BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[Gianakin_]

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.

Hence my use of "most" instead of "all".

 

[BlueLantern]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/127344-Zack-Snyder-Man-of-Steel-Carnage-is-Mythological

That good enough for you? Regarding rewriting Begins, you can read the interview with Goyer and the Nolan brothers in the complete script omnibus published last year. He was credited as a creative consultant or something to that effect because of WGA rules. Most of the work Jonathan Nolan did was rewrite work so nothing drastic but he did do it.

On the topic of Chris Nolan's work for Man of Steel I remember reading a number of articles where Goyer confirmed that apart from being around for early story meetings, Nolan's name was tacked on in order to lend credence to the project. It clearly worked given how people are still using the 'IF NOLAN LOVED IT THEN I LOVE IT' card.

 

[Gianakin_]

However, I'm sure the lack of credit might have had something to do with the lack of any real contribution.

Ghostwriting and ghostdirecting happens often in Hollywood. The point of them is to not give credit to the guy who did the rewriting. But it can often be major. Not sure how extensive Jonah's rewrites on the BB script were, however.

 

[D.P.]

On the topic of Chris Nolan's work for Man of Steel I remember reading a number of articles where Goyer confirmed that apart from being around for early story meetings, Nolan's name was tacked on in order to lend credence to the project. It clearly worked given how people are still using the 'IF NOLAN LOVED IT THEN I LOVE IT' card.

Smart business move on their behalf, and that doesn't really have anything to do with what I posted.

 

[Gianakin_]

On the topic of Chris Nolan's work for Man of Steel I remember reading a number of articles where Goyer confirmed that apart from being around for early story meetings, Nolan's name was tacked on in order to lend credence to the project. It clearly worked given how people are still using the 'IF NOLAN LOVED IT THEN I LOVE IT' card.

The funniest part is that Nolan didn't even bother to actually fight Snyder on the Zod death thing.

 

[BlueLantern]

Sounds like it was good enough to impress Nolan.

It has absolutely everything with what you said since you're part of that bandwagon.

 

[D.P.]

It has absolutely everything with what you said since you're part of that bandwagon.

I'm not apart of any bandwagon. You said Goyer shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Nolan as if to say Nolan is some sort of deity who has reached a level that is unattainable to us normal humans.

Well, if you think so highly of him, and he liked Goyer's Superman pitch enough to bring it to WB, what does that say?

 

[TheBat812]

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.

Which is why it's all the more perplexing when simple things that are answered within the film are misunderstood and considered faults. Once again, nothing wrong with not liking the choice, but saying it doesn't exist is just being purposefully blind or opinionated.

I'm not saying Goyer's quality of writing and storytelling are equal to Nolan's, I'm saying that it would certainly make you think much more keen on the little details as they pertain to story/theme/character. Which is why many of us posters tend to be able to see the purpose and strength in scenes that others are calling meaningless or 'unrealistic.' Many of these are very subjective things that are certainly within your right to dislike, but it's also within our right to like those choices, believe in them, and actually think they work very well and many times multi-layered.

Much of the time the blame is placed on Goyer is actually a reflection of the direction/editing. The script is much stronger the final product, but I still really enjoy MOS for what it is and what it aspired to be. Hopefully Snyder improves on his ability for the next one. With Goyer's great ability to craft a new interpretation of classic comic stories/characters, Snyder's amazing visual style, and Afflecks' writing capabilities to throw in on story/dialogue notes, this MOS Sequel has a lot of potential.

 

[BlueLantern]

I'm not apart of any bandwagon. You said Goyer shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Nolan as if to say Nolan is some sort of deity who has reached a level that is unattainable to us normal humans.

Well, if you think so highly of him, and he liked Goyer's Superman pitch enough to bring it to WB, what does that say?

Either you're intentionally misconstruing my point or you just didn't quite get what I said. My point was firstly that Goyer didn't have as much to do with the Batman franchise as the Nolan brothers, so the point of him being compared to them is quite silly. Secondly, even he is being compared to Chris Nolan, his stamp of approval on the film doesn't really mean all that. Sure, he's a good filmmaker all round but that doesn't mean he's got a midas touch.

 

[Marvin]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/127344-Zack-Snyder-Man-of-Steel-Carnage-is-Mythological

That good enough for you?

In proving my point? Sure.
Still waiting for this "explosions where set up to mirror fabled battles of greek myth." he's quoted or even correctly paraphrased as saying.
Strawman. I personally just don't think you understood what he meant. Then again i suppose we all receive things differently.

