JL Snyder, superman doesn't grab batman by the neck

[NaVi]

Sometimes I think the fans hate Superman more than WB given how much complaining they love to do.

And what do you want? Let me be glad that batman can beat up superman, but superman can't touch him, or maybe I have to cry with happiness because dc announces his event with the music of superman, but while ww or batman have his movies the only thing that was seen of superman is kill

[Prime]

Sometimes I think the fans hate Superman more than WB given how much complaining they love to do.

No, no we don't. What we hate is mismanagement

[Laufeyson]

snyder himself said the scene will not be in his movie. Batman can beat up Superman but Superman can't touch God Batman. once again Snyder showing his favoritism.

Ok, I don't want to jump on this hate for now, because I feel really bad at Snyder. He doesn't deserve that much craps from fans when there are much worse movies out there. But I think this is what comes with being Superman and being Batman is. For Superman, one flick to Batman's head and it's over. So it just doesn't make an excellent movie if Superman get really brutal with Batman. But that's the rational part of my head speaking. The other said that what do you expect from company called DC (Detective Comic).

[AtheistInRed]

That's an odd conclusion to come to if people are complaining about perceived ill treatment of him at the hands of WB.

How does "the most recent movies suck and we want some better ones" = "they must hate the character"?

I'm having troubling deciphering his assertion as well. Sounds parallel to things such as mental gymnastics, personally. It is baseless and lacks reason.

About the topic in question. I do not believe this means Snyder hates Superman or is trying to up hold the Batgod status. It's simple really, it was never apart of his version. I don't ever see how Snyder "favors" Batman, but maybe I need to rewatch BvS.

[Agent Z]

That's an odd conclusion to come to if people are complaining about perceived ill treatment of him at the hands of WB.

How does "the most recent movies suck and we want some better ones" = "they must hate the character"?

The premise of this thread is that Snyder obviously hates Superman because a scene from Whedon's movie won't be in his. The op has no other context yet is drawing an irrational conclusion for seemingly no other reason than to whine about how WB is crapping on Superman when we have yet to see what he will actually be like in the damn film. This isn't making a mountain out of a mole hill so much as turning a sand castle into an active volcano.

[Agent Z]

No, no we don't. What we hate is mismanagement

Superman doesn't choke Batman =/= mismanagement.

[Agent Z]

Sounds parallel to things such as mental gymnastics, personally. It is baseless and lacks reason.

No that would be the op.

[manwhohaseverything]

Superman doesn't choke Batman =/= mismanagement.

People are just mad that superman didn't get to bully back batman for bvs, is all.I am inclined to agree. There should be a scene where they talk about that at the very least.

[JAK]

I don't think that Bat-Favoritism is remotely why Clark doesn't grab Bruce by the neck and ask him if he bleeds. I think it's a mostly because of a pretty specific reason: Snyder just didn't film that scene. Whedon's version of that scene's conclusion is probably a very truncated iteration of what Snyder had in mind, if it's even similar at all.

In the theatrical JL, Bruce is not present for most of Superman v JL fight, and we know that Snyder shot a lot of that fight because Cavill doesn't have mustache-photoshop until Clark approaches Bruce. Therefore, Bruce only shows up in Whedon footage, and the fight probably ends differently.

I'm certain that this is the reason - makes the most sense, really. A shame, since that's probably my favorite bit of comeuppance after decades of DC pushing the reverse on us all - and having to sit through BvS, specifically.

I'm a big fan of Snyder's Superman, who is above all a good man despite what some haters erroneously posit, but I've got a few concerns in this direction as well. I'm not too worried that he'll kill innocent civilians while incoherent, though it's certainly not impossible.

The bigger issue is the nightmare timeline. I liked that Whedon basically removed it from the theatrical JL, as it was a subplot that I didn't really care for in the first place, and which requires a whole lot of attention in order to pull off - more time than I think we are actually likely to have in a "mere" four hours. That's a story which definitely revolves around a killer Superman.

Regardless of whether Evil Superman is the product of Anti-Life, and I think there's pretty ample evidence that he is, it still feeds into this broader cross-media narrative that [IF] Lois = dead → [THEN] Superman = Evil. There are some fans whose favorite thing about Snyder's Superman seems to be that he'll eventually evil, but to me it's his fundamental good nature. "The only way to disappear for good would be to stop helping people altogether, and I sense that's not an option for you." And his eventual proposed heel turn seems so much at odds with the way he's characterized the rest of the time that it legitimately annoys me.

