Forbes Article: "Zack Snyder Loves Superman, And 'Batman V Superman' Proves It"
- Thread starter Cicada 5
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You know what I think it is. Zack Snyder doesn't care at all about Clark Kent. I think over all that becomes one of the bigger issues in the film as well as in the previous MOS. Clark Kent is just not a Character in these movies. And I think Clark Kent is one of the key characters that makes superman interesting. They never make any effort to just characterize Clark. He's not so much a character as he is a kind momentary suit that he wears to remind us that he's been on earth. It's not really even an alter ego, there is no play on him being the same person. It's certainly a story I could see existing in a Superman universe but it shouldn't be his origin.
I'm not just talking about Golden Age Batmanmduncan50 said:
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/917/851/dd5.jpg
He's also killed vampires, attempted to kill Brainiac and there was a time he tried to kill Swamp Thing.
I really don't think vampires count (being undead), not sure if Brainiac counts either (never heard of this, but depending on the version he could be an android or an artificial body inhabited by his consciousness). And I think Darkseid was already technically dead, he was just possessing some guys body.Agent_Z said:
But that's besides the point. When some major bad guy does something really fucked up, see Killing Joke, then I don't think people would have a problem with him killing. But him just blowing away normal goons who might not even be criminals? That's unacceptable.
None of those cases you've presented would constitute Batman killing. Vampires, are not alive. They re already dead monsters. Brainiac was attacking in the form of an army nanotech, which Superman and Batman tried to destroy, knowing that he would have been backed up, and that they wouldn't be able to destroy every nanobot, just enough to get rid of the threat. Swamp Thing is immortal, which Bats is well aware of. Destroy his body and he will regrow elsewhere. At the time of their fight Swamp Thing had infested Gotham in an attempt to get his wife out of jail, and Batman was just trying to incapacitate him long enough to straighten things out with her legal issues. Even the picture you included of Bats shooting Darkseid isn't what it looks like. That's actually a clone of Batman that Darkseid himself created.Agent_Z said:
mduncan50 said:
Bob_McMillan said:
Vampires are sentient beings, albiet with different physiology than humans. Brainiac being able to revive himself is moot, as it is still intent to kill. Same as Swamp Thing. There's also the time he flat out told Gorilla Grodd his non-killing policy does not extend to apes.
That's on odd thing about Bruce's and other DC heroes' killings. They only seem to "not count" when the victim is non-human. This was even lampshaded in Rucka's run when one of Max's spies said the reason Diana killing Max caused such a ruckus was because he looked like everyone else.
Vampires might be sentient, but they are undead. Superheroes don't seem to feel so bad about making sure dead people stay dead, such as the many cases with Ra's. As for the intent to kill, from what I have read on the DC wiki, Batman didn't kill Darkseid but more of allowed him to be killed. It doesn't make much sense so I may have interpreted it wrong, but it seems more like Darkseid, being a God, could not die by conventional means, like they were able to fend of the Black Racer or something. The bullet that Batman used was created by Darkseid to make gods susceptible to death. If anything, the real killer (in this case killers) are the Flashes, who both led the Black Racer to Darkseid and made Darkseid shoot himself with the Omega beams.Agent_Z said:
God that was complicated.
For non-humans getting killed, I myself have thought about it many times. The Justice League never had a problem with destroying Starro or Amazo, even when both were proved sentient. Even the Parademons have some level of sentience. They just happen to be alien or not flesh and blood. In the end, it's just a plot hole that the authors can't be bothered to address.
But every time Batman has killed someone, it has been retconned. Its clear that most people and most writers see Batman as a vigilante who doesn't kill.
Besides, I'm not saying that a version of Batman is not allowed to kill. I don't own the character. I'm just saying I don't like it, because I want him to be accurate to his comic version. The number of times that Batman has killed is insignificant when compared to the number of times he has not killed, prevented people from killing others, and even saved people from killing themselves.
