Zack Snyder's JUSTICE LEAGUE on HBOmax in 2021!

[SiegePerilous02]

But that is the plot twist isn't it. some dont want him to move away from Reeves nostalgia.

What is becoming ironic is that every Superman animated movie since the 90s has more in common with Snyder's Superman than Reeves.

If Nolan had directed man of steel, it will be 75% of the same film we got. Superman returns moved away from Reeves.

Who is everyone who doesn't want them to move away from Reeves and why is Snyder the only other alternative? The character shouldn't be pigeonholed that way. Rejection of Snyder is not proof that people have trouble letting go of Reeves.
Superman Returns is heavily criticized for being a Reeves rehash. This is not news. Both Returns and Mos/the DCEU are flawed movies and that's why they haven't been embraced. Cavill could be replaced tomorrow and the reaction wouldn't be that severe, not the way it would be if Gal Gadot was replaced as Wonder Woman.

Then maybe Nolan wasn't the best creative mind for Superman, just because he was good with Batman doesn't mean we can just blindly apply him to Superman. Even so, it may have been a more solid movie with the most controversial and needless element (Zod's death) removed from it.

[Rev9]

He was fine showing his humanity as Clark, but I was focusing on him speaking about Superman to the press and his own colleagues since he is a reporter. He can do things to help himself when he's not Superman with his colleagues in the industry, this Clark just didn't. I disagree, Superman is known to gather supporters by reaching out to them first and being easy to talk to, Steve Rogers does this in the MCU. Since he's an unknown to them misunderstanding can hurt him in the public eye and his enemies or media personalities who want to sensationalise him for ratings will take advantage. This Superman rejects doing all of this and just expects people to support him.

Bruce only came around when he nearly killed Superman, not because Superman talked him down. During their conflict they didn't really speak to each other, it was mostly threats and posturing.



Being on a journey requires the audience to know what he's thinking at every part of it, Nolan does this with the Dark Knight trilogy. Nobody is unclear what his Batman thinks about anything. Except this Superman doesn't do either, he's not that talkative unless you're in his inner circle and when we follow him as an audience he remains at a distance because he doesn't really talk that much about his opinions. This is about communication, not about cynicism or optimism. Characters can be cynics and be an open book to the audience. The problem here is that this Superman doesn't speak clearly enough about where he stands and his actions rarely help him, since they're constantly in a sinister light. His first encounter with Batman being threats, his indifference to the criminals Batman was fighting seconds before they met and so on. All communication can be a risk at being misread, which is vital for film makers that their characters aren't being vulnerable to be misread.

This sort of thing is more like how Batman would act since he's not meant to be a people person, and he's a darker character but Superman is someone who's able to be more open about his thoughts and feelings. Clark did do this in Man of Steel more, like with the priest but he's still too passive - he spends too much time taking the direction of others than making his own decisions.

He was fine showing his humanity as Clark, but I was focusing on him speaking about Superman to the press and his own colleagues since he is a reporter. He can do things to help himself when he's not Superman with his colleagues in the industry, this Clark just didn't. I disagree, Superman is known to gather supporters by reaching out to them first and being easy to talk to, Steve Rogers does this in the MCU. Since he's an unknown to them misunderstanding can hurt him in the public eye and his enemies or media personalities who want to sensationalise him for ratings will take advantage. This Superman rejects doing all of this and just expects people to support him.

Bruce only came around when he nearly killed Superman, not because Superman talked him down. During their conflict they didn't really speak to each other, it was mostly threats and posturing.



Being on a journey requires the audience to know what he's thinking at every part of it, Nolan does this with the Dark Knight trilogy. Nobody is unclear what his Batman thinks about anything. Except this Superman doesn't do either, he's not that talkative unless you're in his inner circle and when we follow him as an audience he remains at a distance because he doesn't really talk that much about his opinions. This is about communication, not about cynicism or optimism. Characters can be cynics and be an open book to the audience. The problem here is that this Superman doesn't speak clearly enough about where he stands and his actions rarely help him, since they're constantly in a sinister light. His first encounter with Batman being threats, his indifference to the criminals Batman was fighting seconds before they met and so on. All communication can be a risk at being misread, which is vital for film makers that their characters aren't being vulnerable to be misread.

This sort of thing is more like how Batman would act since he's not meant to be a people person, and he's a darker character but Superman is someone who's able to be more open about his thoughts and feelings. Clark did do this in Man of Steel more, like with the priest but he's still too passive - he spends too much time taking the direction of others than making his own decisions.

Ok let me give examples from film that imply that the majority of people do love Superman even in film
1.Monument is built for him
2.Perry says 'End of Love affair with Man in the Sky?' this directly implies before Keith defacing the monument following Nairomi coverage people were 'in love with man in the sky' .Perry seized the moment to shift the prevailing narrative
3.Finch says 'The World has been so caught up with what Superman can do that no one has asked what he should do' again implies wonder and adulation up till Nairomi
4.Bruce 'Everytime your hero saves a cat out of a tree you write a puff piece editorial' proves even the media was enamoured with him

So the idea that he was hated is false,but what it does is show how nefarious Lex's plot was by staging his Nairomi attack.Even from footage in media and from Keith's snippets on Superman's heroics he was absolutely apolitical always intervening only to stop either natural disasters or preventing massive accidents(ship and space rocket).So when Lex set up a politically charged scenario is when people snapped out of their 'Superman worship'

As for Clark defending superman as Clark it was handled to a minimum and rightly so for the following reasons:
1.Perry is no Jonah Jameson,he is not out to libel or slander Superman
2.The status quo shows more likely the people working with Clark are not haters coz many appeared in MoS and probably like much of the world feel indebted to Superman as BZE survivors.
3.Lois works with him,she could just as easily defend Superman in the workplace and it would not raise questions coz she knows Superman.Others would be curious to know if Clark knows him first hand to defend him so.
4.Clark already defends Superman to Bruce without being imposing, but courteous and factual see all the earlier status quo points.
5.Why the need to show Clark defending Superman when the media already discuss him ad nausium? He does not need to endear Superman to others because he is only one and the same to us the audience not the people he speaks to in film.How people react to Clark talking about Superman has no bearing how they react to Superman himself.