I think it's worth being dismissive of the idea of Superman turning evil because Lois dies. After all, nobody ever posits that Batman would turn evil if he didn't have Robin, although maybe somebody should, or that the Lone Ranger without Tonto would start running a gang himself, right? Or that Mary Jane is the only thing keeping Spider-Man from being a mad scientist just like Doc Ock or Vulture. Yet plenty of stories from Brave New Metropolis to Nevertheless She Persisted imply that Superman is an emotional weakling whose existence as a hero is contingent on Lois Lane, and I am bloody sick of it, because it doesn't even make sense in the stories that posit it. Only Ending Battle and the televised Crisis stand in opposition to this ideological infestation, and frankly we need more stories like them.

THIS. THANK YOU. I'm still of the mind that Batman wasn't Snyder's idea originally (I know what he's said, but I also remember what he said after MoS about Batman's chances and what he reportedly said to a fan at SDCC, so at best it seems murky), so I wonder how Superman's trajectory changed as these elements were brought on by the company (or at least suggested by it). And we know that WB likes to beat a dead horse with ideas, and that Snyder enjoys the darker stuff, so I share this concern. Not as much now as I would have if his were the theatrical version, but still.

Anyway, I'm cautiously optimistic about the Snyder Cut, despite all that. I'm intrigued by what we've seen in the trailer.

I'm glad for Snyder's fans, and I'm curious. I'm hoping it's better than I expect it to be, but it's been a few years so what we'll get could be interesting.

I don't understand the mathematics of Fans complain about how D.C. treats Superman = Don't see the Snyder Cut. Seems to me there's a lot of steps missing from that proof.

I don't share the sentiment, but I think I do understand it.

WB and DC has/had been on a "dark" kick for quite some time - and they've mismanaged Superman, overall, for decades. First, a context: Some of the most popular events in the character's history had little to do with the company, itself: most of the memorable things we associate with Superman happened before WB bought DC's then-owner (1970, who'd just bought DC/NPP in 1969); the Donner films were by a separate company (Salkinds) because WB didn't know what to do with him; and The Death/Return comics might have been the comic writers' response to having to put off the wedding for "Lois & Clark," but it wasn't intended as the big event that it became.

Now, for some of the mismanagement: You could say the Byrne reboot was their idea, though the roll-out was problematic in the dismissal of the stories and fans that came before - causing the first of several rifts in the fandom that we see here today. So that fragmenting is also, imo very much, on them. Also, the success of the Death/Return story led the company to demand an event cycle from comic creative teams that deadened the fandom's reaction to events and ended up sucking the creative juices out of the triangle-era group and others; several have commented on this. Not long after, it seemed the company had a "the character is the problem" stance with Superman; he was still the big gun, but retoolings started coming faster, and WB outright said they wanted all their properties to "be dark like Batman" because the Nolan films were successful and Batman's comics were doing well. They had little concept of the meaning of "square peg, round hole."

A quick note on the darker tendencies: In a decision that surprised me at the time, Didio went with Mortal Kombat instead of Street Fighter for a face-off game. While WB would come to buy the company a few years later, the context at the time was DC's looking to inject more grit/dark into DC's (and it's characters') image. Nolan's films cemented this direction for them at the time, and Green Lantern's cinematic failure didn't help.

DC also seems to have an inability to grasp context: the symbolism of TDK was dropped in favor of simply "Batman can beat up Superman" and other similar idiocies, most of them at the expense of Superman as a character. Injustice had a similar influence ("dead Lois = evil" and evil Superman stories in general), also leading to their darker story tendencies. It's here where, in my opinion, WB/DC starts to intersect with Snyder.

Chomsky and others have mentioned that news corps don't have to tell reporters how to report because they hire people who see things as they do; I see a similar thing here (even if it didn't work out that way in the end). WB/DC has had a tendency for dark stories and pulling from things for their own sake without the context that makes them what they are; Snyder, imo, also has those tendencies. Snyder was just willing to go further into it than WB was and they freaked out when they saw the potential money dry up.

So, again imo, that should be most of the logic behind that thinking. Others can give their take if it's different for them.

If I can see the Snyder Cut in Canada, then I will. I liked JUSTICE LEAGUE, but it's clear that wasn't the movie that Snyder made. So I want to see what movie he did make. How that would make me a Superman hater, I don't know. There's apparently somewhere in those long threads that I never read a reason why that works out.

