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

[DochaDocha]

I think that the kind of influence he had over the script made it more "pretentious" than bat-centric. Hiring Terrio to rewrite the script is an example of that.



Who Jason Statham plays in this?

Robin? He's bald, so maybe he can be Luthor.

[SiegePerilous02]

I apologize. I have gotten too far and lost my temper where I shouldn't have. You do your idea of what Superman is like and I should respect that. I am sorry I took my defense of Snyder too far.

Eh no worries. Clearly my temper isn't reigned in as much as it should be with this topic either, so I apologize for that as well.

Whatever else can be said for these movies, they make things heated no matter what side you fall on

[stargazer01]

Oh sure, it's easy to understand as an audience member, but the entire bit feels so clunky. It's not a natural way to bring up that dialogue and it feels so silly that you can picture a smug Snyder dusting off that page with pride as he felt he'd stumbled on a chestnut we'd all overlooked-- both their names are Martha. The entire scene builds to that moment and Clark essentially cries "mom!" Yes, we all understood the reason for the scene, but it's so overly melodramatic and self-congratulatory when all that we needed was for Clark to say something selfless-- even "stop Luthor" to show that while Bruce was motivated by hatred, revenge and a desire to murder his newly designated white whale, Clark actually was trying to make the world a better place. Instead, Snyder wanted to make the one scene he built the entire movie around resolve around something anyone in a test screening could tell him would instantly be a meme to the movie's detriment. He needed to let everyone know he was aware of the deepest cut, their mothers share a first name. Because I guess that's just really important.

But for what it's worth, the entire movie is overly melodramatic, so it does fit in its own way.

I completely agree. The dialogue in the Martha scene was just bad and makes no sense why Superman would say, Martha. Snyder was so obsessed about the name he didn't realize how absurd the scene came off.

If Superman had said, "Save my mother!" "Luthor is going to kill her!" And then Lois arrives and tells Batman Martha is Superman mother. No doubt Batman would have stopped and realize the real villain was Luthor.

[SiegePerilous02]

I completely agree. The dialogue in the Martha scene was just bad and makes no sense why Superman would say, Martha. Snyder was so obsessed about the name he didn't realize how absurd the scene came off.

If Superman had said, "Save my mother!" "Luthor is going to kill her!" And then Lois arrives and tells Batman Martha is Superman mother. No doubt Batman would have stopped and realize the real villain was Luthor.

Yeah, "save my mother" would still instill a WTF reaction in Batman to pause, buying Lois enough time to get there. And would have sounded so much more natural.

I think in isolation the idea that both their mothers have the same name, and Batman being motivated to save Martha Kent so he gets a sort of "second chance" to save his mother is a sound one. And I like the emphasis on mothers over fathers, which is done to death in superhero movies. But it belongs in a better plot, and the execution within this plot is still sloppy.

[manwhohaseverything]

So it's the audience's fault that they foolishly put Snyder in charge and spent a ridiculous amount of money on a film that needed the broadest possible appeal to be a success, and instead it was incredibly bleak and divisive? No, it's the studio's fault. Snyder did what they asked of him, but he shouldn't have been put in charge in the first place.

It is not a wise business decision to spend that much money on a risky film. Joker meanwhile is a more experimental film, but can get away with it because it's budget was far more reasonable. This was a stupid risk they didn't need to take and it blew up in their faces, causing the Batman IP to take a heavy hit and Superman to take an even worse one.

His audience is allowed to like it, but if some of them are just going to say "you don't like it because you just didn't get it and all you want are shallow power fantasies," they are going to get responses.



It was a Snyder film and a sequel to BvS, and the leaked plans do not inspire confidence. It absolutely would have been bad.
A pure Whedon production from start to finish would have been better because Joss knows what he's doing more in comparison. I'd still rather not have either one of them though.



So basically they are still corporate driven movies...?

I have more sympathy for Snyder than I do the studio. He just shouldn't have been in charge in the first place. Nobody should look at his filmography and think he's the best person to build up a cinematic DC universe.

