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

[misslane]

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.

Well, I'm not going to ding MOS or BvS or setting up an issue and following up on it, especially since the follow up was what people here were saying they wanted, for a JL film plot that never came to fruition. I am certainly not going to ding them by comparing them to Superman killing Zod in the comics, because it was a far different scenario. In the comics, it was a cold-blooded and calculated act, which is why it warranted much more soul searching. In other words, what he did in the comics was morally wrong. What he did in MOS was morally right. Killing Steppenwolf was morally right as well, given I am assuming there was no other way to subdue him.

[manwhohaseverything]

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.

No. It isn't the only worth while thing. But just an avenue that's available . Dude, this is nowhere near dark. Just self serious. That can be made fun of too.Well, violence isn't pretty. As for joss whedon's superman. He didn't even feel like a person. I would take Snyder's superman than the caricature we got in jl.

[misslane]

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

What you're describing is sanitizing violence in the case of Batman, which makes people less likely to consider it critically, and a power fantasy of morality for Superman, which doesn't offer anything of value in terms of moral instruction. Killing in the defense of innocents when there is no other way is THE RIGHT CHOICE. A Superman who doesn't have to make that choice because the story gives him an out isn't a moral character. He doesn't provide anything aspirational to audiences, because none of us get to have that kind of narrative protection when we have to make tough choices in the real world. The fantasy isn't about a virtuous hero, but a world where virtue is easy to come by. Sanitizing violence and morality in this way erodes morality and moral reasoning in readers far more than depicting heroes who make tough, yet morally right, decisions does.

[SiegePerilous02]

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.

it made money. it did not make as much as it could have, and there was a steep second weekend drop. The hype for the lead up to the movie was insane because of the characters within it, but once they got a load of what the product was, interest faded. The complaining didn't result in JL sucking. They didn't pull the plug on the Snyder production, and then it awkwardly turned into a Whedon production halfway through. That thing was pretty much fucked from jump street. JL should have been scrapped entirely. Instead, listening to audience criticisms and allowing the right directors to do their thing resulted in WW, Aquaman and Shazam, all much better films.

Putting Batman and Wonder Woman into Superman's sequel to rush to Avengers type success was about as corporate as it gets.

[Vordan]

What you're describing is sanitizing violence in the case of Batman, which makes people less likely to consider it critically, and a power fantasy of morality for Superman, which doesn't offer anything of value in terms of moral instruction. Killing in the defense of innocents when there is no other way is THE RIGHT CHOICE. A Superman who doesn't have to make that choice because the story gives him an out isn't a moral character. He doesn't provide anything aspirational to audiences, because none of us get to have that kind of narrative protection when we have to make tough choices in the real world. The fantasy isn't about a virtuous hero, but a world where virtue is easy to come by. Sanitizing violence and morality in this way erodes morality and moral reasoning in readers far more than depicting heroes who make tough, yet morally right, decisions does.

Superheroes don’t exist in the real world. And in the real world unelected vigilantes killing people right and left would not go over well at all. We’ve already seen plenty of “real” superhero stories like Watchman, Miracleman, etc. That is not something that Superman and Batman are built for, hence why Snyder’s films failed.

[ssupes]

What you're describing is sanitizing violence in the case of Batman, which makes people less likely to consider it critically, and a power fantasy of morality for Superman, which doesn't offer anything of value in terms of moral instruction. Killing in the defense of innocents when there is no other way is THE RIGHT CHOICE. A Superman who doesn't have to make that choice because the story gives him an out isn't a moral character. He doesn't provide anything aspirational to audiences, because none of us get to have that kind of narrative protection when we have to make tough choices in the real world. The fantasy isn't about a virtuous hero, but a world where virtue is easy to come by. Sanitizing violence and morality in this way erodes morality and moral reasoning in readers far more than depicting heroes who make tough, yet morally right, decisions does.

