Zack Snyder on his critics: "You're living in an f-ing dreamworld!"

[JAK]

In Batman's case, he doesn't know the full extent nor was he sure. He was on an investigation regarding the bat of Gotham. So he gave him a fair warning to knock it of. And he isn't willing to be judge, jury and executioner. That doesn't mean he wouldn't be one if he was forced to for the sake of others around him. There is big difference. Its like this I won't kill, generally. But, if i am put in a situation like war or i have to kill to save the life of my loved ones. I might or i might wimp out. That isn't a willing choice but the one anyone could make when he is pushed. Superman isn't a guy who kills generally. But, push comes to shove he will to save lives. He isn't a utilitarian. I have said this. He tries to go the middle route.

I'm just saying that the logic has a logical conclusion, and fictional narratives tend to have patterns. Bad guy got killed in the last movie? Probably means a larger death in the sequel, because these things always get bigger and not (generally) smaller. Next thing you know, he killed the bad guy in every movie... and then he's just another action hero. I like that audiences expect something different from Superman - it means he presents narrative challenges for writers, sure, but it also means he fills a niche that others don't.

I have no problem with constructive criticism. But clearly zack has many issues. From what i heard, he is very decent. All his coworkers seem to love him. Personal attacks are just unwarranted.

Yep - which is why I go after the work, not the man (beyond saying he shouldn't do Superman projects again). My view about his perspective on the character is derived from his work and his reactions to criticism, not anything personal about him - and if I've given any other impression, btw, I apologize as that wasn't my intention. I'm sure he's lovely as a person, and I'm sure people enjoy working with him. And I enjoyed 300 and would never take that away from him. Everybody has their strengths/etc, and I just don't feel cinematic Superman is one of his.

Jurgen's is ok. His writing and most of the 90's just isn't my era. It feels dated for me. But, strangely golden age i love. Silverage i like many wacky stuff and moore's stories.

Honestly, I enjoy almost all eras for what they are. When the introspective stuff was a bit too "all-consuming" were times I've never cared for (not that I don't like any of it, just when it's overbearing imo), but any of the rest I can roll with on their own merits.

I didn't mean always smile. I meant, Smile while saving the day. Allmight smiles especially when things get tough to reassure people that they can count on him. that its gonna be alright. to QUOTE-"Fear not citizens.Hope has arrived". Its cheesy but, allmight is the only one who can pull that off as a badass. He is the goldenage superman in essence in a different world. Btw in story, allmight immigrated to America from Japan and started his hero career in America. Then went back.

Interesting! And I do very much like the sound of that. I think my version of that is the Golden Age/Fleischer idea of "grit and determination" with is a very 20th century American (not only that but the association is there) folklore thing. I'd love to see that old-school determined spirit find it's way to live-action Superman - we haven't really had it (certain scenes aside) since George Reeves.

[manwhohaseverything]

I'm just saying that the logic has a logical conclusion, and fictional narratives tend to have patterns. Bad guy got killed in the last movie? Probably means a larger death in the sequel, because these things always get bigger and not (generally) smaller. Next thing you know, he killed the bad guy in every movie... and then he's just another action hero. I like that audiences expect something different from Superman - it means he presents narrative challenges for writers, sure, but it also means he fills a niche that others don't.

not true,not always. maybe in some comics they do. but, that's because they want the slow decent or something. That's not the case. Well, many guys have "no kill" he wouldn't be different if he had it. Batman, spiderman, elric brothers, harry potter, naruto... Etc list is long.

[Agent Z]

I'm just saying that the logic has a logical conclusion, and fictional narratives tend to have patterns. Bad guy got killed in the last movie? Probably means a larger death in the sequel, because these things always get bigger and not (generally) smaller. Next thing you know, he killed the bad guy in every movie... and then he's just another action hero. I like that audiences expect something different from Superman - it means he presents narrative challenges for writers, sure, but it also means he fills a niche that others don't.

That isn't how story-telling works. After all people were able to accept when Captain America didn't kill the Winter Soldier and there are plenty of examples of heroes who killed a bad guy in one scenario choosing to spare another. The only reason people would expect Superman kill every bad guy he meets is because of stuff like Kingdom Come, Injustice and Action Comics #775 saying that's the route he'd go if he killed even once.

[marhawkman]

That isn't how story-telling works. After all people were able to accept when Captain America didn't kill the Winter Soldier and there are plenty of examples of heroes who killed a bad guy in one scenario choosing to spare another. The only reason people would expect Superman kill every bad guy he meets is because of stuff like Kingdom Come, Injustice and Action Comics #775 saying that's the route he'd go if he killed even once.

