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

[Greens]

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?

The funny thing is that if Suicide Squad was truly made for the fans we wouldn't have needed the case-file exposition scene which was clearly inserted for the uninitiated.

 

[Slade W]

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.

That still doesn't mean they have done a good enough job, and they still deserve criticism. Those movies you mentioned do not feature characters as iconic as Superman and Batman. Lots of people defended the Star Wars prequels and ASM 2 as well, but that doesn't mean that the job done with them was anywhere near good enough.

Harley Quinn.

Harley Quinn is not the third biggest comic book character, or even DC character.

 

[Micromind]

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.

The general audience who is supposed to view Superman in same way any random person present there would view him.

You just validated (bolded part) what I said above.

 

[The Fact]

You know, now that I think about it the whole warlord thing doesn't really make sense to me. And I don't just mean in the scene where Kal probably kills him but as a piece of the larger plot, specifically the investigation. Like, if he is actually still alive did Kal take him to prison? Or was he just left in the desert? If he was taken to a prison would it be one from his home country or was he taken to the CIA? And if he was taken to the CIA and put in an American prison why wasn't he interviewed, put on the stand, or even talked about during the trial?

Seriously nobody even brings up the warlord guy during the trial or whenever they talk about the investigation at all. If he's still alive, wouldn't it be really helpful to have the only other living human from that whole debacle besides Lois to talk about what he saw?

 

[Greens]

The general audience who is supposed to view Superman in same way any random person present there would view him.

You just validated (bolded part) what I said above.

I don't think that holds up because the audience knows more than any random person in Metropolis. After the Africa sequence we get a scene where Clark joins Lois in the tub.

 

[I Am The Knight]

You know, now that I think about it the whole warlord thing doesn't really make sense to me. And I don't just mean in the scene where Kal probably kills him but as a piece of the larger plot, specifically the investigation. Like, if he is actually still alive did Kal take him to prison? Or was he just left in the desert? If he was taken to a prison would it be one from his home country or was he taken to the CIA? And if he was taken to the CIA and put in an American prison why wasn't he interviewed, put on the stand, or even talked about during the trial?

Seriously nobody even brings up the warlord guy during the trial or whenever they talk about the investigation at all. If he's still alive, wouldn't it be really helpful to have the only other living human from that whole debacle besides Lois to talk about what he saw?

I don't think Snydy intended for us to think the guy was killed by Superman but stuff like this certainly doesn't help

 

[Micromind]

I don't think that holds up because the audience knows more than any random person in Metropolis. After the Africa sequence we get a scene where Clark joins Lois in the tub.

The general audience who is supposed to view Superman in same way any random person present there would view him.

You just validated (bolded part) what I said above.

I meant a random African person who could be present there. Just like in Batman Begins the first appearance by Batman (in costume) in the fight shown at the docks at night, where we don't get to see Batman clearly, the camera view is supposed to represent how a random thug present there may view the situation, Batman barely visible coming out from shadows and striking them and again disappearing.

 

[Steamteck]

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.

I agree. I also feel lots of other beloved films would crumple to dust if they were subjected to the same lens.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Superman said he didn't kill "those people" who were incinerated. He didn't say anything about the warlord he pushed through several walls at Mach Super.

 

[dallywhitty]

Can't say I can garner any sympathy for a terrorist who was about to shoot a woman in the head.

 

[Erzengel]

The easiest way would be have footage of the Warlord arrested or in jail lying that it was Superman who killed everyone.

 

[Limonade]

The easiest way would be have footage of the Warlord arrested or in jail lying that it was Superman who killed everyone.

But they would have to do something with him. If the case was that Superman left him alive. The Warlord's role would have been crucial for/against Superman.

But they didn't do much with him and threw that character away.

Which is why I assumed Superman either killed him or severely crippled the dude as to him not being useful to anybody. But audiences will never know for sure.

 

[The Guard]

Superman said he didn't kill "those people" who were incinerated. He didn't say anything about the warlord he pushed through several walls at Mach Super.

He said "those men", didn't he?

Wasn't the warlord part of that group of men?

 

[The Guard]

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.

It's...it's a movie.

He accelerated rapidly with Lois too, in MAN OF STEEL, to escape the world engine, but she seemed to be just fine.

But hey, if we're suddenly applying real world logic...human bodies simply cannot demolish multiple walls like that. That's Superman at work, not a human body.

 

[The Guard]

You know, now that I think about it the whole warlord thing doesn't really make sense to me. And I don't just mean in the scene where Kal probably kills him but as a piece of the larger plot, specifically the investigation. Like, if he is actually still alive did Kal take him to prison? Or was he just left in the desert? If he was taken to a prison would it be one from his home country or was he taken to the CIA? And if he was taken to the CIA and put in an American prison why wasn't he interviewed, put on the stand, or even talked about during the trial?

Seriously nobody even brings up the warlord guy during the trial or whenever they talk about the investigation at all. If he's still alive, wouldn't it be really helpful to have the only other living human from that whole debacle besides Lois to talk about what he saw?

This is the height of nitpicking. He's a plot device, why on Earth does it matter what process he went through afte the event?

