BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[the last son]

Say what you want about Goyer, but that last scene, him being welcomed to the planet was brilliant.

 

[BlueLantern]

The line was nice but the content around it was terrible. Furthermore everyone in that scene SAW Clark kiss Lois and there was no recognition of that particular point. Not to mention the apocalyptic events of the last few weeks and so on.

 

[Micromind]

Honestly, I don't know what makes you think such an analysis is necessary. It's about as disingenuous as Zack Snyder trying to explain that he went disaster porn on Man of Steel to evoke a mythological feel to it. No you didn't, Zack. You did it because you like big explosions. It's okay. Well it's not. It was overdone.

Though your post was directed at other poster, I just want to say that just because some people are adamant that movie does a poor job of explaining some ideas doesn't mean that the ideas are not present there, or that those ideas make no sense within the narrative.

If someone tries to post his thoughts detailing what he thinks others are missing then it is not his personal opinion about the movie, he is just stating what is there.

 

[the last son]

It was the end of the movie. What did you want news coverage of the catastrophic events?

 

[Marvin]

That's kinda the problem there. If you notice so far, people's criticisms of the film are relatively basic and don't require a scientific or detailed response. There's one post where you're trying to explain Clark's line of sight with Jonathan's injury and the technicalities of a potential rescue.

The short posts get short responses the long ones get long responses. Not sure what else I can tell you.
The poster and I came upon that line of sight topic pretty organically. If fan forums aren't the place for such discussion then what's the point I wonder.

Honestly, I don't know what makes you think such an analysis is necessary. It's about as disingenuous as Zack Snyder trying to explain that he went disaster porn on Man of Steel to evoke a mythological feel to it. No you didn't, Zack. You did it because you like big explosions. It's okay. Well it's not. It was overdone.

For all my supposed groundless rose tinted babble on what I see in this film. What you are demonstrating here is something far worse...
Anyways, I happened to like Zack's rhetoric on the matter, seemed indicative of an artist with some aspiration, but then again of course I would.

I brought you up by name because you're one of the biggest culprits of the political rhetoric being spun in defense of the film. Long posts trying to explain the deeper meaning or technicalities behind certain issues with the film. Ironically enough the problems are so simple and so flawed in a storytelling manner that I guarantee you David Goyer didn't sit there and consider the **** you're considering. And with that in mind you surely should know that your defense is extremely rose tinted and sunshiny.

How we receive art is entirely on us. Which is why when Inception ends, you don't have 300 people writing the exact same essay on it's meaning, you have even less on what nolan's exact intent was while he sipped on his pekoe. You can guarantee whatever you want about David Goyer's intent with your inside knowledge on his inner workings and his process. His intent matters little to what the finished product is, at least when it comes to our conversations here. imo.

If film reviews and reception were about intent and not product...what a different world it would be. There would probably be higher averages all around.

 

[the last son]

Marvin. One of my favorite posters here.

 

[Marvin]

Dogs tend to elicit a more emotional reaction than an ordinary human. It also meant that the dog could escape by running away whilst a child couldn't.

Not as hard as it looks. Welcome to the dark si....

Although that's too sophisticated a reason for Goyer. He probably just went for it because it's cliched.

I spoke too soon.
You seem to have a personal contempt for some of these producers here. What's the deal there?

 

[D.P.]

This is still going on?

Oh well, Marvin fighting the good fight.

 

[Marvin]

Marvin. One of my favorite posters here.

cool.

 

[BlueLantern]

I have no personal contempt for Goyer or Snyder. In fact, I think Goyer's approach to conceptualizing is great but his execution is very very poor. His best work has always had someone assisting him in honing his potential and that's something he desperately needed here too. The core mythos and ideas in Man of Steel are great, but he really really needed a proper helping hand on the film to actively mold the script as it went along.

As far as Snyder is concerned, well his track record speaks for itself. His best quality was a visual style he brought to films. He didn't bring that here so everything just felt extremely hollow. Sure, the fight sequences were well choreographed but there's more to a director's job than creating appealing CGI. You liked his rhetoric on the matter, where he pretends to be an uber artist. Well it explains your posting style for sure.

 

[Marvin]

I have no personal contempt for Goyer or Snyder. In fact, I think Goyer's approach to conceptualizing is great but his execution is very very poor. His best work has always had someone assisting him in honing his potential and that's something he desperately needed here too. The core mythos and ideas in Man of Steel are great, but he really really needed a proper helping hand on the film to actively mold the script as it went along.