You may then follow on how about him speaking as Superman? To which the answer is

He wanted to speak to the people as Superman from the highest podium and what happened? How do you speak to people after that?In real life he does what any normal person would do retreat and contemplate if speaking is even worth it.If your appearance already gets you judged before you even speak.Again speaking as Clark is naturally comfortable because he is a nobody just like an off the cuff remark is normal for a citizen but gets celebrities or politicians in hot water.To have the unusual status he has in the world- it is much better that he is reticent.His actions speak louder than his words anyway.

You say he spends too much time taking directions from others that is only for monumental decisions which any human would do.Heroics come naturally,he never second guesses when he should act to save someone.In fact his warning to Batman is pretty measured and I don't want a Superman begging and pleading with Batman..saying something like "you're wrong to be a vigilante,please cease and desist." This is not a cop giving you a speeding ticket. When he speaks with clarity and seriousness people say he is posturing,when he weighs being debated on TV or looks heartbroken in a fireball then he's also spineless(to the bashers anyway).That is deliberate in the film he is careful and pensive but sometimes he literally is lost for words. Everything he says to Lois on the balcony is perhaps the best summary of his dilemma

[WebLurker]

It was. 100%.

And yet here we are looking at a Snyder-less and Superman-less DCEU going forward.

No its a bit more to DC movies. the movie was compared to TDK, You wouldn't even know Winter Solider came out the same year since there was no similarities to both films.

The level of Drama is bigger than winter solider. winter solider is more action with drama in it. the
themes are more fleshed out than winter solider . I am sure Winter Solider would need no censorship and has a lot of Fiege producing. Fiege would have produced DOFP so that cancels its marvel similarities. Zod has the same story as Magneto. Superman is treated like a mutant to hate and fear.

You're missing the point.

Nah, you don't get why it is used? nudity and profanity are part of everyday life, its immature to pretend it is not. its bold and realistic to have it there. Also you have to ask if it works well in the film or not.
If you want immature humour try 99% of MCU- recent Star Wars films since the humour in those films are there to dumb down the movie and to think people expected Snyder to do this, no wonder Whedon's JL movie sucked. You do know also that censorship is not about just about profanity, it can mostly has more to do with tone, violence and character's behaviour and subplots?

you can call something immature like the F word that deserved to be censored to feel better about another movie that can have it there for kids, but you cannot explain away a subplot that shows drug abuse, bullet shot wounds on a human , mental illness or realistic PTSDS getting censored.

All I know is that by your standards, Guardians of the Galaxy (both of them) were more mature movies then anything Snyder pumped out for the DCEU.

Bring Back Henry, Make Man of Steel 2

Maybe it'll happen.

Have you solved this mystery that the ''some'' that argue against the greatness are so sweet to the presumed competitor? I have already debunked this complaint.

Guilt by association fallacy. Whatever a speaker's opinions on another movie series is irrelevant to whether the criticisms of Snyder's movies are accurate or not.

Did you say Superman had no story arc?
ok , am done.

First it was Clark was to moody and angsty, now he has no story arc. this is the same character that is conflicted for the whole film and only started to take baby steps in becoming the Superman we know and love

Simply put, we're told, not shown (and in any event, that's not even the story arc that's set up, but whether he should listen to his parents about not getting involved or not). Having a character being one way and then suddenly written another way with no bridge is not a story arc. It's bad writing.

[Amadeus Arkham]

Superman absolutely needs to move away from Reeves nostalgia. Snyder was absolutely not the way to do it.

Donner and Snyder shouldn't have to be our only two options. Hell, Snyder just rehashed Donner yet again but threw some grit onto it. The movies need to realize there is more to Superman's world than Clois, Ghost Dad, Lex and Zod or that he has other storylines besides getting killed by Doomsday.

I actually agree with this to an extent my dream Superman reboot would be one where it harkens back to the roots of the character as this brash, tough, champion of the oppressed vigilante who leaps from tall buildings! Look at what Grant Morrison did in his early Action Comics run! Use that as a blue print.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Rev9:

Which is implication, he's also presented as a controversial figure yet the only people who hate him aren't people we should agree with. Batman's psychotic, and if he were toned down would been a great foil to debate ethics and tactics with that they agree/disagree on, the witness in Africa was manipulated and wasn't she paid by Luthor? Perry's more invested in other things, Senator Finch should be the interesting but she has nothing to say. What we do get from her is that she wants justice but when given a chance to voice her opinion on Superman its "Eh" then she's blown up. Finch was wasted opportunity, IMO.


After The Battle of Metropolis Superman should be a very divided figure, they nearly get there in the media snippets but are more interested in asking questions than making any meaty argument in depth. A big advantage Snyder's Superman has is that he's controversial out side the movies which would impact how many people view him inside his universe, Snyder should have used that and deconstruct their arguments to get them onboard and he didn't. Give Luthor argument against this Superman which are valid, for instance. Being apolitical about Superman was a strange choice, it was like Snyder didn't want to criticise Superman in his own movie when it would have made it stronger, instead it was just confusing and felt like a waste of effort when the media should be a huge impact on Superman and Clark Kent, and show the audience more about how the world viewed Superman. They would be big factors on whether Luthor's framing attempts worked but Clark was powerless against it.


