All Things DCEU News, Discussion, and Speculation - Part 2

[Limonade]

The terrorists who he later says "I didn't kill those men" about?

And that part actually made laugh. I was like "dude, you shoved a guy through a wall!"

I'm pretty sure that dude was mangled. Lol.

Expecting the audience to believe their ears rather than their eyes. Such poor direction.

 

[titansupes]

There's no rule that everything that happens in a film has to be broadcast or set up prior to it happening. While it would be nice to see it have an impact on his character or part of an arc, nothing has to change. He's allowed to just feel bad about what happened and recognize the burden of what he does. It also served to help him and Lois bond as she comforted him.

There's absolutely a rule that the climax of a movie-- be it the heroes final physical triumph over the villain, or the emotional payoff to his/her arc-- has to be the culmination of the character development and character development preceding it. That moment actually comes, more or less, with the Superman torching the Scout Ship (perhaps even earlier, the Smallville battle). The whole Zod fight was awkward structurally and communicated nothing for Superman.

Does he not recognise the burden of what he's doing... All throughout the rest of the movie? Virtually every scene is him struggling with the burden of being super. As for his bond with Lois, I don't see how that's in any way strengthened by that scene. They're pretty damn bonded before that point.

If you're going to have Superman (or any character, especially a well-known one) do something that big and against character, you have to have a really good reason and a good point to make.

 

[The Guard]

And that part actually made laugh. I was like "dude, you shoved a guy through a wall!"

I'm pretty sure that dude was mangled. Lol.

Expecting the audience to believe their ears rather than their eyes. Such poor direction.

Did you see the guy mangled? Dead? Did Superman say "I only killed that one guy but not those other men"?

 

[Micromind]

Yeah, he saved incidental civilians and whatnot, just like any superhero. He wanted to help people his whole life, obviously. Bit there was nothing about his refusal to take life/use only non-lethal force. Was his being forced to kill Zod set up throughout? What changed for Superman as a result of the act?

In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne initially wanted to take revenge by shooting Joe Chill, but later on, he realizes that killing others is not the solution, which is why he decides to take a different approach to fight crime, without taking any life.

But, the point that I want to make is, initially, he was willing to take a life and later on.. he changed his mind on the subject. But in case of Clark Kent, he is never even thinking of going down that path, so there was no need for him to explicitly state that he wants to avoid doing that, that is, there was no need to show that he would never kill somebody.

All Superman did was to save people or help people who needed help, now where does the question of his refusal to use non lethal force arise? He is Not some vigilante like Batman, who needs to beat up thugs regularly, I doubt Superman even fought somebody before Zod & Company arrived on Earth.

 

[The Guard]

There's absolutely a rule that the climax of a movie-- be it the heroes final physical triumph over the villain, or the emotional payoff to his/her arc-- has to be the culmination of the character development and character development preceding it. That moment actually comes, more or less, with the Superman torching the Scout Ship (perhaps even earlier, the Smallville battle). The whole Zod fight was awkward structurally and communicaated nothing for Superman.

You are confusing Clark choosing his humanity over his Kryptonian nature for the completion of his arc. The movie is about Clark embracing what he can do, emerging into the world as a hero and finding his place in the world. So the film does obey the rule. I'm sorry there's not an arc about killing being wrong in addition to the existing character arc, truly I am.

Does he not recognise the burden of what he's doing... All throughout the rest of the movie? Virtually every scene is him struggling with the burden of being super.[\quote]

Apparently he doesn't, and why would he? He just became Superman. This is all fairly new to him. For all we know he has never killed anyone. He has sought to preserve life, not take it.

As for his bond with Lois, I don't see how that's in any way strengthened by that scene. They're pretty damn bonded before that point.

You don't see how the bond between two people is strengthened by one of them compassionately comforting the other in a moment of intense grief?

Really?

If you're going to have Superman (or any character, especially a well-known one) do something that big and against character, you have to have a really good reason and a good point to make.

There is a good reason. To save people, because Zod isn't going to stop. "Killing and violence makes you feel awful but may sometimes be necessary" isn't a good point?

 

[titansupes]

In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne initially wanted to take revenge by shooting Joe Chill, but later on, he realizes that killing others is not the solution, which is why he decides to take a different approach to fight crime, without taking any life.

