois at the end of the movie, where she's meeting him as a reporter, she's dressed in a white mini skirt and a purple blazer, and he's giving her an interview to introduce himself to the world. She comes up with the name Superman. Prior to this, have a scene where Clark goes through some of the possible reporters he could give the article, and have him pick Lois based on whatever reason. Lois Lane could then have her own origin movie released three months later.
- The last scene of the movie should be Martha Kent framing the newspaper clipping from Lois' article on Superman into a scrapbook, and she's in tears of pride. We've also previously seen her putting things into the scrapbook throughout the movie, so the scene has meaning.
- No codex, no Kryptonians that kill 100,000 people as the first villains. Have it be a more moderate threat.
- Clark spends a lot of time travelling the world in his twenties. Show him make some friends, show him asking questions. Show him learning journalism. Perhaps he decides to start a blog when he travels the world because he feels that the world he sees is not the world he was taught about.
- Jonathan Kent doesn't have to die. It's not a story requirement.
- More scenes of Clark developing his powers in childhood, and of loving Clark-Martha-Jonathan moments. Smallville had a good idea that the show mentioned in conversation and never showed, when Clark is a kid, he speeds away. His parents find him a few hours later and he's in tears because he does not know what happened. Martha comforts him.
- Some set pieces of Superman stopping reducing the impact of some natural disasters

 

[BlueLantern]

Herolee, the film kept TELLING us that things were about choice, but the truth was far from it. Clark was told to do everything. Right up until the very end where Zod forced him into killing him. Most of what Clark did involved him having his free will taken away from him.

 

[Mjölnir]

I've seen mixed to negative reactions for both MoS and IM 3 spanning several major issues for both. My original point is that we shouldn't compare MoS to IM 3 since it's not a high bar. In general I've seen a lot of people say "stop criticising MoS! at least it was better than X!" where X is usually a movie that has its own problems, like the avengers, iron man 3, superman returns, or superman 1978. One poster even compared MoS favourably to The Room.

Whether IM3, or any other specific movie, is a high bar or not is of individual opinion (and every single superhero movie has plenty of issues according to some) but I definitely agree that the "at least it's better than X" argument is a poor one as it's by definition setting a low bar.

And yes, I was the one that was addressed with the comparison to The Room, and being credited for being better than that (from the one scene I've seen) is like getting a prize for participation.

 

[Herolee10]

This script has so many problems that it's hard to see how it could be fixed. But here is one small change I'd make.

Don't have the world builder split into two. That is simply a dumb plot device invented by Goyer to have two action sequences, because more action sequences was his number one priority. Just have it e one piece, one world builder, so that we get one action scene, which is sufficient. Remove the giant metal squid. Redistribute the screen time to Costner, Lane, Adams, Fishburne, and Lennix.

The reason why Goyer had the machines split into two is because he wanted the Military to have a hand in defeating the Kryptonians, thus giving anyone that wasn't Superman more screen time as well.

Other changes, which would have taken a substantial rewrite of the script:
- Have Clark meet Lois at the end of the movie, where she's meeting him as a reporter, she's dressed in a white mini skirt and a purple blazer, and he's giving her an interview to introduce himself to the world. She comes up with the name Superman. Prior to this, have a scene where Clark goes through some of the possible reporters he could give the article, and have him pick Lois based on whatever reason. Lois Lane could then have her own origin released three months later.

Wait, so you would want Lois to only be introduced at the VERY END of the film? If that's the case, then doesn't that contradict what you just said at the top regarding having Amy have more screen time?

- No codex, no Kryptonians that kill 100,000 people as the first villains. Have it be a more moderate threat.

Such as? One of the things that NEEDED to be done in this film was giving Superman a strong physical threat to contend with on the big screen with modern day effects. People have been asking for that for decades now and regardless of personal reasons, having an exciting action sequence involving Superman taking on a super villain is what helps put the GA in the theaters.

And Zod was the only one that fit the bill since he's tied to Krypton's origin.

 

[slumcat]

One of the better scenarios that I thought about that they could have done with this scene instead would be having Jonathan dying from a heart attack due to the stress caused by the tornado while saving Clark from getting exposed in front of everyone else.

Let me explain, Clark would disobey his father's orders and go about helping more people in order to help get them to safety and while doing so, he is being careless when it comes to concealing his powers somewhat since he is not being cautious from the flying debris. Clark is about to get a flying truck but since he knows it can't hurt him, Clark doesn't really duck for cover. Jonathan races to Clark and pulls him out of the way so that no one will see Clark getting hit and surviving it but the strain causes his heart to give out.