You would have to include me in that list of people that really enjoyed the movie (in fact everyone I've spoken to personally has enjoyed it). That doesn't mean that I do not recognise that there are problems with the movie, but those problems did not unduly "suck enjoyment" out for me, and I can't understand why there seems to be such a great outpouring of vitriol towards it. It appears as if people are of the impression that Marvel is the way to do superhero movies, and that it's the only way to really do a superhero movie (bright, fast-paced, can have mature themes as Deadpool demonstrated, but only if it's done in a light, humorous way, and so on), and any attempt to introduce any other form of maturity or pace is seen as "boring" or "grimdark" or whatever. As much as I love the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I would _hate_ for Batman or Superman to have the same treatment. I do not need every superhero movie to be the same thing or have the same tone.Conner42 said:
You ask where the "Hope and Justice" aspect of the mentioned article exists, because you can't see it. I would argue that you're probably not taking the time to look closely enough because it's absolutely there, it's just not made blatantly obvious. A lot of noise has been made that there is no hope/justice in the world that Snyder/WB has created... but that's _exactly the point_. Superman is one of the very few characters within the movie who believes (and continuously tries) to bring that to people - and this is openly demonstrated in many instances. As Clark it is mentioned in more than one occasion that the world as it is is not the world that he wants it to be, and as both Clark and Superman is he is constantly beaten down by the notion that the world is a place he cannot fix and no matter what he does he cannot invoke the kind of change he would like to. It becomes burdensome, a mantle he feels he must bear. It's mentioned again and very directly in the short Wonder Woman arc that the world was no longer a good place, and this is to further cement the fact that Superman (and the future Justice League) is fighting an uphill battle.
Batman is the complete opposite of Superman, he has become jaded, cruel even, in the light of the world that he lives in. He sees little redemption in the criminals he pursues and in turn has become a criminal himself. You have to understand that this is a Batman many _many_ years into his career and exists further along the path that he believes Superman is travelling along himself. Batman is afraid of what Superman will do in the future, because _he too has already gone down a bad path_, starting from good intentions and ending up where he is now: cruel, branding criminals, and yes, even killing when he deems it necessary to achieve the goals he has set out (although death by his hand actually remains very rare within the movie) - I would say the killing is even a direct result of the notion that doing anything else ultimately produces no change in the world (a theme repeated constantly). Even though he stands in denial of that fact directly to Alfred, both he and Alfred are fully aware of where he is, and that he exists in an incredibly wide moral grey area. Ultimately though through his interactions with Superman, Batman undergoes a certain level of redemption, pulled out from the darkness by someone who in spite of all that has happened _still_ is trying to see the good in things. Bruce sees that he needs to strive for something better, to be a better person and not that cruel jaded vigilante of the past, and while he still fights with those demons, he makes the decision not to brand Lex (of which Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal seemed to be the absolute antithesis of the character and is therefore in my mind one of the worst things in the movie) in the end.
The action in BvS and the overall cinematography is excellent, you can sit and say it's too dark, or suddenly it's too colorful or it's too bombastic (at the end perhaps it's a bit excessive), but for large portions within the movie, especially those aspects that revolve around Batman, the action is visceral, weighty and impactful, something that Snyder is one of the best in the business at producing. There is some writing that is sub-par, and there are certainly some plot points (the whole Lois retrieving the spear thing is a good example that people use) which make little sense or are not well established. I'll also agree that some of the themes and concepts within the movie clearly had to be more adequately spelled out to the viewing audience because it clearly seemed to fly over the heads of a very large portion of the viewership (perhaps that seems to fit in with the concerns voiced ahead of time that the story might be too "complex" for audiences? I don't know if it's "complex" in how one would traditionally interpret the word, but certainly there are aspects that most people just never picked up on) - perhaps that's indicative of bad writing? Personally I found BvS to be better than Avengers 2 (a movie which I also very much enjoyed might I add).
Heaven forbid we have mature superhero movies that aren't just about swearing or poop jokes, but that actually try to tackle mature themes in _a different way_. It appears that there is a certain level of homogenisation that certain audiences are looking for when it comes to their superhero movies, and I would argue that that would be absolutely the worst thing to ever happen. I fully support WB's view that they are not wanting to create another "me too" franchise that tries to be like "the other guy" just because the other guy is popular, and I look forward to future instalments.
