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

[qwertyuiop1998]

Also, no the incedent with Zod wasn't erased in the comics. I recall Power Girl bringing it up at one point.

After infinite crisis,Supes history is become he was superboy in the first place.Not like byrne era supes never become superboy(the legion superboy was come from a pocket universe).Geoff reboot many pre-Infinite crisis events
Superman - Secret Files & Origins (2009) 001-016.jpg

[Powerboy]

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?

Wow. This was started only a week ago, I just now saw it and yet it's already past page 11.

I understand getting mad when you put tons of work into something and then people endlessly bash it. But he should have seen it coming and probably did. It's hard to believe he did not know this would be divisive. It likely also irritates him to see the WB and the DCEU trying desperately to move away from his style and from everything he established. It must irritate him even more to see that moving away from it has made the DCEU leap in popularity to the point they've had two movies leap to a respectable MCU level of popularity.

Part of me wants to say: "Hey, there's some has-been crying and shouting insults at the door. But since his membership has been revoked, who cares?"

The one bad part is the loss of Cavill. They don't want to reboot Superman but they want to ignore and distance themselves from MoS and BvS. Sadly, that seems to mean ignoring Superman. Ironically, there could still be a Justice League 2 but now it would hinge on the popularity of Wonder Woman and Aquaman and probably would not even include Superman or Batman since they don't want to upstage their most popular characters, WW and Aquaman. Now there's irony.

I personally would be fine if they did a "Hulk" with Superman. "Hulk" was not part of the MCU but when they did "The Incredible Hulk" movie, they just did a fast origin and got on with it. They could do that with Superman. The problem is that MoS and BvS are part of the DCEU. But they have been relegated to the level of "The Incredible Hulk" movie as in, "Yes it happened and it's part of the setting but let's just move on and not dwell on it".

[Powerboy]

Of course we want to live in a dream world, isn't that why people read super hero comics? If I wanted the real world I wouldn't be watching a super hero movie. ZS is so out of touch, glad he isn't making more DC movies.

LIKE!

Once again, I am forced to create my own "Like" button.

[GreatKungLao]

.He was only there to save Lois, just like when he disappeared after leaving the courthouse and only appeared again when Lex pushed Lois off the top of a building.

I suppose you haven't seen Ultimate Edition, because Superman saves people after the senate explosion from the building. He flew away only when a doctor told him they will take care of the rest.

[Superbat]

I suppose you haven't seen Ultimate Edition, because Superman saves people after the senate explosion from the building. He flew away only when a doctor told him they will take care of the rest.

I said after leaving the courthouse not after the explosion.

[Powerboy]

Ah, the trusty straw-man: always key to a winning rebuttal.



Two differences: one, that was wiped from continuity for being the mistake it was. But, two: even before it was wiped, it involved a storyline of him "coming to terms with it" lasted for nearly a year's worth of stories across several books - all full of nuance and character growth, with "Exile" seen as one of the best Post-Crisis stories and setting up a number of future stories. They knew that IF Superman was going to do that, it had better mean something and have repercussions.

MoS Clark had a scream and a cry, and then was fine to joke in the very next scene - never to be addressed or talked about in any significant way again (at least by him). No fallout, no lesson, no character growth - nothing.



Speaking of all that, Batman'd been straight-up murdering people left and right because he just didn't care anymore - but it's ok now because he says he's better and promises not to do it anymore (after that first time just after his redemption where he did, we're just not going to count that, that gets a do-over), and we should all be fine with that. lol I mean, if we're really going for realism, what about repercussions for Batman? Is this where Snyder does his story about Batman going to prison and all about what he said would happen to Bruce in prison if he made a Batman movie?

I kid with all that, but even Snyder's movies require a hearty suspension of disbelief. There's a point where realism for it's own sake just sucks all the enjoyment out of a cinematic experience.

I personally did not have any problems with Superman killing Zod in the movie given the context and setup. But then, in BvS, he kills again when he puts the guy through a solid wall to save Lois. That implies that far from needing a reason to develop a code against killing, he instead is finding it easier the next time. Also, that whole idea that someone needs to kill to have an aversion to killing just indicates the view of humanity in those movies. Sure there are such sad people. But most people have at least a reluctance to kill and have to numb themselves to it if they are in a position where they have to do it such as active duty soldiers. I thought Superman's initial reaction to killing was realistic but there are no repercussions. The comic book story where he killed, aside from being erased from continuity, actually dealt with the emotional after-effects of what he did.

