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

[Agent Z]

We had no big expectation for how Hippolyta should be, but we do the Kents. We expect better from them.

1) That's a weakly justified double standard. 2) This isn't even the first time the Kents have been depicted like this.

[manwhohaseverything]

The Kents “aren’t” utilitarian though. That’s the point of them, to instill in Clark a moral sense of responsibility that he needs to help people whatever may be the cost to himself. While Clark himself can fall short of that at times the Kents are supposed to at the very least teach him he can’t just ignore people who need his help.

The DCEU Kents don’t do this at all. Pa teaches Clark to hate and fear his “otherness”. Ma teaches him that he doesn’t have any responsibility to help if he doesn’t want to. They repeatedly warn him away from pursuing heroics to the point Pa gets himself idiotically killed because he is so terrified of outing his son. You might say that’s more “realistic” but then where is Clark’s moral fiber coming from? The answer in MOS is his space dad Jor-El who is everything the Kents are not: Rebellious against unjust authority, courageous, and principled. He’s the clear source of Clark’s “Superman” desire. He is also unsurprisingly the most popular character in the film based on the people I’ve talked to. He’s what Superman should be but isn’t.

Zack snyder had a logic behind making the kents utilitarians. The reasoning is very simple. Clark's senses and his inability to match his senses.Clark would always have to make utilitarian choices. Not just based on some kantian ethics.
"My parents taught me to home my senses, Zod. Focus on just what I wanted to see, without your helmet, you're getting everything. And it hurts, doesn't it?!"
Keep in mind, clark takes both. Consequences of a man with such greatness as clark is much more than anyone else.so, it matters a million times more. This what pa tries to teach him
"You’re not just anyone. One day, you’re gonna have to make a choice. You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be. Whoever that man is, good character or bad... he's gonna change the world."
This what the movie makes clark responsible for the destruction of Metropolis and smallville caused by his "leap of faith" and "you think you can threaten my mother" .
There isn't anything that states.snyder can't do this. Any superman had his share of departures from original guy. So, "aren't" argument doesn't hold weight.

Pa doesn't teach him fear his otherness. He makes clark see that the world is cruel and his otherness might not be welcome.
"My father believed that if the world found out who I really was they'd reject me out of fear. He was convinced that the world wasn't ready. What do you think?"
And there is truth to it. World will never be ready for a flying alien to serve truth and justice.i mean, people hate superman being a little rough. They say he is too powerfull for that. In order for clark to be moral he has to be like postcrisis or may be the all star version of the character. But, the truth is that's just not possible. We are human. Clark is human. "notions of what it means to be human". In fact, he asks clark to pursue and find his otherside. If it wasn't for Jonathan kent there wouldn't be a" kal el".
"You are my son. But somewhere out there you have another father, and he sent you here for a reason. And even if it takes you the rest of your life, you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is"

That is the point utilitarianism.Again,saving pa has consequences. If Clark's choices are more destructive then, is saving pa the moral choice like kantian ethics dictate? . Pa believes for the greater good he should be " dieing for no reason at all".it makes bruce look like a moron. Clark's parents did also teach him "existentialism" like his own parents.bear in mind clark himself is less of utilitarian. He choses to take the "leap of faith" /kantian(cough! Cough! Christian) ethic. He choses to save his mom martha over "other hundreds of screaming people of agony" in bvs /kantian ethic. And also jor el says "you can save all of them" (cough! Cough! Jesus christ pose)

The goal of utilitarian is to make choices that bring happiness to maximum number of people. Since, it cannot be done to everyone and everytime but the reverse is possible . Ma asks him to be none it. If it is makes himself and others unhappy. Since, it was making himself unhappy. And the people were clearly unhappy. So, ma asked him to stop if everyone is unhappy. Why does clark "have" to be responsible to help? Why doesn't he get a choice? Because of what? Power. That's just nonsense argument. If a person who can sing decided to stop singing. Does that make him immoral? He should not be helping due to some burden of responsibility or duty but his own free will. Clark should do the right thing not because he has to, but he wants to. The point of movie was always the importance of "chance" and "choice".
"Your mother and I believed Krypton lost something precious, the element of choice, of chance."
Kents fought for clark to have his choices. The same thing jor el and lara did with normal birth .

