Forbes Article: "Zack Snyder Loves Superman, And 'Batman V Superman' Proves It"

[IOwnTheSpire]

Superman is basically a boyscout and a symbol of hope, except in this movie.

Well, he was certainly a symbol to a lot of people in BvS, as shown in that montage.

Superman does not doubt whether or not he should bother to help society.

Superman has doubted himself before. In the first Reeve movie, he and Pa Kent talk about what he's supposed to do with his life and his powers, and Pa Kent says he has to find out who he is and decide what to do with his life, which is actually close to how MoS handled it.

Superman does not kill people unless there is no other option, and even then he finds another way.

This is objectively false. Superman has killed numerous times before. He threw a man off a cliff, he blew up a factory killing everyone inside, he let a man choke to death from poison gas, he's killed at least four of his recurring villains, he executed three Kryptonians from another dimension... this whole idea of 'he doesn't kill and always finds a way around killing' is factually wrong.

 

[mduncan50]

Superman has doubted himself before. In the first Reeve movie, he and Pa Kent talk about what he's supposed to do with his life and his powers, and Pa Kent says he has to find out who he is and decide what to do with his life, which is actually close to how MoS handled it.

A conversation between a man and his child talking about trying to learn who he is and what he is here for is different than a 32 year old man not sure whether humanity is worth the bother. Especially when it was the values that the Kents instilled in Clark that gave him his moral compass and made him the boyscout he is, unlike crap they pulled with Pa in MoS.

This is objectively false. Superman has killed numerous times before. He threw a man off a cliff, he blew up a factory killing everyone inside, he let a man choke to death from poison gas, he's killed at least four of his recurring villains, he executed three Kryptonians from another dimension... this whole idea of 'he doesn't kill and always finds a way around killing' is factually wrong.

When did he do these things? The three Kryptonians I know about, because it was a seminal moment for Superman, since it weighed heavily on him for nearly a decade, and he vowed he would never kill again. Also it should be pointed out that they had gone on a murder spree killing everyone else in that dimension other than Supergirl, and he did it because if he could make it to their dimension, then they could make it to others and kill billions more. Beyond them, the only other kill I know of is Doomsday, which was not what you would call making a choice to kill. In the battle to stop Doomsday they were so evenly matched that the violence just kept escalating until they both died.

And for the record, I'm really talking about the comics, as other movies/tv shows are obviously not canon, and DC has less control over what is done. After all, I'm not willing to let them turn Superman into a useless moron just because of Superman 3 and 4.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

When did he do these things? The three Kryptonians I know about, because it was a seminal moment for Superman, since it weighed heavily on him for nearly a decade, and he vowed he would never kill again. Also it should be pointed out that they had gone on a murder spree killing everyone else in that dimension other than Supergirl, and he did it because if he could make it to their dimension, then they could make it to others and kill billions more. Beyond them, the only other kill I know of is Doomsday, which was not what you would call making a choice to kill. In the battle to stop Doomsday they were so evenly matched that the violence just kept escalating until they both died.

And for the record, I'm really talking about the comics, as other movies/tv shows are obviously not canon, and DC has less control over what is done. After all, I'm not willing to let them turn Superman into a useless moron just because of Superman 3 and 4.

The examples I mentioned were all in the comics. Some were from decades ago, but they still count. Your reasoning for why he killed the Kryptonians is spot-on, but you were the one who said he doesn't kill under any circumstances and always finds a way to avoid it, so I corrected you. I just think the criticisms against Supes killing Zod don't really hold water.

 

[mduncan50]

The examples I mentioned were all in the comics. Some were from decades ago, but they still count. Your reasoning for why he killed the Kryptonians is spot-on, but you were the one who said he doesn't kill under any circumstances and always finds a way to avoid it, so I corrected you. I just think the criticisms against Supes killing Zod don't really hold water.