But, the point that I want to make is, initially, he was willing to take a life and later on.. he changed his mind on the subject. But in case of Clark Kent, he is never even thinking of going down that path, so there was no need for him to explicitly state that he wants to avoid doing that, that is, there was no need to show that he would never kill somebody.

All Superman did was to save people or help people who needed help, now where does the question of his refusal to use non lethal force arise? He is Not some vigilante like Batman, who needs to beat up thugs regularly, I doubt Superman even fought somebody before Zod & Company arrived on Earth.

It could have been from anywhere. Have him covertly saving people in a warzone instead of Alaska (or wherever) as in Birthright. Have him experience the death of a farm animal as a kid and he and Pa talk briefly talk about it.

That question would have arisen had the filmmakers made it. And it doesn't even have to become the crux of their story over anything else, just a facet of the character, as it was in BB. Instead, they put in a climax that had nothing to do with their story.

 

[Limonade]

Did you see the guy mangled? Dead? Did Superman say "I only killed that one guy but not those other men"?

You think he protected his head and laid him lovingly in the ground?

In truth, we don't know. But it's not realm of the impossibility as he took out Zod with his bare hands.

Fact is, I'm bothered that this Superman's actions are much more questionable than any interpretation that has come forth.

And that you find it okay.

 

[Grommers]

I think both things will happen - and I've long stated, the DCEU will make more sense as more movies get released.

I don't feel they wanted to delve that deep into superman just yet, he's a rookie, and as such will be treated this way - he's testing his powers in MoS, his moral views are what he's learned in smallville, him killing Zod is due to his lack of experience.

In B vs S, his moral views are starting to be tested, he believes he's doing good, but now the question comes up what is good.

By MoS 2 (or maybe in JL)

I imagine we will see a much more refined superman, who can differentiate these moments, and understand how to do the right thing.

The pay off will be huge if it's executed correctly, but the problem I'm finding is (as in todays society) is that everyone wants everything "now."

I guess, I first noticed that with the first 3 spiderman (with Tobey), every movie felt like it was more him dealing with the same problem on how to deal with being peter parker and spider-man. (I liked the movies.) but it kind of got old, especially when I see the "amazing" spider-man, where it felt like it was going down a very similar path with the character.

I shouldn't need to see that story so often, and I feel in that sense DCEU is going for a different approach to their characters, the only one I truly question at the moment is Batman, because I feel a Batman that's already gone through a robin(or 2), well, would approach things differently than affleck's batman did.

 

[titansupes]

The movie is about Clark embracing what he can do and emerging into the world as a hero. So the film does obey this rule. I'm sorry there's not an arc about killing being wrong, truly I am.

So again... Why have the killing as the climax of the movie if it's really got nothing to do with anything?

Apparently he doesn't, and why would he? He just became Superman. For all we know he has never killed anyone. He has sought to preserve life, not take it.

Same question as above. The burden part of his arc comes from "How will the world react to me?" What's that got to do with killing an enemy?

You don't see how the bond between two people is strengthened by one of them compassionately comforting the other in a moment of intense grief?

Really?

In all the years people have been having this argument, this is the first time I've ever seen anyone trying to say it was partly about helping he and Lois bond.

So okay-- How? How are they more bonded after the neck snap than they were before, and why did it matter? What did it say about their relationship? Why did it need to be said? How was it carried forward?

There is a good reason. To save people, because Zod isn't going to stop. "Killing and violence makes you feel awful but may sometimes be necessary" isn't a good point?

All this jumping through hoops to try and make sense out of it, but we know the reason already-- Snyder says he thought the no kill rule had to come from him killing and not liking it. Nothing to do with something being necessary not feeling good, certainly nothing to do with Lois. It was part of Snyder's cynical and poor understanding of a virtuous character, and poor storytelling.

 

[The Guard]

You think he protected his head and laid him lovingly in the ground?

I think it's likely that the brick wall shattered because of Superman and his superhuman body, not the frail human body hitting it, which would not likely cause that kind of damage to the wall. And that he's not dead, because Superman flat out says he didn't kill anyone.

You think he protected his head and laid him lovingly in the ground?

In truth, we don't know. But it's not realm of the impossibility as he took out Zod with his bare hands.

No, it's not impossible, but it's also not likely.

Superman took out Zod because Zod proved to be an unstoppable threat, and was not going to stop, and Superman was unable to physically restrain him from murdering innocent people.