1. Superman's not know for pursuing legal avenues in these movies, he might destroy your car or intimidate you but that's it. Superman's existence in the court of law isn't explored aside from the fact that he'll show up to court. That would have been interesting but that's not the stories Snyder wants to tell in any capacity.
2. They don't have to be, but they'd share differing views on Superman and know of people who don't like him, which shouldn't be hard to find.
3. Lois knowing Superman would make her very controversial as well as being a huge star in the media. Man of Steel went into these implications. The government would be tapping everything, too. There's always someone on staff to get these conversions going since hearing opinions about topics related to the movie plot is what audiences want to see. Clark would be on their radar, too, if they know she's dating him. They won't suspect he's Superman but he know Lois who knows Superman.
4. Which he should have done more of.
5. Because it's his life at stake when Superman is badly perceived, he'd be more active not passive, he'd be able to find information to aide Superman (this is why Superman is a reporter) and he would be able to figure out who to reach as Superman to defend himself in the media. The latter which Snyder didn't do, obviously. Luthor's using the media against him, he should be doing the same especially after he discovers Superman's being framed. Reporters find leads or stumble on something he can use to convince the public he didn't do it or nail Lex for.


He should have been speaking to the media long before Lex did anything, cementing trust with everyone, the court is just one thing he can defend himself with. He could also have gone to the media to state his case before the court was in session. He's Superman, he should be able to get numerous reporters who want to give him air time or an interview with and it didn't have to be Lois. Being a reporter helps him here since he knows who he can trust as Superman without them catching on, which is why as Clark he needs to speak to people in his industry about Superman.

He will be judged, but it's up to him to change their mind. Snyder's Superman didn't want to do that, so he came off as apathetic or hostile, and he'd do that in the movie 'verse too - unless he actually became vulnerable and worked with them more. This is why Superman has more options at being transparent than Batman. He needs to build trust with people outside Lois and his mom.
He's an adult, veteran reporter and has been a super-hero for how long? He should have this worked out when B vs S starts.


He also didn't have anyone to turn to when he's Superman aside from Lois, so when things went horribly he had no sounding boards or people who could help protect/unravel his framing, like he does in the comics. And other adaptions.

Clark barely makes a good argument for why he needs to cover. He says it needs to be done because of what the paper originally stood for, then stops when Perry chides him for some vague reason about nobody caring about Clark doing it? Why? Is it because Clark is a young reporter? Is it that he finds Batman boring? He shouldn't, that should be front page news in a world where Earth was attacked by aliens and an alien super-hero who crushes cars in his bare hands is the status quo. They'd want to know everything about Batman. He might be another alien for all they know.

This was ok in Man of Steel, not B vs S. By then Superman should have had those conversations with far more confidence and experience with his own decisions, but he didn't progress. First first word to Batman were "Next time they shine your light in the sky don't go to it. The Bat is dead, bury it. Consider this mercy." That's not restrained, it's a hitman warning a victim if they don't disappear they'll come back and kill them. That whole scene was like Ultaman in a Superman outfit. At this stage Batman's been shown to be a mass murdering lunatic and he looks like the good guy here. And be Superman said anything he menacingly walked over to the Batmbile, ripped its doors off and threw them away with a sinister expression. Nobody said he needs to be begging batman anything, just not act like he's going to laser Batman to death for not submitting to a vengeful deity. We're supposed to disagree with Batman, remember? They don't have a discussion, they briefly exchange posturing and threats before Superman flies off. This was perfecter both of them to change their views on each other, instead I kind of hated both of them for being awful. When Superman speaks its mostly brief threats and he spends far less time examining his own thoughts than Batman does. We get a full view of Batman's opinions we don't with him. Batman may be a lunatic but he's a sympathetic lunatic. This Superman postures all the time, especially in B vs S. He moves like a super-villain, not a super-hero. The movie score sometimes make it sound like we're supposed to think he's the bad guy, like when he meets Batman. In the Ultimate edition when that woman asks how Superman decides who lives to save all we get is a sad expression, he says nothing. He's not spineless in the fireball he's impotent. That's because he did do anything to prevent this, and since he's a known super-hero now he has to be prepared for everything and he'd have a target on his back and he does nothing when it finally goes off, at this stage he might be in shock but again, he's not in man of Steel. He's seen things by now. And he's absolutely clueless when it comes to Luthor, it should not come out of the left field that Luthor is out to get him. Luthor's a crazy lunatic and he barely hides it. How does Superman, a reporter, not know who Lex is? Its like not knowing who Zuckerberg is.

[SiegePerilous02]

I actually agree with this to an extent my dream Superman reboot would be one where it harkens back to the roots of the character as this brash, tough, champion of the oppressed vigilante who leaps from tall buildings! Look at what Grant Morrison did in his early Action Comics run! Use that as a blue print.

This is specifically what I want.

Too bad production on MOS began before the first issue came out. Even then, I'm not sure the creative team behind the movie would have done it justice. I would like to have seen Cavill play t-shirt and jeans Superman though

[Rev9]

Rev9:




This was ok in Man of Steel, not B vs S. By then Superman should have had those conversations with far more confidence and experience with his own decisions, but he didn't progress. First first word to Batman were "Next time they shine your light in the sky don't go to it. The Bat is dead, bury it. Consider this mercy." That's not restrained, it's a hitman warning a victim if they don't disappear they'll come back and kill them. That whole scene was like Ultaman in a Superman outfit. At this stage Batman's been shown to be a mass murdering lunatic and he looks like the good guy here. And be Superman said anything he menacingly walked over to the Batmbile, ripped its doors off and threw them away with a sinister expression. Nobody said he needs to be begging batman anything, just not act like he's going to laser Batman to death for not submitting to a vengeful deity. We're supposed to disagree with Batman, remember? They don't have a discussion, they briefly exchange posturing and threats before Superman flies off. This was perfecter both of them to change their views on each other, instead I kind of hated both of them for being awful. When Superman speaks its mostly brief threats and he spends far less time examining his own thoughts than Batman does. We get a full view of Batman's opinions we don't with him. Batman may be a lunatic but he's a sympathetic lunatic. This Superman postures all the time, especially in B vs S. He moves like a super-villain, not a super-hero. The movie score sometimes make it sound like we're supposed to think he's the bad guy, like when he meets Batman. In the Ultimate edition when that woman asks how Superman decides who lives to save all we get is a sad expression, he says nothing. He's not spineless in the fireball he's impotent. That's because he did do anything to prevent this, and since he's a known super-hero now he has to be prepared for everything and he'd have a target on his back and he does nothing when it finally goes off, at this stage he might be in shock but again, he's not in man of Steel. He's seen things by now. And he's absolutely clueless when it comes to Luthor, it should not come out of the left field that Luthor is out to get him. Luthor's a crazy lunatic and he barely hides it. How does Superman, a reporter, not know who Lex is? Its like not knowing who Zuckerberg is.