The lesson from all of this would be that Clark needs to be more responsible in how he uses his powers in front of people and he needs to choose a better time when it comes to revealing himself since he wasn't ready, from Jonathan's perspective, to show himself to the world just yet.

I think Ken't death should have been that his leg is broken or infact his back is broken or something, and Clark does go out and save him. And Kent dies in the hospital with Clark absolutely distraught. This way, he would learn the very human failing of mortality with Martha consoling him and telling him humans have to die, not all the superpowers in the world can reverse death.

 

[Herolee10]

Herolee, the film kept TELLING us that things were about choice, but the truth was far from it. Clark was told to do everything. Right up until the very end where Zod forced him into killing him. Most of what Clark did involved him having his free will taken away from him.

In some ways I can agree and disagree with that.

No one told Clark that he had to save people, but he did. He could have just walked away from it and allow their lives to be decided by fate like his father told him, but he didn't. Even after his father died, he was said to still be saving countless strangers and leaving the scene soon afterwards.

He could have given into Zod's demands regarding the codex and rebuilding Krypton, and it seems like Jor-el even wanted Clark to eventually rebuild the kryptonian race on Earth in a more peaceful way, but clark chose his own path regarding that matter.

 

[slumcat]

Don't have the world builder split into two. That is simply a dumb plot device invented by Goyer to have two action sequences

I am 100% sure that is a Nolan fail. Nolan LOVES LOVES LOVES cross-cutting. I read an interview where he said he always have multiple threads in his climaxes to cross cut between them. Take TDKR, TDK, Incpetion and now even MOS, constantly cross cutting.

I find cross cutting to be a major fail in cinema. It masks an inherent weakness in the story that it ain't interesting on its own and you have to constantly cut hither and thither.

All movies which rely on cross cutting play very badly on repeat viewings. Case in point - Cloud Atlas.

 

[DA_Champion]

The reason why Goyer had the machines split into two is because he wanted the Military to have a hand in defeating the Kryptonians, thus giving anyone that wasn't Superman more screen time as well.

They could do that either way. They could have the military help with the civilian evacuation and rescue. That would be more interesting than using Superman's cradle, his crib, as a weapon of death.

Wait, so you would want Lois to only be introduced at the VERY END of the film? If that's the case, then doesn't that contradict what you just said at the top regarding having Amy have more screen time?

I like the idea of her writing the first article on Superman, and her earning it.

Did you also miss the part where she gets her own origin movie that comes out three months later? Fan-******* mate

I just don't want the Clois relationship rushed, I want it stretched over several movies before it reaches steady state, with each prior state getting proper attention.

Such as? One of the things that NEEDED to be done in this film was giving Superman a strong physical threat to contend with on the big screen with modern day effects. People have been asking for that for decades now and regardless of personal reasons, having an exciting action sequence involving Superman taking on a super villain is what helps put the GA in the theaters.

Just make up a villain then, it's not hard.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

From Goyer: "I pointed to a poster and I said, “What are those?” He said, “Oh they’re just design features.” Chris said, “Bulls**t.” He said, “There can’t be anything on Batman’s costume that’s a design feature.” He said, “Goyer, figure out something. ” So I said, “Okay, what if they’re metal gauntlets and he can use them both offensively and defensively to trap weapons?” Chris said, “Done.” So, but that’s sort of the way Chris approaches everything. He’ll never do anything just because it looks cool. There has to be a utility."

I feel like this kind of slavish "real-world" approach will be bad for DC in the long run. How will they ever explain magic or have a man who can manipulate things with a ring and his mind?

 

[DA_Champion]

I am 100% sure that is a Nolan fail. Nolan LOVES LOVES LOVES cross-cutting. I read an interview where he said he always have multiple threads in his climaxes to cross cut between them. Take TDKR, TDK, Incpetion and now even MOS, constantly cross cutting.

I find cross cutting to be a major fail in cinema. It masks an inherent weakness in the story that it ain't interesting on its own and you have to constantly cut hither and thither.

All movies which rely on cross cutting play very badly on repeat viewings. Case in point - Cloud Atlas.

I think it worked well in Inception and TDK and TDKR, since the cross-cuts were interconnected and I personally didn't feel saturated. The characters in those movies were developed to my liking.

The giant metal squid, however, was not connected, and it didn't make sense. It didn't emerge organically from the plot. It was simply "Goyer wants another action sequence". It's also incoherent, why would the world-builder have giant metallic arms? What?

