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

[OutOfBoose]

Would DCEU's Superman cry about terrorists who kill children? I don't understand his moral compass at all. I don't get where this ultimate goodness comes from.

 

[Limonade]

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.

That would make him a hero.

Not a Superhero, unfortunately.

A superhero could overcome such a dilemma, using his special powers wisely, and create an ideal outcome for everyone involved.

It's a notion many people tend to forget about superhero films in general.

 

[Micromind]

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

Zod refused to stop his asinine plan of Terraforming the Earth, he said "foundation has to be built on something", after that Superman was left with no choice but to stop him, which is why he said "Krypton had it's chance".

Zod could have chosen to co exist with Humans on Earth, and decided not to Terrafrom Earth but could have gone through acclimatization process, but he didn't want to.. his was only thinking of Kryptonians. Zod never card about humans.

Superman was left with no other choice.

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.

Because his plans failed and now he has nothing to live for ?

 

[The Guard]

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

First...

Superman VS Zod is not the climax of the film. It's the falling action of the story, preceding the denouement. The climax of the story is the threat posed by the World Engine and the larger threat of the Kryptonians.

Why have the killing be the focal point? Because that happens to be how Superman defeats Zod, and Zod's defeat is the resolution of the movie's falling action.

Much like how other heroes in other movies have defeated the villain by killing them. Only here, instead of saying something pithy and sarcastic, Superman falls to his knees in grief.

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?

Because "how will the world react to me" is only part of his burden.

His burdens include this existing psychological concern, but also new physical and emotional ones, and these unfold throughout the movie.

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.

Did people not watch the scene?

Why do you think Lois is in the scene?

The moment following Zod's death is clearly about Superman's grief, and him and Lois bonding. She's literally holding him while he is in grief. That is a bonding activity between two people.

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?

How are they more bonded after it? Because she witnesses his peril, she witnesses what he has to do, and she witnesses his reaction to doing so. She starts to understand his burden, who he really is underneath all the power, and he now has someone to share his issues with.

It says that they can go through awful things together and have someone to share it with. This kind of thing makes couples stronger.

How was it carried forward? She continues to attempt to understand and try to relate to his burdens in BVS.

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 fact that the killing is "necessary" is clearly outlined in the movie.

The fact that it makes him feel awful is also clearly shown in the movie.

And I'm sorry, if it has nothing to do with Lois...then why is Lois in the scene?

There's no "jumping through hoops" required to explain that a hero kills a villain to stop that villain from doing harm to innocents, even though the hero may not want to do so.

That's an old, old story, and is clearly shown onscreen.

As for Snyder and his "poor understanding of a virtuous character"...we talking about the same virtuous character who kills Zod and several other Kryptonians in a key arc in the comics and felt awful about it afterward?

Or could it be the virtuous character who sacrifices his future happiness and his life to stop Doomsday in BVS?

Because we all know there's nothing but cynicism and a lack of virtue in saying "This is my world" and sacrificing yourself to save it.

 

[The Guard]

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

Really?

He falls to his knees and expresses obvious grief immediately after killing Zod.

He clearly expresses his displeasure over having to kill someone.

As for the other Kryptonians...he doesn't kill the other Kryptonians. The military does. It is quite possible he doesn't realize the meaning of taking a life until he himself does it.

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?

Because not all humans are like that. Lois gives him hope. And because he was born on Earth, lived as one for years, and is part of the planet.

You're asking why a person would want to save another person?

In Clark's case:
1. Because he obviously has the power to do so.
2. Because it's the right thing to do.

The same reasons he does it in the comics.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

I'm sorry but hasn't Superman always been willing to kill non humans if his hand is forced? Killing Zod is not the same as killing a human being the latter of which has human laws that can take care of them. I believe I've seen somewhere that he has gone out of his way to kill beings like Darkseid for example. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[The Guard]

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

We don't know that this particular terrorist died in the end.

