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

[JAK]

Yes, taking a life is something Clark should feel bad about. Because it means he failed. He's real big on redemption. We gotta remember that Clark has seen real, true, pure evil, and punched it in the face. After dealing with things like Darkseid, Satanus & Blaze, and Doomsday, do Lex Luthor or Zod *really* look evil?

Clark *will* kill. He's done it in almost every era and in almost every media adaptation. He's got a surprisingly high body count, especially if we include sentient beings that dont look human. So yeah, Clark will stiffen his upper lip and take a life if there's no other way. But he considers it a failure on his part; he's the guy who's supposed to do the impossible, and if he can't find a way to contain a threat then, in his mind, he's failed.

There's also the issue of his morality. Clark sees the world in black and white. An act is either right or wrong and he seems to struggle with morally gray choices. As his famous quote goes "there is right and wrong in this universe and that distinction is not hard to make." Dude does not see life the way most of us do, he doesn't understand the way intention and circumstance can change right and wrong the same way we do. And in his mind killing is wrong. So when he's presented with a situation where he has to kill in order to do the right thing and save lives, how does he reconcile that?

And given Clark's long-view, big-picture mentality, he also sometimes feels like he's removing a potential hero in the world when he takes a life. Consider the number of times Lex (and Zod too) have ended up helping save the world. If Clark had killed Lex in one of their first encounters, the world would've ended several times over without Lex's involvement (Our Worlds At War comes to mind, where Lex was pivotal in saving earth, as well as Forever Evil). If Clark takes a life, he worries he's condemning the future by removing someone who might make a difference.

And in Zod's case, this is one of the only remaining Kryptonians in the universe. Killing Zod isn't just killing one man, but also killing the chances of Clark's race being repopulated.

Well done, sir. I'll never be wild about the times he does in any medium, but then that's also partly my affinity for the character talking. When the narrative fails, though, it's game over. (which, from the looks of things, it is - and frankly much faster than I anticipated).

Questions, is the act of killing or killing of zod, superman should feel bad about?
If its killing of zod, then what about the collateral damage and deaths that happened that day?
Shouldn't superman feel more bad about that, than killing a monster?
If its the act of killing is what superman should feel bad about?
then my second question still stands. Shouldn't superman feel more bad about the collateral,than his moral integrity?
Personally, i don't care zod got killed.

It's not one or the other. It's both. He should feel badly about both. Ascended said it perfectly. Just because there's a justification doesn't change anything. Heck, you can justify basically anything if you squint hard enough. It doesn't change the act.

You may not care that Zod got killed - this is a natural action movie response. Bad guy does horrible things, so he deserves to die. So he does. But it's not about you and how you feel, it's about Clark's worldview and how that would shape *his* reaction to "what he had to do." And it's on a director and writer to sell that to an audience if that's the character they're using.

That didn't answer my other questions. I am sorry. And your answers screams self righteous jackass who gives more priority towards his moral integrity,than the lives that were lost .because let's face it "his leap of faith" didn't turn out that great.
How am i supposed to connect to a guy who feels more bad about killing, than the lives of the people that died that day? They were thousands. Those lives mattered more than the jackass that decided to commit a genocide or superman's code. Its like saying Superman should feel bad for killing someone like hitler or stalin while they were on their killing spree. I am sorry this is beyond me.
Oh!the guy that decided to become a vigilante doesn't understand there is a subjective nature to morality.that is not credible.
Edit-i have no problem with superman doing penance or whatever. But, it has to be for the right reasons.

He's a self-righteous jackass if he feels badly about killing? Okie-dokie, then...

Why is Zod not responsible for putting himself in a position where somebody had no choice to kill him?

This is exactly the problem with these types of conversations when it comes to this conversation. That the onus is on Superman and Superman alone to create an outcome where no one dies. It's like the critics of this scene ignore that Zod was the one who invaded Earth, Zod was the one who lured Superman aboard his ship in bad faith, Zod was the who wanted to commit genocide of the human race and in the end it was Zod who wanted the fight not Clark. Frankly it comes across as victim blaming.