[manofsteel1979]

Whether or not a version of Zod being killed by Superman is or isn't officially in continuity currently (at this point with all of the continuity changes since the 2000's who really knows), it doesn't really matter ultimately, because it's still there and will forever be a part of the overall mythos of Superman and is fair game to be utilized by anyone who wishes to use or reference it. Whether for stories or analysis. Like it or nor it's there and will always be there for better or worse.

[manymade1]

I'm not sure there's any real way to portray killing as anything but dark.

Yes, exactly. A growing problem I have with blockbuster movies like Marvel, Star Wars, James Bond, etc. is how they always try to portray the protagonists as heroically as possible, yet they have them kill all the time, but make it look like the act of killing wasn't that bad. Iron Man will kill a guy, but it'll be in an explosion, so it looks clean and doesn't make you think twice about it. James Bond will kill hundreds of cannon fodder, but there's no blood, so it doesn't really look like he's a bad guy. Star Wars films have thousands to millions of casualties per film, but it's always in some big explosion.

Imo, it's almost worse to do this, as it kind of normalizes the idea of killing, hiding people from the actual brutality of it. Sure it allows for the films to reach a wider audience, but I would argue that isn't for the best, in the long term.

[Powerboy]

Whether or not a version of Zod being killed by Superman is or isn't officially in continuity currently (at this point with all of the continuity changes since the 2000's who really knows), it doesn't really matter ultimately, because it's still there and will forever be a part of the overall mythos of Superman and is fair game to be utilized by anyone who wishes to use or reference it. Whether for stories or analysis. Like it or nor it's there and will always be there for better or worse.

It depends. For instance, in the early Golden Age stuff, there's a scene where Superman casually throws a guy over the horizon and he emits a bloodcurdling scream as he knows he is being thrown to his death and Superman gives him not a second thought. Granted this was eighty years ago and nobody today who wanted to be taken seriously would use it as an example of what Superman (in all incarnations) would or should do. But it's still part of the overall mythology. But Jerry Siegal excised all such things from continuity just as later DC excised Byrne's choices.

[Powerboy]

Yes, exactly. A growing problem I have with blockbuster movies like Marvel, Star Wars, James Bond, etc. is how they always try to portray the protagonists as heroically as possible, yet they have them kill all the time, but make it look like the act of killing wasn't that bad. Iron Man will kill a guy, but it'll be in an explosion, so it looks clean and doesn't make you think twice about it. James Bond will kill hundreds of cannon fodder, but there's no blood, so it doesn't really look like he's a bad guy. Star Wars films have thousands to millions of casualties per film, but it's always in some big explosion.

Imo, it's almost worse to do this, as it kind of normalizes the idea of killing, hiding people from the actual brutality of it. Sure it allows for the films to reach a wider audience, but I would argue that isn't for the best, in the long term.

Actually, Iron-man put bullets right through people's heads. But it was only shown on his inner computer screen as sort of vague images.

But that's a very old debate about whether, if you have to show killing, it's better to make it brutally realistic or a total fantasy version.

For instance, Roger Moore didn't like the idea of showing killing on-screen but felt that the ways people usually got killed in a Bond movie was so unrealistic and bloodless that it was okay.

Christopher Lee had been in the British equivalent of Special Forces and had killed people. He seemed to subscribe to the Alfred Hitchcock philosophy that you should never show violence on-screen but only imply it. He admitted that when it came to which is better, bloodless fantasy killing not showing the brutal reality, one could argue it either way. He insisted that his character in his Bond movie be killed bloodlessly and just shot, no fancy scenario around the killing. But he also said that could be even worse than showing the reality.

By the way, in the first Iron-Man movie, when he just blatantly killed people, I noticed. It wasn't so bad when he escaped in the first suit of armor because he didn't exactly have the chance to incorporate much into it. But when he went back and shot the three guys through the head, my first thought was a stun effect that didn't kill them would have been better. Instead the killing was just casual unlike Superman for whom it at least "killed him" to have to actually kill somebody. Again, partly Superman can't get away with it because he's Superman.

