BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - Part 1

[Mysteryman]

I dont see anything in MOS that sets up a situation where Superman will Kill again in the next film.

 

[Deserana]

I just really want this film to be "out there". It's the first time Superman and Batman are in a big non-Lego film together it should be special. If the film is ambitious and sucky I'd prefer that than doing a Star Trek Into Darkness and being by the numbers and quite dull.

 

[Marvin]

From Badass

Snyder explains why he killed so many innocents...

Stop right there. It's not real

or is it
lol.

Surprised by all the people that don't understand what snyder is putting forth here. Once again I question two things: On average, are the people who aren't getting it, the same people that have displayed a disdain for either Synder or this work or both?
Secondly, if people can't comprehend this, maybe there are other things they can't...

It is what it is.

 

[Mysteryman]

I doubt that it will be by the numbers because it is the first time that they are in a movie together .
It will be a Cinematic Event that does not disappoint .

 

[hopefuldreamer]

From Badass

Stop right there. It's not real

or is it
lol.

Surprised by all the people that don't understand what snyder is putting forth here. Once again I question two things: On average, are the people who aren't getting it, the same people that have displayed a disdain for either Synder or this work or both?
Secondly, if people can't comprehend this, maybe there are other things they can't...

It is what it is.

Perhaps you can offer me a clearer understanding of what it is he is saying?

If this many people do not understand his meaning, he has not explained it well.

But if you understand it, i'd be happy to hear what he means?

(and I had absolutely no disdain for Snyder prior to MOS, and spent a lot of time defending him, even the way he explains himself in some cases... but that quote is seriously bad )

 

[The Silent Traveler]

But General Zod intended to kill the family, and Superman had to kill him in order to save them.

At first, I don't know very much about the Superman's character and his rules but I only watch him from his movies. Occasionally, I researched on his character and his mythos on Wiki because my close friend's a Supes fan. I occasionally discussed with him about his favorite character.

Killing General Zod in Superman II is acceptable yet killing him in MOS is not??

Um, that's why I'm somewhat puzzled.

Why are some fans against Supes killing General Zod in MOS? I'm just curious.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I dont see anything in MOS that sets up a situation where Superman will Kill again in the next film.

That's not what anyone said though. The point being made was that the establishment of Superman's "no-kill" rule doesn't make sense, and here's why:

General Zod is stranded on Earth with no worthwhile cause worth fighting for, other than to hurt Superman. The best way to do that is to kill humans. Now this leaves Superman in the position where he absolutely has to kill General Zod.

Now then, what happens if the same situation arises again? No prison can hold people on that power level, the Phantom Zone is gone, so given the precedent, Superman must kill again. Because it is the same situation.

General Zod's murder is not treated as if it were the wrong decision to be made, as if it were a mistake. It just made Clark feel sad for a few seconds, but with no scenes of contemplation on it.

 

[Lencho01]

Thought this was interesting...

Screenwriting Article – Is Batman Vs. Superman the single hardest screenplay to write in history?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

But General Zod intended to kill the family, and Superman had to kill him in order to save them.

At first, I don't know very much about the Superman's character and his rules but I only watch him from his movies. Occasionally, I researched on his character and his mythos on Wiki because my close friend's a Supes fan. I occasionally discussed with him about his favorite character.

Killing General Zod in Superman II is acceptable yet killing him in MOS is not??

Um, that's why I'm somewhat puzzled.

Why are some fans against Supes killing General Zod in MOS? I'm just curious.

This is how this conversation goes:

'I didn't like it that Superman kills in this film'

'Why? He's killed before!'

'Yeah, I didn't like it then either.'

'But he had to kill, there was no other way'

'Yeah, but the writers didn't have to write the script so that there was no other way'

'Yeah well, the writers were just trying to do something different and shake up the expectations'

'Sure, but I think they handled it badly and it ended the movie on a feeling of deflation rather than triumph'

'Well that's the real world, and it was daring of them to do that instead of just forcing a happy ending'

'I don't want that much real world when I go to the movies at all, let alone Superman. I WANT the happy ending'

'You're just too stuck on your nostalgic love of Donner's version of the films. They've moved on since then'

'Except that I don't like the Donner films, I like the Superman from the comics'

'Well that's your problem, you went in with all these expectations, it could never have pleased you... besides, Superman has killed in the comics'

'... like I said, I didn't like it then either...'

