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

[Superbat]

Ben Affleck should have directed BvS.

[Vordan]

I mean it didn’t help that Snyder’s plan was to make Bats retroactively correct about Superman by having him be the only JL to go evil and destroy the world, something he teased in the same movie where he was also trying to portray Superman sympathetically. The casual crew sided with Batman because he’s Batman and he got the majority of focus, and the noncasuals picked up on the Injustice teases and sided with Batman because they understood Snyder was planning to make Superman evil. He undercut himself there.

It’s like how Snyder defended snapping Zod’s neck by saying it would form the basis for his moral code but then followed that up with:
-Killing Zod AGAIN in BvS
-Helping to kill Steppenwolf in JL
-Going evil and killing everyone in the proposed JL2
-Probably Killing Darkseid at the end of Snyder’s plan
There was never any attempt to actually portray what Snyder said was a turning point. He’s simply not a good storyteller because he doesn’t seem to care or be aware of how his creative choices jel together. If we’re meant to sympathize with Supes, teasing his future turn to evil, IN THE SAME MOVIE, is a stupid decision. Especially since the Knightmare apparently came late in production so that was literally just tossing in a future tease, not caring if it undercut the movie’s direct moral.

[Last Son of Krypton]

Ben Affleck should have directed BvS.

I don't think it would've changed much. Affleck had his say on the BvS script and was the one wanting it rewritten by Chris "Martha!!!!" Terrio or he wouldn't have signed to play Batman.

[Agent Z]

I mean it didn’t help that Snyder’s plan was to make Bats retroactively correct about Superman by having him be the only JL to go evil and destroy the world, something he teased in the same movie where he was also trying to portray Superman sympathetically. The casual crew sided with Batman because he’s Batman and he got the majority of focus, and the noncasuals picked up on the Injustice teases and sided with Batman because they understood Snyder was planning to make Superman evil. He undercut himself there.

It’s like how Snyder defended snapping Zod’s neck by saying it would form the basis for his moral code but then followed that up with:
-Killing Zod AGAIN in BvS
-Helping to kill Steppenwolf in JL
-Going evil and killing everyone in the proposed JL2
-Probably Killing Darkseid at the end of Snyder’s plan
There was never any attempt to actually portray what Snyder said was a turning point. He’s simply not a good storyteller because he doesn’t seem to care or be aware of how his creative choices jel together. If we’re meant to sympathize with Supes, teasing his future turn to evil, IN THE SAME MOVIE, is a stupid decision. Especially since the Knightmare apparently came late in production so that was literally just tossing in a future tease, not caring if it undercut the movie’s direct moral.

Superman being mind controlled by Darkseid wouldn't be proving Batman right.

And since when do Superman fans care about him killing Doomsday? He's done that in every adaptation of the Death of Superman with zero complaints.

[Vordan]

Superman being mind controlled by Darkseid wouldn't be proving Batman right.

And since when do Superman fans care about him killing Doomsday? He's done that in every adaptation of the Death of Superman with zero complaints.

Because Snyder defended the killing as a turning point for Superman where he would form his no kill rule, but then never gave him a chance to actually show it off (which is why Metallo should’ve been the BvS villain but whatever). Doomsday is usually portrayed as a mindless brute who just wants to kill everything and Superman/Batman are usually ok with killing non sentient beings so that’s why more people don’t mind him killing Doomsday.

For what it’s worth I actually was on board for Zod’s death being the turning point. I’m a firm believer that Superman needs one point in his career (at least) where he heavily ***** up and if killing Zod was it I think that’s fine. I thought the underlying argument of “he needs to kill to know Killing is a terrible thing and he shouldn’t do it” was a dumb argument but again I was prepared to take Snyder at his word. But then he just had him keep killing the bad guys and he was going to have him help WW kill, and I guess Batman was going to be ok with killing Steppenwolf and at that point how can Snyder say “Superman showed us the best part of ourselves”? He never did that!

One of those pro-Snyder pics that goes around is “Superman saved Batman from himself and made him be a better man” but then Batman keeps killing? And is ok with Diana Killing Steppenwolf I guess? And so is Superman? How’s that any different from BvS? What changed? This is still lethal force Batman with guns on the Batmobile.

[SiegePerilous02]

Following up the death of Zod with Doomsday (a villain who needs to be killed) after not doing anything to develop the "this is where he develops his no kill rule" is just pretty sloppy writing.