It's better then giving gratuitous amounts of violence with a thin attempt of arguing morality. And people consider the Bale films critically more positive far more then batman v superman ever could hope for.

No one felt inspired when superman was getting beat down by batman in the film and that is one of the many, many reasons the martha scene fails. Because no one related to a man of moping who had no stake in the fight or anything in the film, nor did they relate to batman who sole character trait was to kill superman and had no code of conduct for anything else other then killing, no redeeming qualities shown in the film to prove himself heroic. Ask yourselves if Ben affleck was playing someone other then batman then would you feel that he was a hero? How could people believe he would lead the world's greatest super heroes when he was arguably in a morally shade of black as much as the villains he would supposedly face?

A superman who finds a way even though the odds are against him does more to argue morality then breaking zod's neck ever did. Zack didn't even show how that affected him going forward, just a scream and next minute he's making out with lois lane. I know he mentions it in interviews that this is what defines his no killing rule but if that's the case then did clark have to take drugs to know that it was wrong? Did he have to steal to figure out that it was wrong? Even Frank millers superman was able to figure out that it would be so easy to kill using his powers but it would be a better use of his abilities to show people a better way instead.
That's why tales of legendary heroes have stood the test of time such as King Arthur and his knights of the round table and it is the reason why All star superman will be remembered far better then man of steel ever will. Because at the end of the day people want a hero who succeeds in what they believe more then a hero is forced to compromise to "real world" likelihoods. That's why Marvel films are dominating and DC can't even decide which superman story the can tell besides origin and the death of superman.

[misslane]

Superheroes don’t exist in the real world. And in the real world unelected vigilantes killing people right and left would not go over well at all. We’ve already seen plenty of “real” superhero stories like Watchman, Miracleman, etc. That is not something that Superman and Batman are built for, hence why Snyder’s films failed.

No one is even remotely suggesting superheroes should be killing people left and right. The idea is that killing in order to preserve innocent life should be an option for any superhero if there really isn't a better alternative, which I assure you most people would probably be okay with in the real world. If Superman and Batman are not built for that kind of basic moral storytelling, then what purpose do they serve? Simply because superheroes exist within the fantasy and science fiction genre is not some sort of excuse for indulging naivete. Indeed, there are plenty of stories that don't exist within the "real world" that seem perfectly capable of challenging their powerful protagonists. I don't think the characters are scapegoats here. It's not Superman and Batman that are not suited to complexity, but their fans and general audiences. It's not breaking news that most people will prefer simple comfort food over something that offers them something a little bit more to chew on than reassuring hackneyed tropes.

[misslane]

It's better then giving gratuitous amounts of violence with a thin attempt of arguing morality. And people consider the Bale films critically more positive far more then batman v superman ever could hope for.

The Bale films are morally bankrupt. Batman is portrayed as a moral paragon for refusing to kill yet kills his enemies left and right. It is a hypocritical morality that gets away with the magic trick of convincing you there is less violence simply because the narrative draws your attention away from its true consequences.

No one felt inspired when superman was getting beat down by batman in the film and that is one of the many, many reasons the martha scene fails. Because no one related to a man of moping who had no stake in the fight or anything in the film, nor did they relate to batman who sole character trait was to kill superman and had no code of conduct for anything else other then killing, no redeeming qualities shown in the film to prove himself heroic. Ask yourselves if Ben affleck was playing someone other then batman then would you feel that he was a hero? How could people believe he would lead the world's greatest super heroes when he was arguably in a morally shade of black as much as the villains he would supposedly face?

Batman v Superman does not even try to portray Batman as a hero outside of its opening flashback and the film's final moments. It's a story about how Bruce lost his way as a result of compounded trauma, and what it takes for him to start breaking from that dark path. Bruce himself acknowledges he's no longer a good guy. He calls himself a criminal. One can relate to Bruce because one can relate to feeling scared and powerless, and one can still root for him because once you see what he can be -- a man who will do everything he can to save ordinary men, women, and children during a terrorist attack -- you hope that he can be that man again. If no one felt inspired, then it wasn't because the film's dual narratives showing how Batman and Superman overcome existential crises is hopelessly flawed. It was because fans like you can only relate to superheroes when they are portrayed as pure power fantasies.

