MovieChat Forums > Man of Steel (2013) Discussion > ‘Man of Steel’ Writer David Goyer Says ‘...

‘Man of Steel’ Writer David Goyer Says ‘It Was Crazy’ How WB and DC Tried to Build Their Own MCU


https://variety.com/2023/film/news/david-fincher-blade-meeting-man-of-steel-2-david-s-goyer-1235731062/

In a career-spanning interview on the “Happy Sad Confused” podcast, “Man of Steel” writer David S. Goyer agreed with host Joshua Horowitz that Warner Bros. should’ve developed a standalone Superman sequel with Henry Cavill instead of attempting to mount a cinematic universe with “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.” The studio did so in order to compete with Marvel.

“I know the pressure we were getting from Warner Bros., which was, ‘We need our MCU! We need our MCU!’ And I was like let’s not run before we walk,” Goyer said. “The other thing that was difficult at the time was there was this revolving door of executives at Warner Bros. and DC. Every 18 months someone new would come in. We were just getting whiplash. Every new person was like, ‘We’re going to go bigger!'”

“I remember at one point the person running Warner Bros. at the time had this release that pitched the next 20 movies over the next 10 years. But none of them had been written yet!” Goyer continued in amazement. “It was crazy how much architecture was being built on air… This is not how you build a house.”

Goyer worked closely with Christopher Nolan on the “Dark Knight” trilogy and the two conceived of a Superman movie that would become Zack Snyder’s 2013 tentpole “Man of Steel.” Goyer wrote the film. But Cavill never got the chance to lead another standalone Superman movie, as the remainder of his time in the crimson cape was spent in universe-building tentpoles such as “Batman v Superman” and “Justice League.”

reply

Yup the studio rushed everything. We should have got a solo Batman movie and a MOS sequel. Then moved towards Batman v Superman and of course had no Doomsday in that film. They just kicked off the cinematic universe and wanted to go from step 1 to step 12, by releasing only two movies. Amazing amount of wasted potential. Oh well, glad to see it is finally over at this point and moving on.

reply

I think they would have had far greater success had they tried to do their own thing rather than replicate Marvel's success. Marvel was slowly building a roster of characters, giving each their own trilogy, and periodically teaming them up to face greater threats, all while building up to the Infinity War climax. Any attempt on DC's part to duplicate that was likely destined to fail, because it would be seen for what it is, an attempt to copy Marvel. Of course, they did a terrible job, so not only was it seen as a copycat attempt, it became even better known as a series of terrible films.

There are many routes they could have taken. I'd have loved to see them draw upon their rich history. Batman debuted in 1939, and started with the 1920 murder of Bruce Wayne's parents. How better to compete with Marvel than by setting the first DCEU Batman film in 1939? With the budget these films have, the visuals of 1930s Gotham City alone would have packed theaters. It also allows the filmmakers to followup with sequels set in the '40s and '50s, also rich, unmined periods for superhero films. And best of all, it allows for a true adaptation of Batman vs. Superman, as they could tell the story Frank Miller told so well in The Dark Knight Returns. After three in-his-prime Batman films, they could end the series with a two-parter set in the '80s, as 70 year Bruce Wayne must come out of retirement to save Gotham City one last time, and defeat Super-Man in the process.

Assuming they made one Batman film every two years, that gave them 10 years to gradually build out the other characters. Superman could have had his own trilogy, nothing like the garbage Man of Steel we had subjected upon us, that simultaneously built up to the '80s showdown with Batman. Wonder Woman and every one else could have also had proper trilogies, which would naturally have lead up to a great two-part Justice League film, all of which would have set the stage for the DKR finale.

They'd have still ended up with 20 or so films that told one large story, but in a manner completely different from what Marvel had done.

reply

Wow I like the sound of all of that, and totally differentiating the DCU from MCU. what year/decade would you have started Superman?

an 80s set Dark Knight Returns would've been set same decade as the OG Batman/Superman movies (think of all the call backs/homages :)

reply

I think there are many routes the filmmakers could take with Superman, Wonder Woman, and Aquaman, because they seem to be more or less immortal. It would make sense to have had a Wonder Woman film similar to the one that exists, which I believe was set in World War I, then following it up with her later adventures, and then a third film set in the '80s, only not the crappy film we got.

I don't think it's necessary that all the films are heavily tied to a decade or past time. They can take place in the past without needing to expand too heavily on that, but since Batman is the one human in the bunch, his aging is a factor. Most likely, if Batman was born in, say, 1914, his prime Justice League years would likely have been the post-war era of 1946-1964, with him hanging up his cape at around age 50. That would also jive with the notion that the younger policemen in the '80s don't even believe Batman existed, or think the older cops are exaggerating. This would be enhanced by Wonder Woman and Aquaman doing their best to stay off the radar, and only Superman being a well-known super-being, but one typically affiliated with Metropolis, not Gotham City.

reply

No offence but ive never seen someone get so much so wrong.

