BvS David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer!

[BlueLantern]

Yup, I agree. They're not a society probably accustomed to a crime, so they didn't assume someone was going to steal. However, with that point acknowledged, I think if a General's going to stage a coup and hedge his bets on starting a civilization anew, he'd want to ensure his prize ticket to said victory is well guarded. So maybe the Council didn't place security, but you'd hope Zod would have more than equivalent of a giant C3PO that goes 'Don't do that! It's not right! General Zod said so!

 

[DA_Champion]

The reason it remains pretty irrelevant IMO is whether or not there were others, only zod and his team had a mission and desire to seek out Clark and the kryptonians outposts. If there were others in the zone who went their own ways, they don't affect the story being told. It's like how Clark always was the 'last survivor of krypton' until writers invented Zod and the many other kryptonians. It's not bad world building because of it, it was just information unknown to us and the characters in the story.

Zod said they looked for survivors and didn't find any. If they mention in a future movie that 1 or 2 villains in fact did get out at the same time as Zod, I won't bat an eye. But if they mention a few thousand, it will be a plot hole that needs an explanation.

As it is, it appears that Zod and his team were the only criminals in recent Kryptonian history.

I would add that perhaps lack of security(even circumstantial) is one of these plot driven script oversights we’ve heard so much about.

Shut up hater.

;-)

 

[DA_Champion]

Yup, I agree. They're not a society probably accustomed to a crime, so they didn't assume someone was going to steal. However, with that point acknowledged, I think if a General's going to stage a coup and hedge his bets on starting a civilization anew, he'd want to ensure his prize ticket to said victory is well guarded. So maybe the Council didn't place security, but you'd hope Zod would have more than equivalent of a giant C3PO that goes 'Don't do that! It's not right! General Zod said so!

Surely such an oversight from the master tactician and great political visionary that is General Zod could not be possible?

Zod might not have the resources to place security, he didn't even have enough resources to win his coup. Also, I don't remember if he knew whether or not there was a risk that the codex could be stolen during his coup.

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

Different topic. Was it stupid of Zod to start terraforming Earth before Superman was taken out, and to leave the Indian Ocean "World Builder" unguarded, or was there a reason in the plot for him to have confidence this wouldn't be an issue, a reason I'm forgetting about?

 

[BlueLantern]

Probably the same reason he didn't guard the codex. Lack of resources and because he thought a giant spider/squid legs would protect the World Engine. Ask Marvin. He's probably got the technical readouts of both devices and a final draft of Zod's plan including a big arrow pointing towards Clark saying 'I DID FIND HIM!'

 

[DA_Champion]

Probably the same reason he didn't guard the codex. Lack of resources and because a thought giant spider/squid legs would protect the World Engine.

He had the resources. Man of Steel happened on June 10th. It's been more than 90 days. If 3 of the ~12 Kryptonians had been dispatched to protect the World Builder, they would have stopped Superman, and Earth would look like Krypton by now.

A lot of plot holes in this movie whither away if you assume Zod has a brain disease.

Ask Marvin. He's probably got the technical readouts of both devices and a final draft of Zod's plan including a big arrow pointing towards Clark saying 'I DID FIND HIM!'

t:t:

 

[Marvin]

Shut up hater.

;-)

Please steer me to the place where I called you an a hater and or told you to shut up? You see as fun as it is being called an apologist and what not, I don't reciprocate in kind. It's all you.

That last point was deliberately sarcastic, next time I'll add the smiley.

 

[Marvin]

It seems you're losing your rag more than I was supposed to have been. Oh well, good luck with whatever film you whiteboard next with over the top justifications for plotho

I take it you won't be pointing it out then. That's fine.

By the by check out post #851.
Not so funny when you do it, then again one of your stipulations was that it was used in defense of a film.

 

[BlueLantern]

Check out Post #851 for what?

 

[Marvin]

He had the resources. Man of Steel happened on June 10th. It's been more than 90 days. If 3 of the ~12 Kryptonians had been dispatched to protect the World Builder, they would have stopped Superman, and Earth would look like Krypton by now.

A lot of plot holes in this movie whither away if you assume Zod has a brain disease.


t:t:

Your pal just told you the World Engine had defenses....yet here you are insinuating Zod has brain disease? And throwing the term plot hole around?

No wonder people don't bother any more. It's plain and clear.

 

[BlueLantern]

Somebody's angry.

 

[Marvin]

Yes, but since I think it's way harder to go against everything the society stood for when you're in that society I don't think those hindrances seem to matter.

The issue is not whether he can go against his society or not. That's been more than proven. It's about what he represents.
If the thesis of the character has been that of krypton as it is, needing to start anew, then his continued existence would counteract that.

Do you mean to imply that it's a matter of how he acts?(traditions and customs)

As for your examples.

Scar was successful with his coup. Zod was not.
Voldemort is consistently shown to be the most powerful wizard and can only be killed by a boy with a destiny (same reason he failed in the first place). Zod gets beaten up and only seems dangerous when he's picking on us low developed humans (it's mainly his stuff that's dangerous though).
I don't know which villains you refer to in Game of Thrones. Many are more gray than just being pure villains but those that are willing to do what's necessary rather than what's "right" often prevail.