A superman who finds a way even though the odds are against him does more to argue morality then breaking zod's neck ever did. Zack didn't even show how that affected him going forward, just a scream and next minute he's making out with lois lane. I know he mentions it in interviews that this is what defines his no killing rule but if that's the case then did clark have to take drugs to know that it was wrong? Did he have to steal to figure out that it was wrong? Even Frank millers superman was able to figure out that it would be so easy to kill using his powers but it would be a better use of his abilities to show people a better way instead.

This isn't about the odds being against Superman; it's about a story in which there quite literally were no other viable options. Superman killing Zod wasn't wrong, so the effects of the act really don't go beyond Superman's initial despair. Unless, of course, you want Superman to be even more of a mopey navel gazer. Snyder never said he wanted Superman to kill Zod to figure out it was wrong. He wanted to explore how killing Zod shapes Superman's moral code insofar as both he and the audience now know what it would take for Superman to kill.

That's why tales of legendary heroes have stood the test of time such as King Arthur and his knights of the round table and it is the reason why All star superman will be remembered far better then man of steel ever will. Because at the end of the day people want a hero who succeeds in what they believe more then a hero is forced to compromise to "real world" likelihoods. That's why Marvel films are dominating and DC can't even decide which superman story the can tell besides origin and the death of superman.

King Arthur is a great example of a heroic protagonist who is far from perfect and who must confront "real world" moral conflicts despite existing within a mythological framework. I don't really think Arthurian legends are a point in your favor. I don't disagree with you that the reason why the MCU is thriving right now is because it offers audiences comforting fast food entertainment that makes them forget the real world. MCU heroes kill all the time, too, but I guess it doesn't matter because...FUN. But I think that is much more a statement about pop culture and contemporary issues than it is a statement about what superhero stories should be.

[SiegePerilous02]

No one is even remotely suggesting superheroes should be killing people left and right. The idea is that killing in order to preserve innocent life should be an option for any superhero if there really isn't a better alternative, which I assure you most people would probably be okay with in the real world. If Superman and Batman are not built for that kind of basic moral storytelling, then what purpose do they serve? Simply because superheroes exist within the fantasy and science fiction genre is not some sort of excuse for indulging naivete. Indeed, there are plenty of stories that don't exist within the "real world" that seem perfectly capable of challenging their powerful protagonists. I don't think the characters are scapegoats here. It's not Superman and Batman that are not suited to complexity, but their fans and general audiences. It's not breaking news that most people will prefer simple comfort food over something that offers them something a little bit more to chew on than reassuring hackneyed tropes.

It's not that these two characters, or superheroes in general, aren't suited to exploring these types of concepts. It's just that this execution wasn't well done. For something better, we have Rucka's depiction of Diana killing Maxwell Lord. Or hell, even a dated comic like New Teen Titans has the team wrestle with the idea that they are in a different situation when they are rescuing Starfire from a war on her home world and have to kill some enemy alien troops, or Barry Allen killing Thawne. In MOS, the plot contrives itself so that Zod isn't sucked into the Phantom Zone with the others so they can drag things out with an exessive fight and have Clark be forced to kill him. In the context of the film, and the choice he had to make, Clark made the right choice. However, all we see of how he reacts to it is him screaming and crying, and then then the film never mentioning it again. And it doesn't effectively carry over into BvS; we didn't need to see Clark kill Zod to know he wouldn't want to kill Batman. Everyone knows Superman doesn't kill, or at least avoids it all cost, and the film still tests him. He could kill Batman to save his mother, but he instead tries to find another way and doesn't budge even though it nearly costs him his life. He stays true to his convictions and the narrative doesn't make it easy for him, he is put through the ringer. None of that required a previous death on his hands to work. (there is also the stupidity of making Batman a pre-meditating murderer, but that's another issue).