Actually I said that he doesn't kill unless there is no other options, which I believe holds true with the two examples I gave that I was able to find. If you can give other examples I would be happy to take a look at them. As for the MoS Zod incident specifically, it just made no logical sense to me. If you can snap his neck, then you can simply move his head so that family is no longer in danger. Or maybe poke his eyes out...actually don't know if that would end the eye lasers or not, but worth a try. Even if you take that out of the equation, to say "If Supes didn't kill him he could have killed those people!" ...well, he didn't find it necessary to kill him to save the thousands of civilians that died in their battle. If Kal was literally left with no other option than to kill Zod in order to save the world, I would have been okay with that, I really would, but in no way did I even feel it got to that point. Doesn't help that he gives one scream to tell us just how much this tears him up, and then 10 seconds later is flirting with Lois like it never happened.

 

[twistedmic]

No, I'm specifically saying they needed a Batman movie to establish how the events in Man of Steel effected him and turned him into the Batman of BvS. Like you could have a movie where he's trying to bring down Daggett or one of the big crime bosses once and for all, but after the Man of Steel events, he just snaps and ends up killing him. And the movie ends with him blaming Superman for what he did and realizing he can't feel that the world is safe as long as Superman is alive and vows to kill him.

Maybe I misread the movie, but I'm pretty sure it was operating for twenty years in Gotham and what happened to Robin that turned Batman into what he was during most of 'Dawn of Justice' more than the Superman/Zod fight.
There were several allusions to the Joker- "We just have a bad history of freaks dressed like clowns" and the burned and graffiti-ed Robin/Batsuit with shattered staff displayed in the Batcave- and the line from Alfred " That's how it starts. The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men... cruel. " could be a reference to how Batman/Bruce felt after Robin was murdered.

 

[Something Amyss]

Superman does not kill people unless there is no other option, and even then he finds another way.

The Death of Superman, one of the two story arcs this movie draws heavily from (what with the inclusion of Doomsday and whatnot), involves Superman finding there to be no other recourse than to pummel Doomsday to death--even at the cost of his own life.

This is just the one that immediately springs to mind as relevant because this movie borrows beats from the story.

No, I'm specifically saying they needed a Batman movie to establish how the events in Man of Steel effected him and turned him into the Batman of BvS. Like you could have a movie where he's trying to bring down Daggett or one of the big crime bosses once and for all, but after the Man of Steel events, he just snaps and ends up killing him. And the movie ends with him blaming Superman for what he did and realizing he can't feel that the world is safe as long as Superman is alive and vows to kill him.

I'm with twistedmic in terms of what I think shaped the BVS Batman. And TBH, one thing I like about the movie so far is that they didn't totally spoonfeed us all those events. It seems more like 9-11...I mean, Superman's "heroism" was the piece that set off critical mass, not the event that shaped him.

Probably shouldn't be using nuclear terms after Superman devastated Metropolis.

I actually like the idea of just bringing in Batman and running with it. There are several DCAU movies which do this, and I think that characters like Batman and Superman are well established enough to lend strength to that. Or at the very least, I don't think not explicitly showing Robin dying or similar events hurts Batman, because he's Batman.

While I like what the MCU did, I would have been fine if they had just done a straight-up Justice League movie to introduce the characters. That might actually be the best way to hype characters who aren't the Big Three.

Yeah, he loves him so much he decided to emulate one of the worst shock event comics in the character's history, ironically in the same film meant to launch the Justice League. Honestly the end of BvS feels like its from another movie, three entries down the track.

That seems to be the biggest problem.

Even if the Doomsday movie was just a sequel to this, it would probably have been better. But all the existing world building plus Batman v Superman plus Doomsday?