The movie gives clark two perspectives.
One) utilitarian and existentialist perspective of ma and pa kent.
Two) based on kantian and Christian ethics which is from jor el and lara, Also the priest.
Bare in mind this is not strict distinction since the kents and els have both taken the other choice. Anyways in the movie, clark embodies the best of both worlds.

"No, you are as much a child of Earth now as you are of Krypton. You can embody the best of both worlds. The dream your mother and I dedicated our lives to preserve."

He became "superman" by combining these perspectives and rising above them both. Sure, he may take actions that may favor one side over the other. But, it depends on the situation.But, clark is to rise above both these perspectives of their respective societies And answer jor el's question "What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended? What if a child aspired to something greater?" The answer is we get a superman.

[JAK]

That doesn't bother me, because this is a Clark who doesn't know what he's doing. It's one of those rookie mistakes, yknow? When everything starts in Smallville, we get a scene of Clark telling everyone to get indoors and lock their doors.....as if that's going to help in any way? The guy had never been in a fight, much less one against people on his level, so I have no issue with the mistakes he made in MoS. Like, everyone complains about the destruction in Metropolis but we can see Clark try to lure Zod away from the city and fail. He's clueless. So these mistakes are things I'm cool with.

But to the general audience that's a problem, because no one really thinks of Superman as being a rookie. We've had shows like Smallville and L&C tap into that, but those shows ran for years and years and both ended with a skilled, competent Superman who's early mistakes were a distant memory. In the movies, Clark spent years in space with his hologram dad learning how to do things. So, especially as far as movies go, no one is accustomed to rookie Superman and I think we judge his mistakes in MoS too harshly for that.

The public's perception of Superman is his greatest enemy; that's a legend the character cannot live up to and remain interesting.

I don't think it's the "rookie Superman" thing alone that does it, though. If they'd put more of a bow on these being learning experiences (like it blows up and you see his reaction; the catalyst happens again and he reacts differently) and it would be more palatable to the audience. It can't be "he learned in the next film" either, it has to be shown close to the learning experience so the audience picks up on it.

That's why parts of it struck me less as "we're showing a Superman growing into his role" and more of a "we're writing an inexperienced Superman because we can't handle writing one that knows what he's doing." Right or wrong, that's the impression it left me with. And BvS certainly didn't help that perception any.

[marhawkman]

Honestly, unless Supes intentionally smashes someone into something you can write it off as collateral damage. It's true that Kal-El vs Dru-Zod came across as Kal-El not knowing how to avoid collateral damage, but... when's the last time he fought someone that strong?

[stargazer01]

The Kents “aren’t” utilitarian though. That’s the point of them, to instill in Clark a moral sense of responsibility that he needs to help people whatever may be the cost to himself. While Clark himself can fall short of that at times the Kents are supposed to at the very least teach him he can’t just ignore people who need his help.

The DCEU Kents don’t do this at all. Pa teaches Clark to hate and fear his “otherness”. Ma teaches him that he doesn’t have any responsibility to help if he doesn’t want to. They repeatedly warn him away from pursuing heroics to the point Pa gets himself idiotically killed because he is so terrified of outing his son. You might say that’s more “realistic” but then where is Clark’s moral fiber coming from? The answer in MOS is his space dad Jor-El who is everything the Kents are not: Rebellious against unjust authority, courageous, and principled. He’s the clear source of Clark’s “Superman” desire. He is also unsurprisingly the most popular character in the film based on the people I’ve talked to. He’s what Superman should be but isn’t.

To me the whole point of Superman is that he really wants to help and use his powers for good. If he didn't, he would not be who he is, and we wouldn't love him as much.

1) That's a weakly justified double standard. 2) This isn't even the first time the Kents have been depicted like this.

It's the most popular version of the Kents. The one most have seen. Most people didn't even know who Hippolyta was, so there was a lot more room for experimenting. I had not real idea what to expect since I've never read a WW comic.

I don't think it's the "rookie Superman" thing alone that does it, though. If they'd put more of a bow on these being learning experiences (like it blows up and you see his reaction; the catalyst happens again and he reacts differently) and it would be more palatable to the audience. It can't be "he learned in the next film" either, it has to be shown close to the learning experience so the audience picks up on it.

That's why parts of it struck me less as "we're showing a Superman growing into his role" and more of a "we're writing an inexperienced Superman because we can't handle writing one that knows what he's doing." Right or wrong, that's the impression it left me with. And BvS certainly didn't help that perception any.