Agreed. Someone who is currently a threat to others is different form someone who will be a threat if you let them go.

Then there's the matter of having an opportunity to take them alive. Sometimes you don't.

[JAK]

not true,not always. maybe in some comics they do. but, that's because they want the slow decent or something. That's not the case. Well, many guys have "no kill" he wouldn't be different if he had it. Batman, spiderman, elric brothers, harry potter, naruto... Etc list is long.

That isn't how story-telling works. After all people were able to accept when Captain America didn't kill the Winter Soldier and there are plenty of examples of heroes who killed a bad guy in one scenario choosing to spare another. The only reason people would expect Superman kill every bad guy he meets is because of stuff like Kingdom Come, Injustice and Action Comics #775 saying that's the route he'd go if he killed even once.

I'm talking about movies here, though, not comics. Comics (and tv shows) are long-form, and have arcs that rise and fall. For movies, there are certainly exceptions (Winter Soldier being a great one) - but generally, the next threat is made bigger than the last one, because movie sequels "need to build" so the experience is "better" than the last one. Winter Soldier was able to make the stakes internal and made that a key part of the crux of the film. But many franchises have a more traditional sense of building. Heck, I could technically point to MoS-BvS as evidence of that, even if I'd feel the need to put heavy emphasis on the *technically* part.

[Vordan]

I'm talking about movies here, though, not comics. Comics (and tv shows) are long-form, and have arcs that rise and fall. For movies, there are certainly exceptions (Winter Soldier being a great one) - but generally, the next threat is made bigger than the last one, because movie sequels "need to build" so the experience is "better" than the last one. Winter Soldier was able to make the stakes internal and made that a key part of the crux of the film. But many franchises have a more traditional sense of building. Heck, I could technically point to MoS-BvS as evidence of that, even if I'd feel the need to put heavy emphasis on the *technically* part.

Snyder and his fans defended the killing by saying it provided the basis for why Supes would have a strict no kill rule. Then in the sequel he kills Zodsday, and really in BvS he’s not really bothered by the killing at all, he’s more upset at the public reaction. So the defense of the killing was always hollow to me, and Snyder just kept having the heroes save the day by killing the bad guy, he was even going to have WW kill Steppenwolf in JL. He never reigned in the threat so Supes could actually show off his no-kill rule which was a mistake.

[stargazer01]

I really don't like the No kill rule for Superman or anyone. It limits storytelling. Yes, Superman shouldn't kill every enemy, but there are times when there is no other choice, like Doomsday or the way Man of Steel did it.

Was it the best thing to kill Zod in the first movie in this series? Maybe not, but it works in this story, IMO.

[JAK]

Snyder and his fans defended the killing by saying it provided the basis for why Supes would have a strict no kill rule. Then in the sequel he kills Zodsday, and really in BvS he’s not really bothered by the killing at all, he’s more upset at the public reaction. So the defense of the killing was always hollow to me, and Snyder just kept having the heroes save the day by killing the bad guy, he was even going to have WW kill Steppenwolf in JL. He never reigned in the threat so Supes could actually show off his no-kill rule which was a mistake.

I forgot about WW and Steppenwolf - good catch there. So that would certainly prove my point.

But I can't seem to find Snyder using the "no kill rule setup" defense - I remember it (perhaps incorrectly), but I can't find it. So if you come across that, let me know. It's bugging me. lol

[Agent Z]

Snyder and his fans defended the killing by saying it provided the basis for why Supes would have a strict no kill rule. Then in the sequel he kills Zodsday, and really in BvS he’s not really bothered by the killing at all, he’s more upset at the public reaction. So the defense of the killing was always hollow to me, and Snyder just kept having the heroes save the day by killing the bad guy, he was even going to have WW kill Steppenwolf in JL. He never reigned in the threat so Supes could actually show off his no-kill rule which was a mistake.

Complaining about Superman killing is one thing but you do know that Diana hasn't had a no-killing rule since the 80s right?

And her killing Steppenwolf would have been better than her being a useless jobber to him for most of the movie.

[JAK]

I really don't like the No kill rule for Superman or anyone. It limits storytelling. Yes, Superman shouldn't kill every enemy, but there are times when there is no other choice, like Doomsday or the way Man of Steel did it.

Was it the best thing to kill Zod in the first movie in this series? Maybe not, but it works in this story, IMO.