And it goes on and on and on and on...

 

[Mysteryman]

That's not what anyone said though. The point being made was that the establishment of Superman's "no-kill" rule doesn't make sense, and here's why:

General Zod is stranded on Earth with no worthwhile cause worth fighting for, other than to hurt Superman. The best way to do that is to kill humans. Now this leaves Superman in the position where he absolutely has to kill General Zod.

Now then, what happens if the same situation arises again? No prison can hold people on that power level, the Phantom Zone is gone, so given the precedent, Superman must kill again. Because it is the same situation.

General Zod's murder is not treated as if it were the wrong decision to be made, as if it were a mistake. It just made Clark feel sad for a few seconds, but with no scenes of contemplation on it.

I see your point.
But, I dont see it as a given that he will be placed in a similar situation in the next film .

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I see your point.
But, I dont see it as a given that he will be placed in a similar situation in the next film .

We're only questioning Zack's logic in saying it's going to be treated as a reason why he WON'T kill in the next film.

But it's hard to see how that will work. Because to show that, they'd have to have Superman put in a situation where he could kill again, but chooses not to because he sees what he did in MOS as a mistake... when what he did was clearly shown to NOT be a mistake.

 

[Lencho01]

I just really want this film to be "out there". It's the first time Superman and Batman are in a big non-Lego film together it should be special. If the film is ambitious and sucky I'd prefer that than doing a Star Trek Into Darkness and being by the numbers and quite dull.

But, you have to remember how "real" they want all this to be.

 

[Lencho01]

This is how this conversation goes:

'I didn't like it that Superman kills in this film'

'Why? He's killed before!'

'Yeah, I didn't like it then either.'

'But he had to kill, there was no other way'

'Yeah, but the writers didn't have to write the script so that there was no other way'

'Yeah well, the writers were just trying to do something different and shake up the expectations'

'Sure, but I think they handled it badly and it ended the movie on a feeling of deflation rather than triumph'

'Well that's the real world, and it was daring of them to do that instead of just forcing a happy ending'

'I don't want that much real world when I go to the movies at all, let alone Superman. I WANT the happy ending'

'You're just too stuck on your nostalgic love of Donner's version of the films. They've moved on since then'

'Except that I don't like the Donner films, I like the Superman from the comics'

'Well that's your problem, you went in with all these expectations, it could never have pleased you... besides, Superman has killed in the comics'

'... like I said, I didn't like it then either...'

And it goes on and on and on and on...

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

We're only questioning Zack's logic in saying it's going to be treated as a reason why he WON'T kill in the next film.

But it's hard to see how that will work. Because to show that, they'd have to have Superman put in a situation where he could kill again, but chooses not to because he sees what he did in MOS as a mistake... when what he did was clearly shown to NOT be a mistake.

 

[Marvin]

We're only questioning Zack's logic in saying it's going to be treated as a reason why he WON'T kill in the next film.

But it's hard to see how that will work. Because to show that, they'd have to have Superman put in a situation where he could kill again, but chooses not to because he sees what he did in MOS as a mistake... when what he did was clearly shown to NOT be a mistake.

Who said anything about what he did being a mistake?
All they have to show is that he doesn't want to tread that course again. NOT that he doesn't want to tread that course again because it was a mistake.

A cop shoots the bad guy in the head, kills him, kids witness this but it was still the right thing to do. Cop learns personal lesson from his actions.

Cop placed in a similar situation, this time shoots the gun out the bad guys hands(because for one, he has alot more experience with his skills). Saves the day a different way. No one saying what he did the first time was a mistake. Just showing that due to his personal feelings about killing he seeks out a different way.

seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Deserana]

Surprised by all the people that don't understand what snyder is putting forth here. Once again I question two things: On average, are the people who aren't getting it, the same people that have displayed a disdain for either Synder or this work or both?
Secondly, if people can't comprehend this, maybe there are other things they can't...

I like Snyder (he seems like a cool guy), I loved MoS and I have absolutely no quarrels so far with Superman vs Batman.

But I have no idea what his comments were getting at.