After watching Man of Steel more than once, I can see why many fans think Clark was reckless sometimes. I think most casual fans will get that he has never fought super beings like him. He's a rookie superhero yes, but there were moments when he just seemed to Not care about avoiding more destruction... and that to me showed how little Zack Snyder understands Superman. I still think fans exaggerate, but some scenes were not well done, according to who I think Clark Kent should be (someone who wants to protect lives). So the problem is some of the execution.

I also think that for most casual fans, this isn't a big problem. It is one for hardcore fans like us because we care so so much, but for casual, they just want a well made movie that is very entertaining and with interesting and fun characters. Man of Steel is a GOOD movie, but it's not family friendly, IMO. It's not very mainstream. It feels like an indie with a huge budget. Compare it to Iron Man or Spiderman and it's so different in tone. I can't see many kids loving it from beginning to end.

[SiegePerilous02]

That doesn't bother me, because this is a Clark who doesn't know what he's doing. It's one of those rookie mistakes, yknow? When everything starts in Smallville, we get a scene of Clark telling everyone to get indoors and lock their doors.....as if that's going to help in any way? The guy had never been in a fight, much less one against people on his level, so I have no issue with the mistakes he made in MoS. Like, everyone complains about the destruction in Metropolis but we can see Clark try to lure Zod away from the city and fail. He's clueless. So these mistakes are things I'm cool with.

But to the general audience that's a problem, because no one really thinks of Superman as being a rookie. We've had shows like Smallville and L&C tap into that, but those shows ran for years and years and both ended with a skilled, competent Superman who's early mistakes were a distant memory. In the movies, Clark spent years in space with his hologram dad learning how to do things. So, especially as far as movies go, no one is accustomed to rookie Superman and I think we judge his mistakes in MoS too harshly for that.

The public's perception of Superman is his greatest enemy; that's a legend the character cannot live up to and remain interesting.

IDk, I think people possibly getting blown up because of his mistake is a little too much to ask.

Beyond that though, the destruction in Metropolis is beyond his control at that point. I don't think any of his mistakes for most of the climax should be judged too harshly, but that first one seems excessive, as if Snyder couldn't reign himself in as much as he should have.

[manwhohaseverything]

To me the whole point of Superman is that he really wants to help and use his powers for good. If he didn't, he would not be who he is, and we wouldn't love him as much.

He does, though. That's his base nature in mos. But, kents just fought to give him a choice to follow his nature(follow his instinct) or to create his own path. I mean, isn't that what parents should do?

[stargazer01]

He does, though. That's his base nature in mos. But, kents just fought to give him a choice to follow his nature(follow his instinct) or to create his own path. I mean, isn't that what parents should do?

They just seemed too fearful and not inspirational, optimistic enough to me. In a way it hurt Clark because he was very fearful too about his place and role in the world.

Like someone said, Jor-El was the dreamer and truly inspirational parent. I'm not sure how Clark would have turn out without his advice.

Writing great Superman stories really requires great skill and nuance and deep understanding of his characters and world.

[manwhohaseverything]

They just seemed too fearful and not inspirational, optimistic enough to me. In a way it hurt Clark because he was very fearful too about his place and role in the world. Like someone said, Jor-El was the dreamer and truly inspirational parent. I'm not sure how Clark would have turn out without his advice.

Inspirational? Is that a requirement?ma and pa of mos may not give pep talks or moral platitudes. But, they did give what he needed. They lived with a kid that could start world war three if not handled properly. Snyder's pa and ma aren't dreamers or great minds. They are average people stuck in an impossible situation.

Jonathan taught him actions have consequences and since he has great power his actions will greater consequences. Ma taught him, to fight for what matters to him. doing what he thinks is right. not what others say is right. She taught him how to make the big world small. She taught him how to focus on the things he wanted rather live a life unfocused and full of regrets. I mean, if you are not doing what you a passion for in life then your life will be pretty empty. In Clark's case, it was helping people. But, it has to be and was his choice not obligation.it was because ma that superman had that choice.

[marhawkman]

After watching Man of Steel more than once, I can see why many fans think Clark was reckless sometimes. I think most casual fans will get that he has never fought super beings like him. He's a rookie superhero yes, but there were moments when he just seemed to Not care about avoiding more destruction... and that to me showed how little Zack Snyder understands Superman. I still think fans exaggerate, but some scenes were not well done, according to who I think Clark Kent should be (someone who wants to protect lives). So the problem is some of the execution.

