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

[JAK]

I personally did not have any problems with Superman killing Zod in the movie given the context and setup. But then, in BvS, he kills again when he puts the guy through a solid wall to save Lois. That implies that far from needing a reason to develop a code against killing, he instead is finding it easier the next time. Also, that whole idea that someone needs to kill to have an aversion to killing just indicates the view of humanity in those movies. Sure there are such sad people. But most people have at least a reluctance to kill and have to numb themselves to it if they are in a position where they have to do it such as active duty soldiers. I thought Superman's initial reaction to killing was realistic but there are no repercussions. The comic book story where he killed, aside from being erased from continuity, actually dealt with the emotional after-effects of what he did.

I have a general problem with Superman killing, period.... BUT... if it's ever going to happen, it shouldn't be a fast-addressed kinda thing. There should be a point, and it shouldn't be small. Robanker explains this pretty well (and I'll continue my thoughts after):

Sure, but it's the reason he has to kill him, the tone of the scene and the context that drives the issue.

For what it's worth, I'd rather have had Clark cover Zod's eyes by inching his hands closer to them, shielding the family. If Zod's heat vision ripped through Clark's hand, sure, that's enough to convince most audience members that he's out of options. Or try some other option to reach the same point. But he's presented with "kill me or they die" and tries nothing else. It's realistic, but Superman isn't about just dealing with a **** hand. He always at least tries for a better option. It seemed like he gave up.

Even then, had he stuck around and we got a montage (I believe you posted this as well) where he helped rebuild/rescue survivors while still shell-shocked over his actions, again it would have helped immensely.

But Snyder's Superman kills Zod, screams in regret, and then it's a cut away to a Superman who has dealt with the immediate aftermath and is now just healing. We were robbed of the emotional payoff in MoS. BvS (yes, even the ultimate edition) didn't do enough to really establish Clark and his relationship with the sanctity of life. A lot of it came from the audience's existing knowledge of the character's ethos. I would argue this is a problem for everyone in the film. It banks on you knowing who these characters are and that what we're experiencing with them is atypical.

I agree, that Superman has killed will endure regardless of if it's being referenced in the source material, much like how popular elseworlds books and adaptions are brought into discussion, but what really matters is everything surrounding that fact. Zack Snyder has a lot of fans, and while I'm not one of them, his plan was flawed in that he joined rank with many Moore impersonators who saw what the former did prior and wanted to imitate that. His entire approach seemed, frankly, misguided. Much moreso in BvS, which feels a bit too corporate when you realize they took the two best-selling trades of each character (DKR, Death of Superman) and tried to mash them together into one mega-blockbuster.

Snyder notes that "It’s a cool point of view to be like, ‘My heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t f------ lie to America. My heroes didn’t embezzle money from their corporations. My heroes didn’t commit any atrocities.’ That’s cool. But you’re living in a f------ dream world" and to that point I simply argue that those aren't my heroes. I question why he even addresses them as such, and why he tries to frame embezzling liars guilty of atrocities as heroes. I realize he's half-joking, but that train of thought betrays rather neatly why he's the wrong person to spearhead a universe of people who are, above all else, selfless in nature and in service of their fellow men and women.

Very well said. To extrapolate what I said above, when I saw the ending of MoS, I knew what we'd be getting. I just knew. I could tell, even then. Whether it was Snyder, Goyer, or whoever, the mentality was palpable. People said "he'll grow into Superman in the next movie" and "it'll be addressed, you'll see" like they were in a bad relationship. I knew. I'd have bet money (Hell, I should have bet money, I could have paid off our house, lol) that it would never be addressed, and as soon as Bat-God was announced as being in it, my concerns were confirmed 200%. "Oh, and WW and Flash will be in it, too!" *facepalm* How are you going to address the first character's issues and show the growth you should have shown in the first film when you'll necessarily have to spend time on the new characters to get them fleshed out?

The answer: you can't. Or he/they couldn't, at least.

Here's the problem with Superman killing in cinema, specifically: how many movies does a franchise get, generally? Iron-Man got three. Batman got three. Superman got 4, but that's generally an outlier. So even with 4 movies, is an audience really going to want to sit through a full movie of Superman dealing with the aftermath of something like that? Unless it done JUST RIGHT - and most filmmakers don't have the talent for it, frankly - then probably not. So instead of opening Pandora's box and not being able to deal with the fallout due to limitations in the medium as much as anything, it's best to just leave it well enough alone.

[EsotericFailures]

I feel like what a lot of people miss with the Zod killing is that the problem isn't even that Superman kills Zod, the problem is how it's shot, the place it comes in the story and what it supposedly represents for this Superman according to Snyder and Goyer (and this representation never going anywhere).

You can debate whether Superman should kill till you're blue in the face, but MCU Captain America kills and audiences are just fine with it. What they don't do is make a quite vivid neck snap as the climax of the movie for all sorts of reasons which should be obvious to everyone. That is why most people don't like it, because they don't want to have to think of their favourite heroes killing someone for long, especially if this contributes nothing to Superman's character.