Of course Zod is responsible. Doesn't change Clark's reaction to it. But for me, the onus isn't on Superman. It's on the writers. If Ocean's Eleven can have the surprise twist ending it had where you think there's no way out but then you spend the next 10 minutes amazed... I'd love to see that concept in a Superman movie.

And if having this conversation is a problem, maybe WB will learn not to touch this with a ten-foot pole next time a director has the bright idea to do it just for the sake of doing it.

[manwhohaseverything]

He's a self-righteous jackass if he feels badly about killing? Okie-dokie, then...

Yeah! He is. Feeling bad or guilty for stopping someone like hitler or stalin or in this case zod by any means necessary while they are causing genocide. Is basically, stepping on the gravestones of their innocent victims. Superman should never do that. No amount of judo-Christian ethics based on some words on a rock is going to change that. I am sorry. But, That is just how i feel.

[Vordan]

Yeah! He is. Feeling bad or guilty for stopping someone like hitler or stalin or in this case zod by any means necessary while they are causing genocide. Is basically, stepping on the gravestones of their innocent victims. Superman should never do that. No amount of judo-Christian ethics based on some words on a rock is going to change that. I am sorry. But, That is just how i feel.

That’s fair but Supes respect for life is an important part of him. You get rid of or weaken that aspect of him and he starts looking more like those evil expies like Plutonian or Homelander. Also in our modern era I find the eagerness with which people demand heroes kill to be unnerving, it’s like we can’t solve anything except in the most brutal and lethal way possible.

[JAK]

Yeah! He is. Feeling bad or guilty for stopping someone like hitler or stalin or in this case zod by any means necessary while they are causing genocide. Is basically, stepping on the gravestones of their innocent victims. Superman should never do that. No amount of judo-Christian ethics based on some words on a rock is going to change that. I am sorry. But, That is just how i feel.

Stopping and killing are two different things. It's not stepping on victims to not want to kill anyone. But, taking the other side of that logic, he should kill Luthor in BvS. Just pop his head clean off and fly away.

And consistently trying to link this idea to "judeo-Christian ethics" as a means to belittle it doesn't do the "against" argument any favors, because it's not like that's the only place this idea shows up.

That’s fair but Supes respect for life is an important part of him. You get rid of or weaken that aspect of him and he starts looking more like those evil expies like Plutonian or Homelander. Also in our modern era I find the eagerness with which people demand heroes kill to be unnerving, it’s like we can’t solve anything except in the most brutal and lethal way possible.

It's ironic, really. Often times, restraint is used as an excuse for why he "couldn't" do something, but when it's time to kill the bad guy, he can go nuts and there's no other option. But there was. The original script had Zod sucked into the Phantom Zone. (because, again, my problem was more with the writer's/director's inability to properly build - imo - compelling narrative around it than Superman's actions themselves)

[marhawkman]

That’s fair but Supes respect for life is an important part of him. You get rid of or weaken that aspect of him and he starts looking more like those evil expies like Plutonian or Homelander. Also in our modern era I find the eagerness with which people demand heroes kill to be unnerving, it’s like we can’t solve anything except in the most brutal and lethal way possible.

It's not an all or nothing though. It's not about being EAGER, for it, it's about accepting that not every story has a happy ending for the bad guy.

[manwhohaseverything]

Stopping and killing are two different things. It's not stepping on victims to not want to kill anyone. But, taking the other side of that logic, he should kill Luthor in BvS. Just pop his head clean off and fly away.

And consistently trying to link this idea to "judeo-Christian ethics" as a means to belittle it doesn't do the "against" argument any favors, because it's not like that's the only place this idea shows up.