[misslane]

Guys, please. Snyder's quote about the killing in MOS:

If there were more adventures for our Superman to go on, then you are also given this thing where you don't know 100 per cent what he's gonna do. When you really put in stone the concept that he won't kill and it's totally in stone, it really erases an option in the viewer's mind.

Now, that doesn't mean that he doesn't now have a code ... but you'll always have in the back of your mind this little of like, "Well, like how far can you push him?" Right? Like, if he sees Lois get hurt or he sees his mother get killed or something, you just made a really mad Superman that we know is capable of some really horrible stuff.

The way BvS follows up on the killing issue is by precisely putting Superman in a position that mirrors exactly what Snyder says here: Martha's life is threatened when Lex kidnaps her. It absolutely was covered in BvS. Plus, the issue with Batman killing was about preemptive murder of innocent people or being judge, jury, and executioner. It wasn't about killing in self-defense. Batman kills in all media and has done so for his entire existence.

[Vordan]

Guys, please. Snyder's quote about the killing in MOS:

If there were more adventures for our Superman to go on, then you are also given this thing where you don't know 100 per cent what he's gonna do. When you really put in stone the concept that he won't kill and it's totally in stone, it really erases an option in the viewer's mind.

Now, that doesn't mean that he doesn't now have a code ... but you'll always have in the back of your mind this little of like, "Well, like how far can you push him?" Right? Like, if he sees Lois get hurt or he sees his mother get killed or something, you just made a really mad Superman that we know is capable of some really horrible stuff.

The way BvS follows up on the killing issue is by precisely putting Superman in a position that mirrors exactly what Snyder says here: Martha's life is threatened when Lex kidnaps her. It absolutely was covered in BvS. Plus, the issue with Batman killing was about preemptive murder of innocent people or being judge, jury, and executioner. It wasn't about killing in self-defense. Batman kills in all media and has done so for his entire existence.

Except the defense of Batman killing in BvS from pro-Snyder people was that “this is bad and Superman showed him killing is bad” not “Batman learns killing is ok except for premeditated murder” which he faces no repercussions for whatsoever by the way since he’s joking with Gordon in Snyder’s JL according to trailers. Batman does NOT kill in all media. He does not kill in the cartoons, the Arkham games, the Injustice games, the animated movies, or the comics barring a few exceptions. He kills in the Burton movies and he let Ra’s die (which isn’t the same as killing to me but I acknowledge that’s splitting hairs) in the Nolan movies but he saves the Joker’s life and otherwise does not kill (hence the backlash to Affleck since Nolan made the general audience aware of the “one rule”).

Also that Superman quote does nothing to set me at ease lol. Snyder’s Superman is a time bomb waiting to go off and he poses such a huge threat it’s not hard at all to think Batfleck was right. If this guy goes full Injustice when Lois dies better to kill him than live under an immortal God-Emperor forever. That’s not a take I’m at all interested in seeing and nothing about that quote makes me see this Superman as showing the best parts of anything.

[The_Lurk]

...
Now, that doesn't mean that he doesn't now have a code ... but you'll always have in the back of your mind this little of like, "Well, like how far can you push him?" Right? Like, if he sees Lois get hurt or he sees his mother get killed or something, you just made a really mad Superman that we know is capable of some really horrible stuff.[/I]
...

He was a far too obsessed with this part IMO.

[SiegePerilous02]

Batman kills in all media and has done so for his entire existence.

he has sporadically killed throughout his existence, especially early on, but not all the way through. And most definitely not in all forms of media.

[misslane]

He was a far too obsessed with this part IMO.

He's interested in Superman being an actual character with agency and choices that matter. Superman isn't that if the narrative is always warped around him to provide him with that "other way" to avoid killing in situations like the imminent danger of innocent victims. If Superman truly had a no-kill code, then logically he would have let that family die in MOS to preserve his own code, because there wasn't any other solution available to him. There was no kryptonite. There was no phantom zone prison. There was no red sun. There was no reasoning with Zod. In that context, the right thing to do is to kill Zod. It's a classic trolley problem, and it's something that challenges people to confront their moral idealism in the abstract against the practical realities of moral decision-making. The Good Place covered the topic really well in its first season when it had its ethical idealist, Chidi, face what it really means to make quick life and death decisions:



A Superman who is written to never have to make such a hard choice is no more moral than a Superman who ultimately makes that tough call. To give us a Superman who killed when an innocent family was threatened with no alternatives available and a Superman who, when his very own mother was threatened, tried reasoning with Batman instead of killing him like Lex wanted illustrates the complexity of Superman's moral approach. Killing is not his preferred option. It's a last resort, and he will do it rather than prioritize his code over victims' lives. So, what Snyder did was establish that his world is one where the narrative won't give Superman an easy out all the time, and that makes him a richer character and his stories ones with more genuine suspense and genuine morality as opposed to fantasy morality. Because that's what it is. It's a power fantasy to want a world where you don't have to ever make difficult decisions, and such a world and storytelling doesn't offer any useful instruction to those who may confront the real world where their choices aren't preordained to provide comfy escapism.

