Snyder cut MIGHT be released...

[Pinsir]

Superman being a symbol of fear and uncertainty

Except the film clearly portrays the anti-Superman people as being in the wrong and also shows him as a symbol of hope. Why does this black and white thinking permeate the anti-Snyder posters? "John Kent told Superman to let kids die." "Superman is portrayed as a symbol of fear." "Superman loves breaking necks."

[Robotman]

Except the film clearly portrays the anti-Superman people as being in the wrong and also shows him as a symbol of hope. Why does this black and white thinking permeate the anti-Snyder posters? "John Kent told Superman to let kids die." "Superman is portrayed as a symbol of fear." "Superman loves breaking necks."

I personally was incredibly pissed at one scene in particular in BvS. After the bombing at the Capital, Superman just looks sad and flies off. I was disgusted. Then I saw the extended version of the movie and it does actually show Superman trying to rescue people and help. I think a lot of Supes’ character development, like investigating what he felt was Batman terrorizing of the poor (which turns out was a ruse by Lex) was cut out of the version of the film most people saw.

But again that is kinda on Snyder. He needed to plan that stuff out far better. Don’t make a 3 1/2 hour cut of a movie and not expect the studio to ask you to trim it down. The guy does some great visuals but he really needs help with story flow.

[WebLurker]

You do know that, superman has the innate capacity to cause great fear. He doesn't even need to try like batman. He is a literally a sentient gun.He chooses to be superman. Therefore he becomes a symbol of hope.


So, superman and fear aren't exactly unconnected. There has always been a side to him that is an absolute beast. He isn't treated like one. He was accepted and loved by parents, his wife, his family, regular working people.. Etc as one of them. As their champion. (Ofcourse there were those that hated him and rejected him) . Therefore he becomes something worth aspiring too. He literally balances that side inorder to be superman.

Hmmm. Something to think about, if nothing else.

Except the film clearly portrays the anti-Superman people as being in the wrong and also shows him as a symbol of hope. Why does this black and white thinking permeate the anti-Snyder posters? "John Kent told Superman to let kids die." "Superman is portrayed as a symbol of fear." "Superman loves breaking necks."

Funny how in BvS, even people who weren't anti-Superman were shown to be wary of him (e.g. Holly Hunter's character).

[manwhohaseverything]

I personally was incredibly pissed at one scene in particular in BvS. After the bombing at the Capital, Superman just looks sad and flies off. I was disgusted. Then I saw the extended version of the movie and it does actually show Superman trying to rescue people and help. I think a lot of Supes’ character development, like investigating what he felt was Batman terrorizing of the poor (which turns out was a ruse by Lex) was cut out of the version of the film most people saw.

But again that is kinda on Snyder. He needed to plan that stuff out far better. Don’t make a 3 1/2 hour cut of a movie and not expect the studio to ask you to trim it down. The guy does some great visuals but he really needs help with story flow.

Riight, wb wanted more batman. They wanted to catch up with mcu, without any buildup. A guy can only do so much. That's on snyder. How? He is still an employee.If you ask me, everything related to justice league and larger universe being cut out would have been appropriate. Even, wonder woman, video stuff and knightmare sequence isn't necessary. The story should have been about just lex luthor, doomsday (as lex's plot device) , batman and superman, just that. Every other thing being added in was irrelevant.

[manwhohaseverything]

Hmmm. Something to think about, if nothing else.

I would like to think of superman as a fenrir wolf that turned out alright.


This is more tangible allegory, than the savior nonsense.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

But again that is kinda on Snyder. He needed to plan that stuff out far better. Don’t make a 3 1/2 hour cut of a movie and not expect the studio to ask you to trim it down. The guy does some great visuals but he really needs help with story flow.

Absolutely. Snyder, his producers, and the studio should have looked at that script and realized that there was no way to fit it all in a 2 hour and 30min runtime without the whole thing falling apart. And, from the sounds of it, they should have done the same thing with the Justice League script if Snyder was truly able to get a nearly 4 hour cut out of it.

[Agent Z]

Funny how in BvS, even people who weren't anti-Superman were shown to be wary of him (e.g. Holly Hunter's character).

That's called being cautious. And as wary as she was about Superman, she was far less trusting of Lex.

[SiegePerilous02]

MoS did very well for a superhero film at the time though.

Yes, because people were hyped for a new Superman movie, it was flawed in its execution but it was still very interesting. It was divisive, not a failure, and it showed promise for stuff going forward. It required some more careful planning going forward to launch a cinematic universe that had broad appeal. Instead, they doubled down on all the darkness and created a film that didn't have broad appeal to either adults or kids (and they were marketing toys to kids during this film's release), audiences turned on it after the hype of the first week wore down.

