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

[JAK]

Again, i think he does.you might think he is batman fan like timm. But, he is not. I have never seen him talk about batman in interviews the way he does superman . I remember hearing snyder doing charity with his superman stuff(especially, after his daughter's death) . The guy has social anxiety and stuff. Cut him some slack. He has expressed time and time again his love.

And a pre crisis fan would say the same about post crisis fans. That they don't get superman And vice versa. There is noway test some ones love for the character other than his actions.

Snyder has his own philosophical positions and standing. So naturally his superman is filtered through that lens. Tornado scene makes sense otherwise Jonathan is a hypocrite who does not follow his own rules. He died with honor and integrity. The kid's(clark) existence could essentially start a world war three if his secret got out before he was ready.

snyder is very valid in his views and is honest about it. I mean, its not like Bryne or other creators hadn't filtered superman through their own philosophical positions and political views. So, why should snyder be blamed for having biases like the others. Bryne even made superman be born on earth. I have explained why and how kents are utilitarian and moral libertarians in this movie in this very thread.you can check it out if you wish.

If you ask me, this whole thing is because of people's notions of "classic superman".goldenage guy is pretty rough.

Partly, it *is* because of people's notions of who Superman is, absolutely. But it's also about what attracts them to the character.

Snyder's not a Batman fan like Timm, but I do feel he "gets" Batman more - which isn't quite the same thing. What tells me this? Because even as twisted around a characterization of Batman as we got in BvS, there's a lot of counterbalance to that and he's given enough of the narrative to be sympathetic. The counterbalances to Superman, imo, aren't there to nearly the same extent. Maybe that's assumption on his part that people should know them? But his character needed to be fleshed out and more three-dimensional.

And I do cut comics and tv shows more slack than movies. Why? Because they at least have a chance to not screw it up next time (usually). With movies, you get 3 usually, maybe 6 if you're *very* lucky. There just isn't the time to go off into tangents and come back eventually. Taking their time to make Superman who he's meant to be isn't a bad idea, but people don't have the patience to wait until the end of the final movie for it to happen. We just saw evidence of that, actually - even the whole Justice League could save the franchise as it was, and Henry likely not being Superman again (a crime, imo) is likely the price that will be paid.

Also, I'm not crazy about utilitarianism being injected into Superman. He makes his best judgement and can't stand to let people suffer. That's it. Anything else, imo, just over-complicates things. And Clark showed his methodology when he saved the school bus: he sees people hurting, he helps people. So doing so again, particularly if he fails to save Pa, would have been solid narrative growth.

But, it isn't about just clark. It is about everyone else around him. I feel like i am going in circles here. Utilitarian perspective comes into play here. What if Clark's decision to reveal himself by saving pa or the school bus cause more deaths than the people he saved. Will Clark's action be considered moral? Kant would say, yes. Because for kant intentions are more valuable and judge of morality. A utilitarian would say no. Here, the outcome is what matters. There is bigger chance of Clark's reveal causing chaos than anything else. Clark needs to be ready when he reveals himself. so, that he can face the chaos, make something of it and covert it to order.

People just need to keep their notions what is superman aside. Because otherwise, some will say superman is jesus,Others will say he is satan and everything in between. I am talking in and out of story here. That was the point of bvs. Clark was, is and always will be just a dude from kansas trying to do the right thing. not because of obligation. but, because of voluntary choice.

Yes, but that choice isn't as much of a choice because we know he feels an obligation and a responsibility to help. He does choose it, but given his character there was not other real option that he could live with. "What was I supposed to do, watch them die?" is one of the best lines in the film and tells us Clark's viewpoint in a nutshell. Also, while the movie expects us to set preconceptions aside, it also leans heavily into those preconceptions (in ways that Superman Returns did, as well) that make the former harder to do.

And i hate this attitude towards golden age and everything (both good and bad) in that first 10 years molded by three very influential people Jerry, max and joe. It matters. It is not an afterthought. Goldenage age pa(john kent) is was and always will be the original kent. And the original superman will always be that guy. Goldenage guy wasn't just a powerfantasy but that was also a part of him.
What is so bad about that? I mean, it is just a threat. Fear is one of the weapons golden age guy used against the corrupt to protect the weak. Like batman which is stolen /copied(yes,batman took the fear aspect from superman man). Only the hope aspect remained. He is at the core a vigilante strong-man . Superman is and always will be at the end of the day a vigilante. Nothing more, nothing less. Every version of the character takes law into his own hands

It's not a hate towards Golden Age so much as the acknowledgement that modern perception isn't based primarily in that age anymore. And I don't have a problem with Golden Age, I'd love to see a take that's all Golden Age "Action #1 style" - as long as it's separate (aka like how the new Joker movie is being advertised). I do think that if people are told that something isn't supposed to be a "main" canon interpretation, they'll roll more with it. With that in mind, maybe WB should advertise all their films that way just to hedge their bets.. it might work.

And in my experience, comic fans are far too quick to judge anything that is more serious than a Looney Tunes episode as "taking things too damn seriously".

If that's been your experience, that's unfortunate. That's certainly not my experience. I wanted something serious, as did a lot of people I know who both did and did not enjoy the movie. I didn't want something that struck me as wallowing in it's own sorrow so much, but definitely something with more gravitas than what we'd seen before.



And FYI, you guys and gals will have to have fun on your own from Saturday until the 13th - my wife and I are going to Universal Studios and Disney in Orlando for the week, so obviously I won't be on here. So you all get your Snyder and New52 party on while I'm gone.

[GreatKungLao]

I would just post this again https://youtu.be/ue8vUnxAP8I?t=4946

[Agent Z]

In the scene, I'm pretty sure Gordon doesn't really start freaking out until Harvey points the gun at James Jr, which is why Harvey picked him to grab. It had already passed over Babs at that point.

They started freaking out when Harvey grabbed the boy. Before that Gordon yells, “Stop pointing that gun at my family!”.

I'd say him saying Batman did nothing wrong and calling out to him as he runs off into the darkness is a positive opinion on him.

Well, yeah. The guy saved his life. And I did acknowledge that. But that is not the same thing as admiring him.