See, that's the problem with the conversation around the movie. Instead of making well-argued points, people are making the most inane arguments about the least important aspects of the film. Yes, the film is desaturated and "darker" visually than other superhero movies (and lets be honest, when we're referring to "other superhero movies" we're meaning Marvel movies), but is that a bad thing? Must everything be bright and light and colorful and peppy for it to be considered "good"? Absolutely not, and again this speaks through to my assertion that there is this mental image from a lot of people that the only way to do a comic book movie right is the Marvel way.008Zulu said:
I would say that's absolutely not true.
That op ed is nearly as bloated as the movie it discusses. Just to be clear, I have not seen any DC movie since The Dark Knight and won't until they get some directors that know what they are doing. But from what I have heard, Batman v Superman is suffering from the same franchise boosting crap that every non Marvel movie seems to be getting. Pointless cameos saying "hey we have this character coming to a theater near you." Movie was two and a half hours long but many are saying it still felt rushed.
I have never heard anyone saying Snyder hates Superman. But like those I have heard saying stuff, I think he doesn't quite get him. Someone mentioned Ayn Rand in this thread and damn me if that doesn't have some possibilities. Rand had a serious complex about how the "Supermen" in our society are persecuted just for being awesome in a sea of mediocrity. Both Man of Steel and BvS reek of this notion.
Also if it came to an actual fight, Supes would pulverize Bats, any other answer especially in a universe where it's established that Superman would kill if he needs to is nothing more than fan wank.
I have never heard anyone saying Snyder hates Superman. But like those I have heard saying stuff, I think he doesn't quite get him. Someone mentioned Ayn Rand in this thread and damn me if that doesn't have some possibilities. Rand had a serious complex about how the "Supermen" in our society are persecuted just for being awesome in a sea of mediocrity. Both Man of Steel and BvS reek of this notion.
Also if it came to an actual fight, Supes would pulverize Bats, any other answer especially in a universe where it's established that Superman would kill if he needs to is nothing more than fan wank.
I could reiterate all the faults that so many have already pointed out, if you like.Tharaxis said:
And Yes it's a bad thing. If people pay to see a Superman movie, they expect to see Superman. In all his vibrant red and blue glory, ditto for Wonder Woman. Anyone with eyes can see that DC is clearly trying to mimic Marvel, the very least they could do is also mimic the art style of their movies.
Well, I read Zulu's post, and he makes no mention of things being bright. Or an mention of Marvel or doing things the Marvel way. If this is the problem with the conversation about this movie, then why are you bringing it up when they didn't?Tharaxis said:
You know, there have been a ton of dark Batman movies that people managed to not complain about. Maybe it's not so much about doing things like Marvel as it is doing things like they're remotely interesting.
It is a bad thing when I have trouble even seeing the best scene of the movie, namely the warehouse scene.Tharaxis said:
I really don't understand how you can say there is intent to kill someone when Batman knows that what he is doing will not in fact kill them. It is pretty much knocking them out, because he knows they will not die. And vampires killing a vampire is not technically killing anyone either. A vampire come about when a human is killed ritually by an existing vampire. At that time the human soul passes on to the afterlife, and the body is possessed by a vampiric demon, who will often have some memories of the human host's life. In most vampire lore, slaying the vampire doesn't actually kill the demon, but simply banish it from this realm.Agent_Z said:
There's really no "not counting" going on here. There's just no killing occurring.
Batman killed in his very first comic book:mduncan50 said:
So does Bob Kane/Bill Finger the original creators does not get Batman either?
No, there is no problem with making appropriately dark comic book movies. My personal favorite comic book movie is The Crow and it doesn't get much darker than that. The problem occurs when you're adapting a character like thisTharaxis said:
and you end up with this
Nobody says that comic book movies need to be made "the Marvel way" (faithfully?), but DC seems to be so intent on differentiating itself from Marvel that it is distancing itself from the source material altogether.
No, they don't, not the Batman that we're talking about. Reading those original stories, while fun, they in no way resemble the Batman we know and love. The only things they have in common is the guy dresses up like a bat. As the character was fine tuned and given an actual personality those older stories were retconned.Samtemdo8 said:Batman killed in his very first comic book:mduncan50 said:
So does Bob Kane/Bill Finger the original creators does not get Batman either?