The thing is, when Clark pulls off the impossible victories in the comics, and if they are written well, it's because he makes them happen. Easy victories are not just handed to him. He wins through his determination, intellect, skill and powers. He finds a better way because he's goddamn Superman. And people love him for it. At most they can empathize with the guy who was forced to take a life to save innocents, and may think they'd make the same choice themselves, but I'm doubtful anybody was inspired by it. With the execution of the scene, I think most people felt uncomfortable and awkward.

And in hindsight, it just seems kind of tasteless to take a character designed with the broadest possible appeal (and is especially aimed at children) and have him kill someone in an especially raw and brutal fashion just so the director could send a "YOUR CHILDHOOD ESCAPIST FANTASIES ARE STUPID AND NAIVE!!" message. Like we don't need Zack Snyder to tell us that, we're signing up for a movie about a guy who flies and shoots lasers because of the sun. It's kind of pretentious. It is a more moral choice than some other examples of Zod's death, but it's questionable to bring it up in the first place. If so, it definitely needed to be explored within Superman's own films with more room to breath, and be saved for a sequel so we can get to know this Superman better before he kills someone.

The Bale films are morally bankrupt. Batman is portrayed as a moral paragon for refusing to kill yet kills his enemies left and right. It is a hypocritical morality that gets away with the magic trick of convincing you there is less violence simply because the narrative draws your attention away from its true consequences.

Lol, I'm sorry but this just comes across as sour grapes that the version of Batman you liked fell on its face compared to the one that came before.
Bale's Batman avoids killing as much as he can, and adheres to that rule. He saves the Joker because he ceased being an active threat and because it was in his power to do so. Later, when he is considerably more worn down, he tackles Two-Face over the edge of a building because it was Harvey or the kid, and he had limits as to who he could save in that moment. His body gradually becomes more worn down as the trilogy develops. He's Batman in a relatively more grounded setting than the comic one, and he's more emotionally stable and healthy. he's more consistently moral than some of the modern takes in the comics who dish out excessive violence but refuse to kill period. And I'm not even a major fan of the Nolan take.

There is a false morality in presenting the BvS one as superior. He's essentially a villain at this point, but the narrative undermines it by still making his action scenes stereotypically "badass." Yeah I guess we're supposed to be disturbed by how violent he is, but the way his action shots are done still make him somewhat cool as he does it. It would be better if a filmmaker would remember that Batman doesn't HAVE to be excessively violent or psychopathic at all instead of just putting more of it out into the world. Like I re-read Alan Moore's Clayface story last night and Batman there only resorted to violence in self defense, didn't indulge in excess and showed lots of compassion to his mentally disturbed foe. Where the hell is THAT guy and can he be in a movie for a change?

Batman v Superman does not even try to portray Batman as a hero outside of its opening flashback and the film's final moments. It's a story about how Bruce lost his way as a result of compounded trauma, and what it takes for him to start breaking from that dark path. Bruce himself acknowledges he's no longer a good guy. He calls himself a criminal. One can relate to Bruce because one can relate to feeling scared and powerless, and one can still root for him because once you see what he can be -- a man who will do everything he can to save ordinary men, women, and children during a terrorist attack -- you hope that he can be that man again. If no one felt inspired, then it wasn't because the film's dual narratives showing how Batman and Superman overcome existential crises is hopelessly flawed. It was because fans like you can only relate to superheroes when they are portrayed as pure power fantasies.