As for those who were killed...Luthor's mercenaries and I believe the local government/soldiers.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Zod refused to stop his asinine plan of Terraforming the Earth, he said "foundation has to be built on something", after that Superman was left with no choice but to stop him, which is why he said "Krypton had it's chance".

You can't even answer a simple question. Zod said "if you destroy this ship, you'll destroy Krypton". Why would destruction of the ship destroy Krypton? Because the ship contained Krypton embryos. Doesn't Superman feel any compassion towards them? He kinda pauses for a second and then goes "**** 'em".

Zod could have chosen to co exist with Humans on Earth, and decided not to Terrafrom Earth but could have gone through acclimatization process, but he didn't want to.. his was only thinking of Kryptonians. Zod never card about humans.

Superman was left with no other choice.

This is not what I was talking about. Why did Superman cry for Zod? The film doesn't create any dilemma. For example, when Clark had to choose something, it was entirely different matter. To save kids and risk revealing himself or let them die. In Zod's case it's just pointless. We're supposed to feel sorry for Superman, but we don't. Because we don't see what is at stake for him. The movie never builds up for that.

Instead of crying over Zod's body this Superman could stand by his decision to protect the Earth. And he did with his actions. But his emotional reaction comes out of nowhere and doesn't find any response from audiences. Death of his foster parent or a mass murderer? The response is the same - screaming into the camera.

Because his plans failed and now he has nothing to live for ?

But there are other Kryptonians alive? In the Phantom Zone?

 

[The Guard]

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.

It's also fairly clear in the theatrical cut that it's Luthor's men.

 

[Slade W]

We don't know that he died.

As for those who ARE killed...Luthor's mercenaries and the local government/soldiers.

I know they were killed, and then burned to make it look like Superman killed them. Working on memory, I think it was just them who were being discussed in the hearing, and then who Clark was referring to when he said he did not kill them. What makes me think that Superman did not kill the terrorist who he flew through the wall with was him not killing, or even hurting Lex, and also him saving him from DD.

 

[Micromind]

In Clark's case:
1. Because he obviously has the power to do so.
2. Because it's the right thing to do.

The same reasons he does it in the comics.

Also, because Clark's father, Jonathan Kent dies while trying to save people (and his dog) from Tornado, so he sets an example by his actions.

 

[Micromind]

It's also fairly clear in the theatrical cut that it's Luthor's men.

Agreed, Superman was clearly carrying him away, otherwise his body would have smashed against only one wall with visible blood and other remains. (As you have pointed out.)

 

[The Guard]

You can't even answer a simple question. Zod said "if you destroy this ship, you'll destroy Krypton". Why would destruction of the ship destroy Krypton? Because the ship contained Krypton embryos. Doesn't Superman feel any compassion towards them? He kinda pauses for a second and then goes "**** 'em".

Superman makes the decision to sacrifice Krypton's chances to save Earth, because he cannot reconcile the morality of destroying Earth to allow Krypton to live again.

The scout ship contained Kryptonian genetic history. Is it actually embryos, though?

This is not what I was talking about. Why did Superman cry for Zod?

Superman most likely cried for himself, not for Zod. He's upset over what he, Superman, had to do.

The film doesn't create any dilemma.

Except for the rather obvious delimma where Superman has to stop Zod, and can't (which plays out over several sequences), and has to make a choice about whether or not to kill Zod to stop him.

In Zod's case it's just pointless. We're supposed to feel sorry for Superman, but we don't. Because we don't see what is at stake for him. The movie never builds up for that.

Plenty of people felt for Superman. Sorry that you didn't. What is at stake is that if he hadn't killed Zod, those innocent people would have died, and Zod might then have killed even more people. That is something Superman could not bear to let happen.

Instead of crying over Zod's body this Superman could stand by his decision to protect the Earth.

God forbid we give him a moment to process what he has just done and ease out of the tension of the preceeding sequences.

Nevermind that he DOES stand by his decision to protect the earth immediately following this scene.

But his emotional reaction comes out of nowhere and doesn't find any response from audiences. Death of his foster parent or a mass murderer? The response is the same - screaming into the camera

Yeah, your blanket statements just aren't true. Plenty of people responded to the moment, positively and otherwise. It's one of the most controversial moments in superhero films in some time. There was a massive response to this moment.