Where to begin,I can see you have an idea of what should have been shown in the movie in place of what was.I think that is the baggage with superhero characters.We tell their story instead of watching their story.I sincerely sympathise and some things I just have a different opinion on but others just don't seem to apply from a movie stand point

Let us assume we let Snyder allow Superman to tell his story without Keith as a subplot.With Kahina lying ,she still raised a pertinent question. 'How does he decide which lives count and which ones do not?' He cannot answer that,he just can't and to presume he can is disingenuous

Again senator Finch would likely ask him 'What were you doing in the desert?' Do you want him to say I was saving my girlfriend.. Well that still doesn't make the problem disappear because it shows Lois in her line of work is exposed to all sort of dangerous situations.Does it mean people will keep dying because anyone having an interview with her is a possible target for Superman or a reprisal for merely talking to her for fear of Superman showing up?

This testimony is kicking a hornets' nest /opening a Pandora's box if it was vocalised

Another reality making it look worse is he is being questioned by US govt yet the whole thing was set off by Jimmy being a CIA agent.It would be a kangaroo court no one believes the government would feel culpable interviewing Superman,(even if Finch outs Kahina's testimony as a lie, does it mean the deaths didn't happen?Does the committee claim the deaths were caused by in-fighting rebels ,worse would government say there were no fatalities at all? When Lois heard the gunfire and saw the bodies?Assuming we follow only u.cut and Kahina is outed as a liar how does Lois live with herself knowing deaths have been swept under the rug? If anything Superman would probably from then on have huge mistrust of the govt and would not even believe in justice and truth.

Another issue you seem to be raising is that Clark should have done Lois' investigation, but that would be Lois investigating Lex ,Clark investigating Lex and Bruce investigating Lex.From a story telling point that is just stupid all main characters investigating the bad guy that is a waste of time and redundant.Lois investigating is enough because from what we know she's been at it longer and could have better contacts than Clark.We don't even know what specific area of Journalism Clark handles to presume he would find out anything resembling a smoking gun.

Again Clark may genuinely feel a conflict of interest ,he certainly may be warranted to clear his name after Nairomi and yes no one would know Clark is standing up for himself by standing up for Superman but how that sits on Clark's own concisience is problematic because it's pretty unprofessional. It is not objective journalism to try clear your name by writing or talking about yourself under a different identity.It is probably why they made Lois do the investigating for him,maybe she has vested interest(boyfriend) but she feels responsible because everything happened hinged on her being there so she is right to set the record straight

a)Everyone forgets he has more pressing issues saving lives than just chasing a story one Lois is already doing
b) His disapproval by saying 'You're digging up snakes ' gleans his thought process .He said that right after Lois posited her theory that the US government was arming the rebels.So if he knew how covert wars are fought - clandestine secret dealings with people who are protected by the CIA, he could have surmised it's my word against the government or even if true this story or my testimony will get Lois in jail or killed so I won't waste my time defending myself.We just know it was sensitive and classified(as per Swanwick) so it's not that easy to presume clearing his name did not come without a price,even if he wanted it cleared.He responded to being summoned by the committee, but what he was ready to say no one can know

Again in the movie Clark does not say he doesn't know who Bruce Wayne is , just that he doesn't know him by face.It is a little unusual at first but when I think about it it may just be he's not really into the news of movers and shakers.He may just be covering sport news or interviewing the everyday citizen.I'm not worked up about the details ,how he doesn't know Lex is shifty or Bruce is a playboy. The same reason why I am not upset that Perry chides him.Perry knows what articles Clark writes,I don't.

Lastly the way Superman spoke to Bruce ,sure it was tough but maybe that is what Kal was counting on to scare Bruce into dropping his branding and vigilantism.He knew about the branding and so figured this guy doesn't listen to the cops ,so probably a tough talk from me will work.I mean if he's done reporting on crime in Gotham he knows there's corruption in the justice system there that Batman has not been brought to book after 20 years.So it stands to reason he had to talk tough, reasoning with Batman on ethics and all that would not make a dent, the brandings were proof of that.I just judge from what I see in film, for them to have that discussion they both need to have a common focal point where views diverge for example on the basis of in movie plot 'I take out terrorists in countries where there is war and no law enforcement to speak of ,but Gotham has police why don't you let them take care of it'

Mind you I've come up with this point on the spot, but we know that is not at all what is on ground.Superman is not a government operative, he simply has issue with Batman's brutality while Batman sees him as a nuclear level threat responsible for death and maiming (inadvertently) of thousands.They have nothing in common to argue over,hence Superman speaking to Batman in a brief and concise way

[Steel Inquisitor]

Rev9:

Kahina lying is what makes her question in doubt, and since she's not a big character we don't have any reason to trust her very much. Her main purpose is to set Superman up. Except he can answer that, all he needs to do is talk to someone. Lois, J'onn, whoever. Having Clark being sad is the last Snyder could do with a very relevant question to do explain what he thinks - he does that every time he puts on the cape. Snyder could very easily have him do that, but chose not to so the audience who didn't like Man of Steel will view the worst since he's not giving them anything meaty to change their opinion.

But we don't know what he'd say, he never told us his defense. That's what he could have used the media for to get his defense out there, otherwise what's he doing going to court? He could simply say he was rescuing a reporter and tell them everything except that she's his girlfriend and she could be a witness to his defense and get her in the media telling her story. It'd also bring to light what he did to the general. If he's not dead he can testify and the court, and media, would dissect his actions in rescuing Lois whether it was ethical rather than it never coming up again.

Lois is already exposed, she has been since Man of Steel. When I say "target" I don't mean by assassins I meant by reporters, the media, and the government. They'd monitor her to lure or find clues to Superman. They don't have to use brute force like they did in Man of Steel.

