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

[misslane]

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

It was followed up in BvS. He could have just killed Batman to save his mother, but he tried to apologize and reason with him first. He then had to fight for his own life, because Batman was trying to murder him. It's not about him being "better" either, because what he did in MOS was the best thing to do. It was the most moral thing to do, as the only other option was to let that family die and then more and more families after that, as Zod targeted more people to hurt Superman as much as possible. The follow up was to elaborate on how far you can push Superman before he will make such a tough call as killing. In MOS, he had no options. In BvS, he did. So, we learn that Superman will exhaust all options — even when his nearest and dearest, like Martha, have their lives threatened — before he will kill. That's his code. It's not "There will always be another way!" because there won't always be one, not for him and not for any of us.

[manwhohaseverything]

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

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

Snyder doesn't need to abide by any audience expectation. If he did it will just be another cookie cutter. I never felt like this clark would evolve in to this kantian embodiment post crisis guy is.
That's your assumption. I didn't feel a bit shocked.For me it, was to give clark something that challenges him. A good climax witha punch. Clark didn't actually think it through when he decided to take the leap. I mean, he was essentially put in the place of a cop.

[DochaDocha]

Batman stories can get away with the no-kill rule because nobody in comics dies of blunt force trauma, except (ironically) Superman. Batman utterly beats the s**t out of people that it's almost like Home Alone level slapstick. But it looks cool as hell in the Arkham games.

[manwhohaseverything]

It was followed up in BvS. He could have just killed Batman to save his mother, but he tried to apologize and reason with him first. He then had to fight for his own life, because Batman was trying to murder him. It's not about him being "better" either, because what he did in MOS was the best thing to do. It was the most moral thing to do, as the only other option was to let that family die and then more and more families after that, as Zod targeted more people to hurt Superman as much as possible. The follow up was to elaborate on how far you can push Superman before he will make such a tough call as killing. In MOS, he had no options. In BvS, he did. So, we learn that Superman will exhaust all options — even when his nearest and dearest, like Martha, have their lives threatened — before he will kill. That's his code. It's not "There will always be another way!" because there won't always be one, not for him and not for any of us.

This clark isn't rigid with his value. He is like gohan in dbz. If you don't like gohan that's fine. Honestly, i feel like this is going in circles. Why did nobody complains this much when gohan a 10 year old kid, killed for the first time?

[SiegePerilous02]

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

Realistically some of those actions would have that result, but we're not dealing with a realistic character or story here. Even in the relatively more grounded Nolan films, it's fantastical. Past Begins, he tries as much as possible to avoid killing, and it's not a coincidence that that version was more warmly received than Snyder's psychopath. And we're not just looking at films, Batman has been a major part of pop culture for a while. Adam West and BTAS Batman didn't kill, same with more kid friendly takes like Brave and the Bold and obviously Lego Batman. And it's not like his killing in the Burton films hasn't been criticized. He also doesn't kill in the Arkham games even if that is somewhat laughable considering how ridiculously violent everything in those games is.

So Snyder's is perhaps more honest than some versions, like TDKR Batman or some examples from the post-Crisis era where they upped the violence. Still not necessarily wheat people WANT though, because it's still not all Batman ever was and can be. People want to like Batman, not be told that they shouldn't like him while his worst tendencies (that don't even apply to all versions) are cranked up.

[manwhohaseverything]

Vigilantism isn't sun flower and daisies. Bruce wayne is a glorified rich vigilante.it can lead to killings and death.Telling it like it is never a sin.

[Vordan]

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

No I’m not joking. He does not kill in those games. If you used Detective Vision all the thugs Batman beat up will be “Unconscious” and not “Deceased”. Is that realistic? Of course not. But Batman is not realistic, and the Arkham games make no claim otherwise.

[SiegePerilous02]

Vigilantism isn't sun flower and daisies. Bruce wayne is a glorified rich vigilante.it can lead to killings and death.Telling it like it is never a sin.

People do not need to "told like it is" because nobody is under the pretense that Batman is a real person or that anything he does is realistic.

yeah detective mode in Arkham games basically saying "lol they are just sleeping" is totally ridiculous, but these games also have giant rampaging plant monsters, freeze rays, bat monsters and shape shifting mud men.

[DochaDocha]

I may be veering too far off-topic here, but Batman creators and fans use realism when it suits them. Batman is often considered the best superhero (and I don't disagree with this) because he's otherwise human and a lot of what he does is technically possible, just like it's technically possible for any one of us to win the lottery repeatedly. It allows for Batman to be appealing to folks who otherwise aren't into the fantasy elements you read in comic books. But when they want to do a bunch of unrealistic stuff, then the argument shifts to it's just a comic book and we shouldn't hold the stories to such realism standards.

[SiegePerilous02]

I may be veering too far off-topic here, but Batman creators and fans use realism when it suits them. Batman is often considered the best superhero (and I don't disagree with this) because he's otherwise human and a lot of what he does is technically possible, just like it's technically possible for any one of us to win the lottery repeatedly. It allows for Batman to be appealing to folks who otherwise aren't into the fantasy elements you read in comic books. But when they want to do a bunch of unrealistic stuff, then the argument shifts to it's just a comic book and we shouldn't hold the stories to such realism standards.

