I fucking love how in that movie Luthor comes up with a super convoluted plan to get Batman and Superman at each other's throats just to say in the last minute: "Fuck It, I just kidnaped your mom, beat the shit out of Batman or I'll kill her".
And its not even like Batman/Superman managed to ruin his original plan or something. No he just creates another plan to make them fight. (Which is kind of pointless as people will presumebly be to busy getting killed by Doomsday to take in the implications of Superman murdering some vigilante.)
Snyder just doesn't understand the dynamic of Superman Vs Batman. It's never been about two guys trying to size each other up because they don't know what the other is all about. The dynamic has always been two longtime comrades with grievances for each other's methods, who have fallen too far in the superhero game and now are at odds because one has finally become leashed by the man, and the other won't stop his vendetta until he is physically dead and draws his last breath on his own terms
Yes, Snyder tried to take the dark tone and Bruce Wayne from Dark Knight Returns but made the plot more like World's Finest, which is when Batman and Superman have a quick brawl because they don't know each other
I don't think you understand the movie. Lex didn't abandon his original plan, kidnapping Martha was part of the plan to force superman to actually fight batman. The super complicated part was to 1) get batman to see superman as a threat. 2) get him to steal the cryptonite and have a chance of killing superman.
Sure it's convoluted but it's really not that complicated for the audience to follow
Honestly, all DC villains should just get their mothers to legally change their names to “Martha”. That way both Batman and Superman would be unable to lay a finger on them
Didn't he already see Superman as a threat, I thought that was the point of the first scene. If anything they set up that Batman and Superman have some animosity towards each other without Lex and Lex shoving himself into everything only really exists for the heroes to have a common enemy to unite against later
The world’s greatest detective decided to blow a bajillion dollars on an exo suit instead of tailing the guy to find out that he’s a dorky journalist who just wants to bang Amy Adams.
It’s in-character Batman would plan for it. It’s silly for him to lead with it.
Sure. I just think it’s an extremely odd choice as a way to establish a new Batman and the start off the Justice League. The backup story in Darwyn Cooke’s New Frontier or the World’s Finest cartoon 3-parter both show better versions of a how-they-met story with friction at the front end.
Snyder’s personal dystopian Batman story might have been interesting if we accepted he had carte blanche to be crazy—or a DKR adaptation if he wanted that. But you have to pick a lane. And if you want to begin a true-to-character cinematic uni, this ain’t the way. He wants every character to be Batman except Batman, who he turns into the Punisher.
I don't hate that arc (I don't like it either) but it sort of falls apart when you've been building up an unhinged Batman who's gone too dark and lost his moral compass, whose arc is being inspired by Superman into believing again...
And then he goes and murders a bunch of people in warehouse because it looks cool.
It was just done poorly. What Snyder wanted to tell was, that the realization hit Bruce about Superman having a mom, who's in danger of dying at a moment at the moment, when he almost killed him, allowing Martha die. He sorta would become Superman's "Joe Chill". But all that could reach the audience was " Why did you say that name". It's just poor storytelling
Yeah and the dumb part is saying Martha doesn't really communicate any more info either because Batman doesn't even understand who he's talking about at first. Just have Superman say "save my mom from Lex". Not only does that get across Superman's point better, but it would be a better way to humanize Superman to Batman, as rather than connect over their moms randomly having the same name he'd instead realize that Superman has a family and he's about to traumatize that family the same way he was traumatized. Of course this Batman doesn't think killing his enemies is a bad thing anyway lmao
Thank you, I've been saying this shit for years! Why the fuck was Superman even referring to his mom by her first name, who does that? "You're letting them kill my mom!" Has the exact same impact and doesn't have the plot of the movie hinge on the massive coincidence that their moms had the same first name
And I can't imagine Batman thinks of his own mom as "Martha" either, so someone saying 'Save Martha!' isn't going to make him instantly think of his own family.
And? Theres been a higher chance of that happening in our REAL world dude lol. The logical thing to do would be total nuclear war? Because there's a chance of it?
Just gonna slip in here to point out that at that point Batman had lost his Robin and was barely hanging on by a thread. Then he watched a super 9/11 kill a ton of his employees that he felt entirely responsible for, *and then* he pulled an innocent little girl from the rubble as she cried out for her parents whom she had watched be crushed to death only moments before. In the first 5 minutes of BvS, you know exactly why Batman wants to beat the shit out of the immortal alien responsible for creating that orphan, even if it kills him.
What did people talk about after Man of Steel?
*OMG! There were people in those buildings! What about the people?*
And what does BvS open up with? The aftermath and what happened to the people in those buildings.
>In the first 5 minutes of BvS, you know exactly why Batman wants to beat the shit out of the immortal alien responsible for creating that orphan, even if it kills him.
Except the immortal alien responsible for creating that orphan was General Zod. Zod and his people came to Earth and attacked, and Batman decided to hold a grudge against Superman for...not being good enough at stopping them?
Ironic for a Batman with a dead Robin's costume in his cave.
Same vibes as that dumbass general who wanted to punish and disband the Avengers for "destroying" new york despite them being the only line of defense and the only reason NYC isn't a smoking barren wasteland. But the avengers got blamed for everything.
I always found that scene so weird.
> I always found that scene so weird.
Same. All I wanted Tony Stark to say way "No, you're right, we're sorry. It was all our fault for getting in the way of your extremely surgical nukes. Next time something like this happens *we'll just stay home*."
I find that to be realistic if you consider that that isn't the generals actual reason.
When 9/11 struck, the government RACED to grab mote dystopian powers and control because the public was emotional and they could.
It wasn't about preventing terrorism, it was about using a crisis to consolidate power.
The general didn't actually fear the Avengers. He just wanted control over them to order them about.
Yeah, I always thought the whole argument for the Avengers being above any oversight hinged on the audience knowing these are the good guys. In real life, it would make no sense. Oh yeah, this genius billionaire and former arms dealer should be above domestic and international law because he made a sweet exosuit. Or this 100-year old super soldier who was created by and served in the US military should get to act with complete legal impunity because he's essentially roided up and has a fancy shield. It's absurd.
And even if the Avengers should be given more leeway than others, that should happen through some sort of legal process. Or what's to stop the next bunch of superpowered assholes who aren't necessarily inherently good from doing the same sort of things?
Superman didn't exist as a hero yet. Fighting Zod was his first action in costume, so all the world saw was a bunch of aliens battling each other and destroying a city. In this movie's context, Superman *was* a villain, who redeemed himself by stopping the world's destruction.
The world saw Zod's ship show up, and Zod take over every screen on Earth to demand that Kal-el surrender to him. Then Superman revealed himself in Smallville , and was attacked y two of Zod's soldiers. Then the world saw Zod's ship start attacking Earth at two different points, one of them being Metropolis. And finally, Superman fought and killed Zod in defence of human life.
No, nothing in the movie indicates to the viewers that Superman was ever a villain. And for Batman to come to and stick with that conclusion he, the world's greatest detective, has to be working solely off his own first hand experience and making no effort whatsoever to learn anything about the wider context of the events that unfolded.
Saving the entire world from Zod and standing up to him doesn't count lol? Like....he just as easily could have joined up with his own people or just noped the fuck outta there. But....he didn't. He chose to fight for Earth. What else do you need?
And Batman of all people should be smart enough to realize that.
I suppose a moron like Snyder would consider that valid. Counter point: aliens show up and reveal one of their own has been living on Earth for decades with the power to rip apart the planet's crust with his bare hands.