This testimony is kicking a hornets' nest /opening a Pandora's box if it was vocalised

Again, routinely done by people in court cases from layers to witnesses to defendants. Superman's image is at stake, and he is a reporter himself.

Superman being interviewed by the American government over Olsen should have Clark looking under any rock for any friends and colleagues in the CIA and spy community about Olsen, he wouldn’t be working alone and there are more people in the government involved who aren’t corrupt but he needs to find them. He could even speak to Finch to get a read on her not being part of the frame up, in the movie for all he knows she’s part of the conspiracy because he didn’t bother checking.


The government is powerful, but it’s less powerful when Superman can back himself up with evidence, trust from the public, and witnesses.
Lex is the center point of their problems, they’d be coming at Lex at various angles and meet up. Lois didn’t get anywhere with Lex, she found a bullet which did nothing. Batman was the only one who suspected Lex of being dangerous. Clark not only should be racking up contacts as a reporter he should be doing that as Superman. Military, science, you name he should want someone he can talk to. He was raised to believe unless he is protected the government is going to dissect him, and doing that requires allies. He could be a sports journalist and get this done on the side.

Conflict of interest goes out the window when nobody knows that they’re a super-hero in question and their life is on the line. It’s survival at that stage. Except we don’t know how Clark views this, he never tells anyone. If what you said is true I would disagreed with how Clark did things but I’d know where he stood ethically, but I don’t have this in B vs S. I just have a blank slate. Under those conditions its not about being an objective journalist it’s about clearing his name and stopping the villain. He also doesn’t let conflict of interest block him from writing articles about taking down Batman.

A) He doesn’t really spend large amounts of time on screen saving lives, he’s not fighting crime he just does disaster relief. Once Superman was framed it would be a high priority to clear his name, including helping Lois and following leads/contacts of his own on the same case and he could do far more than she could all she has is the bullet, he can do so much more as a super-hero.
B) We shouldn’t be getting hints about his motives, we should be in his head since he’s a protagonist. It’s possible that might be what he’s doing but Clark never truly engages with that side of geopolitics, he certain never talks about it with anyone. Since he is a reporter blowing that open would be a massive news story, and he needs to convince the public of his innocence. Lex counts on him doing nothing, which is why it works. He needs to say his peace or they frame the narrative around him. The CIA should also be leads to follow in finding Lex, I think Lois do some of this but it doesn’t go too deep and Clark/Superman is nowhere to be found. As Superman he can find these people by investigating, using his sensors, flying and capturing and interrogating them until they talk. We know it wasn’t instant, he could have prepared a statement/interview with numerous outlets within hours just by being Superman. Nobody’s going to turn that down. We should know the necessary things he did to move the lot along before he went to court. There should be far more to his actions then getting a summons (how did they do this anyway?) and showing up in court. B vs S did this with Lex and Finch.

Lois should have also got a summons since she knows Superman, they don’t need to know that she was there which she could reveal in court or the media to clear his name.

I’m not talking about Bruce Wayne, but Clark should know of him, if by nothing else that he works in the media. Lex is completely under the radar of Superman when he should be far more paranoid of who’s out to get him. Except we need the details to make sense of Clark’s life or it becomes bad writing. But you should, everyone should. It’s his profession and in the comics he’s the media is there for a reason and Snyder was so close to getting it right.


The fact you’re not sure why Superman acted like he did in confronting Batman is why Superman needed to be more transparent to the audience. People on his own side don’t know his motives for how he acts. Except why would Superman think scaring Batman would do anything? He doesn’t know this person, and we aren’t given in depth reason why he is outraged by Batman doing exactly what he’s doing. Superman doesn’t spy on him or track him he only investigates as a reporter when he should be doing both. I wouldn’t call what Superman did “tough,” he bullied someone weaker than he is to stop doing what he does while ignoring the criminals Batman was fighting then flying away. It makes him a massive hypocrite and he’s sending confusing signals. The branding should have been a tip off to Lex, criminals offing other criminals who were branded by Batman don’t make any sense unless he thinks Batman is ordering/paying the criminals to kill them for him. Clark shouldn’t been fooled by Lex so easily and it’s such a strange tactic to hurt Batman. Superman’s not known for caring that much about death in Snyder’s ‘verse, he may be upset about killing Zod but he was never shown to averse killing his enemies.

They’re both super-heroes, they both believe in protecting humanity from criminals, they both use extreme means to get rid of their enemies, they both intimidate and threaten people they don’t like, they’re loners, they have very few people to talk to about their problems. There’s absolutely no reason Superman should have any issue with how brutal Batman is since Batman causes less destruction then Superman does. Superman would first have to talk to batman to know if he finds they have more in common he won’t know until he has clear communication, he never does this. The fact those two don’t communicate is why Lex is able to turn them against each other.

[Rev9]

Rev9:

.


The government is powerful, but it’s less powerful when Superman can back himself up with evidence, trust from the public, and witnesses.
.

..
The fact you’re not sure why Superman acted like he did in confronting Batman is why Superman needed to be more transparent to the audience. People on his own side don’t know his motives for how he acts. Except why would Superman think scaring Batman would do anything? He doesn’t know this person, and we aren’t given in depth reason why he is outraged by Batman doing exactly what he’s doing. Superman doesn’t spy on him or track him he only investigates as a reporter when he should be doing both. I wouldn’t call what Superman did “tough,” he bullied someone weaker than he is to stop doing what he does while ignoring the criminals Batman was fighting then flying away. It makes him a massive hypocrite and he’s sending confusing signals. The branding should have been a tip off to Lex, criminals offing other criminals who were branded by Batman don’t make any sense unless he thinks Batman is ordering/paying the criminals to kill them for him. Clark shouldn’t been fooled by Lex so easily and it’s such a strange tactic to hurt Batman. Superman’s not known for caring that much about death in Snyder’s ‘verse, he may be upset about killing Zod but he was never shown to averse killing his enemies.