Marvel was slowly building a roster of characters, giving each their own trilogy, and periodically teaming them up to face greater threats, all while building up to the Infinity War climax. Any attempt on DC's part to duplicate that was likely destined to fail, because it would be seen for what it is, an attempt to copy Marvel.


no. this is how storytelling works. you dont see any movies with like 4 main characters. instead theres one. so you need to build up your single characters in solo films before doing a team up. instead they did 1 film then an ensemble. it doesnt give enough time to build them. theres a reason their formula worked. not just becuase it was the MCUs, but because it was clever storytelling.

but the team up is hardly exclusive to the MCU they dont monopolize it, they just did it well by going through the first steps to earn it

There are many routes they could have taken. I'd have loved to see them draw upon their rich history. Batman debuted in 1939, and started with the 1920 murder of Bruce Wayne's parents. How better to compete with Marvel than by setting the first DCEU Batman film in 1939? With the budget these films have, the visuals of 1930s Gotham City alone would have packed theaters. It also allows the filmmakers to followup with sequels set in the '40s and '50s, also rich, unmined periods for superhero films. And best of all, it allows for a true adaptation of Batman vs. Superman, as they could tell the story Frank Miller told so well in The Dark Knight Returns. After three in-his-prime Batman films, they could end the series with a two-parter set in the '80s, as 70 year Bruce Wayne must come out of retirement to save Gotham City one last time, and defeat Super-Man in the process.


no one was asking for a 1920's, 1930s and 1940s set batman................... for the most part good movies fill theatres, not some gimmick about look its Batman! but dont worry its different it set in the 1920s-1940s!!!!


Assuming they made one Batman film every two years, that gave them 10 years to gradually build out the other characters. Superman could have had his own trilogy, nothing like the garbage Man of Steel we had subjected upon us, that simultaneously built up to the '80s showdown with Batman. Wonder Woman and every one else could have also had proper trilogies, which would naturally have lead up to a great two-part Justice League film, all of which would have set the stage for the DKR finale.

They'd have still ended up with 20 or so films that told one large story, but in a manner completely different from what Marvel had done.



how was it completely different? superman and wonder woman get their own trilogies? and eventually builds to a two part justice league?

so like, Iron man 1-3, THor 1-3, and eventually Avengers: Infinity war (part 1) and Avengers: Endgame (part 2)

im seeing literally no difference besides you chose a different timeframe to set it in...

reply

I have some issues with Man of Steel but I think it was the best of the DCEU movies that I have seen. I thought starting with BvS the movies got goofier.

reply

It’s either my second or third favorite in the DCEU. I agree with Goyer though that WB had too many plans but didn’t think it through all the way. That’s why BVS was a mess; how we ended up with the first SS being reviled; and then the first Justice League ever becoming a huge flop.

reply

The fans called this pretty much as soon as BvS was announced. Yes, the trailers made a lot of us think hey, maybe this could work. But the full movie showed we were right first time. FTR I don't hate BvS, but man did Snyder make some dumb decisions, compounded by constant studio pressure to go faster. Why could the execs not see the problem? I guess they were blinded by their pursuit of the MCU dollar.

reply

BvS was way better than CA: Civil War, which was supposed to be basically the same thing. Batman was trying to kill Superman. The Marvel guys were treating their big showdown as more like a football game, where someone might accidentally get hurt.

reply

I did prefer BvS to Civil War, As you say, at least the stakes were real.

reply

Ummm... yeah, it didn't get one because YOUR script sucked, David.


As a result, Man of Steel under performed at the box office and got WORSE reviews than the film it was made to "reboot" and "fix", and couldn't sustain a "stand alone" sequel with just Henry Cavill.


The studio desperately needed to woo audiences back for the next one by coming up with some "event movie" gimmick like "Batman fights Superman", because people weren't satisfied with what they got before.

But nice try punting the blame, David!

reply

😄 MoS being abit meh was def part of the problem and why they fact tracked Batman in there!

Funnily enough I've noticed now (a decade on) MoS seems to be thought of alot better than at the time (where it was like a repeat of the Hulk films scenario, dull arty limited action film followed by a non stop action extravaganza but both being deemed disappointing in audience reaction and box office)..

In that way its abit like the SW prequels. Lambasted at time. Reappraised abit decades on

reply

>> Funnily enough I've noticed now (a decade on) MoS seems to be thought of alot better than at the time <<

Nope, the opposite is true. All the stuff the MOS fanboys accused us of being "hateful, delusional trolls and Mareveltards" for saying about MOS a decade ago, has now turned out to be TRUE, and the fanboys have quietly admitted the truth (while refusing to admit THEY were wrong and owe us an apology, of course)
Examples:

Cavill not ACTUALLY portraying Superman in MOS... admitted by fanboys over a YEAR later ("he will be Superman IN THE SEQUEL, it's an ORIGIN movie, give them time.. blah blah blah") At the time, they sneered "he may not be YOUR Superman, but he IS Superman for MODERN AUDIENCES, blah blah blah...

MOS underperforming and getting such lousy reviews that it would NEVER get a direct sequel greenlit = utterly denied by MOS fanboys for at least five years (they gloated about Batman v. Superman would be "THE sequel" and how the "haters lost"), by 2019 or so, they FINALLY started to come with grips with the fact that they will NEVER get a Man of Steel 2. They are STILL begging for one but figured out its not gonna happen EVER.

Jesse Eisenberg being HORRIBLY MISCAST as Lex Luthor... utterly and vehemently denied by MOS fanboys at the time it was announced (they compared the naysayers to the "Heath Ledger" detractors from 2008), sneered about how they would "wait until I actually SEE the movie BEFORE I judge it" (wrong, they had ALREADY "judged" that Eisenberg would be awesome and "prove the haters wrong"), and even went as far as to photoshop Eisenberg as a realistic, bald, badass Lex to "prove" he could play the role... again, YEARS after Batman v. Superman's release, now EVERYONE admits that Eisenberg's Lex was one of the worst things about the Snyderverse. Even the most die-hard Snyderites don't try to defend him anymore!




reply

Man of Steel was great, and featured the best super-powered fight scenes of any superhero movie.

reply

That’s why I prefer the stand alone films versus the DCEU movies.

reply