Regarding rewriting Begins, you can read the interview with Goyer and the Nolan brothers in the complete script omnibus published last year. He was credited as a creative consultant or something to that effect because of WGA rules. Most of the work Jonathan Nolan did was rewrite work so nothing drastic but he did do it.

I see, so that's what you meant. Much clearer.

On the topic of Chris Nolan's work for Man of Steel I remember reading a number of articles where Goyer confirmed that apart from being around for early story meetings, Nolan's name was tacked on in order to lend credence to the project. It clearly worked given how people are still using the 'IF NOLAN LOVED IT THEN I LOVE IT' card.

What does nolan's official involvement or lack thereof in the script have to do with the "if nolan loved it, then i loved it" sentiment? Does he have to write something to love it?
Surely he's not so vain.

 

[D.P.]

Secondly, even he is being compared to Chris Nolan, his stamp of approval on the film doesn't really mean all that. Sure, he's a good filmmaker all round but that doesn't mean he's got a midas touch.

His track record is as flawless as you can get in Hollywood. I'm sure tons of writers/directors would kill to have his filmography, so I'm not sure why you're trying to downplay his abilities just so your argument can hold some kind of weight.

 

[Marvin]

The funniest part is that Nolan didn't even bother to actually fight Snyder on the Zod death thing.

Wonder why. I mean given his name is on the film and all.

Hence my use of "most" instead of "all".

Hence my response. I never claimed you said all. I addressed the use of the world "most".
Unless you care to somehow prove this, be my guest.

 

[BlueLantern]

How does it prove your point? Or are you purposely behaving like a moron? He's quite blatantly saying the mass destruction in the film was a form of symbolism similar to that used in Greek myths. Or is it because he didn't specifically use the word 'explosions'?

Secondly, you need to re-read what I said regarding Chris Nolan's involvement in the film. The sentiment I'm speaking about is fan sentiment and nothing to do with any sentiment expressed by the writers or producers of the film.

The sentiment, to be clear, is one where fans immediately get a hard on over a product with Chris Nolan's name on it. Like how people are saying the plot must be good since Chris Nolan approve of it? So? If he approves of something it's awesome? Am I getting through to you? Or should I use sock puppets to express my point?

D.P, I'm not downplaying his abilities. I'm making a point that he can make mistakes too. That's assuming he was as involved with the film as the fans would like to believe despite him saying he got things started and handed it over to Zack Snyder once he got hired. And in concurrence with this point, Zack Snyder got hired just shortly after the film's first draft had been completed, so he was heavily involved in the story development as it went on.

 

[Gianakin_]

Wonder why. I mean given his name is on the film and all.

Just goes to show how much Nolan "liked" the script, that he barely cared to fight to keep an idea that was already there. You know, in the script he "liked".

Hence my response. I never claimed you said all. I addressed the use of the world "most".
Unless you care to somehow prove this, be my guest.

I don't really care, and I don't really have to, anyway. We're both online every day, it's easy to find out.

 

[Marvin]

How does it prove your point? Or are you purposely behaving like a moron?

First of all, relax with the tone. No need to get back into the name calling. It's not very becoming...

He's quite blatantly saying the mass destruction in the film was a form of symbolism similar to that used in Greek myths. Or is it because he didn't specifically use the word 'explosions'?

Secondly, this is what you said initially: "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."

First you infer that Snyder said he was using the explosions as direct symbolism and or imagery mirrored in particular greek tales, as if the explosions themselves were his failed attempt at metaphor, now you are saying it's more that the mass destruction was a form of symbolism similar to the way greeks used mass destruction...etc
I fear you are not only back tracking(between angry posts) but seemingly missing the point in his quote. Though I gotta admit you are on the right track with this newest development. imo.

Secondly, you need to re-read what I said regarding Chris Nolan's involvement in the film. The sentiment I'm speaking about is fan sentiment and nothing to do with any sentiment expressed by the writers or producers of the film.

The sentiment, to be clear, is one where fans immediately get a hard on over a product with Chris Nolan's name on it. Like how people are saying the plot must be good since Chris Nolan approve of it? So? If he approves of something it's awesome? Am I getting through to you? Or should I use sock puppets to express my point?

No, no, you made yourself perfectly clear. No need to embarrass anyone with the sock puppets.

