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

[Stanlos]

https://twitter.com/boomborks/status...73855402930176

With Snyder definitely gone and possibly Henry Cavill's Superman likely gone as well, seems like it would be a good time to reflect on his Superman "trilogy" (more like 2 and a half movies).

In this clip he seems to confirm the worst of what people have always thought about him. He's permanently in the Watchmen mindset (or his version of Watchmen, Alan Moore would disagree) and not in the Superman mindset. He seems dismissive of the idea that superhero movies should be escapist fantasy and that he always wanted to make deconstructive films (which is sort of silly when you haven't even properly constructed Superman yet).

Thoughts? How will the Zack Snyder Superman era be seen in the future with this out there?

There were no surprises in that clip. He is to Superman what Grant Morrison is to WW: someone whose EXTREME dislike for the character shows through in the work/choices made.

I can't imagine anyone finding the interview responses startling.

[stargazer01]

MOS was a solidly good sci-fi, and I think that is what made it such a GREAT Superman movie.

I agree, I really liked the story in MOS. And I appreciated it that it wasn't a lazy remake of Superman the Movie, even though it needed more lightness and humor, imo.

I've often said that the general outline of BvS is actually fairly solid: it's when it gets to specifics and execution that there's a problem. That's why I was rewriting the movie as I watched it. I kept thinking "I get the idea, the idea's kinda sold, but why the hell'd they do 'x' when 'y' should have been staring them in the face?" On paper, you get the impression that Superman vs Batman would be like "the bright light vs the dark knight" - but Superman is so muddied through the film that it's almost like the Archer turtleneck joke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IUNc6yxp2g



It's visceral, but also doesn't have a point. If it's a departure, usually there's a point, not just "this is a thing now." Especially since he kept talking about how accurate his depictions were. That didn't help things, either. Doomsday was almost like a Zombie, but I think by the time you get to Doomsday, he's like 100,000th on the list of things to complain about, lol. Totally agreed on Pa, though - I could easily see what they were going for, but that doesn't make it fit (imo).

I really liked Man of Steel. I also watched it after BvS; I was so angry still at WB for not giving Superman Returns a sequel... but now I finally understood that making a sequel to that film would be very complicated because storywise, they put the character in a corner.

But I overall still feel that Man of Steel is the better story and film. There was more room to expand and continue the story. Yes, I have some issues with it storywise, but a direct sequel could have fixed them. Sadly, BvS was NOT that film. it only made it worse. And it sounds like Snyder's JL would make it even worse!! But the theatrical JL fixed Superman in some important ways for me. He was more optimistic and heroic at least.

There's a lot of truth in what both of you are saying - as a matter of fact, it was one of my main problems with Superman killing Zod in MoS: it just made him one of the crowded pack of action heroes, and that felt cheap to me. "The bad guy dies in the end" is such a trope that I wanted them to show why Superman was different/better from a narrative standpoint... and then he wasn't.

How would you get rid of General Zod without killing him?

Also, Do you think Wonder Woman is not special because she kills her enemies in her movie? It seems people were totally fine with her killing, but not Superman.

[Osiris-Rex]

How would you get rid of General Zod without killing him?

Also, Do you think Wonder Woman is not special because she kills her enemies in her movie? It seems people were totally fine with her killing, but not Superman.

Put Zod in a prison with kryptonite bars on the cell. Have guards watch over him with guns whose bullets are made of kryptonite. Illuminate the room with red sunlight.

Wonder Woman was raised as a warrior. Clark was raised as a farm boy where the most death that happened was a chicken was killed for Sunday dinner.

[Vordan]

Originally the plan was Zod got sent back to the PZ without Faora. It was Snyder and Goyer who argued with Nolan that Superman needed to kill Zod until Nolan gave in.

[Slim Shady]

Originally the plan was Zod got sent back to the PZ without Faora. It was Snyder and Goyer who argued with Nolan that Superman needed to kill Zod until Nolan gave in.

On top of killing him, it’s the way he killed him. It was just cold. I mean I get he didn’t have a choice, but it felt idk, dark.