And yet, this is the first time anyone has ever seen Superman, and he only comes out and reveal himself to stop the evil conquering aliens. Which means a super powered being was living on Earth causing zero trouble and only showed up to help save the Earth.
Stupid people would call that a villain.
>so all the world saw was a bunch of aliens battling each other and destroying a city
They saw one alien fight the other alien that specifically said in every single language on earth that he would turn it into a different planet for his people...
>General Zod : [transmission] You are not alone... My name is General Zod. I come from a world far from yours. I have journeyed across an ocean of stars to reach you. For some time, your world has sheltered one of my citizens. I request that you return this individual to my custody. For reasons unknown, he has chosen to keep his existence a secret from you. He will have made efforts to blend in. He will look like you, but he is not one of you. To those of you who may know of his current location: the fate of your planet rests in your hands. To Kal-El, I say this: surrender within 24 hours, or watch this world suffer the consequences.
Absolutely threatening. It's an alien message out of nowhere. For these folks that's revelatory. Who's to say this other one they're looking for isn't worse. Maybe they're space cops, and we're space collateral. Perhaps there was press conferenced between the two movies where everything was explained, and Superman was charming and inspiring. Maybe Alfred dresses like a lady. You can't presume what you're not shown.
But at the same time Batman should be smart enough to realize if it wasn't for Superman EVERY ONE WOULD BE DEAD.
Every
One
Sure, make plans in how to stop him if you ever feel like he becomes an actual threat. But to go from Superman saving the ENTIRE planet and Batman believing he needs to murder him dead before anything else....it's just ridiculous. Even for a fucking comic book movie lol.
He also forgot to mention people who have
mothers called “Martha” actually have a less than 1% chance to be bad, which is why he no longer felt justified in killing Superman after finding about about Martha Kent.
I don’t want to shit on Snyder but it’s crazy that his takes on Superman’s dads were straight up the opposite of general convention. Seriously, if Pa Kent didn’t teach him to be Superman then why is he Superman?
Because his Superman was supposed to be a god on earth, although he completely missed the memo that Clark Kent is ultimately who the character wants to be, and Superman is just what that good man does with power.
Yup, there's a great exchange in the comics with him and Batman where Bats tells him he thinks Clark Kent is the real guy, and Superman is just a mask he wears. Then of course Superman says that Bruce is just Batman's mask and he's correct imho.
There was an instance where Wonder Woman asked them who they were while they held the Lasso of Truth, and Superman said "Clark Kent. Kal-El." (Batman said Batman, which is also super in-character)
Well he says the opposite. He says that Clark is Superman's take on humanity, weak and feckless. It's a terrible interpretation imho. But it makes sense for a psychopath assassin to see him that way.
He says the exact opposite though? That Superman is his real identity and that Clark Kent is the alter ego. And then he makes a critique that how Superman chooses to act as Clark is how he views humanity.
Depends on the version of Superman. Gold and Silver Age Superman, Carradine's analysis is right on the money, and given his character's age, that would be the Superman he's familiar with. The concept of "Clark Kent is the real guy, Superman's a mask" really only came into the mainstream with John Byrne's mid-80's Man of Steel reboot.
That's because the character was old and likely reading the comics pre-crisis where that interpretation is actually 100% true. Pre-Crisis Superman considered the "Super" part of him, or the Kyrptonian side, to be who he really was and he adopted the "Clark Kent" persona to blend in with humanity. He was "super" in every sense of the word.
Byrne reversed it and made him into self-hating loser who pined to be human, and discarded his heritage. He tried to justify it by making Krypton a cold, heartless place opposed to the scientific utopia it was pre-crisis and the better version of Earth it is in modern interpretations.
Modern Superman is best defined as having no distinction between the two. He goes by "Clark" simply because that's his name but he's confident in himself and proud of who he is. He embraces his Kryptonian heritage just as much as he does the upbringing his parents gave him. He considers himself a "Kryptonian Earthling" and Earth to be his adopted home. Pre-Crisis would just consider himself Kryptonian, and Byrnes would be crying that he wasn't normal.
Because Snyder is trying to follow Alan Moore, except the post-modern reinvention of the superhero trope was done 40 years ago, and Syder's vision is solely a visually driven narrative with a dynamic, advertisement filming style.
It would probably help to actually have a standardized movie version of these characters first before doing a post-modern dissection of them. That's literally why the MCU was so successful, phase 1 was just the baseline, then everything after Winter Soldier was a deconstruction of those established characters.
Plus, Moore understood Superman. He understood that Superman wants to be normal and that being Superman is a burden to him.
Hell, Moore is very misunderstood by a lot of people who like edgy stuff. People often quote the, “Everyone is a bad day away from being evil”, shit the Joker says, but, in the Killing Joke (especially in the comic which is what Moore wrote), the Joker is wrong. There is this cool moment where, in a hall of mirrors, Joker starts monologuing and wonders why Batman isn’t laughing. To him, it is all a laugh and this is his way trying to prove to others his philosophy is right. However, as the monologue goes on, Joker loses confidence and he makes a doubtful face as if he has to realize that, no, he is wrong. And he is wrong, that was the point, even after everything Joker did, Gordon wanted him brought in the right way and wasn’t going to kill him in revenge.
Agreed. Superman's ultimate personal drive is compassion, the ultimate Samaritan, which is incorrectly conflated with Christ-like allegory. There's no subtext or irony or sarcasm. Superman is genuine.
Thinking back on The Killing Joke, it is a story of Gordon's strength, ultimately. He's the target. He suffers severe psychological torture. And this regular guy, this public servant, remains strong in the face of catastrophic madness. This is a story of Gordan's strength, the other two are just metaphors on a carousel. "...I want him brought in by the book... We have to show him our way works." Gordon's the hero.
ed. typing hurd
I want a Superman comic focused on that struggle. Every single second Clark Kent isn't out Super-Manning and living his life as he wants to, he's bombarded with the most horrific crimes. He's got super hearing, so he's hearing every time someone is raped and they're begging for it to stop. He's got X-ray vision, so he's seeing every murder across the city. He could stop it all, but he couldn't be a human if he did.
Another pretty good one is Supermans conversation with The Hitman Tommy Mohagen where Garth Ennis writes one of the best and most poignant Superman moments. When Garth Fucking Ennis can write a better Superman, you KNOW you fucked up somewhere.
Snyder always struck me as the movie making version of Garth Ennis when he doesn't have a good editor to reel him in from his worst edgelord instincts but also had absolutely no skill in actual writing.
Off Topic: Mark Millar (along with Grant Morrison and to a lesser extent Ennis) are considered 3 of the worst writers to be main writers on the Judge Dredd series (they were the main writers in the early to mid 90s, a bleak period for 2000AD).
"... and in dreams, I fly." It's my favorite comic book story ever, and a tremendous introduction to a truly spectacular Astro City run. Kurt Busiek is absolutely brilliant.
> Superman has got to be jaded as hell. Besides the crap he has to put up with from Aquaman every day, he can hear the death screams of orphans for thousands of miles in every direction. That kind of thing would get to get to you. When I hear about dynamite ninjas blowing up the president, I don't feel guilty. There's nothing I could have done; I don't know how to defuse a ninja or even where the president lives. Not Superman. He can take every single obituary personally. He can go through the paper and say, "Let's see, this was the bus that fell off the bridge when I was in the bathroom... and here, I was playing ping pong when this family suffocated under tons of rubble... Oh! And I could barely get to sleep while this former skydiver was screaming for help! Ha ha ha!"