Superman is able to move the gunman away from Lois. At that point, the gunman is far less of a threat, and killing him would not be necessary at that point.

Fact is, I'm bothered that this Superman's actions are much more questionable than any interpretation that has come forth.

And that you find it okay.

Please don't tell me how I feel.

I am not okay with Superman killing, and neither is Superman. That's the point, that though it may be necessary, it is an awful thing.

I am also not okay with Superman's reckless behavior, and neither is Lois at the beginning of BVS. You're not supposed to be. The entire point of that sequence is that he IS reckless, acting unilaterally, and needs to be better about how he operates.

 

[Slade W]

I am working on memory here, but I believe that Superman was referring to the people who were burned when he said he did not kill "those people", as I think it was just them who were being discussed in the hearing, which Lois was referring to. Working on memory, it is hard for me to say for sure whether he killed him or not. I am leaning more towards him not killing the terrorist, although I understand why people think that he did. The way they had him go through the walls with the terrorist so quickly, so that you could not see clearly what happened was so silly and unnecessary. It was always going to have people asking questions about whether he killed or not. What makes me think he didn't kill him is how he did not kill or even hurt Lex later in the movie, despite what he did to Lois and Martha "I will take you in without breaking you, which is more than you deserve". He also saved Lex from being killed by Doomsday. Due to this, it makes me think that it is possible that he did not kill the terrorist, and perhaps broke the walls himself very quickly, to protect the terrorist from making contact with them, or perhaps the terrorist did make contact with the walls but survived due to "superhero movie logic", where basically characters can survive things that should kill them.

The way they had Superman go through the walls so quickly with the terrorist was silly and unnecessary, but due to how he did not kill or hurt Lex, and also saved his life, makes me believe he may not have killed the terrorist, even though I understand why people believe he did, due to how the scene played out.

 

[Micromind]

It could have been from anywhere. Have him covertly saving people in a warzone instead of Alaska (or wherever) as in Birthright. Have him experience the death of a farm animal as a kid and he and Pa talk briefly talk about it.

That question would have arisen had the filmmakers made it. And it doesn't even have to become the crux of their story over anything else, just a facet of the character, as it was in BB. Instead, they put in a climax that had nothing to do with their story.

In BB it was shown as Batman faces such situations daily, where he can easily cross the line, so leaving out that part was impossible.

In MoS, it (Clark valuing life) was implied by showing how Clark/Superman values life by saving everyone he can, without discrimination, it was not needed to show that he is worried that one day he might kill someone accidentally (or deliberately) and this has got him worried, which is why he forms some self imposed code which he now has to follow.

Had Snyder shown all that, it would have made the movie even more dreary.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Because it hurt him to have to kill.

Why?

 

[The Guard]

Why?

Because he has spent his life trying to save lives, not take them.

Taking a life is not how he wants to use his power.

 

[shauner111]

I think both things will happen - and I've long stated, the DCEU will make more sense as more movies get released.

I don't feel they wanted to delve that deep into superman just yet, he's a rookie, and as such will be treated this way - he's testing his powers in MoS, his moral views are what he's learned in smallville, him killing Zod is due to his lack of experience.

In B vs S, his moral views are starting to be tested, he believes he's doing good, but now the question comes up what is good.

By MoS 2 (or maybe in JL)

I imagine we will see a much more refined superman, who can differentiate these moments, and understand how to do the right thing.

The pay off will be huge if it's executed correctly, but the problem I'm finding is (as in todays society) is that everyone wants everything "now."

I guess, I first noticed that with the first 3 spiderman (with Tobey), every movie felt like it was more him dealing with the same problem on how to deal with being peter parker and spider-man. (I liked the movies.) but it kind of got old, especially when I see the "amazing" spider-man, where it felt like it was going down a very similar path with the character.

I shouldn't need to see that story so often, and I feel in that sense DCEU is going for a different approach to their characters, the only one I truly question at the moment is Batman, because I feel a Batman that's already gone through a robin(or 2), well, would approach things differently than affleck's batman did.

People said Superman is a rookie, he'll be fully developed in the next movie, after Man of Steel. Now people are doing the same thing after BvS. I understand that the MCU and DCEU are more like a television series but each film should have an arc and a developed story without having to answer all kinds of questions in later installments (that may never surface if the movies don't draw money). I shouldn't have to wait for a film 3,4 years down the road in order to understand the movie that I'm watching better. And most of the time I DO understand what's going on, it's just that I feel it's poorly executed and the characters aren't developed enough in that one single film.