As far as Superman's emotional reaction and how it's not "Set up", etc...

Do you know how emotions work?

They don't get broadcast to you that they're going to happen to you later on earlier in your life. They are immediate things that you feel in certain circumstances. There's nothing wrong with the way emotion is portrayed in this sequence.

 

[Micromind]

You can't even answer a simple question. Zod said "if you destroy this ship, you'll destroy Krypton". Why would destruction of the ship destroy Krypton? Because the ship contained Krypton embryos. Doesn't Superman feel any compassion towards them? He kinda pauses for a second and then goes "**** 'em".

It was Zod's plan to re-populate Earth with Kryptonians, which went out of window when Superman destroyed those embryos, to Zod it was the end of his dream to see Krypton restored again, which could be the reason why Zod says that line ("if you destroy this ship, you'll destroy Krypton").

The key thing here is, it was Zod's plan, his dream, his mission, not Clark's.

And I don't get the whole argument about Superman not feeling compassion for embryos thing, Zod made it a case of 'us against them', leaving him no other choice but to thwart Zod's plans, keeping those embryos intact would have meant that Zod's mission was alive as well.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Really?

He falls to his knees and expresses obvious grief immediately after killing Zod.

He clearly expresses his displeasure over having to kill someone.

Why don't, I don't know, soldiers cry over dead terrorists, for example? Why is it a catastrophe for Clark to kill a mass murderer? I'm still waiting for the answer.

As for the other Kryptonians...he doesn't kill the other Kryptonians. The military does. It is quite possible he doesn't realize the meaning of taking a life until he himself does it.

He participated in the plan. Didn't he know it will kill the Kryptonians? What's the meaning of taking a life? I'm especially interested to hear what the film says about that.

Because not all humans are like that. Lois gives him hope. And because he was born on Earth, lived as one for years, and is part of the planet.

He was saving people long before he met Lois. From the very first shot on the Earth. Lois has nothing to do with it. It's not enough. The movie doesn't establish anything. It's just there. He saves people because.

You're asking why a person would want to save another person?

In Clark's case:
1. Because he obviously has the power to do so.
2. Because it's the right thing to do.

It's not default for any person. People are different for various reasons. Clark has the power to kill everyone. Or enslave humanity. Why doesn't he do that?

The same reasons he does it in the comics.

In comics his parents instill values in him. "You must assist humanity". They shape his future. MoS doesn't do any of that.

 

[Slade W]

Agreed, Superman was clearly carrying him away, otherwise his body would have smashed against only one wall with visible blood and other remains. (As you have pointed out.)

This isn't necessarily always shown in superhero movies though. Supermans death, for example, should have been very bloody, given the manner in which he died. They also cut Batman killing someone by smashing a crate against his head that had blood in it from the TC. Blood is cut from superhero movies plenty of times.

 

[The Guard]

What does happen in Superman's death though, as well as Zod's, is that there is a death shown. There are context clues that the character is dead.

It is made clear that he is supposed to be dead.

No such thing happens with the terrorist in the beginning.

 

[Micromind]

In comics his parents instill values in him. "You must assist humanity". They shape his future. MoS doesn't do any of that.

Jonathan Kent discourages Clark from harming other humans (school bullies and others) he teaches him that he is different from others.

Also, this -

Also, because Clark's father, Jonathan Kent dies while trying to save people (and his dog) from Tornado, so he sets an example by his actions.

 

[Limonade]

Why don't, I don't know, soldiers cry over dead terrorists, for example? Why is it a catastrophe for Clark to kill a mass murderer? I'm still waiting for the answer.

He participated in the plan. Didn't he know it will kill the Kryptonians? What's the meaning of taking a life? I'm especially interested to hear what the film says about that.
He was saving people long before he met Lois. From the very first shot on the Earth. Lois has nothing to do with it. It's not enough. The movie doesn't establish anything. It's just there. He saves people because.