Well, yeah! They are his boss. But, snyder does try to leave his mark with what he can. He has tried to do his research. Which is more than i say for the guys who just ape donner or batman. For instance, snyder atleast tried to make superman the epicentre of everything. I can tell you that isn't going to happen from now on. Batman will be the centre. As i said, i don't give a damn about corporate and their business decisions. I just want to get a story i can enjoy. Something different. I would take a failure that stands tall. That swings for the fences. Than a victory that's meaningless.

No I didn't say its audiences fault. I said they aren't his audience. Just like i will not be an audience for teen titans go or something.That's all i am saying. Snyder has his style. It can build an audience. I believe, it can even be financially successful. Expecting avengers money without building anything was foolish. Every character in snyder verse was a work in progress. It was more serielized like lotr than the episodic mcu with connective tissue approach. Snyder's story was 5 parter.

You might think he isn't right man. There are other who think he was great.As i said, jl isn't for you. That's fine. You can think it's bad. But, i would take a divisive take than the soulless creature we got in the josstice league. That's my opinion.If you want a joss whedon movie. That's fine. But, i did not enjoy it being shoved in the middle of the story snyder was telling. Starting over would have been better.

[SiegePerilous02]

Well, yeah! They are his boss. But, snyder does try to leave his mark with what he can. He has tried to do his research. Which is more than i say for the guys who just ape donner or batman. For instance, snyder atleast tried to make superman the epicentre of everything. I can tell you that isn't going to happen from now on. Batman will be the centre. As i said, i don't give a damn about corporate and their business decisions. I just want to get a story i can enjoy. Something different. I would take a failure that stands tall. That swings for the fences. Than a victory that's meaningless.

No I didn't say its audiences fault. I said they aren't his audience. Just like i will not be an audience for teen titans go or something.That's all i am saying. Snyder has his style. It can build an audience. I believe, it can even be financially successful. Expecting avengers money without building anything was foolish. Every character in snyder verse was a work in progress. It was more serielized like lotr than the episodic mcu with connective tissue approach. Snyder's story was 5 parter.

You might think he isn't right man. There are other who think he was great.As i said, jl isn't for you. That's fine. You can think it's bad. But, i would take a divisive take than the soulless creature we got in the josstice league. That's my opinion.If you want a joss whedon movie. That's fine. But, i did not enjoy it being shoved in the middle of the story snyder was telling. Starting over would have been better.

Both Snyder and Whedon's Supermen are soulless creatures, the JL one at least showed a hint of what Cavill could deliver in more capable hands.
I definitely do not want a Joss Whedon movie and would rather start over as well. And I hated the weird chimera abomination that was JL. Whedon is just overall the better choice if those are our options, but again I'd rather have someone else entirely.

He only tried to make Superman the epicenter of everything in a superficial way, by putting him on a pedestal as Super Jesus and then killing him. People don't want to wait 5 movies to see a fully formed Superman. At the very latest he should be Superman by the end of the first film. If the mainstream audience is not his audience, he should not be put in charge of a film that needs as broad an appeal as possible. they do not have the patience for what he wanted to tell, nor should they have to have it. Wanting immediate Avengers level success with a filmmaker like that is bad business, and it blew up in their faces, and they unfairly used him as their scapegoat.

A well done movie showing the first meeting of Superman and Batman probably COULD have made money comparable to the Avengers base on who these characters are and their already built in popularity. Look how insane the hype in the lead up was before poor word of mouth got out. They should not have made the film so expensive to make to the point where it NEEDED that level of money to be a success. They both rushed and were plodding (in terms of Superman's arc).

[manwhohaseverything]

Both Snyder and Whedon's Supermen are soulless creatures, the JL one at least showed a hint of what Cavill could deliver in more capable hands.
I definitely do not want a Joss Whedon movie and would rather start over as well. And I hated the weird chimera abomination that was JL. Whedon is just overall the better choice if those are our options, but again I'd rather have someone else entirely.

He only tried to make Superman the epicenter of everything in a superficial way, by putting him on a pedestal as Super Jesus and then killing him. People don't want to wait 5 movies to see a fully formed Superman. At the very latest he should be Superman by the end of the first film. If the mainstream audience is not his audience, he should not be put in charge of a film that needs as broad an appeal as possible. they do not have the patience for what he wanted to tell, nor should they have to have it. Wanting immediate Avengers level success with a filmmaker like that is bad business, and it blew up in their faces, and they unfairly used him as their scapegoat.