Which is still more than Barbara is afforded and she is the character from the source material who actually matters. Let's not forget Gordon had a small scene with his son earlier in the film, and we see the son's reaction (not Barbara's) to Gordon's fake death. This isn't a meaty role by any stretch, but why couldn't they give this bare minimum to Babs? Especially as the films are already heavily skewed towards father/son stuff. As per usual, Martha is kind of an afterthought to Thomas, and Leslie is cut entirely. Babs could have easily been used without cutting into any run time or overcrowding the cast if she was afforded Jr's role, but they passed her over for a character nobody gives a shit about because...why?

You’re giving James Jr’s role far more weight that it deserves. Do you really think Babs fans wouldn’t have hated it if Babs’ entire role in the trilogy amounted to being a hostage for Harvey and then pointing out the blatantly obvious that Batman did nothing wrong? Let’s not forget that Gordon’s family has moved to another city by the time of Rises.

Which is all well and good, the films are going in their own direction. But none of it is necessary to tell serious stories, or the only one way to do it. Fans wanting more accurate depictions of the stuff in the comics is their own prerogative.

I’ve seen these same fans defend stuff like Teen Titans Go, Ultimate Spider-Man animated and the Guardians of the Galaxy movies which had a notably comical tone and took far more liberties with the source material than any of the Nolan or Snyder superhero movies.

And you've yet to explain how disliking the grounded/serious/realist take means they want something barely more serious than Bugs Bunny.

See above. For other examples, when the Titans trailer dropped the first time, you had people talking about how Teen Titans Go was so much better as an adaptation. The words “brooding” (which seems to be used everytime someone encounters a character who isn’t smiling and joking 24/7) and “emo” (which really should not be used by a person older than fifteen) get tossed around very liberally at numerous DC shows and movies from The freaking Flash to Young Justice. We have people exaggerating the supposed lack of humor in DC products (not simply saying the humor doesn’t work for them, that it’s either barely there or non-existent). Look at the wailing and gnashing of teeth that transpired when Todd McFarlane talked about how dark a Spawn movie (you know which would have been based on a comic about a hitman who dies, goes to hell and is reborn as a demon) would be.

I don’t know what else to tell you at this point. Maybe you just have different experiences in this from me but I’ve found the crowd I’m talking about to be absolutely toxic, insufferable and intolerant.

[phantom1592]

And I do cut comics and tv shows more slack than movies. Why? Because they at least have a chance to not screw it up next time (usually). With movies, you get 3 usually, maybe 6 if you're *very* lucky. There just isn't the time to go off into tangents and come back eventually. Taking their time to make Superman who he's meant to be isn't a bad idea, but people don't have the patience to wait until the end of the final movie for it to happen. We just saw evidence of that, actually - even the whole Justice League could save the franchise as it was, and Henry likely not being Superman again (a crime, imo) is likely the price that will be paid.

YES!!!

I'm not sure exactly when people started expecting trilogies to be 'standard'. Even the earlier ones like Indiana Jones and Lethal Weapon used to have a little connective tissue between them proving they were connected, but the movies were stand alone shows. Now?? It seems that most of the movies out there are set ups for a 'franchise'. Nolan got away with it by having Joker be the tease at the end of the Batman Begins... but in general, these movies need to start strong. I still maintain that one of the biggest problems with Green Lantern was that they saved Sinestro… the #1 all time big bad of the GL mythos as a setup for a sequel... and that never happened. Snyder had a long term plan... that needed FIVE movies to complete?!? When in the history of film making has any one person gotten to do things like that? Then when it all falls apart it's the studio's fault??

Movies really need to be about the movie itself... not the hopeful, possible 2nd, 3rd, and 20th movie. That's really my problem with MCU Spider-Man. He's still acting immature and a kid... and people say "It's about him starting out... It's early Spider-Man!" I'm sorry... This version has been around for FIVE movies now... We need to be AT the 'Hero' part of that Journey by now.

[manwhohaseverything]

Partly, it *is* because of people's notions of who Superman is, absolutely. But it's also about what attracts them to the character.

Snyder's not a Batman fan like Timm, but I do feel he "gets" Batman more - which isn't quite the same thing. What tells me this? Because even as twisted around a characterization of Batman as we got in BvS, there's a lot of counterbalance to that and he's given enough of the narrative to be sympathetic. The counterbalances to Superman, imo, aren't there to nearly the same extent. Maybe that's assumption on his part that people should know them? But his character needed to be fleshed out and more three-dimensional.

And I do cut comics and tv shows more slack than movies. Why? Because they at least have a chance to not screw it up next time (usually). With movies, you get 3 usually, maybe 6 if you're *very* lucky. There just isn't the time to go off into tangents and come back eventually. Taking their time to make Superman who he's meant to be isn't a bad idea, but people don't have the patience to wait until the end of the final movie for it to happen. We just saw evidence of that, actually - even the whole Justice League could save the franchise as it was, and Henry likely not being Superman again (a crime, imo) is likely the price that will be paid.

Also, I'm not crazy about utilitarianism being injected into Superman. He makes his best judgement and can't stand to let people suffer. That's it. Anything else, imo, just over-complicates things. And Clark showed his methodology when he saved the school bus: he sees people hurting, he helps people. So doing so again, particularly if he fails to save Pa, would have been solid narrative growth.



Yes, but that choice isn't as much of a choice because we know he feels an obligation and a responsibility to help. He does choose it, but given his character there was not other real option that he could live with. "What was I supposed to do, watch them die?" is one of the best lines in the film and tells us Clark's viewpoint in a nutshell. Also, while the movie expects us to set preconceptions aside, it also leans heavily into those preconceptions (in ways that Superman Returns did, as well) that make the former harder to do.



It's not a hate towards Golden Age so much as the acknowledgement that modern perception isn't based primarily in that age anymore. And I don't have a problem with Golden Age, I'd love to see a take that's all Golden Age "Action #1 style" - as long as it's separate (aka like how the new Joker movie is being advertised). I do think that if people are told that something isn't supposed to be a "main" canon interpretation, they'll roll more with it. With that in mind, maybe WB should advertise all their films that way just to hedge their bets.. it might work.

Dude, you think kant's philosophy doesn't cause suffering. Infact, it can cause more suffering.it is not a injection it is a position. It is not a poison to be injected. We all take utilitarian choices in some ways. For instance, clark lies(secret identity) which is against kantian ethics. He does it for the sake of happiness/well beinv of more people around him. So, clark took a utilitarian choice.

