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

[Samuron]

He didn't kill in BvS.

Enough denial; watch what he did.

He subjected a human body to a minimum of 30 Gs of acceleration, from a standstill. That guy's insides were goo after that.

 

[ManWithNoName18]

Not sure if that Warlord was confirmed as having survived that or not,

but the way the scene played out it definitely looked like Superman killed him. Something like cutting to the Warlord dazed on the ground after getting knocked through a wall would have made it more clear.

 

[Samuron]

Something like cutting to the Warlord dazed on the ground after getting knocked through a wall would have made it more clear.

That would have been more hackneyed than the way guys walked away from the crashes on The A-Team.

There is no way a human could survive that acceleration, never mind the concrete wall shrapnel.

 

[misslane38]

Enough denial; watch what he did.

I did watch it. I didn't see a dead body. Did you? Superman heat visioned Lois Lane's gut with precision and you don't think he can fly a man through a wall without protecting him from the impact? So give me proof. Until you can prove it, you are the one in denial.

 

[Kane52630]

I don't see air, thereof it doesn't exist.

 

[misslane38]

I don't see air, thereof it doesn't exist.

Not the same thing. To convict someone of murder, a body is typically necessary. Superman himself said he killed no one. And to follow your BS analogy, if air exists without it being seen, then I can say Superman protected the guy; you just didn't see it, and just be cause you didn't, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The canon fact of the movie is that the man wasn't killed.

 

[Samuron]

I did watch it. I didn't see a dead body. Did you? Superman heat visioned Lois Lane's gut with precision and you don't think he can fly a man through a wall without protecting him from the impact? So give me proof. Until you can prove it, you are the one in denial.

This is like arguing with a woman who is defending an abusive boyfriend.

By your reasoning, nobody was killed in Batman v Superman, because we don't see a coroner come out and check every body for vital signs.

Forget the impact; you can't shield someone from acceleration effects without a very complex restraint and shock absorption system. The warlord took a cannonball to the chest.

His girlfriend was being held hostage, and he took the guy out.

 

[misslane38]

This is like arguing with a woman who is defending an abusive boyfriend.

What an appalling analogy. I am not defending violence or abuse. I am saying that I do not know enough about what happened to conclude that any physical harm came to that warlord as a result of Superman's actions.

By your reasoning, nobody was killed in Batman v Superman, because we don't see a coroner come out and check every body for vital signs.

No, that's not what I am saying at all. I am not discounting the possibility that people died in the film, including the warlord. What I am saying is that I do not know definitively who died in the film. I do not have enough information and neither do you. I have Clark's comment and that's it, and it's sufficient.

Forget the impact; you can't shield someone from acceleration effects without a very complex restraint and shock absorption system. The warlord took a cannonball to the chest.

You couldn't possibly have seen the full picture of Superman's actions to know exactly how and where he applied force. From my point of view, Superman did not push the warlord; he wrapped his arm and cape around him before punching through the wall himself and bringing the warlord along with him. That's what it looked like to me. Do I know that's what happened? No, I don't. Do I know for a fact Superman didn't hit the warlord like a cannonball? No, I don't. I don't know exactly what happened. What I do know is that this Superman does not kill lightly. He does not kill without remorse or emotion. I know this Superman is capable of applying his powers with extraordinary precision.

His girlfriend was being held hostage, and he took the guy out.

A simplistic and unprovable conclusion.

 

[Greenlite]

Well, Mark Hughes said he fell off the roof and crashed over a few layers of...stuff (I'm not an expert on this), he said the quicker you fall through objects, the less injury you sustain.

anyway, argue that with him on that physics.

But you see the karate guys break bricks with fast hand, not with slow mo, and Superman took the guy through the wall pretty fast, who knows, he might have a hand in front of the the warlord, all we know is that it's unclear, does not mean he definitely killed or not killed

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I can buy Superman tackling a dude at high speed without killing him the same way I can buy the Flash or Quicksilver taking regular people around at super speed. (And since Supes usually flies with his arms in front of him, it very well could have been one of his arms, the one that wasn't carrying the guy, that broke through the wall).