 

[Marvin]

Just goes to show how much Nolan "liked" the script, that he barely cared to fight to keep an idea that was already there. You know, in the script he "liked".

That's what happens when creators collaborate and improve upon work through "discussion" and "consensus" and such things. A great work can always been improved upon.

Funny enough, I heard nolan was actually initially opposed to the changes in the story he helped develop.

I don't really care, and I don't really have to, anyway. We're both online every day, it's easy to find out.

No, it's easy to say...
Less easy to find out the truth, leading to our current predicament.

 

[Gianakin_]

That's what happens when creators collaborate and improve upon work through "discussion" and "consensus" and such things. A great work can always been improved upon.

Funny enough, I heard nolan was actually initially opposed to the changes in the story he helped develop.

Yes, your "opposed" is my "barely cared to fight for".

No, it's easy to say...
Less easy to find out the truth, leading to our current predicament.

Sure.

 

[D.P.]

D.P, I'm not downplaying his abilities. I'm making a point that he can make mistakes too. That's assuming he was as involved with the film as the fans would like to believe despite him saying he got things started and handed it over to Zack Snyder once he got hired. And in concurrence with this point, Zack Snyder got hired just shortly after the film's first draft had been completed, so he was heavily involved in the story development as it went on.

Of course he can make mistakes. But according to the amount of critical acclaim and money he has raked in for WB, his mistakes must be scarce at best, or at least so minute that they don't affect the overall quality or profitability of the films he is involved in.

But not to get away from the point, he is highly accomplished and any writer or producer would benefit greatly from his co-sign or him attaching his name to their work. The fact that WB feels the need to mention his name every chance they get when promoting one of these projects speaks volume to the weight his name holds. So for someone like Nolan to give Goyer his stamp, does mean something whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[DA_Champion]

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.

The other issue is that it's the one joke in the film that works. It is perfectly fine for a movie to have only one funny joke... but not when it has many failed jokes.

Clark Kent: I'm pretty sure that only applies to humans
***
Carol Ferris: Besides, he's kind of hot

Were both supposed to be funny, and they were incredibly not funny. So, one successful jokes and two failed jokes is actually a negative.

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.

I just don't see how the concept of MoS was a great one at all. A lot of people are crediting Goyer's ideas, I think they're being apologetic for his poor execution. There are a huge number of bad ideas in MoS, as many as there are good ideas:
- No Fortress of Solitude;
- Jor-El gets more lines than Martha and Jonathan combined;
- Jor-El beats up Zod in a fight;
- Clark becomes a hero because Jor-El tells him it's his destiny to lead humanity into the light in a movie where the theme is supposed to be choice;
- Jor-El saves Lois and Clark on the ship;
- Jor-El saves the Earth by telling Lois to tell Superman to use Superman's cradle, his baby ship, as a weapon... oh my what incredibly imagery;
- Jor-El comes back as a ghost but not Lara;
- Pretty much everything to do with Jor-El;
- The Lois and Clark relationships skips the prologue and skips Chapter 1;
- The military first names Superman rather than Lois;
- Carol Ferris as the audience surrogate for stupid people;
- The codex;
- The world builder splits into two in order to create two fight scenes;
- Zod and Jor-El make more choices in the script than Kal-El does even though they come from a world without choice and he is supposed to symbolise choice;
- A complete lack of agency for Clark even though he's supposed to symbolise choice;

All of these are dumb concepts, dumb ideas. I'm not sure why people call Goyer an ideas man if his bad ideas exceed his good ones. He did do some creative work on Batman Begins, but that was a decade ago, his mind might not be in the same place. A lot of people deteriorate over 10 years.

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.

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

Goyer doesn't have an interpretation of Superman. Superman is written as a character completely lacking agency, he doesn't make many choices in the film at all, he just responds to events.

 

[BlueLantern]

My point, Marvin, is that his so called intention to evoke a mythological feel with the battles is silly. Maybe he wanted something along those lines, but it's not what he delivered. Like you aptly said, intention and execution are two different things. And for what it's worth, I didn't once say he was going for a metaphor of any sort. The metaphors in the film were more the judeo-christian allegories peppered in by David Goyer along with the cursory hallelujah Hans Zimmer threw in for Clark's birth.

 

[DA_Champion]

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.

I actually disagree with this point of view. I think people dislike it more as a Superman movie than as a pop-corn movie.