How is failing to save pa a choice? How does it challenge his morality? You think pa would want clark to choose his life over comparatively happy lives of everyone ( 7 billion people). Yes, that is clark's instinct. He sees people getting hurt helps. But, the problem is clark can see really far and hear further. He can't help everyone . So, his ma kent taught him to make the world smaller focus on what's important. And in the tornado scene his pa asks clark to do the same. The important thing was either pa's life or the life of everyone else. Pa himself asks him to focus on what's important. Let him go. Pa asks him to control his instinct. The death of zod is another example. Clark had a choice one life over 7 billion. Choice had to be made. Clark's instinct is to not kill. He will hate the action. But, had to be done.Not killing zod results in massacre of human kind.

Preconditions: clark has to be the only one that can help in the below situation.

Suppose, clark can hears 10 people screaming because of life threatening danger. He can save 9 of them or 1 guy not both. Let that 1 guy be closer to clark. But, saving him will cost clark time to save others. So much so they will die. What should clark choose? Kant would say its an impossible choice. You can't compare lives. The morality is compromised if you make a choice. True. It might be an impossible choice. But the choice has to be made. Otherwise all of them die. So, morality is compromised anyways.Someone on the Utilitarian end of the spectrum would say letting the one guy die is the only moral option. It is not great. But, choice is made with optimal result. At the very least 9 people will get to live. Clark's senses are the only reason. Utilitarian choices has to be made sometimes. Otherwise, he is a jackass who would let people die just so he can remain clean.

Batman is more strict follower of kantian ethics than any version of superman. He is more rigid. So much so that he will make ruckas because of Wonder Woman killing. Again, what do you mean by get?do postcrisis fans get precrisis version? Heck!they even rejected morrison's new52 superman. It wasn't snyder that cut Clark's part from bvs movie. It was wb. I would say this though snyder absolutely sucks at pacing and screen time management. He makes stories that can't be contained in 2hrs.it was wb who wanted batman anyway.

He feels obligation and its his innate instinct to follow kantian ethics like the priest and his biological parents. But, it is at the end of the day a choice. Its like being non vegetarian. You still have all the freedom to be vegetarian even if the other is natural instinct. Again, following kantian ethics will also have him see people die. Maybe more so in some cases. I won't deny jesus thing is very prevalent. But, i think it was intentional . I am not sure. I believe it is done to show the contrast of what people see and what actually is there. The actual thing being "dude from kansas", what people see or want to see "flawless space jesus/boyscout who can do no wrong". Other than that, i don't see any notion being leaned into. Other than what is there on paper.

Again, goldenage superman can work in any society where the strong pray on the weak. Its a timeless concept.i for one am glad that we get glimpses of that guy in takes like morrison's new52, all might, young justice conner... Etc. Some of which that is thriving . canonicity or "main"ness isn't worth much for me. I am manga guy. For me, authors are driving force.And the authors of badass "man of action" is long gone. This is just personal opinion.i don't care what they(dc) does now. I am more concerned with jon as of this moment . But, there is line that should not be crossed. Saying that ain't superman or trivialising the original idea is crossing it. If morrison wants to introduce a goldenage guy inspired superman(tshirt jeans superman) in the main book.if you don't like it that is fine. Saying it shouldn't be done equally bad for me.

Edit-clark does make non utilitarian choices and non kantian choices Especially, when it comes to his mother martha. Clark is pretty reckless if something tries to harm her.He even shuts his superhearing and choses to save martha over others in bvs. And of course, "you think you can threaten my mother" which caused the destruction of smallville.

[JAK]

I'm still packing, so here goes:

Dude, you think kant's philosophy doesn't cause suffering. Infact, it can cause more suffering.it is not a injection it is a position. It is not a poison to be injected. We all take utilitarian choices in some ways. For instance, clark lies(secret identity) which is against kantian ethics. He does it for the sake of happiness/well beinv of more people around him. So, clark took a utilitarian choice.

I'm saying it's a movie, not an ethics class. He doesn't conform to one, he makes a choice and goes with it. There's some Golden Age "can do" goodness I'd like to see back in Superman movies again. That sort of "roll up your sleeves" mindset that was there then as well as in the Triangle Era (among others).

How is failing to save pa a choice? How does it challenge his morality? You think pa would want clark to choose his life over comparatively happy lives of everyone ( 7 billion people). Yes, that is clark's instinct. He sees people getting hurt helps. But, the problem is clark can see really far and hear further. He can't help everyone . So, his ma kent taught him to make the world smaller focus on what's important. And in the tornado scene his pa asks clark to do the same. The important thing was either pa's life or the life of everyone else. Pa himself asks him to focus on what's important. Let him go. Pa asks him to control his instinct.

He thinks further ahead at that age? He just told Jonathan "You're not my real dad" out of anger. I'm not saying it's a choice, I'm saying it's not writing to character. Look, it's not that I don't know what they were going for, and the poetry of it - on paper - makes a lot of sense. What they were trying to do isn't rocket science, I could tell as it was happening. But when you inject who this is into things, it just doesn't work as well (at least for me).

The death of zod is another example. Clark had a choice one life over 7 billion. Choice had to be made. Clark's instinct is to not kill. He will hate the action. But, had to be done.Not killing zod results in massacre of human kind.

Zod's death is a whole other animal. I hated it, but that's not a character-in-movie problem, that's a writers-with-no-clue problem. That's made into a big moment and we were promised that it meant something - Snyder (after the fact of MoS and facing the first wave of backlash) came out and said as much. Then, BvS consciously went back on that, rendering the "lesson" moot. I often tell people to look at "Nando V Movies" channel to see how MoS could have been handled better - and the way he does it would have made for a much more satisfying conclusion.

Preconditions: clark has to be the only one that can help in the below situation.

Suppose, clark can hears 10 people screaming because of life threatening danger. He can save 9 of them or 1 guy not both. Let that 1 guy be closer to clark. But, saving him will cost clark time to save others. So much so they will die. What should clark choose? Kant would say its an impossible choice. You can't compare lives. The morality is compromised if you make a choice. True. It might be an impossible choice. But the choice has to be made. Otherwise all of them die. So, morality is compromised anyways.Someone on the Utilitarian end of the spectrum would say letting the one guy die is the only moral option. It is not great. But, choice is made with optimal result. At the very least 9 people will get to live. Clark's senses are the only reason. Utilitarian choices has to be made sometimes. Otherwise, he is a jackass who would let people die just so he can remain clean.