Fair enough, but I guess that would all depend on what you thought of the script. For example if you thought it was great, than I suppose your opinion on the matter would be vastly different. I suppose this is where nolan and I finally agree.

As far as Snyder is concerned, well his track record speaks for itself. His best quality was a visual style he brought to films. He didn't bring that here so everything just felt extremely hollow. Sure, the fight sequences were well choreographed but there's more to a director's job than creating appealing CGI. You liked his rhetoric on the matter, where he pretends to be an uber artist. Well it explains your posting style for sure.

Inversely I suppose your utter refusal to accept the substance in any and all things he puts forth is made manifest right here and now. It's all just pretend.

 

[The Silent Traveler]

Reading the posts that offers different perspectives about how Clark Kent/Superman is characterized and reacted to some difficult situations he was forced to be in the movie is quite interesting, especially Marvin and Tempest's posts.

I enjoy reading their posts.

I think this movie is divided between some like and some dislike because the movie is not exactly what they want Clark Kent/Superman to be characterized in their mind.

That's why I have some issues with some fans because superhero movies are sometimes right or wrong because they are not what they want in their mind or their interpretation of their favorite characters.

It makes me think, "why can't some fans accept Snyder/Goyer's interpretation of Clark Kent/Superman?"

I THINK that the interpretation is already shown or might be implied in this movie, whether one likes or dislikes.

I try my best to articulate my thoughts well. Just in my thoughts

 

[Tempest]

That's kinda the problem there. If you notice so far, people's criticisms of the film are relatively basic and don't require a scientific or detailed response. There's one post where you're trying to explain Clark's line of sight with Jonathan's injury and the technicalities of a potential rescue.

Honestly, I don't know what makes you think such an analysis is necessary. It's about as disingenuous as Zack Snyder trying to explain that he went disaster porn on Man of Steel to evoke a mythological feel to it. No you didn't, Zack. You did it because you like big explosions. It's okay. Well it's not. It was overdone.

I brought you up by name because you're one of the biggest culprits of the political rhetoric being spun in defense of the film. Long posts trying to explain the deeper meaning or technicalities behind certain issues with the film. Ironically enough the problems are so simple and so flawed in a storytelling manner that I guarantee you David Goyer didn't sit there and consider the **** you're considering. And with that in mind you surely should know that your defense is extremely rose tinted and sunshiny.

People don't like this version of Superman. Fair enough. But the complaints seem disingenuous, simply because what you (meant the complainers on the forum) wanted to see was an established Clark Kent, flirting and playing mind-games with Lois, while he battled Lex Luthor.

I once wrote a story that involved a scene releasing of balloons. It was an artsy, not-at-all-subtle way of symbolizing the releasing of some emotional burdens. It wasn't meant to be deep, or even that original in thought. I just wanted a visual to go with the emotions. Right?

I got tagged by someone who got caught up in the dumb detail that a fictional bird might have eaten one of the popped balloons. They missed the obvious point because they got hung up in a stupid detail. Also, the person who complained doesn't like me at all, so that upped her complaints a great deal, I'm sure.

The point is, that's what this whole debate feels like to me; dumb arguments over dumb topics, just because you don't like Goyer, and because you didn't like this version of Superman.

Writers don't write for their audiences. Ok? We write for ourselves. We try to keep the audience in mind, of course, but that's not what we focus on. We focus on the story in our minds and in our hearts.

Ironically enough the problems are so simple and so flawed in a storytelling manner that I guarantee you David Goyer didn't sit there and consider the **** you're considering.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I've gotten hung up on details that I've been told the audience doesn't care about, and I've written things I've been assured the audience wouldn't get or wouldn't like. Maybe he figured that he'd done enough explaining to take the story where he did. Maybe he wrote the scene for himself, because of some inner pain.

The truth is, you don't know really at all what was going on in his mind. And until you actually write a full story, and set it out into the world, I don't think you have any inkling on what kind of process it involves.

 

[Gianakin_]

I may simply be forgetting the lines, but I don't think that this is well-explained by the movie at all, and I suspect you're connecting dots that Goyer himself didn't connect.

Your interpretation is not supported by this chapter from the film's novelisation:
http://io9.com/whats-jor-el-thinking-during-man-of-steels-kryptonia-514135108

We do know that Zod wants to take control of the Codex and remove the decadent families. However, that's not explained, and it should be explained as it doesn't make any sense in the context of the movie. Zod was engineered and bred to be an obedient little soldier, not to be a revolutionary, how can he choose to be a revolutionary in a world without choice? It doesn't add up, it should be explained. Why does he think some families are decadent and not others?