This is a bit much. The movie didn't get a warm reception from either the fans or the general audience because people just straight up don't want to watch a movie where fucking Batman of all people plots to murder Superman, nor watch Superman mope in the rain for two hours while he barely gets to say anything. We also barely know these versions of the characters before we are thrown into heavy deconstruction territory. They don't know this Batman, they have not seen what he's experienced and lost, and now we are thrown into a story where he is pretty much a very misguided anti-hero if not outright villain. The general audience is not pre-disposed to dislike Batman, who exactly was asking for this? They can see Batman put through the ringer and come out the other side and be inspired by him in other ways besides "I went kind of kill crazy there for a bit." And as I said before, it'd be a risky story in more capable hands, but may be well suited for a small production, like a Black Label movie on a more reasonable budget or even an elseworld comic. Something that is meant to be a big, tent pole Summer blockbuster film that is to launch a franchise and was expensive as hell to make? They shot themselves in the foot, and we are reaping what they sowed: a rebooted Batman, and Superman banned from movies for the foreseeable future. Yet WW, Aquaman and Shazam are continuing and they don't quite line up with the Marvel mold either, so it's not as if that has to be the only option.

It's also reductive to say the fans only relate to these heroes as pure power fantasies. How do you know what else they consume with these characters in it? Synder is hardly the first creator to take things into more complex territory. The issue really is that his ambitions outweigh his talent. His films aren't that much more complex than the MCU, they are just excessive and kind of dumb in different ways

[JAK]

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.

It's better then giving gratuitous amounts of violence with a thin attempt of arguing morality. And people consider the Bale films critically more positive far more then batman v superman ever could hope for.

No one felt inspired when superman was getting beat down by batman in the film and that is one of the many, many reasons the martha scene fails. Because no one related to a man of moping who had no stake in the fight or anything in the film, nor did they relate to batman who sole character trait was to kill superman and had no code of conduct for anything else other then killing, no redeeming qualities shown in the film to prove himself heroic. Ask yourselves if Ben affleck was playing someone other then batman then would you feel that he was a hero? How could people believe he would lead the world's greatest super heroes when he was arguably in a morally shade of black as much as the villains he would supposedly face?

A superman who finds a way even though the odds are against him does more to argue morality then breaking zod's neck ever did. Zack didn't even show how that affected him going forward, just a scream and next minute he's making out with lois lane. I know he mentions it in interviews that this is what defines his no killing rule but if that's the case then did clark have to take drugs to know that it was wrong? Did he have to steal to figure out that it was wrong? Even Frank millers superman was able to figure out that it would be so easy to kill using his powers but it would be a better use of his abilities to show people a better way instead.
That's why tales of legendary heroes have stood the test of time such as King Arthur and his knights of the round table and it is the reason why All star superman will be remembered far better then man of steel ever will. Because at the end of the day people want a hero who succeeds in what they believe more then a hero is forced to compromise to "real world" likelihoods. That's why Marvel films are dominating and DC can't even decide which superman story the can tell besides origin and the death of superman.

This.

It's funny, I don't consider myself to really be against realism for the most part, but there's a point where trying to push realism beyond a certain point on Superman just strikes me more and more as pretentious. It doesn't have to be all smiley and happy (that's not great, either), but there's a balance to getting it just right - especially where a movie is concerned. And these last ones - none of them - were it. Which is where there are no more of them, save for the ones that divorced themselves from the main DCEU tone asap.

[SiegePerilous02]

This.

It's funny, I don't consider myself to really be against realism for the most part, but there's a point where trying to push realism beyond a certain point on Superman just strikes me more and more as pretentious. It doesn't have to be all smiley and happy (that's not great, either), but there's a balance to getting it just right - especially where a movie is concerned. And these last ones - none of them - were it. Which is where there are no more of them, save for the ones that divorced themselves from the main DCEU tone asap.

Yeah, if it worked we'd be getting more of them. It's pretty cut and dry.
Gadot and Momoa were the only ones embraced and that's why they stuck around. When you have little kids in Superman shirts leaving the theater crying after the joyless experience of almost watching him get murdered by Batman and then skewered by a bone monsters, something has gone terribly wrong.