I don't think it was poorly shot, I just think people at the time had slurped the 'Man of Murder' Koolaid and were willing to interpret a vague scene as a murder. I've only seen the theatrical cut once, so I sometimes get confused as to what scenes are in what edition, but when I saw that scene in the film I didn't come away with the idea that he killed a dude. I think in the Extended Cut, he outright says "He didn't kill those men."

There is hyperbole on both sides of the debate. I thought the scene was poorly shot and I didn't drink any Kool-Aid. Not because I can't accept the possibility that Clark just flew by really fast and grabbed him on the way out, just that it's not readily clear that that's what happened and people don't have the ability to rewind and double check when they're in the theater. If the director doesn't want to cause any confusion, why shoot it in a vague way at all?

Clark was talking about the people who look like they were burned by his heat vision, but I'm not sure if there is ever any clarification on the dude he plowed through a wall.

To be honest, the people I see decrying the dourness of BvS are usually comic fans who get upset that Superman doesn't smile. Yet, his character in BvS isn't that different than how Superman is portrayed in All-Star Superman. In All-Star, Superman is pretty stoic throughout, but I guess because its colourful and Superman does smile occasionally in it, Morrison get's a pass.

Morrison gets a pass because he's overall a much better storyteller in his chosen medium than Snyder is in his. Snyder not being able to put together a coherent narrative in his films is a consistent criticism of all his films, not just his superhero ones.

[manwhohaseverything]

Regarding the man of murder thing. How come nobody made this much fuss when superman actually killed zod in comics? Also, gohan decided let it go as well. Nobody felt it was a sin. As for the guy who got ploughed through the wall. He might have had some injuries. But superman used his own hands to shield him. As for coherency, i didn't see anything incoherent in mos. It had pacing issues. But, that's it. Bvs though was cut to tatters. That's just studio meddling.

[Lee]

Regarding the man of murder thing. How come nobody made this much fuss when superman actually killed zod in comics?

People did.

[manwhohaseverything]

People did.

They did? Well, that's then understandable. I guess.Why do people have a problem with superman killing and not ww, iron manor any other hero?it's not like there isn't an understandable situation here. It's not like the "code" was his thing or meant to be. Superman had a fair amount of body count in the old comics.i applaud the value for life, though.

[SiegePerilous02]

Regarding the man of murder thing. How come nobody made this much fuss when superman actually killed zod in comics? Also, gohan decided let it go as well. Nobody felt it was a sin. As for the guy who got ploughed through the wall. He might have had some injuries. But superman used his own hands to shield him. As for coherency, i didn't see anything incoherent in mos. It had pacing issues. But, that's it. Bvs though was cut to tatters. That's just studio meddling.

If this was clearly shown, this wouldn't even be brought up.

It happened so fast and so vaguely, that the first reaction people have is "did Superman just seriously injure or fucking demolish that guy?" and there is no rewind button in the theater. Anything afterward as to how the guy survived is just fanwank. Fanwank that might make sense, but fanwank just the same.

They did? Well, that's then understandable. I guess.Why do people have a problem with superman killing and not ww, iron manor any other hero?it's not like there isn't an understandable situation here. It's not like the "code" was his thing or meant to be. Superman had a fair amount of body count in the old comics.i applaud the value for life, though.

People DO have an issue with Wonder Woman killing. if you specifically mean the movies, the film portraying her as an Amazon warrior in a war setting who is still growing into her powers may have something to do with it. Once her powers unlock, they seem to be setting her up as not needing to kill opponents because she has the power and skill to not need to. The second film has already ditched the sword and utilizing more lasso action.

[Agent Z]

If this was clearly shown, this wouldn't even be brought up.

It happened so fast and so vaguely, that the first reaction people have is "did Superman just seriously injure or fucking demolish that guy?" and there is no rewind button in the theater. Anything afterward as to how the guy survived is just fanwank. Fanwank that might make sense, but fanwank just the same.



People DO have an issue with Wonder Woman killing. if you specifically mean the movies, the film portraying her as an Amazon warrior in a war setting who is still growing into her powers may have something to do with it. Once her powers unlock, they seem to be setting her up as not needing to kill opponents because she has the power and skill to not need to. The second film has already ditched the sword and utilizing more lasso action.

The reasons I've seen for this one are even more absurd than the ones for Batman and Superman.

[SiegePerilous02]

The reasons I've seen for this one are even more absurd than the ones for Batman and Superman.

Has her being able to cross the line when needed ever actually been beneficial for her?

It gives precedent for poor writers to exaggerate her and make her a stab happy lunatic. Meanwhile, the writers who actually execute it well still don't have her kill anyone who actually matters. Where is the mainstream story where she finally kills Dr. Psycho or the Joker? No, just have her kill a mythological monster as if anyone cares.

[Lee]

They did? Well, that's then understandable. I guess.Why do people have a problem with superman killing and not ww, iron manor any other hero?i

Different characters are different characters. What works for one character doesn't necessarily work for another.