I also think that for most casual fans, this isn't a big problem. It is one for hardcore fans like us because we care so so much, but for casual, they just want a well made movie that is very entertaining and with interesting and fun characters. Man of Steel is a GOOD movie, but it's not family friendly, IMO. It's not very mainstream. It feels like an indie with a huge budget. Compare it to Iron Man or Spiderman and it's so different in tone. I can't see many kids loving it from beginning to end.

I saw it more as having a few moments where he became fixated on the fight itself, and stopped thinking about his surroundings

[JAK]

After watching Man of Steel more than once, I can see why many fans think Clark was reckless sometimes. I think most casual fans will get that he has never fought super beings like him. He's a rookie superhero yes, but there were moments when he just seemed to Not care about avoiding more destruction... and that to me showed how little Zack Snyder understands Superman. I still think fans exaggerate, but some scenes were not well done, according to who I think Clark Kent should be (someone who wants to protect lives). So the problem is some of the execution.

I also think that for most casual fans, this isn't a big problem. It is one for hardcore fans like us because we care so so much, but for casual, they just want a well made movie that is very entertaining and with interesting and fun characters. Man of Steel is a GOOD movie, but it's not family friendly, IMO. It's not very mainstream. It feels like an indie with a huge budget. Compare it to Iron Man or Spiderman and it's so different in tone. I can't see many kids loving it from beginning to end.

I don't think the intention was to show he was reckless, but because they didn't put a bow on him learning as these things happen, people got that impression (I just saw it as writing/editing mistakes, but it still took me out of the movie too often).

I'm not so sure it wasn't a problem for casual fans, though - they don't voice it the same way. When "average people" talk about the destruction and whatnot and say he didn't do anything to stop it, they very likely are reacting to exactly what I'm talking about. Imo, it wasn't the destruction, itself; it was what was (or closer still, what wasn't) shown along with it.

Though tone does have a lot to do with it. Keeping things lighter is a signal to the audience not to take things too seriously for the most part - but if the tone is VERY serious, people will react to things in that manner (like all the destruction). So it's a bit of both, now that I think about it.

[Agent Z]

It's the most popular version of the Kents. The one most have seen. Most people didn't even know who Hippolyta was, so there was a lot more room for experimenting. I had not real idea what to expect since I've never read a WW comic.

The most popular versions of the Kents have acted like this before. And whether or not people have any expectations of Hippolyta does not change the fact that she is the one actively discouraging her daughter from being a hero.

[JAK]

The most popular versions of the Kents have acted like this before. And whether or not people have any expectations of Hippolyta does not change the fact that she is the one actively discouraging her daughter from being a hero.

But that doesn't change the fact that this characterization of Hippolyta is at least somewhat canonical (if not quite to the same degree):

A competition is held amongst all the Amazons by Diana's mother, the Queen of the Amazons Hippolyta, in order to determine who is the most worthy of all the women; Hippolyta charges the winner with the responsibility of delivering Captain Steve Trevor back to Man's World and to fight for justice. Hippolyta forbids Diana from entering the competition, but she takes part nonetheless, wearing a mask to conceal her identity. She wins the competition and reveals herself, surprising Hippolyta, who ultimately accepts, and must give in to, Diana's wish to go to Man's World.

[Agent Z]

But that doesn't change the fact that this characterization of Hippolyta is at least somewhat canonical (if not quite to the same degree):

So are the versions of the Kents that appear in MoS and BvS but that didn't stop people crying foul. And the person I was replying didn't care about the canon status of Hippolyta's characterization. They flat out said they'd never read a WW comic before.

[manwhohaseverything]

Why does canon even matter any way? I mean, the original Clark's parents are john and mary. It is not Jonathan and martha.
Post crisis version or even donner one of Clark's adopted parents is just an interpretation. Like man of steel version is. prior takes mentioned has no authority over man of steel version to dictate it or claim superiority unless creator namely snyder wills it.
See what jerry and siegel's kents tell clark to do. They say to hide his abilities, until a proper time.precisley what snyder did.look, nobody should fault snyder of not researching or even loving the character. I believe, he has more knowledge than many fans here. And loves the character as much as any fan. He holds superman in a pedestal.