I guess we should have known we were in trouble when Jimmy Olsen got shot in the fucking face not 10 minutes into this thing. And where Superman taking out that terrorist leader is shot in such a vague and sloppy way that it still looks like he killed him and didn't care lol. Wonder Woman and her theme music were the MVPs of this movie and they didn't even need to be in it, and probably got lucky that the narrative gaze didn't fall on her too much (she still has that iffy line about walking away from humanity though, which Jenkins is wisely steering clear of).

...God if you search through my old posts I'm sure you'd see I was a diehard BvS apologist when it first came out. Time and distance, and the final underwhelming end result, has resulted in me doing a 180

[Powerboy]

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.

Once more we have evidence of how desperately we need a Like button.

Complete agreement here.

I don't want every Superman story or every version of Superman to be like MoS but I found that version more inspirational than any previous live action version. I have found other versions inspirational and the George Reeves version is my favorite but those were "Warm fuzzy feelings" inspirations. I found MoS inspiring in a way that this is a version that didn't get to evade the hard choices and the consequences. There was no magic evasion of a real moral choice. This was a Superman existing in a world that doesn't contrive to make him able to always make some perfect ideal choice.

I realize that ruins the moral superiority fantasy for a lot of people. But I found it inspiring. What's inspiring about a guy that always pulls a power or trick out that allows him to evade real consequences?

Don't get me wrong. I think MoS had a lot of mistakes in how things were presented and I don't want this to be every version but I liked a lot of it.

[Agent Z]

It's not that these two characters, or superheroes in general, aren't suited to exploring these types of concepts. It's just that this execution wasn't well done. For something better, we have Rucka's depiction of Diana killing Maxwell Lord. Or hell, even a dated comic like New Teen Titans has the team wrestle with the idea that they are in a different situation when they are rescuing Starfire from a war on her home world and have to kill some enemy alien troops, or Barry Allen killing Thawne. In MOS, the plot contrives itself so that Zod isn't sucked into the Phantom Zone with the others so they can drag things out with an exessive fight and have Clark be forced to kill him. In the context of the film, and the choice he had to make, Clark made the right choice. However, all we see of how he reacts to it is him screaming and crying, and then then the film never mentioning it again. And it doesn't effectively carry over into BvS; we didn't need to see Clark kill Zod to know he wouldn't want to kill Batman. Everyone knows Superman doesn't kill, or at least avoids it all cost, and the film still tests him. He could kill Batman to save his mother, but he instead tries to find another way and doesn't budge even though it nearly costs him his life. He stays true to his convictions and the narrative doesn't make it easy for him, he is put through the ringer. None of that required a previous death on his hands to work. (there is also the stupidity of making Batman a pre-meditating murderer, but that's another issue).

The thing is, when Clark pulls off the impossible victories in the comics, and if they are written well, it's because he makes them happen. Easy victories are not just handed to him. He wins through his determination, intellect, skill and powers. He finds a better way because he's goddamn Superman. And people love him for it. At most they can empathize with the guy who was forced to take a life to save innocents, and may think they'd make the same choice themselves, but I'm doubtful anybody was inspired by it. With the execution of the scene, I think most people felt uncomfortable and awkward.

And in hindsight, it just seems kind of tasteless to take a character designed with the broadest possible appeal (and is especially aimed at children) and have him kill someone in an especially raw and brutal fashion just so the director could send a "YOUR CHILDHOOD ESCAPIST FANTASIES ARE STUPID AND NAIVE!!" message. Like we don't need Zack Snyder to tell us that, we're signing up for a movie about a guy who flies and shoots lasers because of the sun. It's kind of pretentious. It is a more moral choice than some other examples of Zod's death, but it's questionable to bring it up in the first place. If so, it definitely needed to be explored within Superman's own films with more room to breath, and be saved for a sequel so we can get to know this Superman better before he kills someone.