 

[Mysteryman]

We're only questioning Zack's logic in saying it's going to be treated as a reason why he WON'T kill in the next film.

But it's hard to see how that will work. Because to show that, they'd have to have Superman put in a situation where he could kill again, but chooses not to because he sees what he did in MOS as a mistake... when what he did was clearly shown to NOT be a mistake.

I understand .
I see this as an unfinished story and I am going to reserve judgment until I see the next chapter.

 

[DvilDog]

Thought this was interesting...

Screenwriting Article – Is Batman Vs. Superman the single hardest screenplay to write in history?

Aren't opinions great! Cause in my opinion that whole rant was horse**it.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Who said anything about what he did being a mistake?
All they have to show is that he doesn't want to tread that course again. NOT that he doesn't want to tread that course again because it was a mistake.

A cop shoots the bad guy in the head, kills him, kids witness this but it was still the right thing to do. Cop learns personal lesson from his actions.

Cop placed in a similar situation, this time shoots the gun out the bad guys hands(because for one, he has alot more experience with his skills). Saves the day a different way. No one saying what he did the first time was a mistake. Just showing that due to his personal feelings about killing he seeks out a different way.

seems pretty simple to me.

Superpowered criminal vows to kill every human on earth. No jail on earth can contain him. No projector to the phantom zone exists. Human lives are in imminent danger. Superman has no choice but to kill criminal.

Superman placed in similar situation. Another superpowered criminal vows to kill every human on earth. No jail on earth can contain him. No projector to the phantom zone exists. Human lives are in imminent danger. What does Superman do now?

Your cop situation is much easier because the threat is nowhere on the same level. Plus he can be wounded much easier. Superman does not have that luxury.

 

[DvilDog]

Who said anything about what he did being a mistake?
All they have to show is that he doesn't want to tread that course again. NOT that he doesn't want to tread that course again because it was a mistake.

A cop shoots the bad guy in the head, kills him, kids witness this but it was still the right thing to do. Cop learns personal lesson from his actions.

Cop placed in a similar situation, this time shoots the gun out the bad guys hands(because for one, he has alot more experience with his skills). Saves the day a different way. No one saying what he did the first time was a mistake. Just showing that due to his personal feelings about killing he seeks out a different way.

seems pretty simple to me.

You speak with too much logic. Leave immediately!

 

[Mysteryman]

Aren't opinions great! Cause in my opinion that whole rant was horse**it.

I dont think that it will be hard to write this film as long as they know where they want to go.
Somehow I think that they do .

 

[Lencho01]

Aren't opinions great! Cause in my opinion that whole rant was horse**it.

So, you see no weaknesses in the concept of a Versus film (if that's the route they're going)?

 

[Mysteryman]

Superman has killed in the comics in the past .
These days when faced with such situations, he finds another way .
If he can do it in the comics , I think that he can find another way on film as well.

 

[DvilDog]

I dont think that it will be hard to write this film as long as they know where they want to go.
Somehow I think that they do .

There are loads of stories to pull from. I mean hey I couldn't write it but that is because I lack the imagination. Most of me thinks they know exactly what they want to do. I just hope it translates, cause I'm hooked. I think I might actually follow this one from beginning to the finished product.

 

[D.P.]

This is how this conversation goes:

'I didn't like it that Superman kills in this film'

'Why? He's killed before!'

'Yeah, I didn't like it then either.'

'But he had to kill, there was no other way'

'Yeah, but the writers didn't have to write the script so that there was no other way'

'Yeah well, the writers were just trying to do something different and shake up the expectations'

'Sure, but I think they handled it badly and it ended the movie on a feeling of deflation rather than triumph'

'Well that's the real world, and it was daring of them to do that instead of just forcing a happy ending'

'I don't want that much real world when I go to the movies at all, let alone Superman. I WANT the happy ending'

'You're just too stuck on your nostalgic love of Donner's version of the films. They've moved on since then'

'Except that I don't like the Donner films, I like the Superman from the comics'

'Well that's your problem, you went in with all these expectations, it could never have pleased you... besides, Superman has killed in the comics'

'... like I said, I didn't like it then either...'

And it goes on and on and on and on...

Dead on.

And I'll tell all of you right now: Richard Donner isn't walking through that door folks.