If it's the same plan Jor-El has, then Jor-El should have aligned with Zod. Jor-El had begged them to stop mining the core and to move to the stars.

I'm hesitant to go on arguing with this, because I'm pretty sure it's sufficiently explained, but I don't exactly remember the lines, either. If I ever get to watch MoS again, I'll get back to you.

 

[BlueLantern]

Tempest, the point you're missing is that I'm not pointing out minor details that pretend to be part of some symbolic message. I'm pointing to Marvin's post where he tries to explain whether certain elements of the tornado scene were in Clark's line of sight or not.

Colour me skeptical but I doubt Goyer had a whiteboard tricked out with angles from where Clark might or might not be able to see certain things in said scene. I don't doubt Goyer intended to put in symbolic messages, all writers do. I do too with the stuff I write. But I don't sit and calculate geometric angles in scenes to check if something's plausible or not. That's what Marvin was basically doing.

Again, Marvin. You're being hyperbolic and going all propaganda on me. I have nothing against Snyder. I do however vehemently oppose this notion he's putting forth that the explosions in the film were setup to mirror some fabled battles in Greek mythology. That's horse****. They're explosions and they had very little symbolism or imagery going for them apart from maybe aesthetically with some of the falling star stuff at the very end with Zod/Clark. Even that was just me digging deep and then laughing it off.

 

[Gianakin_]

Why a dog though? Have Kent go save a baby or another human. Their dog was just stupid.

Dogs tend to elicit a more emotional reaction than an ordinary human. It also meant that the dog could escape by running away whilst a child couldn't. Although that's too sophisticated a reason for Goyer. He probably just went for it because it's cliched.

You have no idea how many people let the death scene slide because it was a dog in the car. It's an emotional shortcut. You don't build up a dog (although you do introduce him in one scene and say he's the family dog and assume that's automatically ok, but whatever). "Come on, it was a DOG! I would've gone for my dog, too!". I, of course, think everyone who says that is speaking from the safety of their sofa, or they're straight up lying.

BlueLantern's right. And I agree with the last son, it should've been a human.

 

[Gianakin_]

If someone tries to post his thoughts detailing what he thinks others are missing then it is his personal opinion about the movie, he is just stating what he/she saw.

Fixed.

 

[TheBat812]

People don't like this version of Superman. Fair enough. But the complaints seem disingenuous, simply because what you (meant the complainers on the forum) wanted to see was an established Clark Kent, flirting and playing mind-games with Lois, while he battled Lex Luthor.

I once wrote a story that involved a scene releasing of balloons. It was an artsy, not-at-all-subtle way of symbolizing the releasing of some emotional burdens. It wasn't meant to be deep, or even that original in thought. I just wanted a visual to go with the emotions. Right?

I got tagged by someone who got caught up in the dumb detail that a fictional bird might have eaten one of the popped balloons. They missed the obvious point because they got hung up in a stupid detail. Also, the person who complained doesn't like me at all, so that upped her complaints a great deal, I'm sure.

The point is, that's what this whole debate feels like to me; dumb arguments over dumb topics, just because you don't like Goyer, and because you didn't like this version of Superman.

Writers don't write for their audiences. Ok? We write for ourselves. We try to keep the audience in mind, of course, but that's not what we focus on. We focus on the story in our minds and in our hearts.



Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I've gotten hung up on details that I've been told the audience doesn't care about, and I've written things I've been assured the audience wouldn't get or wouldn't like. Maybe he figured that he'd done enough explaining to take the story where he did. Maybe he wrote the scene for himself, because of some inner pain.

The truth is, you don't know really at all what was going on in his mind. And until you actually write a full story, and set it out into the world, I don't think you have any inkling on what kind of process it involves.

Great post.


Also, the idea that Goyer just wrote lines or plot points or whatever without thinking about them at all is absurd. Especially after working with a writer/director like Nolan, where every little decision plays a part in enhancing character/story. Not getting it, or not thinking it works is totally subjective, but ignoring there are answers/thought behind them is simply hilarious.

 

[Gianakin_]

Reading the posts that offers different perspectives about how Clark Kent/Superman is characterized and reacted to some difficult situations he was forced to be in the movie is quite interesting, especially Marvin and Tempest's posts.

I enjoy reading their posts.

I think this movie is divided between some like and some dislike because the movie is not exactly what they want Clark Kent/Superman to be characterized in their mind.