[Robanker]

Whether or not a version of Zod being killed by Superman is or isn't officially in continuity currently (at this point with all of the continuity changes since the 2000's who really knows), it doesn't really matter ultimately, because it's still there and will forever be a part of the overall mythos of Superman and is fair game to be utilized by anyone who wishes to use or reference it. Whether for stories or analysis. Like it or nor it's there and will always be there for better or worse.

Sure, but it's the reason he has to kill him, the tone of the scene and the context that drives the issue.

For what it's worth, I'd rather have had Clark cover Zod's eyes by inching his hands closer to them, shielding the family. If Zod's heat vision ripped through Clark's hand, sure, that's enough to convince most audience members that he's out of options. Or try some other option to reach the same point. But he's presented with "kill me or they die" and tries nothing else. It's realistic, but Superman isn't about just dealing with a **** hand. He always at least tries for a better option. It seemed like he gave up.

Even then, had he stuck around and we got a montage (I believe you posted this as well) where he helped rebuild/rescue survivors while still shell-shocked over his actions, again it would have helped immensely.

But Snyder's Superman kills Zod, screams in regret, and then it's a cut away to a Superman who has dealt with the immediate aftermath and is now just healing. We were robbed of the emotional payoff in MoS. BvS (yes, even the ultimate edition) didn't do enough to really establish Clark and his relationship with the sanctity of life. A lot of it came from the audience's existing knowledge of the character's ethos. I would argue this is a problem for everyone in the film. It banks on you knowing who these characters are and that what we're experiencing with them is atypical.

I agree, that Superman has killed will endure regardless of if it's being referenced in the source material, much like how popular elseworlds books and adaptions are brought into discussion, but what really matters is everything surrounding that fact. Zack Snyder has a lot of fans, and while I'm not one of them, his plan was flawed in that he joined rank with many Moore impersonators who saw what the former did prior and wanted to imitate that. His entire approach seemed, frankly, misguided. Much moreso in BvS, which feels a bit too corporate when you realize they took the two best-selling trades of each character (DKR, Death of Superman) and tried to mash them together into one mega-blockbuster.

Snyder notes that "It’s a cool point of view to be like, ‘My heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t f------ lie to America. My heroes didn’t embezzle money from their corporations. My heroes didn’t commit any atrocities.’ That’s cool. But you’re living in a f------ dream world" and to that point I simply argue that those aren't my heroes. I question why he even addresses them as such, and why he tries to frame embezzling liars guilty of atrocities as heroes. I realize he's half-joking, but that train of thought betrays rather neatly why he's the wrong person to spearhead a universe of people who are, above all else, selfless in nature and in service of their fellow men and women.

[Vordan]

Killing Zod wasn’t the problem. It was the follow up where he makes out with Lois (God does Goyer suck at romances), and then the ending where everything is fine and Clark goes to the Daily Planet. What was the point of all that destruction if you were just going to ignore it? And then BvS comes out and he kills Zod AGAIN! For God’s sake Snyder don’t go around talking about how killing Zod was this traumatic moment for him that made him refuse to kill and then have him literally kill Zod again in the next movie. Wouldve been better to say “DCEU Superman doesn’t have a no kill rule”.

And before you say “Uh since when is killing Doomsday a problem?” 1. I don’t have a problem with it but 2. The villain of BvS should have been a villain Supes and Bats can nonlethally take down to showcase their newfound no kill rules. Also killing Superman was a stupid idea and just shows Snyder had no business being in charge.

[SiegePerilous02]

Killing Zod wasn’t the problem. It was the follow up where he makes out with Lois (God does Goyer suck at romances), and then the ending where everything is fine and Clark goes to the Daily Planet. What was the point of all that destruction if you were just going to ignore it? And then BvS comes out and he kills Zod AGAIN! For God’s sake Snyder don’t go around talking about how killing Zod was this traumatic moment for him that made him refuse to kill and then have him literally kill Zod again in the next movie. Wouldve been better to say “DCEU Superman doesn’t have a no kill rule”.

And before you say “Uh since when is killing Doomsday a problem?” 1. I don’t have a problem with it but 2. The villain of BvS should have been a villain Supes and Bats can nonlethally take down to showcase their newfound no kill rules. Also killing Superman was a stupid idea and just shows Snyder had no business being in charge.