My examples were of menacing villains that didn't start out with a perfect record and in ways were more besmirched than Zod ever was. It's speaks on the issue of how perfect a record a villain needs in order to be objectively "effective" vs what you personally find diminishes one.

It also seemed we are getting into a game of give and take. I say Scar was challenged belittled and backed down, you say his coup succeeded. Ignoring the varying difficulties of these coup attempts, the point was that if you just look for negative points to take away then they all are arguably capable of being "more effective". Like I said, how much more "effective" Voldemort would have been had the plot not needed him to fail in killing a baby in a crib. I'm sure the answer is "immensely". Doesn't mean he was ineffective, just means he could have been more so.

 

[Marvin]

Somebody's angry.

I said no wonder people aren't even bothering any more. Why even try when faced with that.
Oh right, this is me doing that passive aggressive thing

Getting angry on an internet forum is the stuff of pop culture negative stereotype. I'd rather walk away before I'd so as such. I'll leave that sort of thing to you.

And if you can't see what you yourself are doing in 851, then I'm now certain your perception is grounded in convenience.

 

[BlueLantern]

Not worth it. Think what you will. Good day.

 

[Mjölnir]

The issue is not whether he can go against his society or not. That's been more than proven. It's about what he represents.
If the thesis of the character has been that of krypton as it is, needing to start anew, then his continued existence would counteract that.

Do you mean to imply that it's a matter of how he acts?(traditions and customs)

But Jor-El doesn't represent Krypton in any shape or form when you look at his actions. Everything he does goes against that Krypton as come to stand for.

Yes, it's all about how you act. What does it matter that he's genetically altered if it doesn't affect his actions? It's also my general view of people I meet. I don't care what race, religion, culture etc anyone belongs to. I judge people on how they act.

House El is also built around the belief that anyone can be a power for good. He apparently doesn't consider himself to be that redeemable though, despite his actions seemingly proving that he is.

But now I'm writing a bit too much again. I'll condense it to one question, to pinpoint our differences. Why exactly is it impossible for Jor-El and Lara to come and do good things on Earth? It's one of the biggest events in Superman's life so I think it's something the movie should make sure that I know.

My examples were of menacing villains that didn't start out with a perfect record and in ways were more besmirched than Zod ever was. It's speaks on the issue of how perfect a record a villain needs in order to be objectively "effective" vs what you personally find diminishes one.

It also seemed we are getting into a game of give and take. I say Scar was challenged belittled and backed down, you say his coup succeeded. Ignoring the varying difficulties of these coup attempts, the point was that if you just look for negative points to take away then they all are arguably capable of being "more effective". Like I said, how much more "effective" Voldemort would have been had the plot not needed him to fail in killing a baby in a crib. I'm sure the answer is "immensely". Doesn't mean he was ineffective, just means he could have been more so.

My point about Zod has consistently been that he never succeeds with any of his goals during the movie. The villains you brought up all manage to do some great harm, making them into big threats and therefor supporting the story arc of their respective protagonists.

A villain doesn't have to be someone that can just kick your ass, it can be someone that just schemes and deceives to get what he wants, like Scar. Scar does succeed and bends "his world" to his own rule. What else could Scar succeed with, without making the kids movie into a tragedy?

And Voldemort's situation isn't like Zod's either. Voldemort was thwarted in the past by what basically boils down to magical destiny, a common fantasy trope. Zod doesn't have anything like that, he just loses normally. Voldemort also manages to come back and take over, being seemingly unstoppable until the hero of destiny stops him. Had he been like Zod he'd never managed to defeat anyone, nor would he have managed to take over the ministry. Not that I think Harry Potter is a masterpiece of writing in it's genre.

 

[DA_Champion]

Marvin,

One day, when you're in your 20s or 30s, and you'll be a little wiser than you are now, you'll catch Man of Steel on TV, you'll realise that it's actually not as excellent as you make it out to be, and you'll be embarrassed as you remember these conversations.

 

[slumcat]

Hehe.

I can attest to the veracity of the above. In my early teens I thought Titanic was one of the greatest films ever made. Now I wouldn't be caught dead watching it.

My taste has so far evolved that I cannot even tolerate a film like Titanic anymore.

 

[SpideyFan866]

I'm just gonna say it.

The problem with MOS wasn't the script.

Goyer did nothing wrong. He had a great idea, with a solid script and otherwise fantastic execution (visually and actor wise) that was butchered in post.

 

[Gianakin_]

If anything, the post-thing saved the script.

 

[DA_Champion]

My point about Zod has consistently been that he never succeeds with any of his goals during the movie. The villains you brought up all manage to do some great harm, making them into big threats and therefor supporting the story arc of their respective protagonists.

A villain doesn't have to be someone that can just kick your ass, it can be someone that just schemes and deceives to get what he wants, like Scar. Scar does succeed and bends "his world" to his own rule. What else could Scar succeed with, without making the kids movie into a tragedy?