Also, the fact that he smiles beforehand suggests to me that he knew that Lois was going to fine, and if he can be at ease with that, despite Lois being in such close proximity to the guy he's about to tackle, it suggests that he knows how precise and in control he can be. And if he can so precise about not harming Lois, I imagine he could be precise about not killing the dude as well.

But either way, the fact that we're having this conversation in the first place is the real fail on Snyder/Terrio's part. And it was supposed to come across as ambiguous, that wasn't very clear either.

 

[Greenlite]

This is like arguing with a woman who is defending an abusive boyfriend.

That's very uncool man.

 

[Samuron]

What an appalling analogy. I am not defending violence or abuse.

Yes you are, by ignoring simple logic.

I am saying that I do not know enough about what happened to conclude that any physical harm came to that warlord as a result of Superman's actions.

You know as much as you do about anyone who appears to be shot in the movie, or blown up. You simply ignore consequences because your believe Superman explanation without question.

You couldn't possibly have seen the full picture of Superman's actions to know exactly how and where he applied force.

Sure I did, when I took it frame by frame so I could do the math. It doesn't matter how he grabbed the warlord; he took him to an unsurvivable acceleration instantly.

 

[Samuron]

That's very uncool man.

I'd better say goodnight then.

My apologies to all.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

The scene was shot in a way that depicted Superman flying a human being through two concrete walls. The human body is rather fragile. And we never see the guy again, either. So I'm concluding that Superman killed another person when he didn't need to.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

I'm now convinced that Snyder left it intentionally ambiguous so that he could have his very own version of the "Han Shot First" debate. And he got it, the crafty bastard. Almost one year later and we're still arguing about whether or not Superman killed General Amajagh.

 

[The Fact]

I'm now convinced that Snyder left it intentionally ambiguous so that he could have his very own version of the "Han Shot First" debate. And he got it, the crafty bastard. Almost one year later and we're still arguing about whether or not Superman killed General Amajagh.

If that was his intent then that's one sad, pathetic trick to desperately try to get people to talk about your movie.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

Sad or not it worked.

 

[ManWithNoName18]

I'm now convinced that Snyder left it intentionally ambiguous so that he could have his very own version of the "Han Shot First" debate. And he got it, the crafty bastard. Almost one year later and we're still arguing about whether or not Superman killed General Amajagh.

that's some 4-D chess right there

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

This is the movie that wanted to show Superman through the eyes of people, who are scared of what he does, misconstrue what he does, etc, so in that sense, I think it's fitting. There's intentionally no simple clean heroic portrayal of Superman until the end of the movie where Bruce realizes that he was wrong about Superman.

(I personally wouldn't have gone that way with the first Batman/Superman movie, but I imagine that's the reason for scenes like this. Or, Snyder simply thought it looked cool. Either way, I don't see it as a 'trick' to get people to talk about the movie.)

 

[Timebomb]

Sorry but IMO if the person looks like they were killed and it's not clearly shown that they were not then I'm going to think they were killed. If a story is being told and it wants me to believe that person was alive, they better tell me or show me. And Clark saying he didn't kill those men is said in defense of the bodies found killed by Luthor men. It's like Red Leader in Star Wars, we see his X wing blow up but he could have ejected before impact. However since we never see or hear about him again, I believe he is dead. Bad example I know, but hopefully you get my point.

 

[GothamBat]

I thought he killed the guy too but, if he had really used his body to break through the wall, there would have been an immediate splatter. Blood and insides everywhere regardless of how fast he was travelling. Try breaking through a thin sheet of wood with a water balloon, your hand will travel all the way through but the balloon will burst and water will spill everywhere without reaching the other side of the object with a much higher durability index.