Luthor's men seemed pretty thorough in wiping out those soldiers. Odds are that gunman either ended up dead at their hands, or unconscious and out of the way somewhere. Why does it matter?

As for testifying, he's a terrorist, and he wouldn't be the best witness as a result. Why would they bring him to the Senate meeting over using a seemingly innocent person like Kahina? Senator Finch was trying to put a human, innocent face on the conflict. Using a terrorist wouldn't be the best way to accomplish that.

 

[Limonade]

It's...it's a movie.

He accelerated rapidly with Lois too, in MAN OF STEEL, to escape the world engine, but she seemed to be just fine.

Yeah. Lol. Tell me that when he goes through a wall with her and say that.

 

[The Guard]

I don't think Snydy intended for us to think the guy was killed by Superman but stuff like this certainly doesn't help

I think Snyder, Terrio, and whoever wrote this sequence didn't expect people to question the nature of the English language.

Or did I miss something where Superman says "I didn't kill those men...well, except that one guy I killed"?

 

[The Guard]

Yeah. Lol. Tell me that when he goes through a wall with her and say that.

It's still a movie.

It expects you to suspend your disbelief about a great many things. I hardly think Superman preceeding him through the wall and taking the guy along for the ride is the hardest we have to use our imaginations in this movie, or any superhero movie, for that matter.

Gotham said it pretty well:

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.

 

[Flint Marko]

The multi-quote button exists for a reason.

 

[Boy Scout]

Is there a reason you couldn't just say this, instead of labeling the entire post "hogwash"?"

I thought it would've been fairly obvious to determine what I was talking about. I'm not always in the mood to break posts apart piece by piece.

There wasn't a debate as to whether Superman had occassionally killed prior to MOS, or whether he should?

I meant what I said and said what I meant.

I never said it was the "rule", by the way. It was included in the mythology specifically because it ISN'T the rule. But it was included in the mythology nontheless.

How can you say this...

Question. Exactly how are you not "cherry picking" scenarios where Superman doesn't kill?

...and then ask me this? I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing.

I really don't think, in a larger discussion about Superman and his mythology that you can ignore 20 years of comics history just because you feel like it.

But that's exactly what you're doing. Except the number of years you're ignoring is a bit higher than 20.

One instance of Superman killing, regardless of how long its impact was felt in the books, does not mean that Superman is a character who doesn't 1) generally avoid it and 2) have an active stance against it that has been repeated and demonstrated for decades.

Well said.

Thank you.

 

[The Guard]

I thought it would've been fairly obvious to determine what I was talking about. I'm not always in the mood to break posts apart piece by piece.

It wasn't, though, or I wouldn't have had to ask you to clarify.

You could have easily just quoted the part of the post you were referring to, to avoid confusion, since I made multiple points.

It came across like you were calling my explanation of the mythology, which does exist,hogwash.

But that's exactly what you're doing. Except the number of years you're ignoring is a bit higher than 20.

One instance of Superman killing, regardless of how long its impact was felt in the books, does not mean that Superman is a character who doesn't 1) generally avoid it and 2) have an active stance against it that has been repeated and demonstrated for decades.

It's actually at least two instances. Zod and the Kryptonian criminals and Doomsday.

And I haven't ignored anything. When have I ignored the fact that Superman hasn't killed most of the time? At NO point have I said that Superman killing is the norm or that he doesn't generally avoid it. In fact, in my last post on the subject, I specifically said that the moment was used in comics BECAUSE it wasn't the norm.

I never said it was the "rule", by the way. It was included in the mythology specifically because it ISN'T the rule. But it was included in the mythology nontheless.

You seem to think people disagree with you on the point that Superman doesn't usually kill. No one is disagreeing that Superman usually doesn't kill, only that him having to kill a few characters is part of his modern mythology.

In the movies, comics and television, he has killed aliens and sentient computers like Braniac, Mr. Mxyzptlk, monsters, and parademons. He doesn't kill humans. At least I can't think of a modern instance where he has, not in main continuity.

 

[Limonade]

It's still a movie.

It expects you to suspend your disbelief about a great many things. I hardly think Superman preceeding him through the wall and taking the guy along for the ride is the hardest we have to use our imaginations in this movie, or any superhero movie, for that matter.

Gotham said it pretty well:

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.

If he had complete mastery over his power he would simply disarmed the terrorist with the exact speed he used to put him through the wall.

It was unnecessary, and leads to these discussions that put it's fans in an illogical position to defend it.

It would've been a better film if the terrorist would have been knocked out against the wall, captured and put in jail, and then killed at the hands of Lex Luthor's goons.

 

[The Guard]

Not if he wanted to teach the guy a lesson.

There's a very clear precedent for Superman using his powers to make criminals and evildoers fear him.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

Not if he wanted to teach the guy a lesson.

There's a very clear precedent for Superman using his powers to make criminals and evildoers fear him.

Isn't that Batman?

 

[Limonade]

Not if he wanted to teach the guy a lesson.

There's a very clear precedent for Superman using his powers to make criminals and evildoers fear him.

Isn't that a Batman trope?