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

[Agent Z]

So Lex can kill as many people as he wants, as long as Clark doesn't catch him while it's happening. After a while, that starts to look like a pretty arbitrary line.

Luthor was the only one who knew the location of Clark's mother so killing him wouldn't save anyone. Not to mention he'd be needed alive to clear Clark of the murders he'd framed him for. By the end of BvS, Lex is in prison and is not a threat to anyone and Clark himself is dead. Clark killed Zod in the middle of a battle where Zod was trying to kill Clark and other humans and after all attempts to restrain or imprison him had failed.

This is what I mean when people don't grasp the idea that Clark having killed once doesn't mean he will start using it as a one size fits all solution.

[manwhohaseverything]

That wording brings to mind Ryu's ending from SFII more than it conjures up images of Superman to me. Clark chose to sever ties to Krypton and chose to live with the people of Earth. There's something about the "honoring the innocent" sentence... I can't put my finger on it, exactly. But it's too "stiff," for lack of a better word. Like I could hear that said by the Eradicator, or something. Maybe someone else can better express what I'm talking about, as I'm not finding the words. Maybe Ascended knows what I mean?



But it's more complicated than that. Writers, in my opinion not great writers, called the shots of what happened. The mentality behind those decisions, also in my opinion, is why their vision is no longer moving forward. There are things that don't work for the character if they aren't going to weave it fully into the narrative - things that open a pandora's box that you just can't close again. It technically *can* be done, but given most cinematic constraints, is just a bad idea. Challenge the character, yes - nobody said they can't. But when doing so, understand the limits of the format. They chose not to do that.

And btw - yes, those in the Phantom Zone are still alive. Superman may not be aware of this, of course, but they are. The Phantom Zone has never meant death.



I'm not saying people can't enjoy those movies or those versions of the character. There are things to like in them - and as I've often said, there are folks in very dire situations who took inspiration in them, and I'd never take that away from those folks, especially. What I am saying is that certain decisions led to them not having more of that version of the character (something I've lamented, even as much distaste as I've heaped on them) - and it's important to be specific about what we like and don't like about a version so that WB doesn't just hear "white noise" and botch the next version of the character... which we hopefully won't have to wait 7-10 years before we get a fresh one. As for amalgamation.. Snyder did make changes, at least in what he focused on and how. I don't think his downfall was amalgamation so much as worldview. And even then, there are ways to make that really work it you apply an even hand, which imo isn't what happened (which has as much to do with WB as it does Snyder/Goyer).

And it being decades since we had a universally-loved Superman film isn't something I have to realize - it's something I basically said outright in my last post. And it happened because WB had such little faith in their own properties that they let someone else (the Salkinds) run it. WB has yet to repeat that success, and I don't think that's a fluke. To me, there's decades of evidence to show that they don't understand the character.

As for Morrison's Superman - he is "out there" again, and I hope he pops up from time to time at least (as I liked him). As for Superdad.. yeah, that one really sucks to lose. I'll miss the heck outta that, as I loved that time (overall). But maybe after the next Crisis, we'll get him back. May not happen, but then again it might.



Still, though, you get my point - if we're talking about soldiers and war and using that mentality as justification (which isn't even what it seems, as Ascended and others have said above), killing Lex makes perfect sense in that framework.

Eradicator, isn't close to what i am saying. You feel that way because you have categorised characters to villains, heroes and antiheroes. These are malleable terms .Those people that died had no choice. That's why they are innocent . If Clark begins his penance for the perpetrator or for his own moral integrity. He is being selfish in a bad way. Clark isn't going around honouring them by purification or some nonsense. He honoured them already by stopping zod, at any cost. Here, the cost was his moral integrity. He just needs to do penance for failing to protect them now. Zod's actions are his own responsibility. Not Clark's.

By that logic we wouldn't have the boyscout superman we have today from the goldenage guy or silverage guys.the boyscout exists today because his predecessors actions were challenged and changed as time progressed and society changed. But somewhere down the line clark began to be a symbol of status quo and many norms because of the same reason . A new chain that looked flimsy but in reality strong was formed to chain superman . in Clark's case pandora's box was always open. His very existence is like that.the guy used to where a feaking police badge to signify and make a statement that he is taking law into his own hands and essentially creating a parallel form of justice . But, people wanted to unsee it. They called it just a prototype . They tried to water it down.People wanted clark to not take "any" action that offends or challenges any notion. Superman can be more than that.clark's situation is simiar to fenrir who got chained.breaking chains is what clark does.