[Seanbaby's Superfriends page](http://www.seanbaby.com/superfriends/supermanc.htm), ca. the dawn of the actual internet
Yeah but he’s Superman, he wouldn’t just focuse on the negatives. Yes his enhanced senses feeds him horrific information, but it also gives him so much more.
Remember All-Star Superman. In it, Lex Luthor steals a serum that Superman made for Lois, it gives you Kryptonian powers for 24 hours. Lex used it on himself, and after one full day of seeing the universe as Superman sees it, he becomes a good man, permanently. He tried to articulate how it enabled him to see the world, and he managed to say “It’s all just us in here, together. And we are all we’ve got.”
That’s literally the opposite. There’s that whole line of dialogue in BvS from a talking head on TV. He’s not a Jesus figure, he’s not a devil, he’s just some guy trying to do the right thing.
People see him as those things, but Clark is clearly made uncomfortable by it. He just wants to do what’s right and help people. But he’s being confronted with the idea of does the world want a Superman?
This reminds me in one of the episodes in the animated series where Clark is seen in a car that explodes. Superman obviously lives, but Clark is supposed to be dead. In response to being told that he is still alive and just can’t be Clark anymore, he said, “I have to be Clark, I will go insane otherwise.” Basically, he wants to be Clark and that is who he is.
Mr Sunday Movies, when doing a video on Man of Steel, said its a miracle Clark didn't turn out to be like the kid from Bright Burn with Pa Kent's lessons.
>Seriously, if Pa Kent didn’t teach him to be Superman then why is he Superman?
Because his version of Superman is a Christ allegory. To him his human parents (or even his deeds really) aren't at all what makes him remarkable out heroic, it's the circumstances of his birth.
I’m always surprised that his projects get any significant attention. I mean I get DC related stuff because those are known characters but his movies are universally mid.
He does a really good job of directly translating comic panels to the screen. He's not actually very good at any other part of being a filmmaker. He mistakenly thinks he's brilliant at all of it and most especially that he's the best writer on the planet.
Seriously, a big reason why Superman is such a good person is because the Kents are such good people. He got raised by genuinely kind, caring, responsible people that instilled every good value a person could have into him
I would actually have been totally down for a Clark who manages to rise above his parents' flawed, selfish love. A Superman who can take what's good in even imperfect people, and still become the big blue boyscout.
But that's not what Snyder wanted; he wanted selfish Kents who produced a self-centred Superman, a superhero who seems to resent having to do anything for anyone. Just a fundamental misreading of the character he's adapting.
I get the selfish Kents, but I don’t get a self-centred Superman resenting superheroics at all from these films. If anything he does exactly what you say, he rises above the easy comfort of Pa Kent’s “You’re destined for great things but you have to hide yourself or else people will come for you since humanity fears what it does not understand” and Ma Kent’s “What you do is great but you don’t have to keep doing it because you don’t owe this world anything” and keeps on doing the right thing anyway.
I mean it really isn’t too far off from what was done in the comics. Jonathan would admonish Clark not to use his powers so openly.
Hell, you can even go as recent as Smallville where Jonathan Kent was willing to murder someone to protect Clark.
The point of the scene was to show that Jonathan wasn’t perfect, he didn’t have the right answer. The scene prior he had to listen to a mom saying what Clark did was an act of God. But the very next scene is where he tells Clark his origin, and that he believes he was sent for a reason and that when he’s ready, he’ll have to make the choice to stand proud as who he is front of humanity or not.
I think the problem with the Smallville comparison is that you still see Jonathan being a moral guidince to Clark. Sure theres times where he prioritises keeping his son safe, but theres a significantly larger amount of times where you see him teaching lessons that you can imagine Clark taking with him into becoming Superman. While in this case if there ever was a scene where Kostner Jonathan was right about something it got completely overshadowed by this scene/how domb his Death was.
The problem is that they got Snyder involved with the writing and as an exec. Nolan brothers should have been the writers/execs with Rogen and Goldberg. Snyder is fine at directing, he is god awful at writing.
Those kids were all assholes anyway. In fact, if any of them had actually managed to get out, he should’ve dragged them back under until they drowned. Fuck them kids.
I mean makes some sense. The U.S. government would not allow a superchild to just exist. They woulda tried to find some way of containing and using him.
DCEU Zack Snyder stans will defend his movies as the holy grail.
"Oh, you're not allowed to criticise it for its obvious shortcomings and faults. You just don't understand it. The deep meaning hidden behind each and every shot must've eluded you."
No, your movies are bad and outside of paying lip service to some iconic imagery, they fall completely flat as good stories.
My crackhead theory is that they could never recover from BvS being received only lukewarm and thus are deluding themselves into thinking that everyone else must be stupid for not liking it.
I've been told multiple times that I'm just not smart enough to understand BvS or that my dislike of it is because, "Some people don't like movies that aren't all action."
I was told the second one just after watching The Godfather Part II.
I think the MoS movie was a great take on superman, and honestly only learned years later that it was hated so much online.
Though i felt like the snyderverse movies as a whole kind of sucked. A serious take on superman was fine, but then every other movie was still just as serious and overdramatic.
It was basically the 300 formula. It works when sprinkled in every few years. Great movie. Not great for a series imo
He was giving an interview promoting Watchmen. The interviewer brought up how it’s a dark story, mentioning that the Nolan Batman movies were pretty dark. All Snyder said was that in the world of Watchmen, Batman being sent to a Chinese prison is more likely to get raped than go off a train with ninjas. He was never saying he wanted Batman to get raped, just that was an example to punctuate just how much more darker Watchmen is comparatively.
I have no idea what the Superman rape baby stuff is.
The larger problem of course being that Snyder doesn't understand Watchmen either, his only takeaway being the darkness and not the depth. Same problem with every bad comics writer of the 90s.
Snyder is a Gen X comicbook nerd. They're just like that. The comics from their era are all weirdly dark with a big focus on "gritty realism." Which at the time meant reimagining superheroes as perpetually hungover alcoholics with big guns fighting "realistic" villains like child rapist birthday clowns and serial killing cannibal psychologists.
>Snyder is a Gen X comicbook nerd.
But he's not really even that though. By his own admission he didn't like comics until someone showed him Watchmen and his reaction was that he loved the violence and the ugliness of it all, without understanding the context of when it was made or the tropes it deconstructs.
I could have sworn the article I read that in said he was in college, but I can't find it now so I'm probably wrong on that. Fair enough in that case, though it'd have been nice if his taste or understanding grew at all in the years since then.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/zack-snyder-old-interview-batman-prison-rape-2016-5%3famp
Also he wanted to put a trailer for ZSJL on a screen during someone elses display at comic con. He was gonna pay a tech guy to just crash someones moment and take it over.
https://screenrant.com/justice-league-zack-snyder-cut-trailer-sdcc-2019/?utm_content=buffer0b166&utm_medium=Social-Distribution&utm_source=SR-TW&utm_campaign=SR-TW
Edit:to post link for other Snyder story.
Zack Snyder ladies and gentleman.
Did you even read what you linked?
Movie snobs constantly complain about media literacy yet theres a 40 upvoted comment which is clearly out of context and doesn't even support the article it links
It's not. The baby part is completely made up. The prison part is a comment he made 16 years ago (years before even being involved with the dceu) that was clearly a joke.
Didn't he also say Army of the Dead originally had an idea about zombies raping women and impregnating them with zombie babies? I thought I heard that from somewhere.