I am not trying to belittle it but kantian ethics is based entirely on judeo Christian values. I might be wrong but that's what i have read. The code itself may have predated Christianity or Judaism. It may have been part of middle eastern culture that predated them. I am just being blunt. I am not trying to offend. For instance, since Buddhism, jainism and hinduism predates christanity and Judaism(atleast hindiuism does in the case of Judaism.i am not sure) . There the code is even more restrictive. You can not take any life. Period. Not the life of a fish, plants, animals, birds... Etc.अहिंसा परमॊ धर्मः it means nonviolence is the highest moral duty(loosely) .
Sometimes both of them are the same. Zod declared a war. What did clark expect? Zod made his choice. Clark had to make his because he made it his war. He entered the conflict or dare i say caused it with his search for parents .The one thing worse than death is to avert your eyes from it. I don't like superman doing that. Superman is not a coward. The only way clark can pay any respect to the people that died that day is to own the act, even if it's sin.Carry the burden of the sin like a cross. Not feel remorseful about it, because that would mean he regretted saving the lives of everyone else. That's his penance.clark is only allowed to grieve for the collateral lives lost . Its wierd i know. But, it part of the same judeo chritian values. That's what snyder did.

Luthor didn't start a war against mankind. Nor did he try to complete a genocide. He created a monster like the stupid brat he is. Bare in mind clark isn't someone who goes around killing people. It's something that is not even his voluntary choice. It is something that's forced on him and involuntary . I have pretty much said so.

[manwhohaseverything]

That’s fair but Supes respect for life is an important part of him. You get rid of or weaken that aspect of him and he starts looking more like those evil expies like Plutonian or Homelander. Also in our modern era I find the eagerness with which people demand heroes kill to be unnerving, it’s like we can’t solve anything except in the most brutal and lethal way possible.

No, i demaded no such thing. So you think soldiers or someone like that have no respect for life? That's not how it works. Many a times a soldier respects and cherishes life more than we do. Many times they are trigger happy as well.clark isn't a soldier. But he was put in a position of someone like that. Clark cherishes life that's why he had to take one in order to save 7 billion. That's contradictory i know.but humans are contradictory . Like, clark lieing to fight for truth. And becoming a vigilante to fight for justice.
Have you watched/read rorouni kenshin or sword of the stangers?kenshin himura was batosai the manslayer. He had killed for a revolution . Then decided to stop killing because violent revolutions rarely work out. In the sword of strangers, the protagonist Nanashi who had took an oath to never kill. Decides to break that oath and take his sword again to protect a child and his pet dog. These things happen. Rigid codes cannot dictate life nor the environment .
Look dude, i am not trying to make superman into guts from berserk or some red hood wannabe . I am just trying to say that Clark shouldn't do something that's unethical(atleast in my view. Anyone can disagree) . There were innocent lives lost that day, those that didn't get to choose their fate. Grief or penance if any should be directed at them first and foremost.

Clark is in the similar situation, The guys(mustang and hawkeye) here are. Here, they are even on the "wrong" or "aggressors" side unlike clark. But, To quote kimblee "The one thing worse than death is to avert your eyes from it. Look straight at the people you kill. Don't take your eyes off them for a second. And don't ever forget them, because I promise you that they won't forget you."Clark was in a war for the survival of everyone.Moping around because he had to kill a Guy that was actively committing genocide will be an insult to the fallen.

[Vordan]

Clark isn’t a soldier or cop though, and in fact over here in the States there has been a lot of controversy recently about judicious use of lethal force by law enforcement. So I don’t really see the problem with Clark’s no kill rule, I think it actually matters more nowadays than it used to because it separates Clark from others, especially the Marvel heroes (barring Spidey) who kill judiciously.

Plus look at it from a pure storytelling standpoint. Clark is powerful enough that he can kill most of his villains easily, so the challenge comes from figuring out a way to beat them without killing them. That’s the same storytelling drive Batman and Spidey have as well.

[SiegePerilous02]

To be honest, I feel like saying Clark is big on redemption is a bit of an exaggeration. I’m not saying he doesn’t do it or encourage it at times but it never struck me as any more important to him than your average superhero. I’ve heard the same said about Batman and I disagree with it even less given his actions.