Lol, I'm sorry but this just comes across as sour grapes that the version of Batman you liked fell on its face compared to the one that came before.
Bale's Batman avoids killing as much as he can, and adheres to that rule. He saves the Joker because he ceased being an active threat and because it was in his power to do so. Later, when he is considerably more worn down, he tackles Two-Face over the edge of a building because it was Harvey or the kid, and he had limits as to who he could save in that moment. His body gradually becomes more worn down as the trilogy develops. He's Batman in a relatively more grounded setting than the comic one, and he's more emotionally stable and healthy. he's more consistently moral than some of the modern takes in the comics who dish out excessive violence but refuse to kill period. And I'm not even a major fan of the Nolan take.

There is a false morality in presenting the BvS one as superior. He's essentially a villain at this point, but the narrative undermines it by still making his action scenes stereotypically "badass." Yeah I guess we're supposed to be disturbed by how violent he is, but the way his action shots are done still make him somewhat cool as he does it. It would be better if a filmmaker would remember that Batman doesn't HAVE to be excessively violent or psychopathic at all instead of just putting more of it out into the world. Like I re-read Alan Moore's Clayface story last night and Batman there only resorted to violence in self defense, didn't indulge in excess and showed lots of compassion to his mentally disturbed foe. Where the hell is THAT guy and can he be in a movie for a change?



This is a bit much. The movie didn't get a warm reception from either the fans or the general audience because people just straight up don't want to watch a movie where fucking Batman of all people plots to murder Superman, nor watch Superman mope in the rain for two hours while he barely gets to say anything. We also barely know these versions of the characters before we are thrown into heavy deconstruction territory. They don't know this Batman, they have not seen what he's experienced and lost, and now we are thrown into a story where he is pretty much a very misguided anti-hero if not outright villain. The general audience is not pre-disposed to dislike Batman, who exactly was asking for this? They can see Batman put through the ringer and come out the other side and be inspired by him in other ways besides "I went kind of kill crazy there for a bit." And as I said before, it'd be a risky story in more capable hands, but may be well suited for a small production, like a Black Label movie on a more reasonable budget or even an elseworld comic. Something that is meant to be a big, tent pole Summer blockbuster film that is to launch a franchise and was expensive as hell to make? They shot themselves in the foot, and we are reaping what they sowed: a rebooted Batman, and Superman banned from movies for the foreseeable future. Yet WW, Aquaman and Shazam are continuing and they don't quite line up with the Marvel mold either, so it's not as if that has to be the only option.

It's also reductive to say the fans only relate to these heroes as pure power fantasies. How do you know what else they consume with these characters in it? Synder is hardly the first creator to take things into more complex territory. The issue really is that his ambitions outweigh his talent. His films aren't that much more complex than the MCU, they are just excessive and kind of dumb in different ways

Considering the reaction to Diana killing Maxwell Lord at the time, I'd say it doesn't matter the execution. People will find some reason to be mad Superman (or any superhero) using lethal force for one reason or another.

Bale's Batman breaks the rule despite the director insisting he never kills at all. BvS never shies away from the fact that this Batman is utterly vicious and frankly he's the perfect end result of what Batman has been like in the past decades. As much as fans want to cry about how much they want an emotionally stable Batman he has not been that way for a long, long time if he ever was at all. And at least Snyder mostly limited Batman's brutality to criminals and had his dickishness towards Superman be a result of his PTSD being taken advantage of by Luthor. Nothing Snyder's Batman did remotely came close to Bruce's attempts at mass surveillance (which got numerous people including the Amazons killed) or his physical and emotional abuse of the Batfamily.

I find Snyder's DC movies a hell lot less pretentious than morally confused, masturbatory crap like Kingdom Come and Superman vs The Elite which spend more time whining about how people see Superman as outdated and pissing on his competition than just focusing on what actually makes him an interesting character.