He doesn't make out with Lois after killing Zod, he just hugs her and cries. We needed some more scenes after that though before we got to that scene with Swanick and him joining the Daily Planet. And we needed a whole other FILM devoted only to Superman to dwell on how he processed the fallout and firmly develop him into Superman. MOS had potential, as shaky as it was, and it was squandered.

We really needed an additional Superman film, and then a straight up fun World's Finest meeting (not antagonistic beyond maybe sniping at each other). Maybe still have Wonder Woman. I would have liked a Lex-Brainiac-Bizarro threat, the latter could have been the incredibly powerful mook that Diana could have solo'd while Superman deals with the main threat of Brainiac. Because as impressive as her showing against Doomsday was, she isn't going to be the one to defeat him, especially when she's just an extended cameo. This way you give a foe to each of the Trinity and have them come out on top.

I''d avoid Doomsday altogether. I know they wanted to adapt that storyline, but I have no attachment to it.

[Flash Gordon]

Sure, but it's the reason he has to kill him, the tone of the scene and the context that drives the issue.

For what it's worth, I'd rather have had Clark cover Zod's eyes by inching his hands closer to them, shielding the family. If Zod's heat vision ripped through Clark's hand, sure, that's enough to convince most audience members that he's out of options. Or try some other option to reach the same point. But he's presented with "kill me or they die" and tries nothing else. It's realistic, but Superman isn't about just dealing with a **** hand. He always at least tries for a better option. It seemed like he gave up.

Even then, had he stuck around and we got a montage (I believe you posted this as well) where he helped rebuild/rescue survivors while still shell-shocked over his actions, again it would have helped immensely.

But Snyder's Superman kills Zod, screams in regret, and then it's a cut away to a Superman who has dealt with the immediate aftermath and is now just healing. We were robbed of the emotional payoff in MoS. BvS (yes, even the ultimate edition) didn't do enough to really establish Clark and his relationship with the sanctity of life. A lot of it came from the audience's existing knowledge of the character's ethos. I would argue this is a problem for everyone in the film. It banks on you knowing who these characters are and that what we're experiencing with them is atypical.

I agree, that Superman has killed will endure regardless of if it's being referenced in the source material, much like how popular elseworlds books and adaptions are brought into discussion, but what really matters is everything surrounding that fact. Zack Snyder has a lot of fans, and while I'm not one of them, his plan was flawed in that he joined rank with many Moore impersonators who saw what the former did prior and wanted to imitate that. His entire approach seemed, frankly, misguided. Much moreso in BvS, which feels a bit too corporate when you realize they took the two best-selling trades of each character (DKR, Death of Superman) and tried to mash them together into one mega-blockbuster.

Snyder notes that "It’s a cool point of view to be like, ‘My heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t f------ lie to America. My heroes didn’t embezzle money from their corporations. My heroes didn’t commit any atrocities.’ That’s cool. But you’re living in a f------ dream world" and to that point I simply argue that those aren't my heroes. I question why he even addresses them as such, and why he tries to frame embezzling liars guilty of atrocities as heroes. I realize he's half-joking, but that train of thought betrays rather neatly why he's the wrong person to spearhead a universe of people who are, above all else, selfless in nature and in service of their fellow men and women.

Lemme just "second" all of this. Seconded!

[EsotericFailures]

The reasons why the Zod killing doesn't work:

It ruins any sense of triumph in the end of the movie. It's a super downbeat note to end the main conflict and the next scenes act like it didn't happen and are kinda cheerful?
I don't think it's ever talked about again by Clark in BvS, correct me if I'm wrong.
The major consequence of the killing, the creation of Doomsday, is never properly revealed to Clark and he never talks about it.
It doesn't teach Clark not to kill, if anything it shows the necessity of killing. In order to save lives this Superman is going to have to snap some necks to do it. Yet the directors seemingly think this is what establishes his no kill rule? (which is never discussed in the movies)

BvS and Justice League retroactively make the killing a lot worse. Having Doomsday be a Zod zombie is a brilliant idea but Superman doesn't know about it and the movies never discusses Supes attitude towards killing afterwards.