 

[Marvin]

The Avengers reflected on the devastation within the confines of the type of film it was. The film was inherently lighthearted so it focused sufficiently on what came and went.

Like I said both of those things as defined by you in a convenient manner.

As far as legions of lives are concerned, it was pretty evident that the aliens being killed were quote unquote drones. So sitting there and analyzing the loss suffered on that end can be saved for Ender's Game.

Living breathing, bleeding creatures that express agony when hurt, and seemingly strategize when presented with a dynamic threat.
But sure, quote unquote drones. Not a race of humaniod creatures forced into servitude. And thus our circle is complete.

Man of Steel was a flat out serious film, and with that notion in mind, it's way more culpable regarding swatting stuff under the rug. But hey, you're never going to admit to that since it flies in the face of the staunch defense you're launching of a severely mediocre film.

It's definitely a more tonally consistent film if that's what you mean. Not sure exactly what you mean by "more serious" though. Less jokes? Alien threat was playing for keeps? Deaths shown on camera? Tone? I just think you are underplaying what Avengers actually is. The same way people under play the "seriousness" of whedon's other works particularly Buffy and Serenity because of a few jokes. You also seem to be giving the impression that the opposite of "lighthearted" is "serious."
Topped off with your particular and usual blend of ad hominem style accusation. Well I'd rather you just did it for me than both me and guard, he really doesn't deserve it.

That being said I wasn't the one the brought up avengers that road leads nowhere, my response was actually directed at the animated series.

I think it's now at the point where you're so eager to be right that you'll make numerous points with very little real support for them. Oh well. Keep going.

Name one,
and I'll try and address it for you..

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I think it worked well in Inception and TDK and TDKR, since the cross-cuts were interconnected and I personally didn't feel saturated. The characters in those movies were developed to my liking.

The giant metal squid, however, was not connected, and it didn't make sense. It didn't emerge organically from the plot. It was simply "Goyer wants another action sequence". It's also incoherent, why would the world-builder have giant metallic arms? What?

The same reason the black zero looks like a giant spider

With a polar bear in the background

 

[Herolee10]

They could do that either way. They could have the military help with the civilian evacuation and rescue. That would be more interesting than using Superman's cradle, his crib, as a weapon of death.

That could have been another alternate route, though I think Goyer wanted them to play a more direct hand in their defeat.

I like the idea of her writing the first article on Superman, and her earning it.

Did you also miss the part where she gets her own origin movie that comes out three months later? Fan-******* mate

I just don't want the Clois relationship rushed, I want it stretched over several movies before it reaches steady state, with each prior state getting proper attention.

Not to be rude, but that doesn't make any sense. Why waste time making an origin film for Lois that would come out three months later after MOS when they could use her very well in MOS?

Does this have anything to do with your issues regarding their "courtship" and how you hate the fact that Lois actually knows the secret this far in advance?

You can't really do a origin film involving Superman without Lois since she's been a part of the mythology and is as old as Superman when it comes to her importance of it.

And dude, there's a BIG difference between rushing things and STALLING things and what you're talking about would fall under the category of stalling things.

Unlike Marvel Studios, there's no guarantee that they'll make another Superman film right away that exists within the same continuity since there could be a case where one Superman film does very bad that puts the franchise on the back burner.

What you're wanting would be great for a "television series" where they have several hours within a Season to stretch out that development, but it doesn't work that way within films.

And honestly, there's still a lot of story that they can cover with MOS. They only shared two freaking kisses for christ's sake and you act as though they're already married and living happily ever after.

Just make up a villain then, it's not hard.

Yeah, because that worked out so well for Superman 3 and 4 right?

 

[STARMAN]

Criticism about the destruction in MOS should fall on Snyder not Goyer. It's Snyder who can edit down the amount of destruction and mix in reaction shots of a concerned looking Superman. Snyder is the one who can turn around and ask Goyer for a scene dealing with the consequences.

 

[Herolee10]

Criticism about the destruction in MOS should fall on Snyder not Goyer. It's Snyder who can edit down the amount of destruction and mix in reaction shots of a concerned looking Superman. Snyder is the one who can turn around and ask Goyer for a scene dealing with the consequences.

To this day, I still don't completely get the issues that people have had with the destruction since it's happened several times within the comics and other animated shows.

Maybe it's the fact that Snyder was actually able to make it look so much more realistic and not treat it as a fun-riding adventure like other comic book films tend to treat their destruction sequences.

