So if heroes don't save the world in front of civilians they aren't heroes?????
So if heroes don't save the world in front of civilians they aren't heroes?????
Go figure, it's like trying to say in MoS, that Superman is a hero to Metropolis and America that tried to help him take down the Kryptonians ,but is not a hero to a New Zealander or some villager in Somalia who didn't even know how close he came to dying. The logic of some just astounds me.
Okay, I'll take a shot at this once more.
At the climax of the movie, Snyder did not convey a convincing threat to the world. The only people in danger were actors we knew the names of, playing characters we knew would survive.
Yes, the world was in danger and billions at risk. But the movie never made that more a factual statement, like how everyone reading this will die. Every baby born today will die. Statistically speaking, a man, woman or child has been murdered somewhere on the planet within the last five minutes.
These are all facts, and in theory, upsetting. But I doubt they trigger much emotional response, because they're facts with no names, faces or meaningful reasons to care.
The JLA saving the world was much like that. Clinical, factual, but it little emotion. The 3 hours prior didn't help, sure, but that didn't feel like the biggest obstacle.
And no, Joss' solution wasn't perfect, but it was at least something. He at least tried to sell it.
And Joss was trying to finish someone else's work, so he shouldn't take the full blame.
Yeah, It's not like Joss pushed out Snyder or wrote his version from scratch--his work should be looked at it from the context that the studio hired him to finish it.
Context matters ,by and large you save as many as you can from a direct area threat by transfering to safer area and then neutralising the threat.In this case the threat is planetary extinction in seconds.There is no saving or evacuating..the blast vapourised Superman, that alone shows the level of energy discharged. With that level of stakes even if there were civilians 'saving' them would be counterproductive and futile, so it is fine that they left them out altogether.
It is pointless argument, it is fairly obvious that the posters bringing this up would find another reason to complain if some people were directly saved by JL in final battle.
Surviving does not make them any less heroic, by that logic Superman's sacrifice in BvS meant nothing because he's back in JL. The idea that you have to be sold on heroism through saving even one life and juxtaposing it to saving the entire world in the same film scene is just pointless
It wouldn't be counterproductive and futile, since a story can be constructed where the JL saves the civilians that are living there and still neutralize the threat. They do it all the time.
But I agree THIS film shouldn't be knocked for leaving endangered civilians out. If that's not where Snyder's interests lie, it's better to leave them out altogether and focus on the action. It leads to stronger execution by cutting out potential scenes he might be weak at executing. This particular complaint doesn't seem like it's a hill worth dying on.
I expect excitement and relief at the climax of an action film. Simple survival in this set up is underwhelming.
Snyder had to sell it, he didn't. What's so hard to understand about that?
*edit*
I added action film, because God knows what would have been thrown out to defend this movie if I hadn't.
Last edited by The Cool Thatguy; 03-23-2021 at 12:07 PM.