That's why I have some issues with some fans because superhero movies are sometimes right or wrong because they are not what they want in their mind or their interpretation of their favorite characters.

It makes me think, "why can't some fans accept Snyder/Goyer's interpretation of Clark Kent/Superman?"

I THINK that the interpretation is already shown or might be implied in this movie, whether one likes or dislikes.

I try my best to articulate my thoughts well. Just in my thoughts

Only most of us who disliked MoS don't have a problem with it as a CBM, we have a problem with it as a movie. Personally, I thought this approach (and I'm STRICTLY talking approach, nothing more) was my favorite.

 

[BlueLantern]

What's more hilarious is seeing people consistently associate David Goyer and Christopher Nolan in the same breath. The former's abilities were enhanced by the latter, not the other way around. Not to mention the fact the Jonathan Nolan rewrote Begins without credit and then was a credited screenwriter on the other two films in the trilogy and David Goyer was not. Oh, and don't condescend by saying people don't get it. In the words of Matt Damon. It's not King Lear. It's an average Superman film.

 

[Gianakin_]

Yeah, I've seen more MoS defenders accusing detractors of not getting MoS, than vice vera.

 

[Marvin]

Colour me skeptical but I doubt Goyer had a whiteboard tricked out with angles from where Clark might or might not be able to see certain things in said scene. I don't doubt Goyer intended to put in symbolic messages, all writers do. I do too with the stuff I write. But I don't sit and calculate geometric angles in scenes to check if something's plausible or not. That's what Marvin was basically doing.

Don't remember any discussion of "geometric angles" and such. This would be where your hyperbolic side comes up. Pretty sure it was a conversation about whether or not clark could see into the van and if he could see the severity of his dad's injury. Doesn't seem like that sort of thing would require a white board.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if goyer does pull out a white board for the more intricate parts of that Da vinci cable series he currently show runs on. Lot's of puzzles and math and such.

Again, Marvin. You're being hyperbolic and going all propaganda on me. I have nothing against Snyder. I do however vehemently oppose this notion he's putting forth that the explosions in the film were setup to mirror some fabled battles in Greek mythology. That's horse****. They're explosions and they had very little symbolism or imagery going for them apart from maybe aesthetically with some of the falling star stuff at the very end with Zod/Clark. Even that was just me digging deep and then laughing it off.

Nah, you are just ignoring what the man said, restating what he said in some hperbolic way and then dismissing that. Strawmaning him, then assuming his actual interests on top of that. If there is any propaganda here, this would qualify: Zack. You did it because you like big explosions.
All you need is a print campaign and your movement would be in full swing.

Don't recall him saying his "explosions where set up to mirror fabled battles of greek myth." You calling that horse **** is you again, calling out your own strawman.

 

[D.P.]

What's more hilarious is seeing people consistently associate David Goyer and Christopher Nolan in the same breath. The former's abilities were enhanced by the latter, not the other way around.

The plot of Man of Steel employs a nonlinear narrative, and tells parts of the story in flashback. During story discussions for The Dark Knight Rises in 2010, David S. Goyer told Christopher Nolan his idea regarding how to present Superman in a modern context.[50] Impressed with Goyer's concept, Nolan pitched the idea to the studio.

Sounds like it was good enough to impress Nolan. He then took Goyer's ideas to WB and it won them over. Sounds like they need to be mentioned in the same breath to me.

But again, I won't pretend the know the inner workings so neither should you.

 

[Marvin]

What's more hilarious is seeing people consistently associate David Goyer and Christopher Nolan in the same breath. The former's abilities were enhanced by the latter, not the other way around. Not to mention the fact the Jonathan Nolan rewrote Begins without credit and then was a credited screenwriter on the other two films in the trilogy and David Goyer was not. Oh, and don't condescend by saying people don't get it. In the words of Matt Damon. It's not King Lear. It's an average Superman film.

Never knew that was a fact.
However, I'm sure the lack of credit might have had something to do with the lack of any real contribution. Goyers final draft is more or less the final film minus some spelling errors and some dialogue changes. A good read.

 

[Marvin]

Only most of us who disliked MoS don't have a problem with it as a CBM, we have a problem with it as a movie. Personally, I thought this approach (and I'm STRICTLY talking approach, nothing more) was my favorite.

Speaking for your contemporaries is a fickle game. I've personally encountered detractors from both spectrums. I'm sure you're familiar with the mark waid tirade. "Good sci fi movie, horrible superman film."
Just saying, I just think the contempt comes from across the board.