A well done movie showing the first meeting of Superman and Batman probably COULD have made money comparable to the Avengers base on who these characters are and their already built in popularity. Look how insane the hype in the lead up was before poor word of mouth got out. They should not have made the film so expensive to make to the point where it NEEDED that level of money to be a success. They both rushed and were plodding (in terms of Superman's arc).

Yeah! I disagree. But, i respect your opinion and your have the liberty to like what you like regardless of what i say. For ne, Joss whedon's superman is caricature of superman . Snyder's superman atleast felt like flesh and blood.Man of steel or even moments in bvs had more gravitas than anything joss whedon did. That's my opinion. Heck! I loved the scene that snyder shot with alfred and master clark than the entire waste justice league was. I also loved the bits and pieces of lois and clark barn scene.
No, he didn't. He made him into an actual symbol. A symbol that inspired barry and assured he isn't the only freak around. That made bruce come out of the shadows. That forced diana to face her loss and move on. This time by taking the charge and infront of humanity rather than in hiding. Jesus stuff was to show the contrast between people's expectations and reality.
People's expectations - jesus figure/a guy who could do no wrong/ultimate boyscout or the devil/injustice man
Reality - a confused dude who has the potential to be a symbol just by doing his best to help others.
Again mainstream audiences are of different tastes. He could absolutely have audience. It just won't have been the typical comic book crowd. As for 5 movies thing,he is superman in the first movie. That isn't what i meant by work inprogress. The overall arc is 5 movie long. It's like harry potter, where the arc of the character is 7 movies long.Again, i don't care how much money wb makes or could have made. Why should it matter to you or me? You want a story you like with tbese characters. That's the only thing you need to be concerned about. Right? you don't get that from snyder.that's fine. There will be other avenues that suits your taste. There are others who get what they want from snyder's take on characters. So let it be.let them have their batman or superman.

[Adekis]

Yeah! I disagree. But, i respect your opinion and your have the liberty to like what you like regardless of what i say. For ne, Joss whedon's superman is caricature of superman . Snyder's superman atleast felt like flesh and blood.Man of steel or even moments in bvs had more gravitas than anything joss whedon did. That's my opinion. Heck! I loved the scene that snyder shot with alfred and master clark than the entire waste justice league was. I also loved the bits and pieces of lois and clark barn scene.
No, he didn't. He made him into an actual symbol. A symbol that inspired barry and assured he isn't the only freak around. That made bruce come out of the shadows. That forced diana to face her loss and move on. This time by taking the charge and infront of humanity rather than in hiding. Jesus stuff was to show the contrast between people's expectations and reality.
People's expectations - jesus figure/a guy who could do no wrong/ultimate boyscout or the devil/injustice man
Reality - a confused dude who has the potential to be a symbol just by doing his best to help others.
Again mainstream audiences are of different tastes. He could absolutely have audience. It just won't have been the typical comic book crowd. As for 5 movies thing,he is superman in the first movie. That isn't what i meant by work inprogress. The overall arc is 5 movie long. It's like harry potter, where the arc of the character is 7 movies long.Again, i don't care how much money wb makes or could have made. Why should it matter to you or me? You want a story you like with tbese characters. That's the only thing you need to be concerned about. Right? you don't get that from snyder.that's fine. There will be other avenues that suits your taste. There are others who get what they want from snyder's take on characters. So let it be.let them have their batman or superman.

I agree with a lot of this, though in fact I actually really like Superman in JL as well as BvS. An unusual position, I know...

But I love him in Snyder's work because there's a lot I love about the idea of Superman being confronted with the same kind of frustration and helplessness at the complexity of the contemporary world that I often feel myself. Clark Kent's frustration in that movie is a Giant Fucking Mood for me, and I think the character and my life would be poorer without it. And yet... it's not popular. And it's based on a trend from the comics which seems always to be done in a way less insightful or interesting way. To a lot of fans, there's no clear difference between what Morrison called "that weird emo Superman we had for a while" and the one in BvS, and I can understand that? For me, the political and moral engagement of the BvS Superman makes the difference, but on the surface, they're very similar, and frankly some days it's a surface I've seen done badly so often that I have little interest in ever seeing it again.