That, coupled with the fact that this Superman always has his arms out in front of him when he flies, and the fact that they make a point to say he didn't take a life there in Africa (Clark says he didn't kill those men, Martha says he's not a killer). I think it's pretty clear he busted the wall with his fist while snatching up the guy and taking him with him.

 

[GothamBat]

I don't think Snyder wanted to leave it ambiguous since he made the characters unambiguously state he didn't kill (Clark and his mom). I just think that he naively thought people wouldn't over-analyse the hell out of every frame of the movie. That and he wanted the scene to be impactful and brutal and didn't want to undercut it with some visual cop-out like showing the guy was ok or by devising some less kinetic, visually striking and powerful action for Superman to perform.

 

[GothamBat]

Another great point made by one of you is that he clearly had the ability to calculate exactly how to take action without putting a single scratch on Lois despite her being so close. If he has such complete mastery over his powers and the situation, is it really strange to conclude that indeed he put one arm out to bust the wall while snatching that guy up? I'd find it a lot weirder for him to have to grab him with both arms and use the body as a make-shift wrecking ball. He wouldn't even logistically be able to do that while flying on a horizontal axis. He'd have to be flying on a vertical axis which, even though he moves quickly, you can plainly see he wasn't.

 

[Osiris-Rex]

We don't know if kryptonians are immune to their own heat vision

It is it's own version, but last season on Supergirl a group of Kyptonians invaded Lord Technologies and as one was getting ready to blast Max with heat vision, Max fired some sort of gun that
propelled some sort of goop onto the Kryptonian's face, causing the Kryptonian to fry his own brain. So in that one instance that particular Kryptonian wasn't immune to his own heat vision.

What other superhero franchise needed as many excuses and defences to be made for it? The fact the DCEU has much more criticism than the likes of Raimi's movies, X-Men movies, MCU, TDKT etc makes it clear that things are nowhere near as good as they should be and that the directors and WB are not doing a good enough job.

Then you can have a movie like Fantastic Four or Catwoman that is so bad no one defends it. That the DCEU has defenders means that for some people there was enough there that was good to make it worth defending by some people.

Batman and Superman are two I am sure you are referring to. Who is the third? The Joker?

Harley Quinn.

Oh I never thought it would make it anyway. 2019 for the Batman I feel is the most likely. Hopefully along with a Vaugh directed Superman film in the same year (probably more likely 2020-21 for Supes though).

I still think Gotham City Sirens could potentially make 2018 though.

Last I heard GCS was scheduled for February 2019. But then prior to that there was talk of an August 2018 release. So either the first report was wrong or it got pushed further along.

Critics don't got an agenda to promote Marvel and bash DC, a Marvel property can come out and get a negative response.

Also the defense of "its for the fans" was used by David Ayer in response to negative Suicide Squad reviews

The movie is good, the movie has a great heart and the movie is made for the fans,” he continued. “I think they know that and they see that. There’s nothing wrong with having a big, fun summer movie.”
Read more at http://www.nme.com/news/film/suicid...er-says-fans-don-t-876905#rRYVZv1tQjMJeMhC.99


And Henry Cavill after BVS reviews came in

“I know that Zack [Snyder] doesn’t make the movies, or none of us, are making the movies for the critics. You can’t go into it with that perspective


It's a response that always comes up when something gets bad reviews

Notice no one ever says it was made for the fans, not the critics, when a movie gets rave reviews. So do people go out with the intention of making a movie only the fans or only the critics will like?

 

[Greens]

This is the movie that wanted to show Superman through the eyes of people, who are scared of what he does, misconstrue what he does, etc, so in that sense, I think it's fitting. There's intentionally no simple clean heroic portrayal of Superman until the end of the movie where Bruce realizes that he was wrong about Superman.

The only people in the room were Superman, Lois and the army guy... so who is Snyder trying to fool here? I think you're just putting more weight behind something that is simply a questionable decision. I don't think Supes killed that guy, but it sure looks that way.