Imo, you know what the best Superman says? To hell with the preconditions. He tries to save them all, focusing on the 9 but trying to use powers or whatever from afar to stabilize the one long enough to get back. If he fails to save 1 or more, that's a character moment - possibly a strong one about "you can't save them all" but that's it.

Case in point:
tumblr_oumehmnS5v1r4pq4io1_1280.jpgtumblr_oumehmnS5v1r4pq4io2_1280.jpg

Batman is more strict follower of kantian ethics than any version of superman. He is more rigid. So much so that he will make ruckas because of Wonder Woman killing. Again, what do you mean by get?do postcrisis fans get precrisis version? Heck, they even rejected morrison's new52 superman. It wasn't snyder that cut Clark's part from bvs movie. It was wb. I would say this though snyder absolutely sucks at pacing and screen time management. He makes stories that can't be contained in 2hrs. it was wb who wanted batman anyway.

I'm a Post-Crisis fan who also loved the Pre-Crisis Superman. In fact, I enjoyed Morrison's initial Action arc but DC's B.S. image management made me hate the New52 apart from that. If they hadn't taken the good time to piss on the Superman I'd read since '91 I probably would have given it more of a chance. And now that the dust has settled, I plan to go back and read those issues, and I'm sure I'll find things to like there.

As for Batman, BvS and WB, I agree for the most part - which is the whole reason I said that we don't know what kind of movie he'd make without WB's initial direction. What did they tell him - "make it dark," etc? I don't know, but I'd guess that's the case. Though some of his jokes about how he'd make a Batman movie tell me it's closer to his wheelhouse anyway. But just cutting out the Clark scenes isn't the problem - there's a lot missing in even the extended version.

Speaking of WB's problems, I don't get their thinking... why in the green heck would they be so stupid as to hire a director who makes 5 hour films to make their "tent-pole" blockbusters and then edit them down? That's like making a stupid decision on top of a stupid decision. I'm not saying I'm surprised, just saying I don't get it.

He feels obligation and its his innate instinct to follow kantian ethics like the priest and his biological parents. But, it is at the end of the day a choice. Its like being non vegetarian. You still have all the freedom to be vegetarian even if the other is natural instinct. Again, following kantian ethics will also have him see people die. Maybe more so in some cases. I won't deny jesus thing is very prevalent. But, i think it was intentional . I am not sure. I believe it is done to show the contrast of what people see and what actually is there. The actual thing being "dude from kansas", what people see or want to see "flawless space jesus/boyscout who can do no wrong". Other than that, i don't see any notion being leaned into. Other than what is there on paper.

Actually, the "Space Jesus" thing is way overdone. It started (cinematically, anyway) with Donner, got a lot worse with Singer, and was the same or worse yet with Snyder. I say less "Space Jesus" and more "Space Samson". Samson does mean "Man of the sun," after all. If I never see Super-space-Jesus again in cinema, I'll die a happy man.

Again, goldenage superman can work in any society where the strong pray on the weak. Its a timeless concept.i for one am glad that we get glimpses of that guy in takes like morrison's new52, all might, young justice conner... Etc. Some of which that is thriving . canonicity or "main" ness isn't worth much for me. I am manga guy. For me, authors are driving force. And the authors of badass "man of action" is long gone. This is just personal opinion.i don't care what they(dc) does now. I am more concerned with jon as of this moment . But, there is line that should not be crossed. Saying that ain't superman or trivialising the original idea is crossing it. If morrison wants to introduce a goldenage guy inspired superman(tshirt jeans superman) in the main book.if you don't like it that is fine. Saying it shouldn't be done equally bad for me.

I agree on Golden Age Superman. But it needs all (or at least most) of it's components, including a lot of what made the Fleischer cartoons so great (not the blatant racism, yikes some of those eps didn't age well ) to really connect. Morrison's Superman in that initial Action arc had enough of that to go around like crazy, and I think people would eat it up in a movie. It's why (especially in US shows, etc) the "ballsy do-gooder who leaps with confidence and does ok even if it's not perfect" type character is consistently the popular one: Damon Salvitore, Harvey Spector, Sterling Archer, etc. There's a lot of wise-cracking in there, too, but that's not the main appeal. What they all have is what the Golden Age Superman had, and something I absolutely miss when it's not there in Superman. Especially for live action takes now, it simply must be there, imo.

Edit-clark does make non utilitarian choices and non kantian choices Especially, when it comes to his mother martha. Clark is pretty reckless if something tries to harm her.He even shuts his superhearing and choses to save martha over others in bvs. And of course, "you think you can threaten my mother" which caused the destruction of smallville.

Exactly. That passion toward the people he truly cares about goes well to making my point about Pa, actually.

Ok, back to packing I go!

[manwhohaseverything]

I'm still packing, so here goes:



I'm saying it's a movie, not an ethics class. He doesn't conform to one, he makes a choice and goes with it. There's some Golden Age "can do" goodness I'd like to see back in Superman movies again. That sort of "roll up your sleeves" mindset that was there then as well as in the Triangle Era (among others).



He thinks further ahead at that age? He just told Jonathan "You're not my real dad" out of anger. I'm not saying it's a choice, I'm saying it's not writing to character. Look, it's not that I don't know what they were going for, and the poetry of it - on paper - makes a lot of sense. What they were trying to do isn't rocket science, I could tell as it was happening. But when you inject who this is into things, it just doesn't work as well (at least for me).



Zod's death is a whole other animal. I hated it, but that's not a character-in-movie problem, that's a writers-with-no-clue problem. That's made into a big moment and we were promised that it meant something - Snyder (after the fact of MoS and facing the first wave of backlash) came out and said as much. Then, BvS consciously went back on that, rendering the "lesson" moot. I often tell people to look at "Nando V Movies" channel to see how MoS could have been handled better - and the way he does it would have made for a much more satisfying conclusion.



Imo, you know what the best Superman says? To hell with the preconditions. He tries to save them all, focusing on the 9 but trying to use powers or whatever from afar to stabilize the one long enough to get back. If he fails to save 1 or more, that's a character moment - possibly a strong one about "you can't save them all" but that's it.