The problem with Bendis's superman is i don't know what he is about. He isn't much of a dad. He isn't the man of action. He certainly isn't man of tomorrow. He might be the man of steel. Then again, for me the best conflict the man of steel had was infertility. That was really engaging for me. Lois and clark Really struggled with that one. But, even that is not an issue anymore. So, he just feels like narrative dead end. Especially, if he doesn't need to raise the kid. Clark couldn't even get to have an argument with the kid. There is a lack of personal stake that is worth discussing about clark. His loss of parents have been gotten through. Bendis hoped rogol zarr's existence as a destroyer of Krypton would be engaging. But it isn't. I don't think going public will do it for me either. After all, it won't have adverse effects on his family.


I don't think snyder had plans for hamilton and others. I pretty much believe they are all dead. It would have been anticlimactic if zod went the same way.
No, it wouldn't. Even Soldier are held accountable and protocols to follow. If i am not mistaken surrendered people most of the time are taken alive. And clark isn't soldier.He hasn't declared war on crime. He just got stuck in the middle of zod's war. In lex's case there isn't even a war. Clark finds out later. He doesn't need to protect anything. There is no stakes. There is already an authority that can pass judgement that is credible.

Anyways something besides the point, I doubt 6000 people died like you said. There weren't enough ambulances for that kind of number when clark was helping people out. Keep in mind the building itself wasn't obliterated only some parts where caught in explosion. Most people that died where in the room. And lex was able to get away simply by walking out of the room and into safe distance.

[JAK]

Luthor was the only one who knew the location of Clark's mother so killing him wouldn't save anyone. Not to mention he'd be needed alive to clear Clark of the murders he'd framed him for. By the end of BvS, Lex is in prison and is not a threat to anyone and Clark himself is dead. Clark killed Zod in the middle of a battle where Zod was trying to kill Clark and other humans and after all attempts to restrain or imprison him had failed.

This is what I mean when people don't grasp the idea that Clark having killed once doesn't mean he will start using it as a one size fits all solution.

Oh, I get all that. I grasp the concept with no problem, I'm just going after the idea as a concept given the justification presented.

Eradicator, isn't close to what i am saying. You feel that way because you have categorised characters to villains, heroes and antiheroes. These are malleable terms .Those people that died had no choice. That's why they are innocent . If Clark begins his penance for the perpetrator or for his own moral integrity. He is being selfish in a bad way. Clark isn't going around honouring them by purification or some nonsense. He honoured them already by stopping zod, at any cost. Here, the cost was his moral integrity. He just needs to do penance for failing to protect them now. Zod's actions are his own responsibility. Not Clark's.

My problem isn't about innocent people being innocent. It's that when "good" people "have to kill bad people" (paraphrasing), they don't just shake it off in real life. That's not a selfish thing, it's a human thing. For him not to do that is a very "action movie" concept of duty, as I've said.

By that logic we wouldn't have the boyscout superman we have today from the goldenage guy or silverage guys.the boyscout exists today because his predecessors actions were challenged and changed as time progressed and society changed. But somewhere down the line clark began to be a symbol of status quo and many norms because of the same reason . A new chain that looked flimsy but in reality strong was formed to chain superman . in Clark's case pandora's box was always open. His very existence is like that.the guy used to where a feaking police badge to signify and make a statement that he is taking law into his own hands and essentially creating a parallel form of justice . But, people wanted to unsee it. They called it just a prototype . They tried to water it down.People wanted clark to not take "any" action that offends or challenges any notion. Superman can be more than that.clark's situation is simiar to fenrir who got chained.breaking chains is what clark does.

Here's the thing, though: I don't see modern Superman as a "symbol of the status quo" the way others do. The only status quo he upholds is the safety and well-being of others from harm as much as he's able to. He's not a government stooge. That's Frank Miller garbage that's gotten into people's heads (another reason that, as much as I did like the story overall as symbolism, I'd be fine if TDK never existed). He doesn't take the law into his own hands in the same way as he once did, but that's from a sense of responsibility and earned trust on his part.