That one I don't know, either. Especially now that it's a curiosity. If it put Snyder back in the driver's seat of the DCEU, then my reaction might be different.

I can see why Superman touching Batman would mean Batman's defeat. If Superman can touch Batman, he can take him out. So Batman would be smart enough not to give Superman the chance. I didn't particularly like the fight in BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE, because it suffered from that thing that happens in all movies whether they be romantic comedies or procedural dramas--someone doesn't talk to someone else, because if they did then the movie would fall apart--so the conversation that should happen doesn't happen. But since that's so pervasive in Hollywood movies, it would be unfair to hang that albatross around Snyder's neck.

How any of that equates to D.C. hating Superman, you got me.

That part I let slide mostly, even though it's particularly trite in the film. Superman being an idiot after he got his powers back halfway through the fight and WB okaying that is the dot I'd connect for that.

Surely now of all times is the best time for everyone to see the Snyder Cut, because it ultimately doesn't matter. It was already made (most of it), so it's not like this is a new development--you can put it in the proper context. And Warner Bros. owning that it's a Multiverse makes it all possible for us to grab onto that olive branch and make peace with our brothers and sisters. All the doors are open to possibility. During the plague years, we need to be hopeful and to be kind to each other.

The only thing I can think of is the worry that Snyder might be put back in charge if JL:SC is popular enough in WB's eyes. I don't personally see that happening, but maybe that's it?

[SiegePerilous02]

The premise of this thread is that Snyder obviously hates Superman because a scene from Whedon's movie won't be in his. The op has no other context yet is drawing an irrational conclusion for seemingly no other reason than to whine about how WB is crapping on Superman when we have yet to see what he will actually be like in the damn film. This isn't making a mountain out of a mole hill so much as turning a sand castle into an active volcano.

That's the OP then, your statement is basically saying most Superman fans are irrational.

[Agent Z]

That's the OP then, your statement is basically saying most Superman fans are irrational.

Edit: Looking back on it, my initial statement was a knee-jerk reaction that didn't provide much context and didn't actually help. I'm just sick of overreacting like this thread where people paint the most mundane things in a malicious light.

[manwhohaseverything]

Between this thread and the various sky is falling complaints on an almost daily basis, it's certainly starting to come across that way. At least a significant chunk of them.

But, the Sky is falling. The batmobile lost a wheel and the joker got away. Oh! The horror.

[Laufeyson]

But, the Sky is falling. The batmobile lost a wheel and the joker got away. Oh! The horror.

No, the horror starts when Joker mutilate Jon and Louis while Superman can only watch from his seat gagged by kryptonite and slowly liquid kryptonite is infused into his body.

[manwhohaseverything]

No, the horror starts when Joker mutilate Jon and Louis while Superman can only watch from his seat gagged by kryptonite and slowly liquid kryptonite is infused into his body.

Well, that escalated quickly.

[Powerboy]

The premise of this thread is that Snyder obviously hates Superman because a scene from Whedon's movie won't be in his. The op has no other context yet is drawing an irrational conclusion for seemingly no other reason than to whine about how WB is crapping on Superman when we have yet to see what he will actually be like in the damn film. This isn't making a mountain out of a mole hill so much as turning a sand castle into an active volcano.

In fairness, Snyder said in an interview that only scenes he did will be there. No scene that was added by Whedon will be there. I agree that Snyder does not hate Superman. He has an idea of Superman that does not fit the idea and ideal that some fans have. He has a vision of a Superman for our time and culture, still a fictional setting but much closer to reality than has been done before in live action. His Superman is still an idealist but one whose ideals are sorely tested, sometimes to the breaking point because reality won't bend over and open wide to suit him if you'll forgive a graphic analogy.

Now I think Snyder made tactical mistakes and did not present everything as well as he might have. It's a no-win scenario because, had he gone the other direction, he would have been accused by another large group of giving us the same safe defender of the status quo that another group wanted.

He simply has a nuanced idea of what someone like Superman would be if he really existed. Even at that, Snyder makes him the best of humanity (or Krypton). He's trying to save the world and be a beacon of hope whether he succeeds or not. The idea that he hates Superman is just the usual whining that means, "Not meh Superman, not the past version I still want". And I say that as someone who loves the George Reeves version and a lot of the Chris Reeve stuff.