They’re both super-heroes, they both believe in protecting humanity from criminals, they both use extreme means to get rid of their enemies, they both intimidate and threaten people they don’t like, they’re loners, they have very few people to talk to about their problems. There’s absolutely no reason Superman should have any issue with how brutal Batman is since Batman causes less destruction then Superman does. Superman would first have to talk to batman to know if he finds they have more in common he won’t know until he has clear communication, he never does this. The fact those two don’t communicate is why Lex is able to turn them against each other.

Him saying he's rescuing a reporter changes nothing.She is a reporter in hot zones every time.It would just be a matter of time before a new dangerous scenario pops up and he'd have to rescue her again with more collateral.Her association with him makes her an easy target.This scenario does not just wash away in court

Also Clark doesn't have to fear for his life,bar Kryptonite he has no knowledge of he has nothing to fear.Reputation as Superman sure, but he even says to Lois 'I don't care what they're saying' He knows he didn't kill anyone, the rest is just rumour peddling. However it is more likely he fears for Lois it is right after she mentions her theory that US govt armed rebels in Nairomi that he says 'You're digging up snakes lo,could be dangerous'. He is smart enough to know this is sensitive and classified information(as Swanwick underscores) so either it could ruin her career or end up getting her killed.That is why it stands to reason that he
didn't want this pursued further.He is not wrong for wanting the best for Lois.

You seem to think that the government would take such a story and be like 'they got us' and just take it lying down? That is fanciful really this is the government we are talking about, if we paint a picture of Superman as David taking on Goliath then it is hard to see how he would come out victorious.He is just and honest at a bare minimum,but governments use very underhanded tactics and justice is selective.Why send a drone to kill the warlord even if Jimmy is compromised and you have a rescue team when you know there are military contractors,Lois and Nairomi civilians in the compound? That should be your starting point to see what government is capable of.

You say witnesses could help.First of all there is between 1 and 7 witnesses aside from Lois that are reliable to give factual evidence BUT those are themselves CIA agents.I already mentioned this intricate and damning tit bit on the thread before..here goes again

The most damaging thing is we have an actual CIA agent who wanted to rescue Lois but was told to stand down,a drone is sent to wipe out evidence,but Superman stops the drone,but the witness and his squad already knew there were 'friendlies' as he said in the compound meaning Lex's black ops or military contactors

What does he find when he gets there? Sure enough bodies burnt by gasoline and with bullet holes BUT critically remember the CIA witness got there after Superman that evidence seen by him and his crew could be taken to be planted or tampered with because he was told to stand down and Superman appears instead.The witness cannot know if Superman is working on his own accord or he is now a government 'cleaner'.In other words it fits a clandestine double bluff.Even if Superman is telling the truth,the evidence makes it look like he is a weapon for the CIA, his handlers can make him rip **** up,and cover his tracks.So even if the evidence when tested is true,may not be beleived. This is exactly what is damaging for Superman ;if he is suspected to be covered by higher ups dousing bodies with gasoline and putting bullets in them after Superman is presumed to immolate them with heat vision. It is a no win scenario,either he takes the fall for something he didn't do,or even inside government there could be different accounts of what happened.The witness is key and because he came too late up to that point Kahina's tale rings true to him.Assuming that team is not part of the CIA cover up (reading from a government script)If he feels foul play, it won't be because he feels Superman is framed but instead that he is being covered up. Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence to show witnesses from Africa would say anything different,even if they are not paid to lie by Lex,they saw dead bodies too and they don't know what happened,but they would say Superman's sonic boom was heard or he was seen flying or blowing up the drone so that in itself does not exonerate him.In short true forensic evidence to exonerate Superman will be doubted.

Lois' testimony according to government is not reliable,because they'd discredit her as a Superman confidant ready to defend him even in an international case.I mean she and Superman would just be scapegoats because her association with him set the whole fiasco in motion(which is in fact true and even she admits this in their bathtub scene)So her testimony is not a cut and dry pardon.

Aside from that Government could approach Lex get all the info on Kal and Kryptonite ,something Lex would only gleefully do and they shape kryptonite into a bullet or poison his groceries and that would be it.Following real world logic here.If you find that fanciful, they'd just kill Lois to send him a message and we have a knightmare scenario 3 years early

Lastly
The whole set up of branding precisely Superman gets to see Batman as brutal by association with the mark.Lex is making it look like the brand purposefully leads to death,something Batman does not care about but Clark does.To say inmates killing inmates with a mark is strange is not understanding criminal underworld.That is not strange it could be put down to anything a gang war,a Gotham criminal like Joker putting a hit on anyone caught by the Bat just to mess with him.The paper trail may not necessarily lead to Lex.I don't see that as absolute proof Lex is involved.

'There’s absolutely no reason Superman should have any issue with how brutal Batman is since Batman causes less destruction then Superman does' you say

Brutality and collateral destruction are oil and water, very different things, I don't see how you can equate the two this underscores my point that they don't have anything in common to discuss.Sure Batman can use your statement in his argument against Superman and that means Superman has no way to get through to him other than with force

[lowfyr]

I actually agree with this to an extent my dream Superman reboot would be one where it harkens back to the roots of the character as this brash, tough, champion of the oppressed vigilante who leaps from tall buildings! Look at what Grant Morrison did in his early Action Comics run! Use that as a blue print.

They should just get Bruce Timm on it. But that would make too much sense. He handled a lot of stuff better than Snyder. It even had stuff that I did not except from a Animated Series.

[Steel Inquisitor]

First of all Clark doesn't have to fear for his life,bar Kryptonite he has no knowledge of he has nothing to fear.Also it is more likely he fears for Lois it is right after she mentions her theory that US govt armed rebels in Nairomi that he says 'You're digging up snakes lo,could be dangerous. He is smart enough to know this is sensitive and classified information(as Swanwick underscores) so either it could ruin her career or end up getting her killed.That is why it stands to reason that he 
didn't want this pursued further.He is not wrong for wanting the best for Lois.