Case in point:
tumblr_oumehmnS5v1r4pq4io1_1280.jpgtumblr_oumehmnS5v1r4pq4io2_1280.jpg

I'm a Post-Crisis fan who also loved the Pre-Crisis Superman. In fact, I enjoyed Morrison's initial Action arc but DC's B.S. image management made me hate the New52 apart from that. If they hadn't taken the good time to piss on the Superman I'd read since '91 I probably would have given it more of a chance. And now that the dust has settled, I plan to go back and read those issues, and I'm sure I'll find things to like there.

Exactly. That passion toward the people he truly cares about goes well to making my point about Pa, actually.

Ok, back to packing I go!

The thing is he doesn't conform to one form.He is called superman because he doesn't become what both the societies intended him to be.

See snyder likes to challenge superman as an idea.what is point of writing if characters don't have to make tough choices. The scenes you want have been. Pa dieing with illnes,accident.. Etc. It just gives him a relatable moment . But, that rarely challenges him. Sure, he feels powerless and human. If people want that they have it in other stories all across in different medias. Snyder wanted to do something new with his character. So, created a situation where clark has to carry something the rest of his life. The death of his father.here he feels the same powerlessness but in a different way. As you said he was disrespectful towards pa just prior to the moment. His mindset is to respect pa's final wish. Clark can't try to do anything also. He starts moving he will be seen. Clark is nowhere near powerful as he was in justice league movie.

It does mean something. Clark had convo with pa in bvs regarding black zero as a whole and the lives lost. But, if you are expecting clark to form some "no kill" code modelled after "thou shall not kill" biblical kantian commandment. I don't think that would ever happen with superman. Goldenage guy had his share of kill counts. Postcrisis superman also had killed zod. This superman values life. Would absolutely try not take it. But, if a war comes. He will kill. Such is human tendency. Clark is human. I don't think snyder ever promised "no kill" code. I mean, doomsday was next.

But, there will be situations where clark resources are limited. Focus/prioritising on the 9 more is exactly utilitarianism is. That is what. Pa and ma taught clark to do.it also means he would be making choices that suits the priority. Clark is making those choices.

I am not saying you particularly.As a whole or as group. talking to many of the post crisis fans seemed to indicate that they don't care for morrison's guy. They view it as some kind of edgy nonsense. When infact there were events in morrison's action that was dirrectly from the goldenage comics. I told them how Superman was inspired by golden age guy. But, they even refuse to believe it.One guy even insinuated that ain't superman.

The thing is, Clark is mamas boy. His dynamics with his mom is different from his dad. There is certain amout of respect clark has for pa's decisions. He just cannot disobey. It also makes sense. I mean as a kid this respect and love are the only thing stopping him from throwing earth shattering tantrum. Kids do throw tantrums. And Clark's tantrums can't be disciplined. Yet, clark is well developed guy. I attribute it to Clark's unwillingness to disobey and his innate nature/instincts.so, he reacts differently.

Having said all this. I don't particularly care for this superman.I just think snyder is being badly treated by fans.I also think he just isn't good at being diplomatic or catering to mass audience . Otherwise his superman just isn't for me.My guy always saves the day with a smile on his face. My favourite modern version of superman is morrison's. But, it just isn't enough story-size wise. So, All might is my favourite superman. That's crazy. A Japanese guy makes an awesome superman. I liked superdad. But, with jon in the picture.i like my superman to be badass hardcore strong guy with a heart of gold.

[SiegePerilous02]

They started freaking out when Harvey grabbed the boy. Before that Gordon yells, “Stop pointing that gun at my family!”.

Well, yeah. The guy saved his life. And I did acknowledge that. But that is not the same thing as admiring him.

Fair enough on the first part, but I think being grateful that he saves his life and believing in his innocence has a touch of admiring him.

You’re giving James Jr’s role far more weight that it deserves. Do you really think Babs fans wouldn’t have hated it if Babs’ entire role in the trilogy amounted to being a hostage for Harvey and then pointing out the blatantly obvious that Batman did nothing wrong? Let’s not forget that Gordon’s family has moved to another city by the time of Rises.

I've already seen Barbara Gordon fans criticize passing over her for James Jr. shortly after the film's release. That's where I'm getting this from.

One of them was on Scans-Daily and was known for writing a lot of meta on Wonder Woman. So yeah, I'm pretty sure at least some of them would have preferred to have her given a face and a bond with her father instead of her useless sibling.

I’ve seen these same fans defend stuff like Teen Titans Go, Ultimate Spider-Man animated and the Guardians of the Galaxy movies which had a notably comical tone and took far more liberties with the source material than any of the Nolan or Snyder superhero movies.


See above. For other examples, when the Titans trailer dropped the first time, you had people talking about how Teen Titans Go was so much better as an adaptation. The words “brooding” (which seems to be used everytime someone encounters a character who isn’t smiling and joking 24/7) and “emo” (which really should not be used by a person older than fifteen) get tossed around very liberally at numerous DC shows and movies from The freaking Flash to Young Justice. We have people exaggerating the supposed lack of humor in DC products (not simply saying the humor doesn’t work for them, that it’s either barely there or non-existent). Look at the wailing and gnashing of teeth that transpired when Todd McFarlane talked about how dark a Spawn movie (you know which would have been based on a comic about a hitman who dies, goes to hell and is reborn as a demon) would be.

I don’t know what else to tell you at this point. Maybe you just have different experiences in this from me but I’ve found the crowd I’m talking about to be absolutely toxic, insufferable and intolerant.

I've also seen more reasonable comparisons with the live action TV shows (including the Flash), the original Teen Titans cartoon, the DCAU and even some of the more recent DCEU movies (WW, Aquaman and Shazam) as to what people would prefer, and all of those can get quite dark when they want to or make changes. There is a wide amount of DC adaptations and only some of them have issues taken with them from what I've seen. if the final product is actually good, it usually dies down, such as the case with the Titans.

I've no doubt that there are toxic elements of the fandom about this, maybe I haven't encountered as much of them. Or maybe it doesn't seem as bad to me because I don't care about any of these adaptations in the first place. I have seen some toxic fandom defending the "darker" stuff, mostly the Snyder/early DCEU fanboys who create strawman arguments that the detractors just want fun dumb stuff or they go out of their way to tear down the MCU (which I don't always care for, but it still comes across as petty). It is a two way street.

[stargazer01]

I think Snyder loves his idea of who Superman is, which is not the one many of us share.