It strikes me as an important part of his dynamic with Lex at least, especially pre-COIE when writers like Maggin were writing them. it's touched upon in All Star as well, where Clark is trying to save Lex from a death sentence and is endlessly frustrated at Lex squandering his potential. I don't know if it's the same with other hero-arch villain pairings, at least at DC; Wonder Woman-Cheetah could probably top it, but they need to consistently publish as it as much as Superman-Lex.

About Batman, he's become too much of a hardass in the previous decades. The guy who holds out hope that Harvey will get better, buys Harley her dress after her insane "bad day" and encourages her to keep trying to get rehabilitated, and even reaches out a hand to the Joker in TKJ definitely believes in redemption and it's a failing on DC's part that we even have to question it now.

[Vordan]

It strikes me as an important part of his dynamic with Lex at least, especially pre-COIE when writers like Maggin were writing them. it's touched upon in All Star as well, where Clark is trying to save Lex from a death sentence and is endlessly frustrated at Lex squandering his potential. I don't know if it's the same with other hero-arch villain pairings, at least at DC; Wonder Woman-Cheetah could probably top it, but they need to consistently publish as it as much as Superman-Lex.

About Batman, he's become too much of a hardass in the previous decades. The guy who holds out hope that Harvey will get better, buys Harley her dress after her insane "bad day" and encourages her to keep trying to get rehabilitated, and even reaches out a hand to the Joker in TKJ definitely believes in redemption and it's a failing on DC's part that we even have to question it now.

Well when DC decided to turn Joker into a mass murderer who routinely sets Gotham on fire it did become more and more hard to buy redeeming Joker.

[superduperman]

WB is going out of their way to go in the opposite direction as Snyder so that tells you all you need to know about how well his philosophy works. The most popular DC movies are the ones that diverted from his "vision". Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam!. Even that Harely Quinn movie where they pretend to care about the BOP is going more in a comedic direction.

[manwhohaseverything]

Clark isn’t a soldier or cop though, and in fact over here in the States there has been a lot of controversy recently about judicious use of lethal force by law enforcement. So I don’t really see the problem with Clark’s no kill rule, I think it actually matters more nowadays than it used to because it separates Clark from others, especially the Marvel heroes (barring Spidey) who kill judiciously.

Plus look at it from a pure storytelling standpoint. Clark is powerful enough that he can kill most of his villains easily, so the challenge comes from figuring out a way to beat them without killing them. That’s the same storytelling drive Batman and Spidey have as well.

He isn't. But as i said. He is put in a position a soldier is. Clark is the cause of the war. He is active part of it. I don't care if superman has no kill rule or not. That isn't what i am arguing. I am arguing, poeple who couldn't strictly follow that rule are not guilty given the right reasons and the right situations. A commandment is simple. Applying it is hard. It has limitations when applying to real world . I hate to bring in gandhi again. But, the way he treated hitler and Jewish massacre was pathetic. His letter meant well but they will never achieve anything. Trying it is admirable and should be replecated. But, it can only work as a first try or precursor step. Ofcourse gandhi couldn't have done much regardless.

I have said this before. Clark doesn't go around Killing people.he killed zod and Doomsday. That doesn't mean he will kill Luthor or parasite. He was just out of options. He had to make a choice for the sake of everyone.Elirc brothers (protagonist) of fma have no kill code(the clip i have shoved). They are in the army.But, they are only able to keep it because they have friends around them. Kenshin has no kill rule. But, because it was peace time and the time of violent revolution was over.the limitations i talked about.

I can also ask, Why doesn't Clark's love for life and his code apply to animals and plants or even microorganisms ? He does kill them and eat them when he doesn't really need to. His love only applies to sentient life. We have jains(those who follow jainism) who doesn't even step on grass to not hurt it.they cover their faces as to not kill or minimise the number of killings of microorganisms. They don't eat anything from underground like potatoes, onions.. Etc. They are vegetarians. Clark has like fifty different kinds of vision including microscopic. Yet he doesn't do any of these thing. These guys are just human. If clark is really serious, He would stop eating. He doesn't need to anyways.