We aren’t in Superman’s head to know how deep his father affected how he views the government, he was raised to believe he should hide himself so government won’t dissect him. How interactions with people as Superman are heavily impacted to be this, as Superman he has no friends anywhere, only Lois and his mother. He never reached out to get contacts for support. His snakes comment was hardly a strong argument, it’s not even something he’s sure of. Which is another reason why he should be tracking down information as Superman or with other allies who aren’t known to be in his inner circle. A big reason why this Superman’s options are so slim is because he simply does nothing to increase them, this is his Achilles’ heel and he never gets why it was a bad idea to do this to himself. She’s also a veteran reporter who does dangerous assignments, it raises the question if he’s tried to convince her to drop assignments like this before. This can’t be the first time she or Superman have been caught up with the CIA. They would have been on their radar since Man of Steel. 



You seem to think that the government would take such a story and be like 'they got us' and just take it lying down? That is fanciful really this is the government we are talking about, if we paint a picture of Superman as David taking on Goliath
The idea of witnesses is there is only 1 or 7 witnesses aside from Lois and those are themselves CIA agents.I already mentioned this intricate and damning tit bit on the thread before..here goes again

The government has many moving parts, some corruption isn’t a sign that everyone working for the government is on it. It’s a conspiracy. Considering the circumstances for Olsen’s death he’s not in it and Superman and Lois don’t know if his colleagues he was working for are corrupted. The CIA would be very interested in learning how a conspiracy

There’s more options to how B vs S could have gone then what Snyder did. He made the movie, his creative decisions aren’t infallible. It’s a story, it only followed what he did because he made it like that.

And he’s Superman, he should have some idea of how counter what governments do against him and his supporters. He’s not powerless here. Superman taking on the government is a tale as old as time. 



The most damaging thing is we have an actual CIA agent who wanted to rescue Lois but was told to stand down,a drone is sent to wipe out evidence,but Superman stops the drone,but the witness and his squad already knew there were 'friendlies' as he said in the compound meaning Lex's black ops or military contactors

There are numerous options for Superman and Lois to get more evidence and witnesses from those groups. Instead he did nothing to them, leaving him with limited options. This is a regular anti-government conspiracy super-hero plot. 



What does he find when he gets there? Sure enough bodies burnt by gasoline and with bullet holes BUT critically remember the CIA witness got there after Superman that evidence seen by him and his crew could be taken to be planted or tampered with because he was told to stand down and Superman appears instead.The witness cannot know if Superman is working on his own accord or he is now a government 'cleaner'.In other words it fits a clandestine double bluff.If Superman is a strong man for the CIA, his handlers can make him rip **** up,and cover his tracks.So even if the evidence when tested is true,may not be beleived.This is exactly what it looks like, which is damaging for Superman if he is suspected to be covered by higher ups dousing bodies with gasoline and putting bullets in them after Superman is presumed to immolate them with heat vision. It is a no win scenario,either he takes the fall for something he didn't do,or even inside government there could be different accounts of what happened.The witness is key and because he came too late up to that point Kahina's tale rings true to him.If he is part of the CIA cover up point No2 is valid ,if he leaks that he feels foul play, then even true forensic evidence to exonerate Superman will be doubted

The bullet holes and gasoline will crumble under any scrutiny. Superman doesn’t use bullets to kill people, and all he has to do is get a scientist he trusts to test him using his laser vision and put it all in to court/press. Which is why it’s important for Superman to find Olsen’s CIA crew and get them to testify. Find out who ordered Olsen’s crew to stand down, turn them or get evidence against them with an investigation. Superman doesn’t have to be passive simply because the CIA is in a story, and they are a crucible lead to Lex, as well as the mercenaries. If Superman had bothered to look into the criminals Batman was attacked he might have found a connection to Lex, or got more of a piece of the puzzle for the conspiracy. Why would the CIA witness get to that conclusion in the first place? It might be something is not a definite confirmation that it is something and Superman never was able to investigate to explain what he was doing to them, when they’re someone who should be on a radar. The bullets, by themselves, completely clear Superman once they’re revealed since they have no reason to be there. Superman has no need to take the fall for any of this with these circumstances. Government accounts which Superman or other groups, if someone were to get them looking in that direction (like Superman or Lois), won’t matter if the proper authorities know what to look for and don’t buy it. This was air tight because Superman did nothing about it. They’re a witness, they don’t have to be – the story has allowed for numerous entities like in the CIA or the mercenaries to be turned and evidence gathered by investigating their organisations. The CIA witness shouldn’t be this easily fooled. 




Aside from that Government could approach Lex get all the info on Kal and Kryptonite ,something Lex would only gleefully do and they shape kryptonite into a bullet or poison his groceries and that would be it.Following real world logic here.If you find that fanciful, they'd just kill Lois to send him a message and we have a knightmare scenario 3 years early



They would have done that anyway and they don’t know he’s Clark Kent. Do they? I don’t think Lex told anyone else. This isn’t “the government” it’s a conspiracy within the government. Which Superman should be up for, this Superman attacks heads of state and flies them through walls. He shouldn’t be this naïve, unconnected or powerless. They could kill Lois at any time, that’s just being Lois Lane after Man of Steel. You’d think he’d invest more in how to protect her and be motivated to gain allies who can do this. He also should be linking up with J’onn by now, J’onn solves many problems.

Wonder Woman should also be a bigger factor and not only some lame JLA recruitment tape/nostalogia picture.




Him saying he's rescuing a reporter changes nothing.She is a reporter in hot zones every time.It would just be a matter of time before a new dangerous scenario pops up and he'd have to rescue her again with more collateral.Her association with him makes her an easy target.This scenario does not just wash away in court

That’s just their normal relationship. Its also why they bother should be getting contacts with individuals and groups that can protect them when required. That’s what they do in the comics and most adaptions. It’s just one piece in what should be his defense to the court, if what you’re telling me is true about how poor his defense was the court he was more oblivious to politics than I thought. Superman shouldn’t be this powerless against government conspiracies.