It's not default for any person. People are different for various reasons. Clark has the power to kill everyone. Or enslave humanity. Why doesn't he do that?

In comics his parents instill values in him. "You must assist humanity". They shape his future. MoS doesn't do any of that.

... because all of the moments in the movies expects you to know.

A lot of people who enjoy these movies love it cause it doesn't "spoon feed" you information.

So you're expected to know how a character is feeling without any visual cues or scenes that could clarify any questions that may arise when you get to the "moments" of what Zack Snyder what's to convey.

Snyder loves all the cool and visually beautiful stuff. But you can clearly see he dislike character development moments where subtleties truly showcases the hero's thoughts and dreams... with words coming out of his mouth.

 

[Slade W]

What does happen in Superman's death though is that there is a death shown.

It is made clear that he is supposed to be dead.

No such thing happens with the terrorist in the beginning.

I agree. I still think they should have done better with the scene, to make it more clear that he didn't kill him. Even though I do not think Superman killed him, I understand why people think he did.

 

[The Guard]

Why don't, I don't know, soldiers cry over dead terrorists, for example? Why is it a catastrophe for Clark to kill a mass murderer? I'm still waiting for the answer.

To borrow your statement, "people are different for various reasons".

Soldiers may not have the same reaction because they're often trained to kill, and trained to react a certain way to killing others, to minimize psychological impact.

That said, how do you know that some of them don't cry or grieve over having to kill people? Half the war documentaries I've seen and the things I've read and people I've spoken to who have been to war or had to kill someone talk about how difficult taking a life can be, and the effect it has on a person.

Whether Zod is a mass murderer is irrelevant to whether it hurts Superman to have to kill him. It's hurtful to Superman to have to kill, period.

He participated in the plan. Didn't he know it will kill the Kryptonians? What's the meaning of taking a life? I'm especially interested to hear what the film says about that.

Not the same thing. He didn't directly kill them, and as I pointed out previously, he may well not have understood the impact of taking a life until he killed Zod himself.

The film isn't about exploring whether its right or wrong to kill. There's a simple, beautiful moment where Superman confronts the issue, and a side of exploring the taking of a life that we usually don't get to see in superhero movies. I'm sorry you didn't get something more in the way of moralizing the issue. Truly I am.

He was saving people long before he met Lois. From the very first shot on the Earth. Lois has nothing to do with it. It's not enough. The movie doesn't establish anything. It's just there. He saves people because.

It's not default for any person. People are different for various reasons. Clark has the power to kill everyone. Or enslave humanity. Why doesn't he do that?

The film fairly succinctly answers that question. Because that's not the right thing to do. That's why Zod is the villain. He represents what Superman could have been had he not chosen a different path.

In comics his parents instill values in him. "You must assist humanity". They shape his future. MoS doesn't do any of that.

And there's no reason to believe they didn't instill his values in him this time around as well. It's just common sense. They raised him. We are shown that they explore various moral issues with him. Unfortunately we do not get to see the most basic lessons, which is that it's right to do right, and wrong to do wrong. Instead, the moral issues explored are more complex and have to do with Superman's place in the world.

What you said is not true with regard to shaping his future. It's hinted that they help him learn to control his powers, and Jonathan Kent very clearly tells him he will have to decide what kind of a person to be, and how to use his power, and that he can change the world. Jor-El also influences his decisions, and he's a parental figure as well.

Why do you have such an issue with a child choosing to do good simply because as one goes through life, it's generally accepted that doing good is the right thing to do?

I can understand wanting the Kents to be more involved in the process and wanting to see something more formative about Superman's morality, but constantly asking "Well, why does he use his power to save people?" is a bit disingenuous.

It's not a particularly complicated concept.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Superman makes the decision to sacrifice Krypton's chances to save Earth, because he cannot reconcile the morality of destroying Earth to allow Krypton to live again.

It's basically Zod's life or a human family life.

The scout ship contained Kryptonian genetic history. Is it actually embryos, though?