Ha. Morrison wrote the "Curse of Superman" is that he becomes whatever you want him to be. For me, sometimes that's a man struggling with the interconnectedness and insurmountability of injustice, who feels oppressive guilt at his own inability to solve the whole world. And sometimes that's a man who can crack wise before delivering a piledriver of a punch to an alien that he isn't really worried about beating because the alien's just not in Superman's League, pun intended. I think Superman can be both, and I don't think that the latter actually contradicts the former in any meaningful way.

But the fact that neither was popular enough to get a sequel... that hurts.

[SiegePerilous02]

Yeah! I disagree. But, i respect your opinion and your have the liberty to like what you like regardless of what i say. For ne, Joss whedon's superman is caricature of superman . Snyder's superman atleast felt like flesh and blood.Man of steel or even moments in bvs had more gravitas than anything joss whedon did. That's my opinion. Heck! I loved the scene that snyder shot with alfred and master clark than the entire waste justice league was. I also loved the bits and pieces of lois and clark barn scene.

I can see the argument of Whedon's Clark being a caricature of what Superman can be like. I wouldn't want a whole movie of that. But it was refreshing after not getting anything like it in the previous two movies. Audiences still cite Superman as one of the few things they liked in JL so I don't think it was that much of a problem. The movie as a whole was just a dumpster fire before he even got there.

And again, neither Whedon or Snyder is a good choice for Superman. Whedon peaked at Buffy, and Snyder is more ambitious than talented.

No, he didn't. He made him into an actual symbol. A symbol that inspired barry and assured he isn't the only freak around. That made bruce come out of the shadows. That forced diana to face her loss and move on. This time by taking the charge and infront of humanity rather than in hiding. Jesus stuff was to show the contrast between people's expectations and reality.
People's expectations - jesus figure/a guy who could do no wrong/ultimate boyscout or the devil/injustice man
Reality - a confused dude who has the potential to be a symbol just by doing his best to help others.

People don't want a symbol. Or not JUST a symbol, they want an engaging character that they like. Which they get in droves from Marvel, and which they got from WW, Aquaman and Shazam. Yeah a lot of people liked DCEU Superman, but the general reception towards him from the majority of consumers is lukewarm if not outright sour. They means in the eyes of most consumers, he was not an engaging character. People want to like Superman, they didn't like him here or they didn't feel like they knew him well enough, that is VERY BAD for the IP and a sign that Snyder and the studio failed. What he does for those other characters is irrelevant, because they don't need Superman's narrative in their own and it doesn't benefit him. With Diana specifically, her needing Clark's sacrifice to move on from her loss and become a public hero is not something most WW fans are happy. Her narrative should not be tied to his, she can come to these conclusions on her own.

Again mainstream audiences are of different tastes. He could absolutely have audience. It just won't have been the typical comic book crowd. As for 5 movies thing,he is superman in the first movie. That isn't what i meant by work inprogress. The overall arc is 5 movie long. It's like harry potter, where the arc of the character is 7 movies long.Again, i don't care how much money wb makes or could have made. Why should it matter to you or me? You want a story you like with tbese characters. That's the only thing you need to be concerned about. Right? you don't get that from snyder.that's fine. There will be other avenues that suits your taste. There are others who get what they want from snyder's take on characters. So let it be.let them have their batman or superman.

His audience isn't the typical comic book crowd nor is it the mainstream, the latter being vastly more important. The ones who don't read comics or post on forums like this. The IP needs their money to survive, and they rejected it, so the IP took a hit. You should care about the studio putting out a product that makes money and is warmly received, because that will encourage them to make more stories with these characters. You know we're not getting any more cinematic stories for Superman for the foreseeable future, right? What do we have to look forward to? Before the divisive MOS, there was the bland Returns and further back was III and IV. The last good Superman was in the friggin 80s, which is not a source of comfort for people who want to see a good modern movie int he current superhero boom. The DCEU did a lot of damage to the IP, which may recover with time, but we've already sat through failures. And Batman isn't a concern because we are definitely getting another movie with him (Reeves and Pattinson), yet Superman has to be shelved. The tv show he's getting would be a good consolation, but the premise and people behind it do not inspire confidence.