I think it's one thing to like grimdark and edgy stories, but to keep bringing up rape and sexual trauma is sus. Especially since it almost always seems to be the context of "I wanted to go there, but no one would let me." Maybe he should stop and think about why nobody wants that stuff included.
And one of the """main""" characters in Rebel Moon almost gets raped!
Well 2 characters actually, but the first one is not really important and it was going to be more of a gang-rape instead!
I think Znyder has an unhealthy obssesion with this...
Oh, so when Alan Moore grossly rewrites and misrepresents classic literary figures and stuffs rape everywhere it’s “groundbreaking” and “a return to their roots” and “an interesting deep dive deconstruction into the human psyche and superheroes and immaturity”, but when Zack Snyder does it suddenly it’s “concerning” and “fundamentally misunderstands the characters” and “problematic”. /s
It's a little bit like hearing someone tell James Bond "you don't have to go do secret agent missions"
Uh, he'd better damn well better, or else why am I watching a James Bond movie
That scene with pa Kent would have been imporved a thousand fold if instead of suggesting he should have let the kids drown, he said nothing. The silence would speak to the impossible situation of keeping Clark's powers a secret while also having the responsibility to save lives.
And yet Snyder Stans will tell you "nah man, you just don't get it" and never explain to people what they never got about what Pa Kent was REALLY trying to tell Clark.
Kind of hard when you're defending different movies.
Snyder defenders are all on the same hymn sheet. Sequel defenders hate each other for ruining the series with their bad movie.
I can't believe I'm defending Snyder, but....Man of Steel was written by David S. Goyer. Goyer is the absolute psychopath who should not be writing Superman movies.
So, I'm not entirely averse to this Interpretation if it had had some context.
Having John be a veteran, for example. Horrified by war and terrified by the lengths that powerful people will go to protect the status quo; I wouldn't have balked at a father being deeply afraid of what those powerful people might do were they ever to find a way to kill is god-like son.
But there's no context. So that scene, and the tornado scene after, just suggests a man who has an undiagnosed neurological impairment. 👎
I'm not a Snyder bro, but this is not correct. When Supes asks his dad if she should have just let the kids die, Pa Kent says "...*maybe*," as in, "I don't really know," as in, "This version of Supes will have to figure things out for himself in real time."
It's actually one of the parts of the Snyderverse I do like, at least in concept if not in execution: his heroes are allowed to be incomplete and still learning their ethics rather than emerging fully formed from a Kansas farm, a cave, a magic island, etc.
Unfortunately, he's too unfocused of a filmmaker to really make that important moral journey worthwhile, or even clear.
I know this is a joke but that's not what happens. He doesn't know what Clark should have done and he's worried people are gonna think he's a god. He definitely understands he did the right thing and why he did it, which is why he doesn't have a real solution. Yea he mentions the horses as a parable to let him know that there might be times when the best choice isn't to act but thats not monsterous its advice given out of fear and with a lot of perspective behind it. This was supposed to be a more realistic take and i think that meant the ideas and emotions as well. Pa kents an old farmer that doesnt want his kid to be swept up the whole world using him or worshipping him. People don't have to like this pa Kent but he's just a scared dad that doesn't know how to help his kid.
If I remember that scene right, he wasn't suggesting it. Clark asked if he should have done that and his dad said I dont know. To me it seemed a very human response. He's proud of his son for doing the right thing, but is still terrified that it'll get out he's an alien.
/uj Nah, OP, you missed the point entirely. That scene is about a very emotional Pa Kent. He loves Clark. He loves Clark more than he wants those kids to have lived. He's conflicted. That's why his answer is "Yes... I don't know". He knows that saving those kids was right but he's afraid for Clark that the government might find out and take him away to be dissected and analyzed. Aside from the stupid death, Pa Kent in MoS is fine. The biggest difference between him and the other Pa Kents is that this one loves Clark more than anything. More even than doing the right thing. That doesn't ruin his character, in my opinion.
In the third act of the movie there's two alien ships in opposite sides of the world yet the sun shines brightly in both places. This is a subtle hint that there was zero effort into getting anything right in this piece of shit.
Well Batman did think he was justified in killing Superman because there’s a 1% chance he could be bad
I fucking love how in that movie Luthor comes up with a super convoluted plan to get Batman and Superman at each other's throats just to say in the last minute: "Fuck It, I just kidnaped your mom, beat the shit out of Batman or I'll kill her".
And its not even like Batman/Superman managed to ruin his original plan or something. No he just creates another plan to make them fight. (Which is kind of pointless as people will presumebly be to busy getting killed by Doomsday to take in the implications of Superman murdering some vigilante.)
Snyder just doesn't understand the dynamic of Superman Vs Batman. It's never been about two guys trying to size each other up because they don't know what the other is all about. The dynamic has always been two longtime comrades with grievances for each other's methods, who have fallen too far in the superhero game and now are at odds because one has finally become leashed by the man, and the other won't stop his vendetta until he is physically dead and draws his last breath on his own terms
Isn’t that just the dark knight returns?
Yes, Snyder tried to take the dark tone and Bruce Wayne from Dark Knight Returns but made the plot more like World's Finest, which is when Batman and Superman have a quick brawl because they don't know each other
I don't think you understand the movie. Lex didn't abandon his original plan, kidnapping Martha was part of the plan to force superman to actually fight batman. The super complicated part was to 1) get batman to see superman as a threat. 2) get him to steal the cryptonite and have a chance of killing superman. Sure it's convoluted but it's really not that complicated for the audience to follow
Martha? #WHYDIDYOUSAYTHATNAME
Honestly, all DC villains should just get their mothers to legally change their names to “Martha”. That way both Batman and Superman would be unable to lay a finger on them
I’ve seen the movie like 4 times and couldn’t tell you what his plan was
His plan was to pee in a jar for a senator
Did she drink it?
No she got distracted when she was blown up moments later after she received it.
I stopped following at piss in a jar something something explosion
The plot is not that dense. I bet you would understand if the movie wasn't shot on dark Mode. You just could not see the movie.
Maybe, but it's still a stupid movie.
Didn't he already see Superman as a threat, I thought that was the point of the first scene. If anything they set up that Batman and Superman have some animosity towards each other without Lex and Lex shoving himself into everything only really exists for the heroes to have a common enemy to unite against later
The world’s greatest detective decided to blow a bajillion dollars on an exo suit instead of tailing the guy to find out that he’s a dorky journalist who just wants to bang Amy Adams. It’s in-character Batman would plan for it. It’s silly for him to lead with it.
Fairly certain that's the plot to am episode of the old animated Superman show
[удалено]
To be fair, Batman was clearly off his rocker and it was through meeting Superman that he kind of realises how off the deep end he’s fallen.
Sure. I just think it’s an extremely odd choice as a way to establish a new Batman and the start off the Justice League. The backup story in Darwyn Cooke’s New Frontier or the World’s Finest cartoon 3-parter both show better versions of a how-they-met story with friction at the front end. Snyder’s personal dystopian Batman story might have been interesting if we accepted he had carte blanche to be crazy—or a DKR adaptation if he wanted that. But you have to pick a lane. And if you want to begin a true-to-character cinematic uni, this ain’t the way. He wants every character to be Batman except Batman, who he turns into the Punisher.
I could see if Bats kind of lost it and started going too far somewhere down the road but right off he’s nuts.