For me personally, I'm incredibly patient. I can watch a slow burn 3 hour movie no problem. But when there's a 3 hour film and they STILL don't develop the characters enough and leave things hanging...I have to ask...what the hell are they doing with their 3 hour run time? Something isn't right from a screenwriting and directorial standpoint.

 

[Micromind]

Because he has spent his life trying to save lives, not take them.

Taking a life is not how he wants to use his power.

Exactly, Superman is not like Punisher who regularly kills people and suddenly is feeling sad for killing Zod, which would come as a shock to viewers.

He is always shown saving people and is never shown taking any life earlier, so when he kills Zod, it hurts him.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Because he has spent his life trying to save lives, not take them.

Taking a life is not how he wants to use his power.

When does Clark express that in the film? Why doesn't he cry about embryos of Krypton? About killing other Kryptonians?

Why does Superman have any attachment to people of Earth in the first place? He gets bullied through entire film. Why does he want to save them?

 

[Micromind]

Why doesn't he cry about embryos of Krypton?

What ? This is getting ridiculous.

About killing other Kryptonians? (It was Superman's plan.)

Who ? Those who were pushed into Phantom Zone ? We don't know what happened to them, most likely they are alive as the Phantom Zone was not designed to serve as a death sentence.

 

[The Guard]

I am working on memory here, but I believe that Superman was referring to the people who were burned when he said he did not kill "those people", as I think it was just them who were being discussed in the hearing, which Lois was referring to.

The problem with this interpretation is that

1. That man was part of the group in question.

2. The English language allows for both interpretations, and the core message of both interpretations is still "I didn't kill anyone"

2. Since both interpretations involve Superman denying that he killed people and this being a key point he makes, why would he deny he killed people and then neglect to mention or address the person he did kill? That makes no sense.

There's a pretty simple logic at play here. Human bodies simply do not cause multiple brick walls to explode that way and we don't see an explosion of said human body, or the remnants of said, even shredded clothing, etc, on the walls.

Therefore Superman and his invulnerable powerful body must have preceded the person he was carrying.

 

[Limonade]

Which is why I don't believe this view that this Superman feels that all life is sacred and it hurts him to take a life.

It's also difficult to take his word when his moral actions throughout the current run of the DCEU, says otherwise.

The man kills when he's forced to do so.

He can't work an alternative solution.

Now we're expecting even more Jesus allegories when Superman comes back from the dead. A more just and caring Superman.

It's a ridiculous claim.

 

[Slade W]

The problem with this interpretation is that

1. That man was part of the group in question.

2. The English language allows for both interpretations, and the core message of both interpretations is still "I didn't kill anyone"

2. Since both interpretations involve Superman denying that he killed people and this being a key point he makes, why would he deny he killed people and then neglect to mention or address the person he did kill? That makes no sense.

There's a pretty simple logic at play here. Human bodies simply do not cause multiple brick walls to explode that way and we don't see an explosion of said human body, or the remnants of said, even shredded clothing, etc, on the walls.

Therefore Superman and his invulnerable powerful body must have preceded the person he was carrying.

Who killed the terrorist then? Clark was referring to people who were dead.

 

[Micromind]

If Superman finds himself in a situation where he has to save hundreds (or more) and for that he has to kill someone while fighting, than I wouldn't hold it against him as long as he does it only in rare cases.

 

[OutOfBoose]

What ? This is getting ridiculous.

What did Zod say to Superman before he heat-visioned the ship?

Who ? Those who were pushed into Phantom Zone ? We don't know what happened to them, most likely they are alive as the Phantom Zone was not designed to serve as a death sentence.

Why is Zod so pissed off then? They're alive. If they just teleported to the Phantom Zone, they can always return the same way.

 

[Micromind]

Who killed the terrorist then? Clark was referring to people who were dead.

Have you seen the Ultimate Cut?

It is shown that Lex Luthor's mercenaries kill the people in the African village and then burn the bodies to frame Superman.

 

[Slade W]

Have you seen the Ultimate Cut?

It is shown that Lex Luthor's mercenaries kill the people in the African village and then burn the bodies to frame Superman.

I am referring to the terrorist that people think Superman killed by when he flew through the wall.