The problem with Bendis's superman is i don't know what he is about. He isn't much of a dad. He isn't the man of action. He certainly isn't man of tomorrow. He might be the man of steel. Then again, for me the best conflict the man of steel had was infertility. That was really engaging for me. Lois and clark Really struggled with that one. But, even that is not an issue anymore. So, he just feels like narrative dead end. Especially, if he doesn't need to raise the kid. Clark couldn't even get to have an argument with the kid. There is a lack of personal stake that is worth discussing about clark. His loss of parents have been gotten through. Bendis hoped rogol zarr's existence as a destroyer of Krypton would be engaging. But it isn't. I don't think going public will do it for me either. After all, it won't have adverse effects on his family.

The best conflict was infertility? I've been reading the books since 1991, and I really don't recall them struggling too much with that one. At times (just around when Chris Kent showed up) it came up, but I really don't remember that being much of a thing. Aside from that, though, I generally agree on at least parts of the current direction. I'm not looking for adverse effects on his family, per se, but things for them to all team up on would have had great story potential. But, yeah, Bendis's story follow-through has been largely lackluster. Not "that was so bad," but more "meh" - which isn't good, either. The identity reveal hasn't lost me (his personal voice on Superman himself has been one of the things I've loved a lot, so I'm still willing to ride along for now), but I keep watching him walk over to that line where I'm no longer interested. We'll just have to see. "President Superman" is the thing that has most of my interest, at the moment.

I don't think snyder had plans for hamilton and others. I pretty much believe they are all dead. It would have been anticlimactic if zod went the same way.
No, it wouldn't. Even Soldier are held accountable and protocols to follow. If i am not mistaken surrendered people most of the time are taken alive. And clark isn't soldier.He hasn't declared war on crime. He just got stuck in the middle of zod's war. In lex's case there isn't even a war. Clark finds out later. He doesn't need to protect anything. There is no stakes. There is already an authority that can pass judgement that is credible.

Why would that be anticlimactic, though? All they'd need to do is execute the build-up differently. Make the fight one of those things where you don't know if Clark will get sucked into the Zone along with every other Kryptonian. It's a bit "Avengers," but with such a different tone, it'd work.

About the Zoners: weren't they in the Zone when Krypton exploded? And that explosion ending the sentence is what brought them back? If so, then in-story we know the Zone doesn't mean death, in and of itself.

Another point with all of the "Lex should be dead by that thinking" I've been saying (basically) is that Lex could be in the same position as Zod, and they (the writers) wouldn't kill him. There'd be a way to stop him. Why? Because Lex is too important to future narratives to keep alive. Same with Joker, etc. Which is why I asked how many people Lex needs to kill before they just kill him? The answer is an infinite number, because he has plot armor (at least until the last movie of any given version of the franchise).

Anyways something besides the point, I doubt 6000 people died like you said. There weren't enough ambulances for that kind of number when clark was helping people out. Keep in mind the building itself wasn't obliterated only some parts where caught in explosion. Most people that died where in the room. And lex was able to get away simply by walking out of the room and into safe distance.

6000 is the full capacity of the building - and the explosion spills out into the halls of at least 1/3 of the building, maybe as much as 1/2. So we're talking either 1/3rd or 1/2 of the whole building, going by the footage. Between staff/etc, we're still talking 800-1000 people at least, probably more like 2000 or more. I'd still feel pretty safe to call that genocide. At that point, Lex is absolutely a domestic terrorist.

[manwhohaseverything]

Oh, I get all that. I grasp the concept with no problem, I'm just going after the idea as a concept given the justification presented.




My problem isn't about innocent people being innocent. It's that when "good" people "have to kill bad people" (paraphrasing), they don't just shake it off in real life. That's not a selfish thing, it's a human thing. For him not to do that is a very "action movie" concept of duty, as I've said.



Here's the thing, though: I don't see modern Superman as a "symbol of the status quo" the way others do. The only status quo he upholds is the safety and well-being of others from harm as much as he's able to. He's not a government stooge. That's Frank Miller garbage that's gotten into people's heads (another reason that, as much as I did like the story overall as symbolism, I'd be fine if TDK never existed). He doesn't take the law into his own hands in the same way as he once did, but that's from a sense of responsibility and earned trust on his part.