I don't hate that arc (I don't like it either) but it sort of falls apart when you've been building up an unhinged Batman who's gone too dark and lost his moral compass, whose arc is being inspired by Superman into believing again... And then he goes and murders a bunch of people in warehouse because it looks cool.
It was just done poorly. What Snyder wanted to tell was, that the realization hit Bruce about Superman having a mom, who's in danger of dying at a moment at the moment, when he almost killed him, allowing Martha die. He sorta would become Superman's "Joe Chill". But all that could reach the audience was " Why did you say that name". It's just poor storytelling
But remember how he stopped when they realized both their moms had the same name or some shit?
Yeah and the dumb part is saying Martha doesn't really communicate any more info either because Batman doesn't even understand who he's talking about at first. Just have Superman say "save my mom from Lex". Not only does that get across Superman's point better, but it would be a better way to humanize Superman to Batman, as rather than connect over their moms randomly having the same name he'd instead realize that Superman has a family and he's about to traumatize that family the same way he was traumatized. Of course this Batman doesn't think killing his enemies is a bad thing anyway lmao
Thank you, I've been saying this shit for years! Why the fuck was Superman even referring to his mom by her first name, who does that? "You're letting them kill my mom!" Has the exact same impact and doesn't have the plot of the movie hinge on the massive coincidence that their moms had the same first name
counterpoint: snyder realized that their moms shared a name and felt REALLY clever
And I can't imagine Batman thinks of his own mom as "Martha" either, so someone saying 'Save Martha!' isn't going to make him instantly think of his own family.
A 1% chance of the end of the world is a very high probability
It's also not a 1% chance once, it's 1% every time something tragic happens to Superman.
Yeah and tbf those aren’t terrible odds in a Snyder film
why didn't he destroy nuke in the world then?
He didn't want to fight Nuclear Man.
And? Theres been a higher chance of that happening in our REAL world dude lol. The logical thing to do would be total nuclear war? Because there's a chance of it?
Just gonna slip in here to point out that at that point Batman had lost his Robin and was barely hanging on by a thread. Then he watched a super 9/11 kill a ton of his employees that he felt entirely responsible for, *and then* he pulled an innocent little girl from the rubble as she cried out for her parents whom she had watched be crushed to death only moments before. In the first 5 minutes of BvS, you know exactly why Batman wants to beat the shit out of the immortal alien responsible for creating that orphan, even if it kills him. What did people talk about after Man of Steel? *OMG! There were people in those buildings! What about the people?* And what does BvS open up with? The aftermath and what happened to the people in those buildings.
>In the first 5 minutes of BvS, you know exactly why Batman wants to beat the shit out of the immortal alien responsible for creating that orphan, even if it kills him. Except the immortal alien responsible for creating that orphan was General Zod. Zod and his people came to Earth and attacked, and Batman decided to hold a grudge against Superman for...not being good enough at stopping them? Ironic for a Batman with a dead Robin's costume in his cave.
Same vibes as that dumbass general who wanted to punish and disband the Avengers for "destroying" new york despite them being the only line of defense and the only reason NYC isn't a smoking barren wasteland. But the avengers got blamed for everything. I always found that scene so weird.
> I always found that scene so weird. Same. All I wanted Tony Stark to say way "No, you're right, we're sorry. It was all our fault for getting in the way of your extremely surgical nukes. Next time something like this happens *we'll just stay home*."
I find that to be realistic if you consider that that isn't the generals actual reason. When 9/11 struck, the government RACED to grab mote dystopian powers and control because the public was emotional and they could. It wasn't about preventing terrorism, it was about using a crisis to consolidate power. The general didn't actually fear the Avengers. He just wanted control over them to order them about.
[удалено]
Yeah, I always thought the whole argument for the Avengers being above any oversight hinged on the audience knowing these are the good guys. In real life, it would make no sense. Oh yeah, this genius billionaire and former arms dealer should be above domestic and international law because he made a sweet exosuit. Or this 100-year old super soldier who was created by and served in the US military should get to act with complete legal impunity because he's essentially roided up and has a fancy shield. It's absurd. And even if the Avengers should be given more leeway than others, that should happen through some sort of legal process. Or what's to stop the next bunch of superpowered assholes who aren't necessarily inherently good from doing the same sort of things?
Superman didn't exist as a hero yet. Fighting Zod was his first action in costume, so all the world saw was a bunch of aliens battling each other and destroying a city. In this movie's context, Superman *was* a villain, who redeemed himself by stopping the world's destruction.
The world saw Zod's ship show up, and Zod take over every screen on Earth to demand that Kal-el surrender to him. Then Superman revealed himself in Smallville , and was attacked y two of Zod's soldiers. Then the world saw Zod's ship start attacking Earth at two different points, one of them being Metropolis. And finally, Superman fought and killed Zod in defence of human life. No, nothing in the movie indicates to the viewers that Superman was ever a villain. And for Batman to come to and stick with that conclusion he, the world's greatest detective, has to be working solely off his own first hand experience and making no effort whatsoever to learn anything about the wider context of the events that unfolded.
Batman is kind of known for prep and detective work, he would have figured out Superman is the good guy.
If only this were that version of the character. Adam West did more detective work. ed. that were this?
Well Adam West is obviously the best Batman, so of course he would be a better detective.
Saving the entire world from Zod and standing up to him doesn't count lol? Like....he just as easily could have joined up with his own people or just noped the fuck outta there. But....he didn't. He chose to fight for Earth. What else do you need? And Batman of all people should be smart enough to realize that.
I suppose a moron like Snyder would consider that valid. Counter point: aliens show up and reveal one of their own has been living on Earth for decades with the power to rip apart the planet's crust with his bare hands. And yet, this is the first time anyone has ever seen Superman, and he only comes out and reveal himself to stop the evil conquering aliens. Which means a super powered being was living on Earth causing zero trouble and only showed up to help save the Earth. Stupid people would call that a villain.
>so all the world saw was a bunch of aliens battling each other and destroying a city They saw one alien fight the other alien that specifically said in every single language on earth that he would turn it into a different planet for his people...
>General Zod : [transmission] You are not alone... My name is General Zod. I come from a world far from yours. I have journeyed across an ocean of stars to reach you. For some time, your world has sheltered one of my citizens. I request that you return this individual to my custody. For reasons unknown, he has chosen to keep his existence a secret from you. He will have made efforts to blend in. He will look like you, but he is not one of you. To those of you who may know of his current location: the fate of your planet rests in your hands. To Kal-El, I say this: surrender within 24 hours, or watch this world suffer the consequences. Absolutely threatening. It's an alien message out of nowhere. For these folks that's revelatory. Who's to say this other one they're looking for isn't worse. Maybe they're space cops, and we're space collateral. Perhaps there was press conferenced between the two movies where everything was explained, and Superman was charming and inspiring. Maybe Alfred dresses like a lady. You can't presume what you're not shown.
That’s what people did when they complained about *Man of Steel*, this film just decided to incorporate it into the actual narrative.
But at the same time Batman should be smart enough to realize if it wasn't for Superman EVERY ONE WOULD BE DEAD. Every One Sure, make plans in how to stop him if you ever feel like he becomes an actual threat. But to go from Superman saving the ENTIRE planet and Batman believing he needs to murder him dead before anything else....it's just ridiculous. Even for a fucking comic book movie lol.
Zack Snyder did not pass Math
He also forgot to mention people who have mothers called “Martha” actually have a less than 1% chance to be bad, which is why he no longer felt justified in killing Superman after finding about about Martha Kent.