[Agent Z]

On top of killing him, it’s the way he killed him. It was just cold. I mean I get he didn’t have a choice, but it felt idk, dark.

I'm not sure there's any real way to portray killing as anything but dark. And killing someone after begging them to stop and then crying out in anguish is the opposite of cold.

[manofsteel1979]

Put Zod in a prison with kryptonite bars on the cell. Have guards watch over him with guns whose bullets are made of kryptonite. Illuminate the room with red sunlight.

Wonder Woman was raised as a warrior. Clark was raised as a farm boy where the most death that happened was a chicken was killed for Sunday dinner.

Kryptonite didn't exist yet in the DCEU. Red Sunlight generators weren't a thing either. Next.

The whole point of that scene was to make it clear to the audience that there wasn't going to be an eleventh hour dues-ex-machina or plot convince where everything is a neat and happy ending with no consequences. I. E. No sudden power to be able to reverse time by flying counterclockwise around the earth or a plot convenient magical power reversing machine in the Fortress of Solitude .Superman would be forced to make a life or death decision with either choice having consequences. He kills Zod to save billions. It's not an easy thing and it really really sucks. It's supposed to. It was a brave choice and while now in hindsight it was a mistake to do in the first film of a Superman franchise, I still think that it's a worthy question to ask and I honestly don't see a problem with occasionally forcing our heroes into senarios where there isn't a clear cut third way out of having to make a hard choice. It doesn't make Superman any less heroic. Or less Superman IMO.

Where MOS dropped the ball is the sudden tonal shift with that scene and the ones following it. I've often thought just a short denounement showing Superman helping clean up and rescue in Metropolis as Lois Narrates would have helped . Also, an honest to God true MOS sequel where one of the plot points could have been Superman still struggling with the fact he had to kill the only other survivor of his race to save his adopted one, and how it affected him to strive to be better... Would have been powerful stuff.

Everytime I watch MOS and BVS back to back I always feel there is a missing chapter of the story that wasn't told. A story about humanity having to adjust to a being as powerful as Superman suddenly upon us. How that changes everything. Yes there was lip service in MOS and BvS, but I would have liked to have seen that actually given full consideration. An MOS 2 between MOS and BvS would have helped enhance both of those other films. Sadly Warner Bros, and ultimately Zack Snyder wasn't all that concerned in their rush to bring Batman back on the screen and rush us to JL.

[Jokerz79]

The moment Zod's death fails

Wanting to save lives does not equal having a no kill policy which MOS never set up which is a problem with all the Superman portrayals Snyder did

BvS Superman is a vigilante so much so senate hearings are being held do to his illegal actions and he has killed namely Zod. But he is angry Batman is a vigilante who kills I mean WTF Supes? Snyder spends BvS showing that the world is divided on the Superman issue than starts Justice League with the idea the world has lost hope because Superman died while in truth half the world should had been celebrating and that dark dreary opening with everybody knows was the most Snyder thing about Justice League so that can't be blamed on Whedon. Snyder constantly wanted the audience to feel one way while actively telling stories that didn't support it and it's why these films weren't bad Superman films they were just bad films. As bad as the effects were and the plot made no sense at times but even with all that even something like Quest for Peace matched their story to what was being told on screen.

I pointed to Quest for Peace because I think it might the only Superman film Snyder saw I mean he mistakes Doomsday for Nuclear Man and Lex for Lenny in BvS.

[manofsteel1979]

At the time of the release of the Burton movies, the internet was barely a thing, and a lot of the criticism of the DCEU comes from social media, from critics who are a lot more knowledgeable about comic books than the critics of the 80s and early 90s who had a very different path in their careers than modern internet critics. It was also generally accepted that after the Adam West series, Burton's Batman was a much darker reinvention so Batman killing may have been accepted as a natural consequence of that darker take.