Remember when he was rumored to direct a Superman movie and he said the character was too simplistic for him? So he made him a lot more complicated and dark because that's what he is into. He likes more edgy stuff.

Every time he talks about Superman, he babbles a lot and seems pretty incoherent. He thinks Superman is very powerful, and a very destructive force in the wrong hands. He wanted to do Injustice Superman and thought that was a great idea to make more fans...

[manwhohaseverything]

I think Snyder loves his idea of who Superman is, which is not the one many of us share.

Remember when he was rumored to direct a Superman movie and he said the character was too simplistic for him? So he made him a lot more complicated and dark because that's what he is into. He likes more edgy stuff.

Every time he talks about Superman, he babbles a lot and seems pretty incoherent. He thinks Superman is very powerful, and a very destructive force in the wrong hands. He wanted to do Injustice Superman and thought that was a great idea to make more fans...

You do know zack snyder has social anxiety, right? I am pretty sure, He has read more superman than me. So, that is alot.

Also sure that this is more edgy.As for being simplistic,he is still that in man of steel.

[stargazer01]

This is the mentality of Snyder's biggest fans. The first paragraph is about Superman Returns because someone said the plane rescue is what the character is all about.

"This is film 5 in a series of Superman films in which he’s established himself as a trustworthy figure in the eyes of the people on numerous occasions.

That’s what Snyder was building to. He wanted to show a world that didn’t fully trust him until they realized what they lost."


I wanted to reply but it's pointless. I'll just get frustrated lol.

You do know zack snyder has social anxiety, right? I am pretty sure, He has read more superman than me. So, that is alot.

why should I care about that? He's not my friend. I only care about his work with Superman.

[manwhohaseverything]

I wanted to reply but it's pointless. I'll just get frustrated lol.

why should I care about that? He's not my friend. I only care about his work with Superman.

You should care. ofcourse, he would have hard time giving interviews. You did accuse of him of being incoherent and blabbering in interviews.that's a bit insensitive if you ask me.
If you think it's frustrating. Don't engage. Let them love their version of superman. In many versions of the character the world didn't automatically trust him. I don't see the problem in that.

[JAK]

I'm Baaaaack!! Did you all have fun without me? Anyway, for anyone who hasn't gone, Universal Studios Orlando has an awesome Halloween thing going on, and the Ghostbusters Haunted House is worth the price of admission all by it's lonesome. Wow, just awesome. As is the Avatar area (Animal Kingdom) at night and the Star Wars area impressed me and I'm not even into Star Wars. So, anyway..

See snyder likes to challenge superman as an idea.what is point of writing if characters don't have to make tough choices. The scenes you want have been. Pa dieing with illnes,accident.. Etc. It just gives him a relatable moment . But, that rarely challenges him. Sure, he feels powerless and human. If people want that they have it in other stories all across in different medias. Snyder wanted to do something new with his character. So, created a situation where clark has to carry something the rest of his life. The death of his father.here he feels the same powerlessness but in a different way. As you said he was disrespectful towards pa just prior to the moment. His mindset is to respect pa's final wish. Clark can't try to do anything also. He starts moving he will be seen. Clark is nowhere near powerful as he was in justice league movie.

Your assumption is incorrect, though. It's not that I want Pa to live in that scene, it's that Clark needed something else keeping him from helping (from a narrative standpoint) if he wasn't going to try. Sitting there doesn't do it for me, I'm sorry. I get what they were going for, and it's not enough. It's the same thing (for me) as Jack in Titanic talking about how he's all about survival and then not at least trying to get on something else after helping her float on the door. I get the symbolism and why it's a powerful idea, I get that the death is a powerful moment, it just goes against established character for me and takes me out of the movie. I've stated often on here how it could work, how he'd try to help and Pa would still be killed - in a rather more gruesome way in fact, and drive home Clark's inability to help everyone (as well as establish his aversion to killing as he'd blame himself).

It does mean something. Clark had convo with pa in bvs regarding black zero as a whole and the lives lost. But, if you are expecting clark to form some "no kill" code modelled after "thou shall not kill" biblical kantian commandment. I don't think that would ever happen with superman. Goldenage guy had his share of kill counts. Postcrisis superman also had killed zod. This superman values life. Would absolutely try not take it. But, if a war comes. He will kill. Such is human tendency. Clark is human. I don't think snyder ever promised "no kill" code. I mean, doomsday was next.

My expectation isn't a biblical thing, it's something that (to me) sets Superman apart from other action heroes and does him no narrative service to break if the aftermath can't be mined effectively. And given the reaction it got, I'd say I'm far from alone in having some version of that response.

Let's take that Post-Crisis moment, actually. I didn't like Superman #22, either. But after killing Zod, it had quite a lengthy effect on him, spanning almost a year's worth of stories. If you told me we'd be getting "Exile" for MoS 2 and 3, I might feel differently. I'd still question their execution of those ideas as I had no faith at all in Snyder/Goyer after seeing MoS, but still. Going there requires a larger narrative point or it's just a "bad guy dies in the end" action film - and most franchises don't have the screen time (or the audience patience) necessary to do that deep of a dive. I don't know what rationalization would make it not seem cheap (from a narrative perspective) to me, but I know I haven't found it yet. I'd like Superman to be more uplifting than that. (Iirc, there were interviews just after MoS where Snyder talked about the choice to have him kill Zod be to establish why he doesn't. I haven't found them yet, so I may be conflating that with something and if that's the case I apologize.. perhaps where it was said that it was used as rationale the convince Nolan to let them do it.. not sure yet.)

Taking the Golden Age example - Superman no longer "throws people into the next town." He's also a *lot* more powerful.

But spinning that on it's head... Clark knows that Batman kills people. He knows he'll kill them again. Why not just heat vision him after ripping the Batmobile apart? He's saving lives. He can't possibly expect one threat to work, after all. So killing one to save the many also applies here. As it would for almost any good villain, honestly. After blowing up that hearing of congress, Lex definitely needs to be fried extra crispy.

But, there will be situations where clark resources are limited. Focus/prioritising on the 9 more is exactly utilitarianism is. That is what. Pa and ma taught clark to do.it also means he would be making choices that suits the priority. Clark is making those choices.