The best conflict was infertility? I've been reading the books since 1991, and I really don't recall them struggling too much with that one. At times (just around when Chris Kent showed up) it came up, but I really don't remember that being much of a thing. Aside from that, though, I generally agree on at least parts of the current direction. I'm not looking for adverse effects on his family, per se, but things for them to all team up on would have had great story potential. But, yeah, Bendis's story follow-through has been largely lackluster. Not "that was so bad," but more "meh" - which isn't good, either. The identity reveal hasn't lost me (his personal voice on Superman himself has been one of the things I've loved a lot, so I'm still willing to ride along for now), but I keep watching him walk over to that line where I'm no longer interested. We'll just have to see. "President Superman" is the thing that has most of my interest, at the moment.




Why would that be anticlimactic, though? All they'd need to do is execute the build-up differently. Make the fight one of those things where you don't know if Clark will get sucked into the Zone along with every other Kryptonian. It's a bit "Avengers," but with such a different tone, it'd work.

About the Zoners: weren't they in the Zone when Krypton exploded? And that explosion ending the sentence is what brought them back? If so, then in-story we know the Zone doesn't mean death, in and of itself.

Another point with all of the "Lex should be dead by that thinking" I've been saying (basically) is that Lex could be in the same position as Zod, and they (the writers) wouldn't kill him. There'd be a way to stop him. Why? Because Lex is too important to future narratives to keep alive. Same with Joker, etc. Which is why I asked how many people Lex needs to kill before they just kill him? The answer is an infinite number, because he has plot armor (at least until the last movie of any given version of the franchise).



6000 is the full capacity of the building - and the explosion spills out into the halls of at least 1/3 of the building, maybe as much as 1/2. So we're talking either 1/3rd or 1/2 of the whole building, going by the footage. Between staff/etc, we're still talking 800-1000 people at least, probably more like 2000 or more. I'd still feel pretty safe to call that genocide. At that point, Lex is absolutely a domestic terrorist.

They do. I know he will be something in the back of his head. That's why i said his cross to carry. But, he can't dwell on it or act upon it and go on some space trip for redemption Or mope around . That would be saying death of those people do not matter.that's not superman for me. He shouldn't do that. That is dishonourable.
He isn't. But, his books are just playing it safe for me. Superman needs to start tipping boats more one way or the other.i don't want it be like non nuaced thing ofcourse. And clarm himself has become tame. It feels like He lacks the competitive side now(btw,tom king does good job with that. Especially the race and the boxing match) . But yeah! he lacks that edge he used have. Clark needs to be more rough around the edges . Clark was dangerous you know. Like captain america in the movies(i must say i haven't read much captain america books). The guy who fights for freedom,even if it is against the government whom you used to fight for. (Btw! One of the things i hate is the whole sun bathing to get stronger. That just kills the fun for me. Clark should lift to get stronger. A strongman who doesn't lift is no fun)

I didn't mean "struggle" struggle. I meant a tangeble personal loss that is supported by the status quo of the book. Something, that runs in the background of the story. For instance, All might has an injury that destroyed a part of his body. Which means he can't be hero full time and the amount of time he can do hero work was shrinking day by day. He needs to find a successor to pass on and become the symbol of piece before its too late.

It wouldn't be impactful. There wouldn't be an umph! to the moment. Zod just magically dissappears. it's just too safe.i don't snyder would go for something safe. Yes, they were in the phantom zone. But, they had different mechanism and pods to send the guys into phantom zone. Here, they basically created an unstable singularity. The professor even says it. Singularity, essentially means a black hole. Getting sucked into that thing means you are spaghettified and dead.

I am not going to say talk about the need for the narrative potential of lex.from what i know. Snyder wanted 5 movies.i don't think snyder is averse to killing of characters. Heck! I think he is the kind of guy who would kill clark. For real this time.
I still don't see the bodies though. Anyways, i was saying that for discussing whether it was genocide or not. A lot of people died.

[Ascended]

They do. I know he will be something in the back of his head. That's why i said his cross to carry. But, he can't dwell on it or act upon it and go on some space trip for redemption Or mope around .

If your point is that Clark still has to clock into work the next day and can't abandon his duties to earth so he can process his emotions after taking a life, then yeah I agree with that. I imagine most of us do. No one here likes it when Clark leaves the fate of the world to others because he feels sad. Even stuff like Kingdom Come pisses the majority of us off. Clark's Never Ending Battle doesn't take a day off, and neither does Clark, even when he really wants to.

But just because Clark still has a job to do doesn't mean he's going to take a life and brush that off like it's no big deal.