Harry Potter was a hit from his first story, which lead to successful adaptations. MoS was successful but very divisive. He was not beloved like Harry is, nor is he the same type of character, so that is not an apt comparison. Watching Superman go through arcs and struggle is fine, it just has to be executed well. This was not. So yeah they can enjoy the DCEU, but the character still took a hit because of it and the rest of us have to wait for these promised other avenues that never seem to come. Yet constantly seem to come for Batman. There would be less of a sting if BOTH of them got shelved and they went nuts with Wonder Woman and the others. But the Bat gets rushed back out.

[Powerboy]

I can see the argument of Whedon's Clark being a caricature of what Superman can be like. I wouldn't want a whole movie of that. But it was refreshing after not getting anything like it in the previous two movies. Audiences still cite Superman as one of the few things they liked in JL so I don't think it was that much of a problem. The movie as a whole was just a dumpster fire before he even got there.

And again, neither Whedon or Snyder is a good choice for Superman. Whedon peaked at Buffy, and Snyder is more ambitious than talented.



People don't want a symbol. Or not JUST a symbol, they want an engaging character that they like. Which they get in droves from Marvel, and which they got from WW, Aquaman and Shazam. Yeah a lot of people liked DCEU Superman, but the general reception towards him from the majority of consumers is lukewarm if not outright sour. They means in the eyes of most consumers, he was not an engaging character. People want to like Superman, they didn't like him here or they didn't feel like they knew him well enough, that is VERY BAD for the IP and a sign that Snyder and the studio failed. What he does for those other characters is irrelevant, because they don't need Superman's narrative in their own and it doesn't benefit him. With Diana specifically, her needing Clark's sacrifice to move on from her loss and become a public hero is not something most WW fans are happy. Her narrative should not be tied to his, she can come to these conclusions on her own.




His audience isn't the typical comic book crowd nor is it the mainstream, the latter being vastly more important. The ones who don't read comics or post on forums like this. The IP needs their money to survive, and they rejected it, so the IP took a hit. You should care about the studio putting out a product that makes money and is warmly received, because that will encourage them to make more stories with these characters. You know we're not getting any more cinematic stories for Superman for the foreseeable future, right? What do we have to look forward to? Before the divisive MOS, there was the bland Returns and further back was III and IV. The last good Superman was in the friggin 80s, which is not a source of comfort for people who want to see a good modern movie int he current superhero boom. The DCEU did a lot of damage to the IP, which may recover with time, but we've already sat through failures. And Batman isn't a concern because we are definitely getting another movie with him (Reeves and Pattinson), yet Superman has to be shelved. The tv show he's getting would be a good consolation, but the premise and people behind it do not inspire confidence.

Harry Potter was a hit from his first story, which lead to successful adaptations. MoS was successful but very divisive. He was not beloved like Harry is, nor is he the same type of character, so that is not an apt comparison. Watching Superman go through arcs and struggle is fine, it just has to be executed well. This was not. So yeah they can enjoy the DCEU, but the character still took a hit because of it and the rest of us have to wait for these promised other avenues that never seem to come. Yet constantly seem to come for Batman. There would be less of a sting if BOTH of them got shelved and they went nuts with Wonder Woman and the others. But the Bat gets rushed back out.

I thought MoS was quite inspirational though also flawed. I thought BvS had a lot of good points but also flawed. JL was probably more flawed than either of them if only in that the studio lost faith in it and rewrote it literally while making it and the whole series was rushed to begin with and not enough buildup. I would also agree that Whedon's Superman was a golly schucks caricature of Superman that would make even the George Reeves or Christopher Reeve versions blush. And yet, even though I liked the Superman character himself in both of the previous movies, after the two of them, I was just about jumping for joy in the theater that we got the Superman we did in JL. Was it really that good or was it just a welcome break from the last two? Clearly the latter. The problem is one can think something was nicely done and made it's point while still reaching a quick breaking point where it's enough.

As to comics, I remember an old argument on a Buffy forum. One person argued that Spike was very popular with Buffy fans. The other argued that, yes, he was very popular with the Buffy fans that were still watching the show by the last three seasons but that audience wouldn't fill a thimble compared to the audience the show once had. The audience that didn't like the direction of the show was gone so, yes, by default, he was very popular but only because everybody else left the party because of him. P.S. I actually liked Spike. This isn't personal.