Of course there are those situations. I'm saying he doesn't approach it that way. The nature of the character is to take the question's premise and throw it out the window. It doesn't mean he's perfect or that it always works, it just means that he always tries to find a way and will always reject the premise - for me, it's a key part of his determinative/optimistic nature. People accuse those who detract the movies as "expecting all smiles" but that's not the same thing as what I'm talking about.

I am not saying you particularly.As a whole or as group. talking to many of the post crisis fans seemed to indicate that they don't care for morrison's guy. They view it as some kind of edgy nonsense. When infact there were events in morrison's action that was dirrectly from the goldenage comics. I told them how Superman was inspired by golden age guy. But, they even refuse to believe it.One guy even insinuated that ain't superman.

I'd rather have him diving in head-first than sitting back and spending two who stories questioning himself. I don't want him to be reckless (and I did see one or two pieces of that in Morrison's arc), but I want that character pushing plot, not the other way around.

The thing is, Clark is mamas boy. His dynamics with his mom is different from his dad. There is certain amout of respect clark has for pa's decisions. He just cannot disobey. It also makes sense. I mean as a kid this respect and love are the only thing stopping him from throwing earth shattering tantrum. Kids do throw tantrums. And Clark's tantrums can't be disciplined. Yet, clark is well developed guy. I attribute it to Clark's unwillingness to disobey and his innate nature/instincts.so, he reacts differently.

I do get that, and I generally do think Clark is more considerate than most. But here's my perspective: Your dad's about to die, and you think you have the power to save him. In that situation, unless your mom's in trouble too, all other thoughts end. It's instinct at that point. "Trusting Pa's decisions" is just waaay too cerebral of a notion in that moment for me. People don't run in front of a bullet after careful thought, they do it (depending on the situation, of course) to protect and out of instinct. Even moreso when it's family. And self-preservation in that moment seems like one of the most un-Superman-like things I can conceive of.

Having said all this. I don't particularly care for this superman.I just think snyder is being badly treated by fans. I also think he just isn't good at being diplomatic or catering to mass audience . Otherwise his superman just isn't for me. My guy always saves the day with a smile on his face. My favourite modern version of superman is morrison's. But, it just isn't enough story-size wise. So, All might is my favourite superman. That's crazy. A Japanese guy makes an awesome superman. I liked superdad. But, with jon in the picture. i like my superman to be badass hardcore strong guy with a heart of gold.

I'd agree that there is certainly "Snyder bashing" being done for the sake of it, and I don't think that's right in general. But I do think that it's ok to call him out for problems people have with his interpretation. In fact, I think it's important - because WB has a loooong track record of not having the mental capacity to learn *why* something didn't work and what it would really take to fix it. I have no faith that they won't screw up the next version, too, unless it's drilled into their heads. lol

Contrary to what you might think, I actually don't need a Superman who always smiles. My ideal one is the Jurgens model with a heavy dose of Fleischer. I like gravitas, but I've gotten picky about my Superman having a can-do attitude and a heavy resilient streak in the face of adversity.

I think Snyder loves his idea of who Superman is, which is not the one many of us share.

Yeah, I think that'd be accurate, on reflection.

[manwhohaseverything]

QUOTE here.

That's cool if it didn't work for you. Some moments just take you out of the movie. I am not going to push what work for you or not.

But, i don't view it cerebral. I view it as the opposite. He begins to move but at the same moment pa raises his hands. That's it for clark. Like i said, clark feels an inherent obedience towards pa. He stopped. He couldn't movie. Before, he could rethink and reevaluate the situation,the moment was over. But, the death will be on his hands. He never denies it. But, ultimately he only has bear the responsibility for one life not millions or billions. if he had made the choice to save pa.

Except, the no kill philosophy is based entirely on the judo-Christian-kantian principles. The exile story is something close to a penence for a sin willingly commited. And you want clark to go through same. It's something akin judeo-christen stories regarding sin and redemption . But my question is, penence for what exactly(man of steel) ? Should clark feel he committed a crime by killing zod,that he would waste two years of his life? My answer is no. Sure, He took a life. But it wasn't Willing choice but a forced one.to live is to take life, regardless . We take lives of animals, don't we. (i know christan view animals as something created for them. But, that's besides the point)

He doesn't need repentance for zod's death. But, he does need repentance. It is for the death of all the people that died as mere collateral. The lives that truly matter. Zod's life shouldn't be given any priority in the list of lives lost. Zod made his choice and has pay the price for his karma. That is what bvs brought you. Zack felt the same way. Its something akin to my feelings regarding terrorist or mass murderers like joker . Those who dare treat life of another as joke and with no justifiable reasons have, no reasons to cry "human rights" or plea "mentally insane" . Only Their victims and all the people who died because they were on the wrong place at the wrong time do. That is just how i feel about it.Letting mass murderers go is not uplifting. It's plain selfishness. Selfishness to put your moral integrity above the well being of others.that isn't superman. Especially, if the said mass murderer views it as nothing but cowardess and is not willing to change his ways till his death. I would even be ok with taking him out of commission and sending him to jail for judicial proceedings. But, there isn't a jail that can hold him. There is no court of justice on earth that can punish zod. Throwing the book at him is impossible.

Throwing the premises out the window is an impossibility. In the world even beings such as superman has to obey rules. Sure, breaking chains is what he does.for breaking those chains he has to face consequences . A person who doesn't need to make choices according to the rules and premises is a god, not a man. Clark is a man. Have you watched tokyo ghoul. In it protagonist is similar to your view of clark in his principles. So, antagonist chooses to hold hostage two people. He asks the protagonist he can save only one and he is allowed to. But, the protagonist has to choose.he doesn't choose. He tries to save them both. Time runs out. What ends up happening is that the antagonist kills both. Protagonist's morality is questioned. He refused to make choice not for others but his moral integrity can be kept. He tried throw the premises out the window. He could have saved atleast one life(two counting himself). But, he didn't. Death of atleast one of the peoples are on his hands because he could have saved one. (note:-death of both of them is on the antagonist. The show does not portray that it is not. But the protagonist has a responsibility because of his powers and the position he was in.so, he gets the blame he deserves and course corrects)

In Batman's case, he doesn't know the full extent nor was he sure. He was on an investigation regarding the bat of Gotham. So he gave him a fair warning to knock it of. And he isn't willing to be judge, jury and executioner. That doesn't mean he wouldn't be one if he was forced to for the sake of others around him. There is big difference. Its like this I won't kill, generally. But, if i am put in a situation like war or i have to kill to save the life of my loved ones. I might or i might wimp out. That isn't a willing choice but the one anyone could make when he is pushed. Superman isn't a guy who kills generally. But, push comes to shove he will to save lives. He isn't a utilitarian. I have said this. He tries to go the middle route.