[manwhohaseverything]

WB is going out of their way to go in the opposite direction as Snyder so that tells you all you need to know about how well his philosophy works. The most popular DC movies are the ones that diverted from his "vision". Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam!. Even that Harely Quinn movie where they pretend to care about the BOP is going more in a comedic direction.

"His philosophy" dude, what??? Snyder didn't create these things. He just made a movie with his leanings and position. That isn't even what we are discussing. We are discussing. Should clark perform penance for killing zod or the collateral lives that were lost that day.

[manymade1]

WB is going out of their way to go in the opposite direction as Snyder so that tells you all you need to know about how well his philosophy works. The most popular DC movies are the ones that diverted from his "vision". Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam!. Even that Harely Quinn movie where they pretend to care about the BOP is going more in a comedic direction.

And that's not necessarily a good thing, as Aquaman and Shazam are some of the least ambitious movies out there.

I know Scorcese's been getting a lot of flack for his comments on the MCU, but I got what he was saying by likening those movies to "Theme Parks" and I honestly think SNyder was trying to add a bit more variety to the genre. Shame he's getting burned, as a result.

[JAK]

I am not trying to belittle it but kantian ethics is based entirely on judeo Christian values. I might be wrong but that's what i have read. The code itself may have predated Christianity or Judaism. It may have been part of middle eastern culture that predated them. I am just being blunt. I am not trying to offend. For instance, since Buddhism, jainism and hinduism predates christanity and Judaism(atleast hindiuism does in the case of Judaism.i am not sure) . There the code is even more restrictive. You can not take any life. Period. Not the life of a fish, plants, animals, birds... Etc.अहिंसा परमॊ धर्मः it means nonviolence is the highest moral duty(loosely).
Sometimes both of them are the same. Zod declared a war. What did clark expect? Zod made his choice. Clark had to make his because he made it his war. He entered the conflict or dare i say caused it with his search for parents .The one thing worse than death is to avert your eyes from it. I don't like superman doing that. Superman is not a coward. The only way clark can pay any respect to the people that died that day is to own the act, even if it's sin.Carry the burden of the sin like a cross. Not feel remorseful about it, because that would mean he regretted saving the lives of everyone else. That's his penance.clark is only allowed to grieve for the collateral lives lost . Its wierd i know. But, it part of the same judeo chritian values. That's what snyder did.

Maybe this is a "different country, different mentality" thing. Because here, feeling remorse for "having to" kill someone, no matter how bad, is in no way cowardice. It's empathy. And it doesn't mean he regrets saving the lives of everyone else. It means he regrets having to do what he did to save them. That is not the same thing, there's a ton of nuance in between there that glossed over with that thinking.

This thinking that the only options are that Superman kills Zod or Zod kills people is wild to me. Zod is alive in the comics, after all. Yes, Zod made his choice. Clark has choices, too - and the writers could have presented impressive choices for Clark to break through the choices that the audience saw. They chose not to do that and, along with some of their other decisions, are reaping the consequences of that.

Luthor didn't start a war against mankind. Nor did he try to complete a genocide. He created a monster like the stupid brat he is. Bare in mind clark isn't someone who goes around killing people. It's something that is not even his voluntary choice. It is something that's forced on him and involuntary . I have pretty much said so.

Lex killed almost everyone in the Capitol building at the Congressional hearing (which holds 6000 people), and all of those people in the first part of the film. One or both of those qualify as genocide (the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation). He's a terrorist, several times over. He clearly felt no remorse, and if left alone he's shown that he'll absolutely do it again. He's not just a brat. I'm saying that, if the perspective is that he should feel no remorse for killing bad guys when he knows it will definitely save innocent lives... DCEU Lex needs to die.