 

[Something Amyss]

Eh, perhaps, and really, if we're going with 20 years of Batman being around by the time of BvS, then you've still got to set the Batman movie pretty late into his career as it is, and most of the events alluded to would have to be dealt with in flashbacks. It doesn't explicitly have to show Robin dying, as you say, but it could at least have made the events that molded Batman into who he is at the start of BvS far more clear and properly set the stage for a straight up BvS movie without all the storybuilding it had to do in the beginning, and the BvS movie could then just focus on the two superheroes exclusively with Batman as the main antagonist (because really, what can Lex Luthor bring to the fight that Bruce Wayne and Wayne Enterprises couldn't accomplish without him?), and again, with Wonder Woman stepping in the middle just before one kills the other and slaps some sense into them. It would tell a far more compelling and complete and coherent story that way, IMO, and it would save Lex Luthor for the next main villain in the DC world that could have been properly established as a shrewd, calculating businessman with Machiavellian machinations for world domination that trigger the need for the Justice League to form in the first place, and Doomsday for one of the major full on Justice League movies after they had been fully formed.

Fair enough. I see the formative MOS stuff less as prequel material and more as "why the fuck did you cram Doomsday into this?"

I think it could be pretty cool to see Batman and Superman clash over ideals and as little as I liked Man of Steel, that was a great staging ground for ideological differences. I mean, as much as people mock Battfleck's "1% chance" speech, it's a human reaction. We have a walking WMD in our midst and that's scary. That's fertile soil. Sure, Batman's acting irrationally, but look at 9-11. You scare people enoughh, they'll sign on for war crimes, torture, and just about anything. And Bruce is rich enough to fund his own military.

And with a fascist Batman and a rogue Superman, you could justify Wonder Woman coming in to knock some sense into them. Alternatively, you could have them slug it out until they come to a grudging understanding. I mean, I always think it's dumb when Batman goes toe-to-toe with Superman, but they were gonna go there anyway, so we could have them beat each other into submission. We could have Lex come in and try and take them both out while they're vulnerable.

We could have had so many other ways out of this if we didn't have the Doomsday bit. And still had more time to develop Batman, too.

Doomsday could have waited for another movie. If you really needed to, you could show Lex building him here (or come up with a better origin) and do another movie. Hell, you want cameos for Justice Leaguers? Show them fighting Doomsday individually. Briefly.

Like, I'm normally more the "this sucked" or "this rocked!" type. I normally don't start thinking about how they could have done it better. But good god, there are so many ways. How can I not?

 

[Cicada 5]

The examples I mentioned were all in the comics. Some were from decades ago, but they still count. Your reasoning for why he killed the Kryptonians is spot-on, but you were the one who said he doesn't kill under any circumstances and always finds a way to avoid it, so I corrected you. I just think the criticisms against Supes killing Zod don't really hold water.

Actually I said that he doesn't kill unless there is no other options, which I believe holds true with the two examples I gave that I was able to find. If you can give other examples I would be happy to take a look at them. As for the MoS Zod incident specifically, it just made no logical sense to me. If you can snap his neck, then you can simply move his head so that family is no longer in danger. Or maybe poke his eyes out...actually don't know if that would end the eye lasers or not, but worth a try. Even if you take that out of the equation, to say "If Supes didn't kill him he could have killed those people!" ...well, he didn't find it necessary to kill him to save the thousands of civilians that died in their battle. If Kal was literally left with no other option than to kill Zod in order to save the world, I would have been okay with that, I really would, but in no way did I even feel it got to that point. Doesn't help that he gives one scream to tell us just how much this tears him up, and then 10 seconds later is flirting with Lois like it never happened.

Turning Zod's head is at best, a temporary solution. Even if he doesn't kill that family, other people are still in danger of him.

And as for why he didn't kill Zod during their battle? I don't even get how this is a question. Ignoring the fact that someone of Zod's power and skill is incredibly difficult to kill, Superman had never used lethal force before. That was the whole point of him screaming in anguish. And no, he wasn't flirting with Lois afterwards.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

For those who say that Snyder 'doesn't understand' the character of Superman, I'm just curious... how? How does he not understand? Given that these characters have been around for decades and numerous writers have given their takes on the character, I don't see how people consider this version so blasphemous, especially when many of the traits this version has have been done before.

I think this video sums up what Superman is all about.