I have no problem with constructive criticism. But clearly zack has many issues. From what i heard, he is very decent. All his coworkers seem to love him. Personal attacks are just unwarranted.

Jurgen's is ok. His writing and most of the 90's just isn't my era. It feels dated for me. But, strangely golden age i love. Silverage i like many wacky stuff and moore's stories.

I didn't mean always smile. I meant, Smile while saving the day. Allmight smiles especially when things get tough to reassure people that they can count on him. that its gonna be alright. to QUOTE-"Fear not citizens.Hope has arrived". Its cheesy but, allmight is the only one who can pull that off as a badass. He is the goldenage superman in essence in a different world. Btw in story, allmight immigrated to America from Japan and started his hero career in America. Then went back.

[JAK]

That's cool if it didn't work for you. Some moments just take you out of the movie. I am not going to push what work for you or not.

But, i don't view it cerebral. I view it as the opposite. He begins to move but at the same moment pa raises his hands. That's it for clark. Like i said, clark feels an inherent obedience towards pa. He stopped. He couldn't movie. Before, he could rethink and reevaluate the situation,the moment was over. But, the death will be on his hands. He never denies it. But, ultimately he only has bear the responsibility for one life not millions or billions. if he had made the choice to save pa.

I do get that. I just think that protection instinct takes over for someone like Clark, who has a strong protection instinct to begin with. That'd be x1000 when it's family.

Except, the no kill philosophy is based entirely on the judo-Christian-kantian principles. The exile story is something close to a penence for a sin willingly commited. And you want clark to go through same. It's something akin judeo-christen stories regarding sin and redemption . But my question is, penence for what exactly(man of steel) ? Should clark feel he committed a crime by killing zod,that he would waste two years of his life? My answer is no. Sure, He took a life. But it wasn't Willing choice but a forced one.to live is to take life, regardless . We take lives of animals, don't we. (i know christan view animals as something created for them. But, that's besides the point)

He doesn't need repentance for zod's death. But, he does need repentance. It is for the death of all the people that died as mere collateral. The lives that truly matter. Zod's life shouldn't be given any priority in the list of lives lost. Zod made his choice and has pay the price for his karma. That is what bvs brought you. Zack felt the same way. Its something akin to my feelings regarding terrorist or mass murderers like joker . Those who dare treat life of another as joke and with no justifiable reasons have, no reasons to cry "human rights" or plea "mentally insane" . Only Their victims and all the people who died because they were on the wrong place at the wrong time do. That is just how i feel about it.Letting mass murderers go is not uplifting. It's plain selfishness. Selfishness to put your moral integrity above the well being of others.that isn't superman. Especially, if the said mass murderer views it as nothing but cowardess and is not willing to change his ways till his death. I would even be ok with taking him out of commission and sending him to jail for judicial proceedings. But, there isn't a jail that can hold him. There is no court of justice on earth that can punish zod. Throwing the book at him is impossible.

It's not about what *I* think. I watch Riverdale and think the kids would be better off if they just killed all of their parents, lol.. but Clark certainly feels loss and guilt from the actions (at least for a minute or so), because he doesn't just stand up and dust himself off without a thought. The guilt doesn't have to be measured on a scale of conditional morality for him to feel it, as we already know him to be a more caring person than the average one.

I agree that the citizens who died would be more important than Zod. And he should certainly feel those deaths. Zod is the last remaining living piece of Krypton besides Clark, though, so that would still have some impact. As for mass murderers - if it was real life, sure. But then we get back to what I said before: Joker should die, Lex should die, and then were in a whole other place with it. That's why I view some things from an in-story perspective and others from a narrative perspective. It's just the way these things work from a logistics standpoint (# of movies, time per movie, etc).

that he would waste two years of his life

(In my best Statler & Waldorf impression): Better than these movies wasting two years of mine. (sorry, couldn't help myself with that one, I'll stop - promise)

But going back to Superman #22, he didn't have any choice there, either. They were human and had no way to survive so they'd die if he left them. He couldn't take them to Earth for fear that they'd get their powers back and turn his own Earth to a lifeless husk. So he felt he had to kill them. And all the justification in the world didn't stop the guilt of the decision from having an effect on him.

In both cases, my issue isn't so much with Clark's forced decision as it is the writers' decision to put him there. Imo, it does more of a disservice than a service to the character. But in the comics case, "Exile" made an amazing story out of it and paid off what happened with far-reaching consequences. I'm not looking at this in a "in-story" way, but an "is this a good idea for the narrative and character" way - and imo, the answer is no. And I think that's been borne out, frankly - much to my dismay about likely losing Cavil as Superman.

Throwing the premises out the window is an impossibility. In the world even beings such as superman has to obey rules. Sure, breaking chains is what he does.for breaking those chains he has to face consequences . A person who doesn't need to make choices according to the rules and premises is a god, not a man. Clark is a man. Have you watched tokyo ghoul. In it protagonist is similar to your view of clark in his principles. So, antagonist chooses to hold hostage two people. He asks the protagonist he can save only one and he is allowed to. But, the protagonist has to choose.he doesn't choose. He tries to save them both. Time runs out. What ends up happening is that the antagonist kills both. Protagonist's morality is questioned. He refused to make choice not for others but his moral integrity can be kept. He tried throw the premises out the window. He could have saved atleast one life(two counting himself). But, he didn't. Death of atleast one of the peoples are on his hands because he could have saved one. (note:-death of both of them is on the antagonist. The show does not portray that it is not. But the protagonist has a responsibility because of his powers and the position he was in.so, he gets the blame he deserves and course corrects)

So Superman should be a pessimistic person who doesn't break from the choices he's presented with? That's counter to the nature of the character. And he doesn't always win out, but often times (read: usually) he does. That attitude and ability is intrinsic in the fabric of the character since his inception. Break that and, imo, you no longer have Superman. Is that "realistic"? Not really. But if realism past a certain point is a requirement, one should probably saunter on past the mainstream capes and tights area of the fiction section.