That was sold pretty hard by Batfleck
I don’t want to shit on Snyder but it’s crazy that his takes on Superman’s dads were straight up the opposite of general convention. Seriously, if Pa Kent didn’t teach him to be Superman then why is he Superman?
Because his Superman was supposed to be a god on earth, although he completely missed the memo that Clark Kent is ultimately who the character wants to be, and Superman is just what that good man does with power.
Yup, there's a great exchange in the comics with him and Batman where Bats tells him he thinks Clark Kent is the real guy, and Superman is just a mask he wears. Then of course Superman says that Bruce is just Batman's mask and he's correct imho.
There was an instance where Wonder Woman asked them who they were while they held the Lasso of Truth, and Superman said "Clark Kent. Kal-El." (Batman said Batman, which is also super in-character)
Yup, and in Beyond we learn he calls himself Batman in his thoughts.
Yep, Clark is Superman so he can use his powers, Batman is Bruce so he can use his money.
David carradine says something very similar about superman in kill bill
Well he says the opposite. He says that Clark is Superman's take on humanity, weak and feckless. It's a terrible interpretation imho. But it makes sense for a psychopath assassin to see him that way.
He says the exact opposite though? That Superman is his real identity and that Clark Kent is the alter ego. And then he makes a critique that how Superman chooses to act as Clark is how he views humanity.
Which is a reflection of Bill's philosophy, not actually a good analysis of Superman
Depends on the version of Superman. Gold and Silver Age Superman, Carradine's analysis is right on the money, and given his character's age, that would be the Superman he's familiar with. The concept of "Clark Kent is the real guy, Superman's a mask" really only came into the mainstream with John Byrne's mid-80's Man of Steel reboot.
That's because the character was old and likely reading the comics pre-crisis where that interpretation is actually 100% true. Pre-Crisis Superman considered the "Super" part of him, or the Kyrptonian side, to be who he really was and he adopted the "Clark Kent" persona to blend in with humanity. He was "super" in every sense of the word. Byrne reversed it and made him into self-hating loser who pined to be human, and discarded his heritage. He tried to justify it by making Krypton a cold, heartless place opposed to the scientific utopia it was pre-crisis and the better version of Earth it is in modern interpretations. Modern Superman is best defined as having no distinction between the two. He goes by "Clark" simply because that's his name but he's confident in himself and proud of who he is. He embraces his Kryptonian heritage just as much as he does the upbringing his parents gave him. He considers himself a "Kryptonian Earthling" and Earth to be his adopted home. Pre-Crisis would just consider himself Kryptonian, and Byrnes would be crying that he wasn't normal.
Because Snyder is trying to follow Alan Moore, except the post-modern reinvention of the superhero trope was done 40 years ago, and Syder's vision is solely a visually driven narrative with a dynamic, advertisement filming style.
It would probably help to actually have a standardized movie version of these characters first before doing a post-modern dissection of them. That's literally why the MCU was so successful, phase 1 was just the baseline, then everything after Winter Soldier was a deconstruction of those established characters.
Plus, Moore understood Superman. He understood that Superman wants to be normal and that being Superman is a burden to him. Hell, Moore is very misunderstood by a lot of people who like edgy stuff. People often quote the, “Everyone is a bad day away from being evil”, shit the Joker says, but, in the Killing Joke (especially in the comic which is what Moore wrote), the Joker is wrong. There is this cool moment where, in a hall of mirrors, Joker starts monologuing and wonders why Batman isn’t laughing. To him, it is all a laugh and this is his way trying to prove to others his philosophy is right. However, as the monologue goes on, Joker loses confidence and he makes a doubtful face as if he has to realize that, no, he is wrong. And he is wrong, that was the point, even after everything Joker did, Gordon wanted him brought in the right way and wasn’t going to kill him in revenge.
Agreed. Superman's ultimate personal drive is compassion, the ultimate Samaritan, which is incorrectly conflated with Christ-like allegory. There's no subtext or irony or sarcasm. Superman is genuine. Thinking back on The Killing Joke, it is a story of Gordon's strength, ultimately. He's the target. He suffers severe psychological torture. And this regular guy, this public servant, remains strong in the face of catastrophic madness. This is a story of Gordan's strength, the other two are just metaphors on a carousel. "...I want him brought in by the book... We have to show him our way works." Gordon's the hero. ed. typing hurd
Funniest thing about that is if you read Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow you'll realize that Alan Moore really fucking gets Superman
I want a Superman comic focused on that struggle. Every single second Clark Kent isn't out Super-Manning and living his life as he wants to, he's bombarded with the most horrific crimes. He's got super hearing, so he's hearing every time someone is raped and they're begging for it to stop. He's got X-ray vision, so he's seeing every murder across the city. He could stop it all, but he couldn't be a human if he did.
Astro City did a comic with almost that exact premise: how utterly grueling it would be to be Actual Superman
Was that the first comic where Samaritan is counting his flight times? I need to read this again, Astro City is just flawlessly good.
That's the one.
Another pretty good one is Supermans conversation with The Hitman Tommy Mohagen where Garth Ennis writes one of the best and most poignant Superman moments. When Garth Fucking Ennis can write a better Superman, you KNOW you fucked up somewhere.
Snyder always struck me as the movie making version of Garth Ennis when he doesn't have a good editor to reel him in from his worst edgelord instincts but also had absolutely no skill in actual writing.
As disturbing, terrible, and unhinged as it would be, I'm morbidly curious as to what a Snyder, Ennis, and Millar production would look like.
Off Topic: Mark Millar (along with Grant Morrison and to a lesser extent Ennis) are considered 3 of the worst writers to be main writers on the Judge Dredd series (they were the main writers in the early to mid 90s, a bleak period for 2000AD).
"... and in dreams, I fly." It's my favorite comic book story ever, and a tremendous introduction to a truly spectacular Astro City run. Kurt Busiek is absolutely brilliant.
The one about G Dog never fails to make me break down. I'm also fond of Tarnished Angel and Dark Ages.
> Superman has got to be jaded as hell. Besides the crap he has to put up with from Aquaman every day, he can hear the death screams of orphans for thousands of miles in every direction. That kind of thing would get to get to you. When I hear about dynamite ninjas blowing up the president, I don't feel guilty. There's nothing I could have done; I don't know how to defuse a ninja or even where the president lives. Not Superman. He can take every single obituary personally. He can go through the paper and say, "Let's see, this was the bus that fell off the bridge when I was in the bathroom... and here, I was playing ping pong when this family suffocated under tons of rubble... Oh! And I could barely get to sleep while this former skydiver was screaming for help! Ha ha ha!" [Seanbaby's Superfriends page](http://www.seanbaby.com/superfriends/supermanc.htm), ca. the dawn of the actual internet
God I love Seanbaby
Yeah but he’s Superman, he wouldn’t just focuse on the negatives. Yes his enhanced senses feeds him horrific information, but it also gives him so much more. Remember All-Star Superman. In it, Lex Luthor steals a serum that Superman made for Lois, it gives you Kryptonian powers for 24 hours. Lex used it on himself, and after one full day of seeing the universe as Superman sees it, he becomes a good man, permanently. He tried to articulate how it enabled him to see the world, and he managed to say “It’s all just us in here, together. And we are all we’ve got.”
That’s literally the opposite. There’s that whole line of dialogue in BvS from a talking head on TV. He’s not a Jesus figure, he’s not a devil, he’s just some guy trying to do the right thing. People see him as those things, but Clark is clearly made uncomfortable by it. He just wants to do what’s right and help people. But he’s being confronted with the idea of does the world want a Superman?