[JAK]

I feel like what a lot of people miss with the Zod killing is that the problem isn't even that Superman kills Zod, the problem is how it's shot, the place it comes in the story and what it supposedly represents for this Superman according to Snyder and Goyer (and this representation never going anywhere).

You can debate whether Superman should kill till you're blue in the face, but MCU Captain America kills and audiences are just fine with it. What they don't do is make a quite vivid neck snap as the climax of the movie for all sorts of reasons which should be obvious to everyone. That is why most people don't like it, because they don't want to have to think of their favourite heroes killing someone for long, especially if this contributes nothing to Superman's character.

That *is* part of it, but I don't think it's quite all of it. Superman's always been held up to a higher standard. I, personally, think that's a good thing. He enjoys a status in pop culture that no other superhero does, really. At worst, it should be seen as "the fleas come with the dog," but really it's more of "what some see as a hindrance is actually a unique opportunity". The problem is that WB is clueless to this, and have been for quite some time - hence the problems they've had with making a Superman movie since....well... since ever. The most beloved Superman films, flawed though they may be, were only made because WB sold the movie rights to the Salkinds.

[EsotericFailures]

That *is* part of it, but I don't think it's quite all of it. Superman's always been held up to a higher standard. I, personally, think that's a good thing. He enjoys a status in pop culture that no other superhero does, really. At worst, it should be seen as "the fleas come with the dog," but really it's more of "what some see as a hindrance is actually a unique opportunity". The problem is that WB is clueless to this, and have been for quite some time - hence the problems they've had with making a Superman movie since....well... since ever. The most beloved Superman films, flawed though they may be, were only made because WB sold the movie rights to the Salkinds.

I'd also rather Superman not kill, despite other modern superheroes doing it. I'm just saying you can still have a superhero kill yet make your movie family friendly, cheerful and upbeat. What you can't have is a superhero snap a neck as the climax of a movie. It's just doesn't work from a storytelling perspective.

[manofsteel1979]

He doesn't make out with Lois after killing Zod, he just hugs her and cries. We needed some more scenes after that though before we got to that scene with Swanick and him joining the Daily Planet. And we needed a whole other FILM devoted only to Superman to dwell on how he processed the fallout and firmly develop him into Superman. MOS had potential, as shaky as it was, and it was squandered.

We really needed an additional Superman film, and then a straight up fun World's Finest meeting (not antagonistic beyond maybe sniping at each other). Maybe still have Wonder Woman. I would have liked a Lex-Brainiac-Bizarro threat, the latter could have been the incredibly powerful mook that Diana could have solo'd while Superman deals with the main threat of Brainiac. Because as impressive as her showing against Doomsday was, she isn't going to be the one to defeat him, especially when she's just an extended cameo. This way you give a foe to each of the Trinity and have them come out on top.

I''d avoid Doomsday altogether. I know they wanted to adapt that storyline, but I have no attachment to it.

Agreed with all of this, especially needing a denounement after the death of Zod and an MOS sequel that dealt with in part with his decision there. Of course MOS 2 didn't have to be all about his killing of Zod, but there was potential for a powerful character arc that was never really explored. In retrospect, especially considering how that scene was ultimately meaningless to BvS and JL,yes that scene is a mistake,but not because " Superman should nevah evah kill/ muh Superman wouldn't do X/it's not like Donner so it's crap" etc. But because it's pretty much pointless and a missed opportunity to say something important with and about the character.

I've come to the point of view there really isn't any truly off limits stories or ideas for Supernan and characters like him. I don't think telling a story that forces Superman to make an uncomfortable choice and then have to deal with the consequences of his choice is some "third rail" that should never be touched in order to maintain the character's purity. Having Superman kill Zod to save the human race isn't in itself a bad choice. Where it becomes a problem is when you just do it to do it. Judging MOS on its own, I defend the story choice and always will. However within context of what followed, then it shouldn't have been done ultimately.

[stargazer01]

Agreed with all of this, especially needing a denounement after the death of Zod and an MOS sequel that dealt with in part with his decision there. Of course MOS 2 didn't have to be all about his killing of Zod, but there was potential for a powerful character arc that was never really explored. In retrospect, especially considering how that scene was ultimately meaningless to BvS and JL,yes that scene is a mistake,but not because " Superman should nevah evah kill/ muh Superman wouldn't do X/it's not like Donner so it's crap" etc. But because it's pretty much pointless and a missed opportunity to say something important with and about the character.

I've come to the point of view there really isn't any truly off limits stories or ideas for Supernan and characters like him. I don't think telling a story that forces Superman to make an uncomfortable choice and then have to deal with the consequences of his choice is some "third rail" that should never be touched in order to maintain the character's purity. Having Superman kill Zod to save the human race isn't in itself a bad choice. Where it becomes a problem is when you just do it to do it. Judging MOS on its own, I defend the story choice and always will. However within context of what followed, then it shouldn't have been done ultimately.