 

[slumcat]

I think it worked well in Inception and TDK and TDKR, since the cross-cuts were interconnected and I personally didn't feel saturated. The characters in those movies were developed to my liking

TDK was still ok, but Inception and TDKR were really dumb. I have a distinct feeling that Interstellar will also end in some sort of "chase" or "last minute something" and cross cut like a maniac.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Yeah. Really all he did was take what we've been seeing before in animation (and some comics) and put it to life in a more serious manner. And killed off Zod

 

[DA_Champion]

That could have been another alternate route, though I think Goyer wanted them to play a more direct hand in their defeat.

A civillian evacuation and rescue would have brought more balance to the film.

Does this have anything to do with your issues regarding their "courtship" and how you hate the fact that Lois actually knows the secret this far in advance?

It has everything to do with it.

Lois and Clark are my favourite fictional couple. I want to see every stage in their relationship developed elegantly and diligently on the big screen. The people they are before meeting each other, the friendship phase, the dating phase, etc, I also wouldn't mind children later on.

I realise we're not getting a Lois Lane origin film, where we see her grow up and then solve some investigative journalism issue prior to meeting Clark that eventually wins her a Pullitzer. That's why I stated it was less realistic.

You can't really do a origin film involving Superman without Lois since she's been a part of the mythology and is as old as Superman when it comes to her importance of it.

They were a few minutes of screentime removed from doing an origin film without Martha or Jonathan Kent.

They focused on doing so many different things that not one of them was done right.

Yeah, because that worked out so well for Superman 3 and 4 right?

I've never watched Superman IV, but they didn't make up a villain in Superman III, they used Lex Luthor with a different name and hairdo.

Villains can be made up, comics do it all the time, original movies do it all the time.

 

[Herolee10]

It has everything to do with it.

Lois and Clark are my favourite fictional couple. I want to see every stage in their relationship developed elegantly and diligently on the big screen. The people they are before meeting each other, the friendship phase, the dating phase, etc, I also wouldn't mind children later on.

Look, they're my favorite couple as well but even I know when to be realistic and the fact of the matter is, you can't explore all of that within the limited amount of time that a film has.

You can do that on a tv series, but not so much on an actual film since there are so many things that need to be conveyed within the 2 Hours that they have to tell the entire story.

And honestly, this film NEEDED to do something different for the GA and fans that hadn't been done in past films, and that is to have Lois know the secret.

Dude, I'm a HUGE fan of the relationship and even I know that they can do so much more after MOS and still have the courtship thing going on.

They only shared two kisses dude and given that a sequel is never a guaranteed these days, better to do as much as you can in a reasonable way.

Wouldn't it be much worse if they went about the method that you're asking for where they take small steps within every film, only to have the franchise rebooted again due to the latest one not doing so well, thus all of that time spent into developing the couple into getting to that romantic place being wasted?

I've never watched Superman IV, but they didn't make up a villain in Superman III, they used Lex Luthor with a different name and hairdo.

Villains can be made up, comics do it all the time, original movies do it all the time.

Yeah, and that's why they're comic book villains. You do realize that Superman is a comic book character right? He has a whole arsenal of villains from an established gallery within the comics that were "created" throughout the decades.

 

[Marvin]

Just because there can be complex questions brought up doesn't mean that the movie is complex. Many movies treat complex issues in a simple manner. To take another example, the X-Men movies center around questions about being different, the treatment of minorities etc. Those are extremely hard questions to solve since we haven't done it in reality, but it certainly doesn't mean that the movies are complex in my view. They don't completely lack complexity but when you call a movie complex as a general statement you have to compare it to all movies. Complex movies rarely make much money since the average person can't get into them.

I agree. However I wasn't speaking on the complexity of the MoS movie, but rather the complexity of that particular issue and or element. Relatively speaking. "The greater good and the sacrifice in order to achieve it"

Superhero movies are for me fun movies that usually have some substance to them, but it's not something I watch when I feel to be intellectually challenged.

Fair enough. Though I personally don't see any sort of box around the (sub)genre, not anymore anyways. I personally find plenty of mental stimulation in some of these new bat films for example. Again it's a relative thing. Compared to what batman was 15 years ago.

I don't need that either but this is a case of a movie where the protagonist doesn't become the superhero until he gets that. In that light I'd prefer if he had gotten a bigger portion of it from his human parents. I feel that was better to argue to change what was there instead of ripping something out completely and replacing it.

Since we already seemed to establish that the character was a definable "hero" at the age of about 12. I would just add that this just seems more like a personal desire to see the source material manifest in a more recognizable way than a flaw or writing.