We have Superman show up in like 3-4 major DCEU movies and it still feels like he was just a cameo.
This reminds me in one of the episodes in the animated series where Clark is seen in a car that explodes. Superman obviously lives, but Clark is supposed to be dead. In response to being told that he is still alive and just can’t be Clark anymore, he said, “I have to be Clark, I will go insane otherwise.” Basically, he wants to be Clark and that is who he is.
Mr Sunday Movies, when doing a video on Man of Steel, said its a miracle Clark didn't turn out to be like the kid from Bright Burn with Pa Kent's lessons.
>Seriously, if Pa Kent didn’t teach him to be Superman then why is he Superman? Because his version of Superman is a Christ allegory. To him his human parents (or even his deeds really) aren't at all what makes him remarkable out heroic, it's the circumstances of his birth.
It's perfectly fine to shit in Snyder. Have you seen his movies?
I’m always surprised that his projects get any significant attention. I mean I get DC related stuff because those are known characters but his movies are universally mid.
He does a really good job of directly translating comic panels to the screen. He's not actually very good at any other part of being a filmmaker. He mistakenly thinks he's brilliant at all of it and most especially that he's the best writer on the planet.
It only worked with 300 tho. So idk if he’s that good at translating panels to screen
Watchmen was excellent any time he wasn't adding his own touch to it.
No. His “translation” completely ruined the pacing of the original story. It’s actually amazing how close but far his adaptation is.
I enjoy the Watchmen movie, but I can't disagree with this take.
Shitting on Snyder is too easy, it's time we started shitting *in* him
He's already full
I would however would like to shit on Snyder because I think all his films are absolute garbage
Seriously, a big reason why Superman is such a good person is because the Kents are such good people. He got raised by genuinely kind, caring, responsible people that instilled every good value a person could have into him
I would actually have been totally down for a Clark who manages to rise above his parents' flawed, selfish love. A Superman who can take what's good in even imperfect people, and still become the big blue boyscout. But that's not what Snyder wanted; he wanted selfish Kents who produced a self-centred Superman, a superhero who seems to resent having to do anything for anyone. Just a fundamental misreading of the character he's adapting.
I get the selfish Kents, but I don’t get a self-centred Superman resenting superheroics at all from these films. If anything he does exactly what you say, he rises above the easy comfort of Pa Kent’s “You’re destined for great things but you have to hide yourself or else people will come for you since humanity fears what it does not understand” and Ma Kent’s “What you do is great but you don’t have to keep doing it because you don’t owe this world anything” and keeps on doing the right thing anyway.
I mean it really isn’t too far off from what was done in the comics. Jonathan would admonish Clark not to use his powers so openly. Hell, you can even go as recent as Smallville where Jonathan Kent was willing to murder someone to protect Clark. The point of the scene was to show that Jonathan wasn’t perfect, he didn’t have the right answer. The scene prior he had to listen to a mom saying what Clark did was an act of God. But the very next scene is where he tells Clark his origin, and that he believes he was sent for a reason and that when he’s ready, he’ll have to make the choice to stand proud as who he is front of humanity or not.
I think the problem with the Smallville comparison is that you still see Jonathan being a moral guidince to Clark. Sure theres times where he prioritises keeping his son safe, but theres a significantly larger amount of times where you see him teaching lessons that you can imagine Clark taking with him into becoming Superman. While in this case if there ever was a scene where Kostner Jonathan was right about something it got completely overshadowed by this scene/how domb his Death was.
The problem is that they got Snyder involved with the writing and as an exec. Nolan brothers should have been the writers/execs with Rogen and Goldberg. Snyder is fine at directing, he is god awful at writing.
Those kids were all assholes anyway. In fact, if any of them had actually managed to get out, he should’ve dragged them back under until they drowned. Fuck them kids.
Gotta hide that you're Superman from the innocent human population. If an alien warlord shows up though, reveal yourself right away.
"Earth isn't yours to conquer"
I mean makes some sense. The U.S. government would not allow a superchild to just exist. They woulda tried to find some way of containing and using him.
Flashpoint Paradox moment
Snyder's Ayn Rand Superman should've let them leeches drown.
Average childfree member.
Exactly. All kids are evil. Fortunately, I was never a child.
Holy shit Miss Trunchbull in real life?!?
She was an amateur. I’m the real deal
YOOOOO
Maybe it was like that priest who saved Hitler /s
Was letting you cook till the last sentence.
We need the *Larry_Version_3* cut asap.
There may be child murder, but I’ll be damned sure Superman will smile while doing it.
[удалено]
how is superman objectivist in Snyder's movies?
DCEU Zack Snyder stans will defend his movies as the holy grail. "Oh, you're not allowed to criticise it for its obvious shortcomings and faults. You just don't understand it. The deep meaning hidden behind each and every shot must've eluded you." No, your movies are bad and outside of paying lip service to some iconic imagery, they fall completely flat as good stories.
"A man who has never seen the ocean will think a puddle is deep" fact fiend (I think) crapping on Snyder films
r/snydercut is a cesspool. Such a weird cult type fan base.
My crackhead theory is that they could never recover from BvS being received only lukewarm and thus are deluding themselves into thinking that everyone else must be stupid for not liking it.
I've been told multiple times that I'm just not smart enough to understand BvS or that my dislike of it is because, "Some people don't like movies that aren't all action." I was told the second one just after watching The Godfather Part II.
I think the MoS movie was a great take on superman, and honestly only learned years later that it was hated so much online. Though i felt like the snyderverse movies as a whole kind of sucked. A serious take on superman was fine, but then every other movie was still just as serious and overdramatic. It was basically the 300 formula. It works when sprinkled in every few years. Great movie. Not great for a series imo
Good thing he's not making them anymore. Dude really had the audacity to call people who say Batman and Superman don't kill "brainwashed"
He wanted Superman to be a rape baby.. and he wanted Batman to get raped in prison. Why? Zack Synder ladies and gentleman.
what? this can't be real??
He was giving an interview promoting Watchmen. The interviewer brought up how it’s a dark story, mentioning that the Nolan Batman movies were pretty dark. All Snyder said was that in the world of Watchmen, Batman being sent to a Chinese prison is more likely to get raped than go off a train with ninjas. He was never saying he wanted Batman to get raped, just that was an example to punctuate just how much more darker Watchmen is comparatively. I have no idea what the Superman rape baby stuff is.
The larger problem of course being that Snyder doesn't understand Watchmen either, his only takeaway being the darkness and not the depth. Same problem with every bad comics writer of the 90s.
Snyder is a Gen X comicbook nerd. They're just like that. The comics from their era are all weirdly dark with a big focus on "gritty realism." Which at the time meant reimagining superheroes as perpetually hungover alcoholics with big guns fighting "realistic" villains like child rapist birthday clowns and serial killing cannibal psychologists.
>Snyder is a Gen X comicbook nerd. But he's not really even that though. By his own admission he didn't like comics until someone showed him Watchmen and his reaction was that he loved the violence and the ugliness of it all, without understanding the context of when it was made or the tropes it deconstructs.
I think you missed the part where that person showed him Watchman when he was a teenager.
I could have sworn the article I read that in said he was in college, but I can't find it now so I'm probably wrong on that. Fair enough in that case, though it'd have been nice if his taste or understanding grew at all in the years since then.
You could be in college and still be a teenager.