[Rev9]

I just think you and I differ on the possible outcomes of the investigation.You are absolutely sure Superman could come out exonerated.That is a real big presumption on all the evidence I gave you

'The bullet holes and gasoline will crumble under any scrutiny. Superman doesn’t use bullets to kill people, and all he has to do is get a scientist he trusts to test him using his laser vision and put it all in to court/press.'

You missed my point entirely,I did not say the evidence was irrefutable ,it IS INDEED FAKE but will putting it out there exonerate him if the witness himself sees it as planted evidence and can construe it as a cover up for superman?The witness is a CIA agent he has seen how government operates in the shadows,he's been part of black operations and plausible deniability at a minimum.He would absolutely not be surprised the killings were done by Superman and he was covered for by his handlers.It is precisely a conspiracy theory once born that is nigh impossible to refute!

To presume all the investigation and evidence would be believed by everyone with the CIA involved is really stretching the realm of plausibility here.Basically it's either Superman taking a fall for the government or the government taking the fall for Superman ,which is more likely?

[Castle]

They should just get Bruce Timm on it. But that would make too much sense. He handled a lot of stuff better than Snyder. It even had stuff that I did not except from a Animated Series.

Bruce Timm does not do live action movies. Besides, Batman is in safe hands with Matt Reeves.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I just think you and I differ on the possible outcomes of the investigation.You are absolutely sure Superman could come out exonerated.That is a real big presumption on all the evidence I gave you

Yes.

The bullet holes and gasoline will crumble under any scrutiny. Superman doesn’t use bullets to kill people, and all he has to do is get a scientist he trusts to test him using his laser vision and put it all in to court/press.'

You missed my point entirely,I did not say the evidence was irrefutable ,it IS INDEED FAKE but will putting it out there exonerate him if the witness himself sees it as planted evidence and can construe it as a cover up for superman?The witness is a CIA agent he has seen how government operates in the shadows,he's been part of black operations and plausible deniability at a minimum.He would absolutely not be surprised the killings were done by Superman and he was covered for by his handlers.It is precisely a conspiracy theory once born that is nigh impossible to refute!

You've missed what options Superman had at his disposal had he been written competently rather than simply passively surrendering to whatever Lex threw at him. The evidence doesn't end with what we are shown in the movie itself, the story had many angles to gather more witnesses and evidence for his defense like any super-her would find in a conspiracy against them. Except the hole in the cover up is when they shot the bodies which were supposed to be torched by Superman's heat vision, if he knows with certainty that the bodies are shut up he'd have to be in on the conspiracy himself to connect that to Superman since everyone knows when Superman uses heat vision it has nothing to do with bullets? What would Superman gain by shooting the bodies after torching them? Nothing. Why would he even do that if he was working for the US government? They'd bury the bodies to hide that that evidence that Superman was responsible not leave them to be found with bullets in them. Their the frame up only works if it passes the smell test that Superman did it and in the real world that wouldn't pass and someone of his experience shouldn't be falling for that. Its an easy conspiracy to refute, all Superman needs is to get a corpse to someone he trusts to verify how they were murdered, and present the evidence with that testimony to the press and the courts and Superman's home free. (This will not be the only things he should do before going to court, he should have a couple of CIA and mercenaries and evidence of the conspiracy of some deception since their plausibility deniability explanations are terrible.)

Its also easy for Superman once he's able to discover which parties are responsible for the incident, which he should start by investigating the Nairobi crime scene, and contacting locals, he might also catch onto the CIA being involved since Lois would tell him about Olsen being a CIA agent. The sooner he knows which groups to look for the sooner he and Lois should be tracking down leads and contacts, and since he is the world famous Superman who can, has x-ray vision and his various powers at his disposal he'll get more done then regular journalists. Which he's supposed to be doing since he's not an amateur super-hero any longer.

He also has Batman as an asset, who is unknowingly following another lead, and Wonder Woman and J'onn in the wings. J'onn shouldn't be sitting this out.

To presume all the investigation and evidence would be believed by everyone with the CIA involved is really stretching the realm of plausibility here.Basically it's either Superman taking a fall for the government or the government taking the fall for Superman ,which is more likely?

The CIA aren't infallible, and the investigation and evidence to clear Superman's name was far less hopeless than what Snyder put in B vs S. I don't think either are the only alternatives, Lex's plan hinged on Superman having no-one to reach out to and being disconnected from the world to work. Without that Lex's frame ends much sooner.

[Rev9]

I'll explain how the bullets 'matter'. Yes it is obvious Superman does not use bullets and they are a dead give away but that is only if the course of events flows thus
Man killed with gun>body doused with fuel and burnt>made to look like heat vision burns

This is how most people read the film which is easily proved by forensics the bodies have bullet holes and smell of fuel so it cannot be Superman

Now follow my scenario done in reverse
Supposedly Superman uses heat vision> the 'dead' doused with fuel and burnt>shot with guns.Absolutely same result BUT in the second scenario it is presumed as a cover up.Superman apparently killed the men with heat vision,the gasoline is added instead to make it look like they were set on fire by men and the bullets are shot to make it look like they were shot.In the second scenario it appears like Superman killed them and someone came in to make it look like men killed them.That someone are his special 'handlers' that are shadowy enough that even regular CIA have no clearance to know of this except on need to know or with the clearance

Forensics can still prove he did not kill them for sure no doubt BUT the whole idea that a cover up was done is where the problem is.Once the witness who was told not to rescue and sees Superman fly there he himself is first to assume the second scenario as a cover up and if he suspects a cover up and leaks this narrative ,no matter what evidence is presented as proof 'Cover-up' becomes the word that gains traction and then snowballs into a conspiracy theory

My point is conspiracy theories no matter how outlandish or false have incredible resilience, they cannot be snuffed out with facts because everything about such conspiracy theories thrives on mistrust,lies peddled as truth and so on.Put another way is it improbable that Superman could be a government weapon?Absolutely,but is it plausible that the government would want to use him as a weapon? Solid bet

Do I make sense? Do you see the danger here?