For me, my biggest complaint with the film is the lack of character development and exposition, and it's a complaint I share with a lot of people. And... it's a complaint that I simply don't apply to a lot of movies that have substantially weaker character. I did not apply that criticism in any seriousness to Pacific Rim, and neither did most of geekdom which seems in love with that movie, in spite of it having very weak, caricatures of characters, bad dialogue, bad acting, and a lot of cliche situations. The reason that I don't complain much, and I don't see others complaining much, is that it's not the point of the movie. The point of the movie is monsters vs robots, and they did that very well, and they had a good score. Superman, in contrast, is a beloved character, and people wanted to see more of the character than just have him respond to events by unleashing a can of whoop-ass. People wanted to see more of the Daily planet, Lois Lane, Martha Kent, Jonathan Kent, and I think that Goyer didn't get that. He just wrote an action pop corn movie in the style of Pacific Rim with some weak themes and metaphors thrown in without follow-up.

Similarly with Star Trek into Darkness. That movie was recently rated the second worst Star Trek movie by Trek fans. It is completely lacking in narrative coherence, it has weak characters and in particular weak female characters, it's full of cliches, and the action scene at the end seems to go on for an hour... it thus shares a lot of problems with MoS, and like MoS it drew a backlash from fans of the franchise. However, it got an 87% on Rotten Tomatoes. People are not as familiar with Captain Kirk as they are with Superman, they expect a pop corn movie, they get a pop corn movie, then the movie makes good money and is loved by critics.

Thus, I think that MoS works very well as a stand-alone pop corn movie, but not so well as a Superman movie. In particular, it's specifically because it's a Superman movie that I and many others were hoping for good character development.

 

[Gianakin_]

Well, then, I retract my earlier statement. It's an iteration of Superman I really like, I just think it was executed horribly as a movie. Take Superman out and replace him with Alien Joe and the problems are still there.

 

[DA_Champion]

2. Someone doesn't like the film say so. Someone says superman's cape is too short in the movie, it leads to a discussion. My attention is sparked when things analogous to this occur. Or when my name get's brought up, can't help it.

Except that the criticisms of the movie are a lot more coherent than worrying about the length about his cape. I didn't even know that anybody had anything against his cape. Just posting that analogy, and saying that the other criticisms are "analogous" to you, is incredibly condescending, and implies you think the critics are less intelligent or less informed than you are.

Here are some facts:
- MoS scored 56% on Rotten Tomatoes, lower than Superman Returns, every Marvel Phase I film, every xman film except for origins: wolverine, every spider man movie, etc. Professional reviewers who specialize in film saw it as mediocre;
- Word of mouth must have been mediocre at best: the movie had a 65% second week drop;
- Its domestric gross was 9% lower than that of the first Iron Man film, in spite of having five years of inflation and population growth to benefit from;

These are the facts, a lot of people didn't like it, many of them are informed, intelligent, or even both. Reasons vary and include dialogue concerns, lack of character development, too much science fiction, not enough romance, lack of narrative coherence, too much destruction without recognition of said destruction, the killing of Zod not being properly integrated into the plot, etc.

Instead of thinking that the disparagers of MoS are dumb and need to be re-educated because they think Superman's cape is too short, you might want to go for something a lot more fulfilling: try and understand why there is such a range of reaction to this film, and why other people didn't like it. HINT: It's not because people lack your intellectual vitality and are failing to see the subtlety in Goyer's writing.

I walked into MoS only really familiar with Smallville, and I thought MoS was amazing... it was after vastly and comprehensively superior to the show Smallville. I was appalled and confused by the hate. I then looked into the issue in more detail and I realised a lot of it is well founded. In the past two months I've watched and read a lot of Superman material, and I've learned that there is a better way, a better representation.

Here's a brief review of MoS that has been watched by 200,000 people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKixEh0541k
If you find yourself disagreeing, don't think to yourself "oh this girl's a dumb *****"... she's probably forgotten about more comics than you have other read.

 

[dnno1]

if the word of mouth on Man of Steel was mediocre at best, f then why is it the case that the film grossed more than Superman Returns, which supposedly had a better RT score? That should tell you right therethe critical reviews don't translate into popularity.Despite the criticisms, Man of Steel what's the best Superman film ever made.

 

[STARMAN]

If you look at Goyer's draft of Batman Begins you can see what he wrote and the rewrites Nolan did. You can compare the differences. Most of the key scenes and dialogue were already in the Goyer draft.