Still, the Burton Batman movies have been called out PLENTY over the past 30 years or so by die-hard Batman fans over deviations from the comics, including Batman killing criminals. Surely you've seen it. I mean, professional critics from the 80s and early 90s might not have cared(though Roger Ebert hated the Burton movies yet enjoyed Forever) but as soon as the average comic fan had a chance to voice they disapproval on message boards starting in the 90s, they did. Zack Snyder is far from the first director to have his superhero movies criticized.

I probably shouldn't have said " no one called others out on it". You're right in that regard. However I remember with acute clarity there were quite a few people who came on here and elsewhere savaging Snyder for having Batman kill in BvS and literally unironically acted like past incarnations of Batman never killed until Snyder and Affleck "ruined" him, and when others pointed out their falicy, there was "well yeah, but..." Or "Well that was different.. " etc. Colbert in his statements acts like Snyder was the only guy to have Batman (and Superman ) kill in live action when that simply isn't the case.

I'm not saying having Batman or Superman kill is a good or bad thing ( my personal preference is they don't... But there can be exceptions. ). It's just I wish when people criticize Snyder and pretend he and he alone sullied their childhood icons, they should also be consistent and mention Tim Burton,Joel Schumacher or Christopher Nolan ( sorry Chris, your Batman did kill Ra's Al Guel and possibly Harvey Dent as well). The only live action Batmen to not have a body count are Adam West and George Clooney.

All I'm saying is people need to be a bit more consistent in their criticism. If the argument is "childhood icons shouldn't be killing bad guys ever!" , Then someone needs to pass that memo along to Kevin Fiege at Marvel, because he's having "childhood icons" like Captain America, Thor and iron Man killing quite often in those films, and no one seems to care.

[Slim Shady]

I'm not sure there's any real way to portray killing as anything but dark. And killing someone after begging them to stop and then crying out in anguish is the opposite of cold.

Ah, you're talking a little deeper than I was trying to be. I was just talking about the actual killing move. The whole Steven Seagal neck snap. Just felt like a straight up killer move.

[JAK]

I really liked Man of Steel. I also watched it after BvS; I was so angry still at WB for not giving Superman Returns a sequel... but now I finally understood that making a sequel to that film would be very complicated because storywise, they put the character in a corner.

You saw MoS after BvS? To be fair, I would have liked MoS better after having seen BvS, too. lol But that means you'd processed the reaction to MoS and BvS before seeing MoS, so that would be a very different experience. I went into MoS excited, and left sick to my stomach.

To me, the tone of MoS is better than BvS - much better, in fact - but BvS has the stronger outline. MoS's outline is weaker, actually. It presents questions we already shown the answer to (because the movie showed the answer before the question is asked) but still acts like they're questions. Not to mention Pa's death, etc (though that's not necessarily on the outline, but the execution).

But I overall still feel that Man of Steel is the better story and film. There was more room to expand and continue the story. Yes, I have some issues with it storywise, but a direct sequel could have fixed them. Sadly, BvS was NOT that film. it only made it worse. And it sounds like Snyder's JL would make it even worse!! But the theatrical JL fixed Superman in some important ways for me. He was more optimistic and heroic at least.

I agree mostly. MoS had more potential, certainly, and a sequel could have retroactively "fixed" MoS, true. I do feel, though, that BvS would be better if it had competent execution. I don't like either one of them, so when I look at what "could" work in each, it's complicated.

How would you get rid of General Zod without killing him?

I'd have the entire fight be as the Phantom Zone is sucking the Kryptonians in. Clark sees what looks like all of them gone, but it's still in the sky, pulling at him. Why?..... then Zod comes at him. Zod says "you killed Krypton. You can spend eternity in the Phantom Zone, knowing that I'm here on Earth.. killing everyone and everything you've ever loved on this miserable planet....slowly." (something like that) Anyway, it ends with Zod in the Phantom Zone.

However, that Nando V Movies guy actually wrote a good ending with Zod still dying, so take a look (see all 4 parts, btw, imo it fixes the film): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIabMKRjEWU

Also, Do you think Wonder Woman is not special because she kills her enemies in her movie? It seems people were totally fine with her killing, but not Superman.