And Voldemort's situation isn't like Zod's either. Voldemort was thwarted in the past by what basically boils down to magical destiny, a common fantasy trope. Zod doesn't have anything like that, he just loses normally. Voldemort also manages to come back and take over, being seemingly unstoppable until the hero of destiny stops him. Had he been like Zod he'd never managed to defeat anyone, nor would he have managed to take over the ministry. Not that I think Harry Potter is a masterpiece of writing in it's genre.

Mjolnr, I had not even noticed your point about Zod failing at everything until you brought it up. Another failure in the writing :-( How did neither Goyer nor Snyder realise this could be a problem?

Another good example is Troy. Both Hector and Achilles are seen gaining several victories prior to meeting each other. Hector led the counterattack outside Troy's city walls, and later on he killed Achilles' cousin. Achilles defeated his cousin in practice early in the film, he killed that big guy in the opening battle scene, and he leads the attack on the beaches of Troy. They're both built up prior to their encounter, which is part of why their fight works so well.

Aside from that we see that they have other attributes. They're both very well-respected by their peers and their communities, and in leadership positions, we see how brilliantly they do with the ladies, etc.

 

[Gianakin_]

Marvin,

One day, when you're in your 20s or 30s, and you'll be a little wiser than you are now, you'll catch Man of Steel on TV, you'll realise that it's actually not as excellent as you make it out to be, and you'll be embarrassed as you remember these conversations.

Can I try to be honest here? I like you and your style, but now you're doing what I accused some other posters of doing, aka getting too factual about their opinion. Marvin may or may not change his mind one day, justlike you and I may or may not start liking MoS at some point. It's got nothing to do with age and wisdom, it's how each viewer decodes things.

 

[DA_Champion]

If anything, the post-thing saved the script.

That's my sense as well, that the visual and sound mastery from Snyder was so incredible that it could mask problems with the storyline.

For example, the Zod-Superman fight was so emotionally intense that a lot of people might not notice that Lois Lane making it halfway across Metropolis and arriving to console Superman a few seconds after the kill is a ridiculous coincidence.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

If anything, the post-thing saved the script.

Yep. The whole Codex thing feels like Goyer TRYING to be Nolan and aim for a complicated yet grounded, sci-fi plot device. Honestly, if he put as much priority on fleshing everyone out as he did showing how a genetic machine worked, the movie would be a lot better than it is.

Not that Snyder gets off the hook. A great director would overhaul the script and find a better screenwriter or do it himself (which might be bad in this case).

As for Nolan, he basically bailed when he was doing TDKR.

All three, I think had an influence over the good parts, and all three, I think have SOME responsibility for the weaker aspects.

And Jonah Nolan's involvement could have added more warmth, but I don't feel like the final product "cold" movie people make it out to be. I think people forget about that guy.

 

[DA_Champion]

Can I try to be honest here? I like you and your style, but now you're doing what I accused some other posters of doing, aka getting too factual about their opinion. Marvin may or may not change his mind one day, justlike you and I may or may not start liking MoS at some point. It's got nothing to do with age and wisdom, it's how each viewer decodes things.

We can give in to political correctness and postmodernism and state that all opinions are valid, that the truth is unknowable, etc, but at this point I'd say that many of the arguments against MoS are overwhelming. But hey, if MoS ends up having some transformative impact on the genre, or if the MoS sequels include some spectacular payoffs, I'll give credit. I've done it before. I genuinely hope that's the case... I'm very skeptical though.

FYI I don't need to "start" liking MoS. I already do like it, as a pop corn movie, like I enjoy the Star Wars prequels, Riddick, or Underworld. I look forward to buying the blu ray, I'll put it next to my DVDs for... the star wars prequels, pitchblack, chronicles of riddick, underworld, and underworld: rise of the lycans

 

[SpideyFan866]

If anything, the post-thing saved the script.

Yeah, because cutting the film down by half an hour and removing much of the story in favor of action DEFINITELY saved the script.

Almost every major problem with that film leads back to the shoddy decisions made in the editing room.

I.E. The pacing issues, large, almost excessive amounts of action with little focus on story, lack of character development, the flashbacks.

All decisions made in the editing room. And not all by Snyder.

Now I will agree that Snyder's visuals did help ALOT, and was what "saved" the film in a way. But the problems that the film had were not brought about by the script.

 

[Gianakin_]

Yeah, because cutting the film down by half an hour and removing much of the story in favor of action DEFINITELY saved the script.

Almost every major problem with that film leads back to the shoddy decisions made in the editing room.

I.E. The pacing issues, large, almost excessive amounts of action with little focus on story, lack of character development, the flashbacks.

All decisions made in the editing room. And not all by Snyder.

Now I will agree that Snyder's visuals did help ALOT, and was what "saved" the film in a way. But the problems that the film had were not brought about by the script.

Editing don't change horrible lines. And I'd swallow my words if you gave me a list of what was cut, so that I can judge if it was detrimental to the film or not. As it stands, the script had no direction whatsoever, only promises of one. So, please, give me a rundown of the deleted scenes and I'll honestly get back to you.