[Flash Gordon]

Anyways something besides the point, I doubt 6000 people died like you said. There weren't enough ambulances for that kind of number when clark was helping people out. Keep in mind the building itself wasn't obliterated only some parts where caught in explosion. Most people that died where in the room. And lex was able to get away simply by walking out of the room and into safe distance.

That's Capitol Hill, thousands of people must have died in that scene. Lex would be executed.

[JAK]

They do. I know he will be something in the back of his head. That's why i said his cross to carry. But, he can't dwell on it or act upon it and go on some space trip for redemption Or mope around . That would be saying death of those people do not matter.that's not superman for me. He shouldn't do that. That is dishonourable.

Have you read "Exile"? Because you're not really describing it. And while, as Ascended said, not many of us like the idea of Superman just leaving his "never-ending battle", for a Superman who's just started out and hasn't fully been established as taking on that mantle at that point yet.. that might not be as bad (if it's a part of his "arc" to becoming a hero in the more traditional sense).

He isn't. But, his books are just playing it safe for me. Superman needs to start tipping boats more one way or the other.i don't want it be like non nuaced thing ofcourse. And clarm himself has become tame. It feels like He lacks the competitive side now(btw,tom king does good job with that. Especially the race and the boxing match) . But yeah! he lacks that edge he used have. Clark needs to be more rough around the edges . Clark was dangerous you know. Like captain america in the movies(i must say i haven't read much captain america books). The guy who fights for freedom,even if it is against the government whom you used to fight for. (Btw! One of the things i hate is the whole sun bathing to get stronger. That just kills the fun for me. Clark should lift to get stronger. A strongman who doesn't lift is no fun)

Bendis has been tipping boats left and right, just (imo) some of the worst ones to tip. His Superman did have an edge at first, and I'm hoping we see more of it. His run in very confusing to me - in some ways I love his style, but I'm having a lot less love for his follow-through and some of his execution. As for the sun bathing thing, I don't mind that so much. But I also think it doesn't have to exclude him lifting. He can do both, I'd think: sun-dipping overcharges the batteries, and exercise/etc increases the capacity of said batteries so to speak, if that makes any sense? (though not sure what all he'd have to lift to build muscle)

I didn't mean "struggle" struggle. I meant a tangeble personal loss that is supported by the status quo of the book. Something, that runs in the background of the story. For instance, All might has an injury that destroyed a part of his body. Which means he can't be hero full time and the amount of time he can do hero work was shrinking day by day. He needs to find a successor to pass on and become the symbol of piece before its too late.

Oh, I see. I'd be more in for "tangible conflict" (speaking from a narrative perspective) than "tangible loss," but I can get behind that.

It wouldn't be impactful. There wouldn't be an umph! to the moment. Zod just magically dissappears. it's just too safe. i don't snyder would go for something safe. Yes, they were in the phantom zone. But, they had different mechanism and pods to send the guys into phantom zone. Here, they basically created an unstable singularity. The professor even says it. Singularity, essentially means a black hole. Getting sucked into that thing means you are spaghettified and dead.

That just means they're in the Zone with no way to get out. The pods were a means of transport, not a survival assurance. Like I said, to my mind there's been no version of the Zone that meant death. And if not having them all die means it's not impactful, that makes my point about "action movie" endings. "The bad guy dies in the end" is more impactful to an action audience - so, in many instances, they'll keep going back to it.

I am not going to say talk about the need for the narrative potential of lex.from what i know. Snyder wanted 5 movies.i don't think snyder is averse to killing of characters. Heck! I think he is the kind of guy who would kill clark. For real this time.
I still don't see the bodies though. Anyways, i was saying that for discussing whether it was genocide or not. A lot of people died.

Good point - I know he's not averse to killing characters.. so I'd say add WB officially as one of the "writers" in that mix (though they'd be more of an editor, but still). They (the writers + WB collectively) wouldn't let Lex die unless they knew for sure there was nothing more they wanted to do with him in that version of the franchise. And maybe not even then.

[JAK]

That's Capitol Hill, thousands of people must have died in that scene. Lex would be executed.

Something just hit me.. when "Zodsday" shows up, the movie takes special care to talk about how the area is deserted. But that's after this happens and 1000+ people are killed. Maybe this is the result of two different writers with different mentalities? Or one writer fighting form in one instance and falling back to form on another? Hard to say.