This tends to be true, which is why i just straight up prefer fantastical Batman who is BFFs with Superman and Bat-Mite is totally real. He can still slide into darker, more grounded and serious stories but he is still very much "Make believe."

Even so, I still think the fans who try to have it both ways still intellectually know that he's not realistic, so it's not surprising that Snyder's "wake up call" that people didn't even really need or want wasn't fully embraced by the GA>

[manwhohaseverything]

People do not need to "told like it is" because nobody is under the pretense that Batman is a real person or that anything he does is realistic.

yeah detective mode in Arkham games basically saying "lol they are just sleeping" is totally ridiculous, but these games also have giant rampaging plant monsters, freeze rays, bat monsters and shape shifting mud men.

So? Should the ugly nature of his Vigilantism always be not portrayed or hidden just because people don't like it?i am sorry, that's a cope out for me. Heck! Even siegel and shuster didn't glorify superman as the vigilante when he first showed up. That's gutsy.

[SiegePerilous02]

So? Should the ugly nature of his Vigilantism always be not portrayed or hidden just because people don't like it?i am sorry, that's a cope out for me. Heck! Even siegel and shuster didn't glorify superman as the vigilante when he first showed up. That's gutsy.

If paying customers don't like it and won't embrace your product, then yep: maaaaaybe it's a bad idea.
Snyder's Batman landed like a wet fart overall with the GA, especially compared to other takes. At the time they were aiming to catch up with Marvel in the shared cinematic universe they were trying to get off the ground. And throwing a stupid amount of money at these productions. You need to make these movies as broadly appealing as possible to be successful, at least when they are starting out, especially when it was expensive as hell. It is not the time or place to get all arthouse and deconstructive with your big pop culture icons whom the audience want to like and you've just alienated them for no reason other than some artistic ego.

[The_Lurk]

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



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

Not saying it should not looked at or be considered at one point. But the quote you gave makes it sound like its the only thing worthwhile to explore and tell about Superman. Thanks to Joss it took another turn in JL since if rumors are true the BvS Knightmare was just a teaser to Snyders JL 2 or 3. I don't even dislike the occasional darker tones; even with Superman. It fits the comics. But the magic word is occasional; at one point it would have been just too much. And Knightmare becoming a actual full fledged JL movie would be beyond far too much.

CB Superman killed Zod and his two goons under a much less time pressured spontaneous moment. But his handling it was thoroughly explored and made him adamant about his no kill rule except with Doomsday much later; and even there it took him some time to realize that there is no way to subdue him (and he actually did no killed him).

I heard that the fabled Snyder cut could become an actual reality. If it does I look forward to it. But when I hear stuff like AM impaling Steppenwolf (for that even a picture exists) for SM to superpunch him to WW for beheading... I can't help but shake my head an cringe a bit.

[manwhohaseverything]

If paying customers don't like it and won't embrace your product, then yep: maaaaaybe it's a bad idea.
Snyder's Batman landed like a wet fart overall with the GA, especially compared to other takes. At the time they were aiming to catch up with Marvel in the shared cinematic universe they were trying to get off the ground. And throwing a stupid amount of money at these productions. You need to make these movies as broadly appealing as possible to be successful, at least when they are starting out, especially when it was expensive as hell. It is not the time or place to get all arthouse and deconstructive with your big pop culture icons whom the audience want to like and you've just alienated them for no reason other than some artistic ego.

Money has nothing to do with what i am taking about. I don't care what corporate make with this character. Snyder's movies where financially successful. That means there is an audience for the stuff. Just because me or you aren't it doesn't mean they don't exist. This complaining only got us a shitty justice league movie which was soulless to the core. It isn't some artistic ego. It's artistic liberty. Even that is pushing it. The only obligation snyder has is towards his team and creators of these characters . And tell me when was batman's Vigilantism glorified by his own creators. He wasn't. Batman had killed.the glorification only started when corporates thought they could make a few bucks from these characters. So they watered it down. Made the characters more heroic so the ip can 'flourish' . That's fine. It has an audience. I love it myself . But, the other side isn't untouchable.

[ssupes]

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

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

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

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

I must have missed the "neck snap!" graphic or the "Internal Bleeding" one in the 60's batman show. I don't remember batman killing much if at all in the critically acclaimed animated TV show either as it was for kids and I'm pretty sure some parents would have complained about that. I could go on but I figure this video would probably do a better job then I ever could, it even does a better job of that god awful Martha scene:


In regards to Superman killing. Yes it is unrealistic to not kill in superhero movies but as people have already pointed out, comics books are meant to be unrealistic. Last time I checked a man flying through the air without any rocket equipped assistance is pretty unrealistic. People don't come to see superman struggle with the right choice, they come to see him make the right choice and to find a way through it no matter the odds. People want to read books where he stands by the right choice and confirm it though what he says. I don't want to watch a superman who is full of Jesus metaphors and looking miserable all the time, that isn't character defining. I'd rather have something that Zack really should have read instead:
https://youtu.be/aGtiinR6ni8