[manwhohaseverything]

I mean it didn’t help that Snyder’s plan was to make Bats retroactively correct about Superman by having him be the only JL to go evil and destroy the world, something he teased in the same movie where he was also trying to portray Superman sympathetically. The casual crew sided with Batman because he’s Batman and he got the majority of focus, and the noncasuals picked up on the Injustice teases and sided with Batman because they understood Snyder was planning to make Superman evil. He undercut himself there.

It’s like how Snyder defended snapping Zod’s neck by saying it would form the basis for his moral code but then followed that up with:
-Killing Zod AGAIN in BvS
-Helping to kill Steppenwolf in JL
-Going evil and killing everyone in the proposed JL2
-Probably Killing Darkseid at the end of Snyder’s plan
There was never any attempt to actually portray what Snyder said was a turning point. He’s simply not a good storyteller because he doesn’t seem to care or be aware of how his creative choices jel together. If we’re meant to sympathize with Supes, teasing his future turn to evil, IN THE SAME MOVIE, is a stupid decision. Especially since the Knightmare apparently came late in production so that was literally just tossing in a future tease, not caring if it undercut the movie’s direct moral.

When did the story ever implie that clark would have a no kill rule? Going evil is a potential everybody has. Bruce pretty much tried to kill clark. He would have gone through with it.

[SiegePerilous02]

When did the story ever implie that clark would have a no kill rule? Going evil is a potential everybody has. Bruce pretty much tried to kill clark. He would have gone through with it.

I think people wanted it to be implied and were expecting some kind of follow up in BvS that motivates Clark to be better and find the other options. That Clark's character and motivations would actually be explored.

Our expectations were too high lol. Especially for the theatrical cut, but Snyder just isn't capable of putting forth these ideas and exploring them in an adequate manner. Killing Zod was done for shock value and now seems in hindsight to have been a tedious waste of time. There isn't even a follow up scene with it in the damn movie it happens in.

[misslane]

he has sporadically killed throughout his existence, especially early on, but not all the way through. And most definitely not in all forms of media.

He does kill, though, most of the time. Even if the narrative doesn't focus on it, it is obvious that his actions would have that effect on some of those he fights. For example, it's silly how Nolan's films try to argue that Bale's Batman isn't a killer when he does it in every film with incidental kills, like burning the monastery down with people in it, to outright murder (Ra's al Ghul). Murder is something Batman has done in Batman films since Burton.

[manwhohaseverything]

Except the defense of Batman killing in BvS from pro-Snyder people was that “this is bad and Superman showed him killing is bad” not “Batman learns killing is ok except for premeditated murder” which he faces no repercussions for whatsoever by the way since he’s joking with Gordon in Snyder’s JL according to trailers. Batman does NOT kill in all media. He does not kill in the cartoons, the Arkham games, the Injustice games, the animated movies, or the comics barring a few exceptions. He kills in the Burton movies and he let Ra’s die (which isn’t the same as killing to me but I acknowledge that’s splitting hairs) in the Nolan movies but he saves the Joker’s life and otherwise does not kill (hence the backlash to Affleck since Nolan made the general audience aware of the “one rule”).

Also that Superman quote does nothing to set me at ease lol. Snyder’s Superman is a time bomb waiting to go off and he poses such a huge threat it’s not hard at all to think Batfleck was right. If this guy goes full Injustice when Lois dies better to kill him than live under an immortal God-Emperor forever. That’s not a take I’m at all interested in seeing and nothing about that quote makes me see this Superman as showing the best parts of anything.

Are you joking? arkham games has him use a tank with bullets.rubber bullets thing is stupid. The way he punches bruce should have body count. No, bruce learns to have more faith in humanity. He learned that having great power doesn't make clark non person or not a man. As for timebomb, every superman is a timebomb. There was always something dangerous about him.