But yes, he absolutely would be executed.

[manwhohaseverything]

If your point is that Clark still has to clock into work the next day and can't abandon his duties to earth so he can process his emotions after taking a life, then yeah I agree with that. I imagine most of us do. No one here likes it when Clark leaves the fate of the world to others because he feels sad. Even stuff like Kingdom Come pisses the majority of us off. Clark's Never Ending Battle doesn't take a day off, and neither does Clark, even when he really wants to.

But just because Clark still has a job to do doesn't mean he's going to take a life and brush that off like it's no big deal.

he was taking the life of a dude who was willingly and actively murdering thousands maybe millions. I would hate for clark to mope around period for a guy like that. Or his moral integrity. Which he gave up for protecting that are alive and honoring the dead. If whines about not having it then it will come of bad for me. Neither mustang or hawkeye the guys/gals i mentioned in the above have done that. They had own up their sin. Similarly kenshin had to that as well. They are duty bound. Kenshin's story is entirely about redemption. But, we are not shown what his past was as batosai the manslayer.we are only alluded to its bloody nature. When we meet kenshin he is just a lovable dork and a wanderer. Neither does it show kenshin to be this "forgiveness" seeking dude.because that would be dishonorable to the dead and the cause he had fought for.later, after series ended we do get Kenshin's backstory as different story altogether. Mustang and hawkeye realise the only way they could do anything is not by quiting or doing something cowardly. But, only through becoming the fuhrer and changing the system, entirely to democracy . So yeah! What you said is the gist of what i am saying. Clark will have to carry the burden of the cross till it reaches its destination.

[Superbat]

You have to be living in a dream world to think Zack's movies are good.

[manwhohaseverything]

Have you read "Exile"? Because you're not really describing it. And while, as Ascended said, not many of us like the idea of Superman just leaving his "never-ending battle", for a Superman who's just started out and hasn't fully been established as taking on that mantle at that point yet.. that might not be as bad (if it's a part of his "arc" to becoming a hero in the more traditional sense).



Bendis has been tipping boats left and right, just (imo) some of the worst ones to tip. His Superman did have an edge at first, and I'm hoping we see more of it. His run in very confusing to me - in some ways I love his style, but I'm having a lot less love for his follow-through and some of his execution. As for the sun bathing thing, I don't mind that so much. But I also think it doesn't have to exclude him lifting. He can do both, I'd think: sun-dipping overcharges the batteries, and exercise/etc increases the capacity of said batteries so to speak, if that makes any sense? (though not sure what all he'd have to lift to build muscle)



Oh, I see. I'd be more in for "tangible conflict" (speaking from a narrative perspective) than "tangible loss," but I can get behind that.



That just means they're in the Zone with no way to get out. The pods were a means of transport, not a survival assurance. Like I said, to my mind there's been no version of the Zone that meant death. And if not having them all die means it's not impactful, that makes my point about "action movie" endings. "The bad guy dies in the end" is more impactful to an action audience - so, in many instances, they'll keep going back to it.



Good point - I know he's not averse to killing characters.. so I'd say add WB officially as one of the "writers" in that mix (though they'd be more of an editor, but still). They (the writers + WB collectively) wouldn't let Lex die unless they knew for sure there was nothing more they wanted to do with him in that version of the franchise. And maybe not even then.

Exile wouldn't fit here. The zod that died their wasn't an active participant of a genocide. He does considerable amount of dwelling on it in exile story line. Because it might be justified.

My idea is for it is to fuel source. Not power source. Power source would be physiology, gravity, environmental factors... Etc. I want superman to get stronger on his own will and effort. Not some external factors.i have been watching some strong men do their lifting. It's very cool.

No, that mean. The one made by clark and us military aren't wormholes transport to another plane. They created black holes or singularity. I doubt even if they had vehicles it could survive.it was always meant for that. Wormholes creted in the start were different in nature. With a pod you can easily get through it. They are all essentially dead.you can't survive inside a black hole. You would get spegttifified. Or turned to noodles.

[JAK]

Exile wouldn't fit here. The zod that died their wasn't an active participant of a genocide. He does considerable amount of dwelling on it in exile story line. Because it might be justified.

My idea is for it is to fuel source. Not power source. Power source would be physiology, gravity, environmental factors... Etc. I want superman to get stronger on his own will and effort. Not some external factors.i have been watching some strong men do their lifting. It's very cool.