It's not hard to come to the conclusion that fans only relate to these characters as power fantasies when phrases like "Superman always find a way" get repeated ad nauseum. A lot of Superman fans flat out complain when he isn't written as a power fantasy to the point of demonizing him and whoever depicts him in a non-power fantasy way and the positive reception to what he does to the other heroes and Steppenwolf in Justice League sure doesn't help this perception. When the only Superman stories these fans of his like are the ones where he steam rolls over everybody with a wink and a smile at the camera what else are people supposed to think?

[manwhohaseverything]

it made money. it did not make as much as it could have, and there was a steep second weekend drop. The hype for the lead up to the movie was insane because of the characters within it, but once they got a load of what the product was, interest faded. The complaining didn't result in JL sucking. They didn't pull the plug on the Snyder production, and then it awkwardly turned into a Whedon production halfway through. That thing was pretty much fucked from jump street. JL should have been scrapped entirely. Instead, listening to audience criticisms and allowing the right directors to do their thing resulted in WW, Aquaman and Shazam, all much better films.

Putting Batman and Wonder Woman into Superman's sequel to rush to Avengers type success was about as corporate as it gets.

The drop was because they expected something like the animated crossover and instead got a snyder movie. People who wantthe live action version of animated movies aren't going to be Snyder's audience. That's it.snyder has an audience. Let the people who enjoy his Movies enjoy it. Expecting too much and something else from snyder movies too soon, led to the downfall of the verse. Snyder could have build his own audiences with these movies. Instead, they tried to appease the naysayers and Butchered justice league.

Your argument is jl sucking wasn't because of complaining. It was. It absolutely was. Jl is atleast a caricature of the cookie cutter movie if nothing else. If Your definition of 'right director' is some guy who would make a cookie cutter movie. No thanks, i don't want avengers with capes Because i have seen the Avengers already.

The complaining made corporates be scared and replace him. The jackasses even used the death of Snyder's daughter against him. That's the lowest of the low. It could have or should have is'nt even worthwhile argument. It is corporate as it gets because they asked him too.Snyder had the tendcy to always put easter eggs of the these characters . His idea was just kryptonite being dumped into wayne manor. It just blew up. Snyder doesn't go aginst the wb. Even now he hasn't done anything directly. I am sure, he could sue them or atleast tell the reality of his firing. He is not nolan. He doesn't have the level of pull to stop corporate decisions. It's not jl the cookie cutter nonsense did better. What snyder did was make movies with the limited freedom he gets with his vision.

[marhawkman]

What you're describing is sanitizing violence in the case of Batman, which makes people less likely to consider it critically, and a power fantasy of morality for Superman, which doesn't offer anything of value in terms of moral instruction. Killing in the defense of innocents when there is no other way is THE RIGHT CHOICE. A Superman who doesn't have to make that choice because the story gives him an out isn't a moral character. He doesn't provide anything aspirational to audiences, because none of us get to have that kind of narrative protection when we have to make tough choices in the real world. The fantasy isn't about a virtuous hero, but a world where virtue is easy to come by. Sanitizing violence and morality in this way erodes morality and moral reasoning in readers far more than depicting heroes who make tough, yet morally right, decisions does.

Yeah, Batman writers tend to avoid thinking about the implications of what he does. "Batman doesn't kill"... not even to save the lives of others. However he makes contingency plans to "incapacitate" every superhero and supervillain on the planet. Ultimately Batman's philosophy is narcissistic. It focuses only on his view of himself.

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.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCl0Qv8DkvQ

Detective vision is the ONLY reason to think most of those people aren't dead. Also being alive now is not the same as being alive 5 hours from now. The level of beating Batman dishes out leaves people needing hospitalization. How many get it?

Considering the reaction to Diana killing Maxwell Lord at the time, I'd say it doesn't matter the execution. People will find some reason to be mad Superman (or any superhero) using lethal force for one reason or another.

IRL people have protested cops killing criminals in the line of duty. It's like the Aesop's fable said, you can't please everyone. No matter what you do someone will say it was wrong.