Everything you said. I remember the first time I saw Man of Steel, and it kind of blew me away. I really liked it. Yes, a couple of things I didn't like that felt forced to me like the way Pa Kent died, but apart from that, I liked the story, the action, the VFX, the score and the cast very much. I wish it had more lighter scenes, but the film was still solid. But yes, a direct sequel to continue Clark's development was very needed. And no, BvS was not it for me at all. Not a bad film. It has some important things to say, but I don't think it was the right time for it or exactly the way it happened.

I also fully agree about Superman and killing. I honestly have no problem with him killing when there is no other choice as presented in the story. I don't think it makes Superman less deserving of my love and respect. On the contrary, I admire him for having to make the hard choices in order to save and protect us. I much prefer that he never has a 'no killing rule' because in his line of work it doesn't make sense and he can't promise that it will never happen. It's limiting the character's stories. I have a big problem, however, if he lied to people and if he became a corrupt and cynic person like Snyder said that superheroes do lots of bad things too like anyone because that's the reality of the world. No. Superman always tries his best to do what's right and honorable because he has strong values and he cares for all people. I guess I still believe someone could be that good at heart. It's why I'm a Superman and Star Trek fan. I have hope.

BTW, Superman killed Zod in the CW Supergirl show.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

So apparently there's a leak of Cavil in Superman outfit with the moustache (https://screenrant.com/henry-cavill-...ustache-photo/)

It was released on March 28, so not an April fool's joke. Apparently it was taken down from one site. So I uploaded it here for all to see.

SuperStache.jpg

[manofsteel1979]

So apparently there's a leak of Cavil in Superman outfit with the moustache (https://screenrant.com/henry-cavill-...ustache-photo/)

It was released on March 28, so not an April fool's joke. Apparently it was taken down from one site. So I uploaded it here for all to see.

SuperStache.jpg

Superman punches out Stepenwolf... Then to everyone's chagrin he launches into a rendition of "fat bottomed girls."

Good Lord that's one hell of a porn stache...

[Robanker]

Superman punches out Stepenwolf... Then to everyone's chagrin he launches into a rendition of "fat bottomed girls."

Good Lord that's one hell of a porn stache...

It's magnificent. We weren't worthy.

[Arsenal]

We were robbed of a Porn Stached Superman. It woulda been magnificent.

[rpmaluki]

It's truly magnificent. The only problem I see is Superman zig zagging between clean shaven and the 'stache. Now if he was resurrected like this and remained so, this would have been DCEU's version of the mullet destined to live on for time immemorial

[JAK]

I'd also rather Superman not kill, despite other modern superheroes doing it. I'm just saying you can still have a superhero kill yet make your movie family friendly, cheerful and upbeat. What you can't have is a superhero snap a neck as the climax of a movie. It's just doesn't work from a storytelling perspective.

Oh, that's true, for the most part. I do think you'd get more pushback if it's Superman than you would with just about any other superhero, is all I'm saying.

[stargazer01]

"Bruce Timm had Superman, under Darkseid’s control, try to pull the world into a despotic apocalypse... But Zack Snyder wasn’t allowed to? Ok."


Someone on twitter... Execution is key, and Snyder did it badly.


But I strongly feel that story was not needed at all in the Superman movies. At least not the way Snyder wanted to do it. "Evil" Superman in the JL we got was the right way to go as long as he didn't hurt any civilians in the Snyder cut...

[manofsteel1979]

"Bruce Timm had Superman, under Darkseid’s control, try to pull the world into a despotic apocalypse... But Zack Snyder wasn’t allowed to? Ok."


Someone on twitter... Execution is key, and Snyder did it badly.


But I strongly feel that story was not needed at all in the Superman movies. At least not the way Snyder wanted to do it. "Evil" Superman in the JL we got was the right way to go as long as he didn't hurt any civilians in the Snyder cut...

Of course the obvious difference Bruce Timm did it at the end of the series after several seasons of getting to know that Superman,while Snyder would be doing it basically as part of Superman's origin arc.
To be fair I'm not a fan of that story point regardless whether it's done by Snyder or Timm. However,I'm sure there are those who would give Timm a complete pass while completely savaging Snyder just on the basis of the fact it's Snyder and not based on the story point.

[Jim Kelly]

It's too bad they didn't have Superman come back from the dead with long hair and a beard--that would have solved their problems but I guess it was too late by then.

Before there was BATMAN V SUPERMAN--if they had done a movie called THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN, I think that would have been a huge draw. It could have done big numbers--and it could have just as easily served as a springboard for introducing other super-heroes. But because the Death was done in like fifteen minutes of BVS, it would be hard to surprise audiences now with a movie that did the same thing again. That would be like trying to do two Dark Phoenix movies.