No, that mean. The one made by clark and us military aren't wormholes transport to another plane. They created black holes or singularity. I doubt even if they had vehicles it could survive.it was always meant for that. Wormholes creted in the start were different in nature. With a pod you can easily get through it. They are all essentially dead.you can't survive inside a black hole. You would get spegttifified. Or turned to noodles.

Exlie would fit fine, imo. The dwelling he does on it doesn't have to be presented as the self-serious moping we got - there are a lot of ways to show sympathy cinematically without going that route.. it just takes a creative touch to do so. And the only reason the pocket universe's Zod wasn't still actively participating in genocide is because there wasn't anything left to kill. The planet (other than Matrix) was a charred, barren husk of a planet. To my mind, Exile would be equally justified after MoS as it is after Superman #22. Considering the p.u. Zod just decimated an entire planet and vowed to do it again... but Clark can feel bad about killing him because Zod wasn't in the middle of doing it? That seems very arbitrary to me.

As for fuel vs power.. I still don't see why it can't be both. He is a living solar battery, after all. Though I definitely agree that the sun-dipping was overdone for awhile, we haven't seen too much of it lately, thankfully.

That would make sense if everything was being sucked in. But mostly it was Kryptonians. And I did a quick look online, and the novelization for the film says something to this effect, if what I found is right:

Only Jax-Ur truly understood what was undoing them.

Of course, he reasoned. Kal-El’s original starcraft. They’re using it as a weapon against us. He smiled thinly. How ingenious.

The Black Zero had been designed to make the transition to the Zone in one piece, but only under strictly controlled conditions. The ship was meant to pass through the Projector, not have a Phantom Drive rip open the continuum right in the middle of the ship. Violent dimensional fluxes were already taking it apart before his fading eyes.

Solid bulkheads and supports sublimed away, causing the ship’s myriad chambers and corridors to cave in on themselves. Matter phased into energy, sliding between dimensions. The entire ship was collapsing into a singularity, or so he theorized.

His calculations did not spare him — or any of the others.

The singularity was approaching critical mass, pulsating above the city like a voracious black sun. The Kryptonian prison ship had been crushed into subatomic particles, leaving behind a sucking wound in the fabric of reality.

A deafening roar, like an extra-dimensional tornado, bellowed from the depths of the aperture. Blinding flashes of phantasmal light offered glimpses of a weird, purgatorial realm that was never meant to intersect with ordinary space. It made Lois queasy just looking at it.

Superman flew away from the vortex, pulling against the relentless forces that were trying to suck him back into the Phantom Zone with the other Kryptonians. Spectral colors glowed beneath his skin. His face rippled and distorted alarmingly; Lois could tell he was fighting with all his might to get them both clear of the singularity’s event horizon, before he was lost forever.

The Phantom Zone villains in Man of Steel were not "sucked into a black hole," though it may look like they were. Instead they were sent BACK to the Phantom Zone via the activation of a Phantom Zone Drive used by Jor-El to send Kal-El to Earth. The Phantom Zone was also the prison the Kryptonians were sentenced to before the destruction of Krypton.

If they were sucked in to their deaths, I might have to place that even above how they handled Pa's death in the list of "wow, that's bad" ideas from that creative team.

[Superbat]

There's nothing wrong with stories where Superman is left with no choice except to kill the villain but if Superman's shown to be distraught over the death it has to have weight.

Crying over killing Zod after what a fight that looked like it was from a PS2 cutscene and then being cheery five minutes later is tonal whiplash. Why show us Superman being sad about it if it doesn't mean anything ever again. If death is supposed to matter, it has to be shown to matter.

[Jokerz79]

Why do the U.S. Government and public in the DCEU think Superman killed people in Africa with BULLETS?

[Jokerz79]

There's nothing wrong with stories where Superman is left with no choice except to kill the villain but if Superman's shown to be distraught over the death it has to have weight.

Crying over killing Zod after what a fight that looked like it was from a PS2 cutscene and then being cheery five minutes later is tonal whiplash. Why show us Superman being sad about it if it doesn't mean anything ever again. If death is supposed to matter, it has to be shown to matter.

YES! my biggest issue with MOS from a story level wasn't that he killed Zod but they never established him being a hero who had a no kill policy for that to truly matter.