There are times when it hasn't been a deal-breaker for me, in retrospect, but those have always been in long-form narratives (comics). I take a harder stance with movies because they influence the public perception of the character a lot and because they generally don't have the time to get too deep into things and pay them off properly. And if they can't pay them off properly, I'd rather they not open the can of worms at all.

Complaining about Superman killing is one thing but you do know that Diana hasn't had a no-killing rule since the 80s right?

And her killing Steppenwolf would have been better than her being a useless jobber to him for most of the movie.

I might be incorrect in my inference, but I think it's less intended as a complaint and more of noting a pattern. But I might be totally off-base there - and if I am, I apologize. That's just how I took that, given the context.

[stargazer01]

There are times when it hasn't been a deal-breaker for me, in retrospect, but those have always been in long-form narratives (comics). I take a harder stance with movies because they influence the public perception of the character a lot and because they generally don't have the time to get too deep into things and pay them off properly. And if they can't pay them off properly, I'd rather they not open the can of worms at all.

Good point. I think the Death of Superman arc or killing Zod in the DCEU should have happened much later after this Superman had been firmly established. And show emotional consequences. Maybe have a movie with Mongul and an adaptation of "Exile" story.

[JAK]

Good point. I think the Death of Superman arc or killing Zod in the DCEU should have happened much later after this Superman has been firmly established.

That would be my preference, as well, though I'd still question if they have the narrative time to pay it off (sequels, etc). Superman's aversion to killing is widely known enough to general audiences that, when it does happen, it needs to be treated as a big deal in a longer narrative - or people react, well... as they did to MoS.

We can debate about whether he should feel guilty about about it, etc - but the perception is there, regardless. As the old adage goes, "the fleas come with the dog."

[Vordan]

I really don't like the No kill rule for Superman or anyone. It limits storytelling. Yes, Superman shouldn't kill every enemy, but there are times when there is no other choice, like Doomsday or the way Man of Steel did it.

Was it the best thing to kill Zod in the first movie in this series? Maybe not, but it works in this story, IMO.

Believe it or not I didn’t actually mind the killing or destruction in MOS because I thought it had a ton of storytelling potential in the sequel. But then the sequel was so godawful imo that it retroactively soured me on MoS.

Complaining about Superman killing is one thing but you do know that Diana hasn't had a no-killing rule since the 80s right?

And her killing Steppenwolf would have been better than her being a useless jobber to him for most of the movie.

I know, but I’ve listened to podcasts with creators like Phil Jimenez who have spoken about their opinions of Diana’s modern laxness about killing and I find myself sympathetic to their reasoning. Their opinion is that DC has lost sight of the initial core of who Diana was, someone who is about love, redemption, and rehabilitation, someone who actually was fairly successful at reforming her villains. That’s been lost in favor of making her the violent one who needs to be restrained by Bats and Supes and they don’t like that. They especially don’t like that it’s become her “thing”, she’s the Trinity member who kills.

Steppenwolf was always a dumb choice and whether Diana killed him or not would not have added anything to his character.

[JAK]

Believe it or not I didn’t actually mind the killing or destruction in MOS because I thought it had a ton of storytelling potential in the sequel. But then the sequel was so godawful imo that it retroactively soured me on MoS.

I wish I'd felt that way. I didn't exactly "call" BvS before it happened, but I knew after watching MoS that they wouldn't properly move forward on the sequel. Maybe it was what I've often called the movie's "cinematic whiplash" (tm) into jokey scenes right after the snap/cry moment, or the whole Pa's death thing.

If Terrio hadn't been brought on to help with the script (I loved Argo), I would have been blissfully ignorant of BvS. lol

[stargazer01]

That would be my preference, as well, though I'd still question if they have the narrative time to pay it off (sequels, etc). Superman's aversion to killing is widely known enough to general audiences that, when it does happen, it needs to be treated as a big deal in a longer narrative - or people react, well... as they did to MoS.

We can debate about whether he should feel guilty about about it, etc - but the perception is there, regardless. As the old adage goes, "the fleas come with the dog."

I edited my previous post, btw, and added more. If Superman did the right thing, he shouldn't feel guilty, but he should still feel sad he had to kill. It's not something he has to do often. Should be rare.

Believe it or not I didn’t actually mind the killing or destruction in MOS because I thought it had a ton of storytelling potential in the sequel. But then the sequel was so godawful imo that it retroactively soured me on MoS.

I get that. It's something I really try to avoid, because I liked a lot of MOS. I think some little changes in MOS would have made it a lot better for more people. But Snyder lacks the nuance and skill for Superman. No doubt about that.