I would say something similar here. Very dark, "realistic" comic stories where everything seems deconstructionist is very popular with most people who are still reading comics. Of course it is because everybody else gradually drifted away and stopped reading them. Oh, I know it's not that simple. There are other factors. But my main point is that I think the vast and I do mean vast majority of movie goers have no clue what is going on with Superman in the comics or anything else in the comics. Their image of Superman is (depending on age and how many of thse they saw) Tyler Hoechlin, Smallville Clark, the Superman of Lois and Clark, Christopher Reeve, George Reeves, maybe even Kirk Alyn except that not many people go back that far, or various animated versions from different decades. Something like MoS and BvS just plain and simply is not their concept of what Superman is. In fact, for most people, it was probably going too far even for Batman. I'm just saying it is not the mainstream concept or expectation of Superman. It's not what they stepped into the theater expecting or wanting to see. It's not an artistic criticism, just practical reality.

[Powerboy]

Yeah, "save my mother" would still instill a WTF reaction in Batman to pause, buying Lois enough time to get there. And would have sounded so much more natural.

I think in isolation the idea that both their mothers have the same name, and Batman being motivated to save Martha Kent so he gets a sort of "second chance" to save his mother is a sound one. And I like the emphasis on mothers over fathers, which is done to death in superhero movies. But it belongs in a better plot, and the execution within this plot is still sloppy.

Yeah, "Save my mother" would have sounded more natural. I don't know about you but I don't usually call my mother by her first name. It's instinct to say "Mom". Batman wouldn't know who Martha was. If he said, "Save Martha Kent", then it would make sense. He's telling Batman who he needs to look for and, knowing the name, Batman would quickly find her address, who she was, etc. It would be awesome to believe he knew Batman's mother's name and knew saying it would shock him into some sense and that would mean Superman won the battle of wits. But there was no in character reason for him to call his mother by her first name and only her first name. It was just a freak stroke of luck that the writer has him say for the totally out of story reason that the two mothers have the same name.

There was also the earlier scene where Superman nails Batman and then let's him go. Why? As far as Superman is concerned, Batman is a crazed vigilante. Why let him go when he wouldn't do that with anyone else?

But I think the big factor is that the mainstream audience didn't want the first live action meeting of Superman and Batman to be one of them a madman trying to kill the other and the whole thing built around them fighting each other. That is was a flawed presentation just made it more problematic.

[manwhohaseverything]

People don't want a symbol. Or not JUST a symbol, they want an engaging character that they like. Which they get in droves from Marvel, and which they got from WW, Aquaman and Shazam. Yeah a lot of people liked DCEU Superman, but the general reception towards him from the majority of consumers is lukewarm if not outright sour. They means in the eyes of most consumers, he was not an engaging character. People want to like Superman, they didn't like him here or they didn't feel like they knew him well enough, that is VERY BAD for the IP and a sign that Snyder and the studio failed. What he does for those other characters is irrelevant, because they don't need Superman's narrative in their own and it doesn't benefit him. With Diana specifically, her needing Clark's sacrifice to move on from her loss and become a public hero is not something most WW fans are happy. Her narrative should not be tied to his, she can come to these conclusions on her own.




His audience isn't the typical comic book crowd nor is it the mainstream, the latter being vastly more important. The ones who don't read comics or post on forums like this. The IP needs their money to survive, and they rejected it, so the IP took a hit. You should care about the studio putting out a product that makes money and is warmly received, because that will encourage them to make more stories with these characters. You know we're not getting any more cinematic stories for Superman for the foreseeable future, right? What do we have to look forward to? Before the divisive MOS, there was the bland Returns and further back was III and IV. The last good Superman was in the friggin 80s, which is not a source of comfort for people who want to see a good modern movie int he current superhero boom. The DCEU did a lot of damage to the IP, which may recover with time, but we've already sat through failures. And Batman isn't a concern because we are definitely getting another movie with him (Reeves and Pattinson), yet Superman has to be shelved. The tv show he's getting would be a good consolation, but the premise and people behind it do not inspire confidence.