I don't know. The science of that flick is beyond understanding.

Superman most likely cried for himself, not for Zod. He's upset over what he, Superman, had to do.

Why is it such a big deal for him?

Except for the rather obvious delimma where Superman has to stop Zod, and can't (which plays out over several sequences), and has to make a choice about whether or not to kill Zod to stop him.

I understand why he kills Zod. I don't understand his emotional reaction.

Plenty of people felt for Superman. Sorry that you didn't. What is at stake is that if he hadn't killed Zod, those innocent people would have died, and Zod might then have killed even more people. That is something Superman could not bear to let happen.

You don't get the question, don't you? Why does he cry after Zod's death? Why doesn't he want to kill Zod? I would understand if his compassion played a big part in the narrative. If it was established in some way. But it's not. He just saves people. Why? I don't know.

God forbid we give him a moment to process what he has just done and ease out of the tension of the preceeding sequences.

Nevermind that he DOES stand by his decision to protect the earth immediately following this scene.

I didn't say he didn't. I said his emotional reaction doesn't make any sense in context of the movie.

Yeah, your blanket statements just aren't true. Plenty of people responded to the moment, positively and otherwise. It's one of the most controversial moments in superhero films in some time. There was a massive response to this moment.

Controversy of that moment was of different nature. Should Superman be portrayed like that - that's what people discussed.

As far as Superman's emotional reaction and how it's not "Set up", etc...

Do you know how emotions work?

They don't get broadcast to you that they're going to happen to you later on earlier in your life. They are immediate things that you feel in certain circumstances. There's nothing wrong with the way emotion is portrayed in this sequence.

Do you know how movies work? I suppose not. You can project anything you want. You can enjoy anything you want. But I'm telling why it didn't work for me. Why Superman's character and motivations weren't convincing. Why it was a shallow interpretation.

 

[The Guard]

... because all of the moments in the movies expects you to know.

There's nothing wrong with a movie expecting you to come in with basic understandings of very common concepts that humans deal with.

For instance, this and countless other movies also presents people falling in love, but no one whines because it doesn't delve into the exact chemical reasons that Lois and Clark are attacted to each other. Because people have a basic understanding of the cause of these emotions, the film can engage in cinematic shorthand with regard to it.

Other superhero movies don't have to deal with "why even bother to save someone?", why does a Superman movie have to?

It is simply accepted that saving a life is a good thing, because this is part of the common human experience.

A lot of people who enjoy these movies love it cause it doesn't "spoon feed" you information.

So you're expected to know how a character is feeling without any visual cues or scenes that could clarify any questions that may arise when you get to the "moments" of what Zack Snyder what's to convey.

There are plenty of visual cues that clarify some of the questions people have.

The problem is that many seem incapable of interepreting these visual and emotional cues without being told what is going on. This is a product of more recent cinema, which engages in a good deal more exposition than cinema historically has.

Snyder loves all the cool and visually beautiful stuff. But you can clearly see he dislike character development moments where subtleties truly showcases the hero's thoughts and dreams... with words coming out of his mouth.

Nope.

Snyder simply chooses to explore different character development than what many would like to see, and what many have seen in the past.

Snyder chose to explore what it means to be Superman in relation to the world and the conflicts involved, instead of exploring why a man chooses to save lives and how he came to feel that way. He and the writers simply chose to spend screentime on a different concept than the other.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about subtleties. If anything, Snyder is too subtle when it comes to character work.

 

[BH/HHH]

Oh Zod it's 2013 again

 

[OutOfBoose]

Yeah, I guess I'll go back to the future. 2017.

... because all of the moments in the movies expects you to know.

A lot of people who enjoy these movies love it cause it doesn't "spoon feed" you information.

So you're expected to know how a character is feeling without any visual cues or scenes that could clarify any questions that may arise when you get to the "moments" of what Zack Snyder what's to convey.

Snyder loves all the cool and visually beautiful stuff. But you can clearly see he dislike character development moments where subtleties truly showcases the hero's thoughts and dreams... with words coming out of his mouth.