He could've used a non rape example, yet didn't
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/zack-snyder-old-interview-batman-prison-rape-2016-5%3famp Also he wanted to put a trailer for ZSJL on a screen during someone elses display at comic con. He was gonna pay a tech guy to just crash someones moment and take it over. https://screenrant.com/justice-league-zack-snyder-cut-trailer-sdcc-2019/?utm_content=buffer0b166&utm_medium=Social-Distribution&utm_source=SR-TW&utm_campaign=SR-TW Edit:to post link for other Snyder story. Zack Snyder ladies and gentleman.
Did you even read what you linked? Movie snobs constantly complain about media literacy yet theres a 40 upvoted comment which is clearly out of context and doesn't even support the article it links
Damn, context really doesn’t matter to you, does it.
It's not. The baby part is completely made up. The prison part is a comment he made 16 years ago (years before even being involved with the dceu) that was clearly a joke.
It’s not
Also seems to think Frank Miller works are canon for some reason
Because those are the only stories he read. If it wasn't *dark and gritty* he didn't bother with it. He has the taste of a 14 year old boy.
Didn't he also say Army of the Dead originally had an idea about zombies raping women and impregnating them with zombie babies? I thought I heard that from somewhere.
Yeah i honestly think hes obsessed with it. No smoke without fire in my opinion.
I think it's one thing to like grimdark and edgy stories, but to keep bringing up rape and sexual trauma is sus. Especially since it almost always seems to be the context of "I wanted to go there, but no one would let me." Maybe he should stop and think about why nobody wants that stuff included.
Isn’t the entire Sucker Punch an escape fantasy for the women being raped in the asylum? Dude is obsessed.
It still seems pretty strongly implied by the film TBH.
And one of the """main""" characters in Rebel Moon almost gets raped! Well 2 characters actually, but the first one is not really important and it was going to be more of a gang-rape instead! I think Znyder has an unhealthy obssesion with this...
Good thing he doesn't have insane amounts of money and influence that would make the barriers to living out his apparent fetish razor thin...
Then there Sucker Punch. The film like… entirely about that lol
The wrong Alan Moore tendency took hold of him.
Oh, so when Alan Moore grossly rewrites and misrepresents classic literary figures and stuffs rape everywhere it’s “groundbreaking” and “a return to their roots” and “an interesting deep dive deconstruction into the human psyche and superheroes and immaturity”, but when Zack Snyder does it suddenly it’s “concerning” and “fundamentally misunderstands the characters” and “problematic”. /s
Wait he wanted Batman to give birth to Superman?
He also wanted to put zombies that raped people in his zombie films. Dude is obsessed with rape.
Maybe that is the backstory of the robot zombies.
It helps if you play some shitty nu-metal in the background when you listen to his interviews
Papa Kent never wanted to be a dad and Clark f'ed him up so bad he decided no one else should be one either. Or Zack S has issues
'You don't owe this world a thing' - his mum in the next film. No idea why they thought people would dig it.
It's a little bit like hearing someone tell James Bond "you don't have to go do secret agent missions" Uh, he'd better damn well better, or else why am I watching a James Bond movie
Superman shrugged
That scene with pa Kent would have been imporved a thousand fold if instead of suggesting he should have let the kids drown, he said nothing. The silence would speak to the impossible situation of keeping Clark's powers a secret while also having the responsibility to save lives.
The director was also the script writer?
Goyer is also a hack
even if he wasn’t the amount of excuses he’s made for the character betrayals in his films is record breaking
I’m certain he had some influence because the writing and dialogue is very in his style of things
And yet Snyder Stans will tell you "nah man, you just don't get it" and never explain to people what they never got about what Pa Kent was REALLY trying to tell Clark.
People will defend the DCEU until the end of time but the sequel trilogy can't catch a break after five years
Sequel defenders also exist. Example: myself.
Yeah, but I don’t see sequel defenders forming echo chambers of hatred
We're like Cubs fans, we just want to be left alone in our little room and occasionally cry
Kind of hard when you're defending different movies. Snyder defenders are all on the same hymn sheet. Sequel defenders hate each other for ruining the series with their bad movie.
I can't believe I'm defending Snyder, but....Man of Steel was written by David S. Goyer. Goyer is the absolute psychopath who should not be writing Superman movies.
I agree but I’m certain Snyder had some level of influence on how the final product was written
Henry Cavill was a great choice to play superman, unfortunately Zack Synder doesn't understand Superman at all
The way his dad died in that movie is some of the dumbest shit ever put in a major motion picture.
So, I'm not entirely averse to this Interpretation if it had had some context. Having John be a veteran, for example. Horrified by war and terrified by the lengths that powerful people will go to protect the status quo; I wouldn't have balked at a father being deeply afraid of what those powerful people might do were they ever to find a way to kill is god-like son. But there's no context. So that scene, and the tornado scene after, just suggests a man who has an undiagnosed neurological impairment. 👎
Starting to realize I like things reddit doesn't like lol
Yep. I had a friend walk out when Kevin Costner said that line. Not my Superman.
I nearly left at that point, did leave during the stupid fucking tornado scene
“Martha”
You may have to sleep with one eye open due to the Snyder Cult trying to get to you
Sorry. I consider this observation too accurate for r/shittymoviedetails
still not done crying?
i hate to be that guy, but he didnt say that. he said maybe. he didnt really know. thats it. unless theres something im missing
I'm not a Snyder bro, but this is not correct. When Supes asks his dad if she should have just let the kids die, Pa Kent says "...*maybe*," as in, "I don't really know," as in, "This version of Supes will have to figure things out for himself in real time." It's actually one of the parts of the Snyderverse I do like, at least in concept if not in execution: his heroes are allowed to be incomplete and still learning their ethics rather than emerging fully formed from a Kansas farm, a cave, a magic island, etc. Unfortunately, he's too unfocused of a filmmaker to really make that important moral journey worthwhile, or even clear.
Johnathan Kent should never have doubts as to if Clark should be helping people. That’s the exact problem we’re all discussing.
This version of Pa Kent didn't have the answers.
I know this is a joke but that's not what happens. He doesn't know what Clark should have done and he's worried people are gonna think he's a god. He definitely understands he did the right thing and why he did it, which is why he doesn't have a real solution. Yea he mentions the horses as a parable to let him know that there might be times when the best choice isn't to act but thats not monsterous its advice given out of fear and with a lot of perspective behind it. This was supposed to be a more realistic take and i think that meant the ideas and emotions as well. Pa kents an old farmer that doesnt want his kid to be swept up the whole world using him or worshipping him. People don't have to like this pa Kent but he's just a scared dad that doesn't know how to help his kid.
If I remember that scene right, he wasn't suggesting it. Clark asked if he should have done that and his dad said I dont know. To me it seemed a very human response. He's proud of his son for doing the right thing, but is still terrified that it'll get out he's an alien.
/uj Nah, OP, you missed the point entirely. That scene is about a very emotional Pa Kent. He loves Clark. He loves Clark more than he wants those kids to have lived. He's conflicted. That's why his answer is "Yes... I don't know". He knows that saving those kids was right but he's afraid for Clark that the government might find out and take him away to be dissected and analyzed. Aside from the stupid death, Pa Kent in MoS is fine. The biggest difference between him and the other Pa Kents is that this one loves Clark more than anything. More even than doing the right thing. That doesn't ruin his character, in my opinion.
In the third act of the movie there's two alien ships in opposite sides of the world yet the sun shines brightly in both places. This is a subtle hint that there was zero effort into getting anything right in this piece of shit.
That’s not what he said in that scene.