Harry Potter was a hit from his first story, which lead to successful adaptations. MoS was successful but very divisive. He was not beloved like Harry is, nor is he the same type of character, so that is not an apt comparison. Watching Superman go through arcs and struggle is fine, it just has to be executed well. This was not. So yeah they can enjoy the DCEU, but the character still took a hit because of it and the rest of us have to wait for these promised other avenues that never seem to come. Yet constantly seem to come for Batman. There would be less of a sting if BOTH of them got shelved and they went nuts with Wonder Woman and the others. But the Bat gets rushed back out.

He isn't just a symbol though. That was pretty much what i said. Snyder showed plenty of the confused man trying to find the truth. Otherwise the contrast won't work. As for reception and other things. Again, there isn't much of a metric for that. You say it's divisive and in the same breath say people don't like this superman. How can it be both, man? It just split the audience. Again, you saying Snyder's audience not being mainstream Doesn't make it so.As for the ip,i can understand the concern. But, it is done. It got an audience and new/different fanbase. His movies are successful enough financially . WB not knowing what to do with superman cannot be leveled at snyder. Its their own fault. They wouldn't know what to do with the character regardless of snyder movies. Heck! The only reason man of steel was greenlighted is because lawsuit. On top of that, Ip itself also has major problems That hasn't been confronted.

snyder needed to make someone the centre piece. Being the first public hero clark was it. His and both his two fathers struggles aren't just for him But others like him including diana. Moving on is hard. Diana is a pure outsider. She has no reason for helping humanity after steve was gone. Yet she stays and helps in hiding.that tells you something . She just needed something to restore her faith. Clark didn't do it directly. He just happened to mirror steve because of altruism . Again, I was merely pointing out how Superman is the centre of the universe. I wasn't pointing out how Superman did thing for other characters. You said snyder just made him jesus figure. But, that isn't what happened.it was just contrasting expectations and reality.

[Nine Crocodile]

Yeah, "Save my mother" would have sounded more natural. I don't know about you but I don't usually call my mother by her first name. It's instinct to say "Mom". Batman wouldn't know who Martha was. If he said, "Save Martha Kent", then it would make sense. He's telling Batman who he needs to look for and, knowing the name, Batman would quickly find her address, who she was, etc. It would be awesome to believe he knew Batman's mother's name and knew saying it would shock him into some sense and that would mean Superman won the battle of wits. But there was no in character reason for him to call his mother by her first name and only her first name. It was just a freak stroke of luck that the writer has him say for the totally out of story reason that the two mothers have the same name.

In the version of BvS that exists only in my head, Martha Kent is never kidnapped. Someone else is. (Maybe not Lois. Maybe Luthor just has a couple of those bombs that Supes can't detect planted somewhere.)

Lois does not get between Bruce and Clark at that moment. Martha Kent does. And when Bruce demands to know who she is, she answers:

"I'm Martha Kent. Get the hell away from my son."

[manwhohaseverything]

Yeah, "Save my mother" would have sounded more natural. I don't know about you but I don't usually call my mother by her first name. It's instinct to say "Mom". Batman wouldn't know who Martha was. If he said, "Save Martha Kent", then it would make sense. He's telling Batman who he needs to look for and, knowing the name, Batman would quickly find her address, who she was, etc. It would be awesome to believe he knew Batman's mother's name and knew saying it would shock him into some sense and that would mean Superman won the battle of wits. But there was no in character reason for him to call his mother by her first name and only her first name. It was just a freak stroke of luck that the writer has him say for the totally out of story reason that the two mothers have the same name.

There was also the earlier scene where Superman nails Batman and then let's him go. Why? As far as Superman is concerned, Batman is a crazed vigilante. Why let him go when he wouldn't do that with anyone else?

But I think the big factor is that the mainstream audience didn't want the first live action meeting of Superman and Batman to be one of them a madman trying to kill the other and the whole thing built around them fighting each other. That is was a flawed presentation just made it more problematic.

Clark said " save martha kent" .He just had a boot to his face. so it came out as "save martha ke---".After a couple of times of trying.he let out "save martha" squeak. Which made bruce more angry. That's when lois came in. He can't say "mom" because he doesn't trust batman enough.
He let him go with a warning. To knock off the brutality . Since, he has no footing stand on because he himself is a vigilante who is being scrutinised. He needs to face the law himself as well. Bruce on the otherhand doesn't care for that.