<youtube=dDMQ3tXNKgM>

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I just find it funny how despite BvS getting blasted people are still interested in the DCEU and Justice League. And not in a cautious or in-denial manner, but actually intrigued by where they can take characters like Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, the Flash, and Cyborg.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Zack Snyder loves seeing Superman break shit. That seems to be the sole reason for his appreciation. I'm only basing this off Man of Steel, since I have little interest in seeing BvS, but Superman should be a character who always goes on the defensive first. Whereas Snyder has him going on the offense at almost every oppertunity. The scene where Zod goes for ma Kent is the perfect example; Instead of Supes just flying his mom out of danger, he immediately goes for Zod, pummeling his face, and smashing him into a heavily civilized area. All while leaving his mother at the mercy of the rest of Zod's loyal crew. But we can't have a big Superman movie with Superman mostly saving people, that'd be boring -- We need to show off how much he can wreck shit up. That's what the audience wants to see.

 

[mduncan50]

I just find it funny how despite BvS getting blasted people are still interested in the DCEU and Justice League. And not in a cautious or in-denial manner, but actually intrigued by where they can take characters like Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, the Flash, and Cyborg.

I can't fault people for that. This is something that we've waited over half a century for, and it's something that we know CAN work, because Marvel has made it work. If WB/DC can pick up a new writer and director for these movies, there's a chance they can turn things around. I'm obviously going to be cynical until we actually see a good movie in this universe, but lots of people are born optimists.

 

[Something Amyss]

2) That's supposed to be Lex Luthor? That actor looks, sounds and acts nothing like Lex Luthor, he looks like no one recognizable and sounds and acts like the Joker.

I immediately thought of Jim Carrey and Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka. And I freaking hated it.

Those were my two initial judgements of the movie that didn't give me high hopes for it. Then I learned that Lex Luthor was just as bad as I had assessed him to be, if not worse. Then I learned the movie was 2 1/2 hours long. Then I learned they crammed Doomsday into the movie and killed Superman. And then I was like "welp, congratulations, you just literally killed your franchise in your second movie." I mean, it's one thing to treat Jimmy Olsen as expendable in the DC universe, it's entirely another to treat both Superman and Lex Luthor as expendable in the DC universe and expect to be able to create a Justice League cinematic franchise out of it. The Justice League simply cannot exist without Superman, and yet, Superman is dead, and we're supposed to carry on to watch the Justice League form without him? What the fuck is DC thinking?

Well, here's the thing on that. They confirmed Man of Steel 2 over a year ago. So we already knew he was coming back. Meaning he'd probably be there for Justice Leagues 1 and 2. The only movie he's apparently going to be truly dead for is Suicide Squad, unless Wonder Woman has some present-day elements. And that's where things get really screwed up. He's dead, but they're going to bring him back two movies later. That might lead to a small amount of shock when he dies in the movie if you know about the franchise plans, but it cheapens it to me.

Then again, Superman has gone from an imigrant tale related to Moses to a Jesus allegory, so dying and coming back is basically to be expected. and the movies have been so ham-handed about it.

So yeah, you cannot discuss this movie without discussing how much better it could have been if DC didn't fuck up literally every aspect of it, from how poorly they portrayed Batman to how poorly they portrayed Lex Luthor to how prematurely they introduced Doomsday and killed off Superman.

Once you realize just how badly DC done fucked up with this movie, it's incredibly easy to imagine just how many different ways they could have not fucked up.

Yeah, it's just...amazing. Though I think the biggest thing is that we really need to stop treating Miller like he's some sort of genius. He's got some good stories, but even TDKR has more than a few elements of crap. But this Batman is pretty much the fetish version Miller has going. The only problem is he didn't kill enough people, I imagine.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

2) That's supposed to be Lex Luthor? That actor looks, sounds and acts nothing like Lex Luthor, he looks like no one recognizable and sounds and acts like the Joker.

I immediately thought of Jim Carrey and Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka. And I freaking hated it.