Diana is in a unique position: the Amazons have a different upbringing and they are champions of both peace and war. So it's part of her character, at least as presented in the movie. Ares is a god, so he can kinda die, but not really. So it's different in a few respects. That's not the same as an action movie death, if that makes any sense.

But to answer your question directly: no, she's not as special as Superman. I know I'm biased on that, but that's my take on it. It means more to me that he stands out.

[Stick Figure]

Superman gets criticized for killing Zod because he was such an icon. Captain America, Wolverine, Iron Man had nowhere near the name recognition that Superman had. Obviously, the Marvel characters are much more a part of our culture now but they’re not seen as children’s characters. Superman was a children’s character for a very long time.

Honestly, I think not being on a pedistal is good for Superman. When people stop associating him the old movies or the cartoons like Super Friends, maybe filmmakers will be free to truly give a fresh take on the character.

[manwhohaseverything]

Superman gets criticized for killing Zod because he was such an icon. Captain America, Wolverine, Iron Man had nowhere near the name recognition that Superman had. Obviously, the Marvel characters are much more a part of our culture now but they’re not seen as children’s characters. Superman was a children’s character for a very long time.

Honestly, I think not being on a pedistal is good for Superman. When people stop associating him the old movies or the cartoons like Super Friends, maybe filmmakers will be free to truly give a fresh take on the character.

Dude, have you watched series protagonist have "no kill rule". It is part of kantian ethics. Not everycharacter has to abide by utilitarianism. Especially, not the one that believes "everything and everyone matters". Snyder is not even consistent in making superman a utilitarian. Since, superman let a city full of people die before getting the enlightenment to kill zod. He did it to save a family, not to save the greater number of people or to cause lesser suffering to those who became victims.
Fullmetal alchemist also has a protagonist that doesn't kill. It is not nearly as iconic as superman. Being iconic has nothing to do with a character's core philosophy. What pedestal are you talking about? Superman hasn't had the pedestal in decades.

[Dancougar]

Snyder is trying to hard to be relevant Batman doesn't kill because hes traumatized by his parents death and hes kinda...arrested development in his ideals its a flaw but it also makes him heroic despite it.

Making him edgy and kill flagrently just makes him an even more blantant ripoff of the Shadow let him have his own identity

[JAK]

Superman gets criticized for killing Zod because he was such an icon. Captain America, Wolverine, Iron Man had nowhere near the name recognition that Superman had. Obviously, the Marvel characters are much more a part of our culture now but they’re not seen as children’s characters. Superman was a children’s character for a very long time.

Honestly, I think not being on a pedistal is good for Superman. When people stop associating him the old movies or the cartoons like Super Friends, maybe filmmakers will be free to truly give a fresh take on the character.

Dude, have you watched series protagonist have "no kill rule". It is part of kantian ethics. Not everycharacter has to abide by utilitarianism. Especially, not the one that believes "everything and everyone matters". Snyder is not even consistent in making superman a utilitarian. Since, superman let a city full of people die before getting the enlightenment to kill zod. He did it to save a family, not to save the greater number of people or to cause lesser suffering to those who became victims.
Fullmetal alchemist also has a protagonist that doesn't kill. It is not nearly as iconic as superman. Being iconic has nothing to do with a character's core philosophy. What pedestal are you talking about? Superman hasn't had the pedestal in decades.

I'll add to that:

Captain America, Wolverine, Iron Man had nowhere near the name recognition that Superman had. Obviously, the Marvel characters are much more a part of our culture now but they’re not seen as children’s characters. Superman was a children’s character for a very long time.

Don't confuse popularity levels with cultural significance. Superman is still the bar all others are set to, no matter what the stated popularity levels are. Superman is ingrained in our culture and will be for a looooong time. It's why people I know who don't even keep up on Superman had such a reaction to Snyder's films, and why it's always "Goku vs Superman" and not "Goku vs Silver Surfer". Superman is a symbol and an cultural icon. Is, not was.