[JAK]

Both Snyder and Whedon's Supermen are soulless creatures, the JL one at least showed a hint of what Cavill could deliver in more capable hands.
I definitely do not want a Joss Whedon movie and would rather start over as well. And I hated the weird chimera abomination that was JL. Whedon is just overall the better choice if those are our options, but again I'd rather have someone else entirely.

He only tried to make Superman the epicenter of everything in a superficial way, by putting him on a pedestal as Super Jesus and then killing him. People don't want to wait 5 movies to see a fully formed Superman. At the very latest he should be Superman by the end of the first film. If the mainstream audience is not his audience, he should not be put in charge of a film that needs as broad an appeal as possible. they do not have the patience for what he wanted to tell, nor should they have to have it. Wanting immediate Avengers level success with a filmmaker like that is bad business, and it blew up in their faces, and they unfairly used him as their scapegoat.

A well done movie showing the first meeting of Superman and Batman probably COULD have made money comparable to the Avengers base on who these characters are and their already built in popularity. Look how insane the hype in the lead up was before poor word of mouth got out. They should not have made the film so expensive to make to the point where it NEEDED that level of money to be a success. They both rushed and were plodding (in terms of Superman's arc).

What's ironic to me is that they both put him on a pedestal *and* semi-grounded him in the most disconnected ways possible, when WB had been barking on and on about how hard it was to make Superman (in their words) "relatable" and that doing so was a goal. Well, not showing enough of his character and viewpoint and keeping him at a distance certainly isn't going to solve that! That's like being in Australia, and wanting to get to Japan by flying to California. Wrong way around! lol

But I love him in Snyder's work because there's a lot I love about the idea of Superman being confronted with the same kind of frustration and helplessness at the complexity of the contemporary world that I often feel myself. Clark Kent's frustration in that movie is a Giant Fucking Mood for me, and I think the character and my life would be poorer without it. And yet... it's not popular. And it's based on a trend from the comics which seems always to be done in a way less insightful or interesting way. To a lot of fans, there's no clear difference between what Morrison called "that weird emo Superman we had for a while" and the one in BvS, and I can understand that? For me, the political and moral engagement of the BvS Superman makes the difference, but on the surface, they're very similar, and frankly some days it's a surface I've seen done badly so often that I have little interest in ever seeing it again.

Honestly, I think a lot of this could have been conveyed very well, and sold to the GA with a different tone and letting the character be more proactive in his own story. See more things from his perspective so we get a sense of how his mind works without relying on assumption. I've often said there's a good outline in BvS, if we can just get the movie out of the way of it.

I can see the argument of Whedon's Clark being a caricature of what Superman can be like. I wouldn't want a whole movie of that. But it was refreshing after not getting anything like it in the previous two movies. Audiences still cite Superman as one of the few things they liked in JL so I don't think it was that much of a problem. The movie as a whole was just a dumpster fire before he even got there.

That was my thinking, too. By itself, I wouldn't have liked it. But at that point, it felt like a huge breath of fresh air, even if it was really more akin to sniffing the "winter pine" spray at Bath & Body Works.

And Batman isn't a concern because we are definitely getting another movie with him (Reeves and Pattinson), yet Superman has to be shelved. The tv show he's getting would be a good consolation, but the premise and people behind it do not inspire confidence.

Harry Potter was a hit from his first story, which lead to successful adaptations. MoS was successful but very divisive. He was not beloved like Harry is, nor is he the same type of character, so that is not an apt comparison. Watching Superman go through arcs and struggle is fine, it just has to be executed well. This was not. So yeah they can enjoy the DCEU, but the character still took a hit because of it and the rest of us have to wait for these promised other avenues that never seem to come. Yet constantly seem to come for Batman. There would be less of a sting if BOTH of them got shelved and they went nuts with Wonder Woman and the others. But the Bat gets rushed back out.

That's a big reason why I'm so harsh with Superman films - they have to hit just right or it'll be a decade before we see another one. And I knew from MoS that this wasn't going to be the one that lasts. And here we are, 7 years after MoS and two years after JL, and it'll probably be 2023 at least before we even get a whiff of Superman again in cinema. Honestly, I'd like it if they let another Superman movie of any kinda happen and give it a tiny budget - force directors/etc to play in a smaller realm, and maybe more attention will be paid to character and story.