Those were my two initial judgements of the movie that didn't give me high hopes for it. Then I learned that Lex Luthor was just as bad as I had assessed him to be, if not worse. Then I learned the movie was 2 1/2 hours long. Then I learned they crammed Doomsday into the movie and killed Superman. And then I was like "welp, congratulations, you just literally killed your franchise in your second movie." I mean, it's one thing to treat Jimmy Olsen as expendable in the DC universe, it's entirely another to treat both Superman and Lex Luthor as expendable in the DC universe and expect to be able to create a Justice League cinematic franchise out of it. The Justice League simply cannot exist without Superman, and yet, Superman is dead, and we're supposed to carry on to watch the Justice League form without him? What the fuck is DC thinking?

Well, here's the thing on that. They confirmed Man of Steel 2 over a year ago. So we already knew he was coming back. Meaning he'd probably be there for Justice Leagues 1 and 2. The only movie he's apparently going to be truly dead for is Suicide Squad, unless Wonder Woman has some present-day elements. And that's where things get really screwed up. He's dead, but they're going to bring him back two movies later. That might lead to a small amount of shock when he dies in the movie if you know about the franchise plans, but it cheapens it to me.

Then again, Superman has gone from an imigrant tale related to Moses to a Jesus allegory, so dying and coming back is basically to be expected. and the movies have been so ham-handed about it.

So yeah, you cannot discuss this movie without discussing how much better it could have been if DC didn't fuck up literally every aspect of it, from how poorly they portrayed Batman to how poorly they portrayed Lex Luthor to how prematurely they introduced Doomsday and killed off Superman.

Once you realize just how badly DC done fucked up with this movie, it's incredibly easy to imagine just how many different ways they could have not fucked up.

Yeah, it's just...amazing. Though I think the biggest thing is that we really need to stop treating Miller like he's some sort of genius. He's got some good stories, but even TDKR has more than a few elements of crap. But this Batman is pretty much the fetish version Miller has going. The only problem is he didn't kill enough people, I imagine.

(Regarding the 3rd post)

Have you ever watched this:

https://youtu.be/Ygx_rUJ3XaI?t=3981

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I can't fault people for that. This is something that we've waited over half a century for, and it's something that we know CAN work, because Marvel has made it work. If WB/DC can pick up a new writer and director for these movies, there's a chance they can turn things around. I'm obviously going to be cynical until we actually see a good movie in this universe, but lots of people are born optimists.

Not gonna happen; Snyder and Terrio are back for Justice League which is only a few weeks from shooting. And that's before getting into how claiming that getting a new writer and director will solve things is patronizingly simplistic. It SHOULD work that way, but all it would do is cause more problems and derail things in order to appease fanboys. Seems to me it was more of a weird circumstances thing. But then again that denies people a nice, comforting blame figure.

 

[mduncan50]

Not gonna happen; Snyder and Terrio are back for Justice League which is only a few weeks from shooting. And that's before getting into how claiming that getting a new writer and director will solve things is patronizingly simplistic. It SHOULD work that way, but all it would do is cause more problems and derail things in order to appease fanboys. Seems to me it was more of a weird circumstances thing. But then again that denies people a nice, comforting blame figure.

Goyer is the main issue at the heart of this, since he continually shows contempt for comic books and their fans. As for Snyder, his filmography has proven him to be large on style, but short on substance. That is fine for some movies (ie 300) but not when you're laying down the foundations for a franchise. Terrio I would actually credit for most things people enjoyed about the movie.

 

[shrekfan246]

For those who say that Snyder 'doesn't understand' the character of Superman, I'm just curious... how? How does he not understand? Given that these characters have been around for decades and numerous writers have given their takes on the character, I don't see how people consider this version so blasphemous, especially when many of the traits this version has have been done before.

Basically because people have a very deeply-ingrained idea of what Superman should be even if it's not relevant anymore or not based on the actual character arcs he's had (as evidenced by the responses you got), and any deviation from that norm is considered blasphemy unless it's not portrayed as the "normal" canon. Much like "Batman never kills", it seems there's just a checklist that every form of Superman needs to fill out before he can be considered a proper Superman.