BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - Part 2

[Boy Scout]

It's from the Empire interview. Here's the rest of the quote. I can see where you're getting the idea that this is meant to be the ultimate catalyst, but I don't take this as a primary reason (if that makes sense).

Not to be rude, but...it doesn't. I mean...it's right there for you to read.

He also cites the original ending being lackluster...

They could've easily rewritten it to make it more satisfactory, but without having Superman kill him.

puts a lot of story into Clark's parents (all of them)

Sorry if you think I'm being intentionally obtuse, but what do they have to do with anything?

...and there's the idea that adds to Zod's character, the "death by cop" quote.

That was just icing on the cake.

 

[TeeKay]

It's from the Empire interview. Here's the rest of the quote. I can see where you're getting the idea that this is meant to be the ultimate catalyst, but I don't take this as a primary reason (if that makes sense). He also cites the original ending being lackluster, puts a lot of story into Clark's parents (all of them) and there's the idea that adds to Zod's character, the "death by cop" quote.

Funny enough Zod never attemped to kill any humans up until that family in the train station.

 

[herolee10]

Funny enough Zod never attemped to kill any humans up until that family in the train station.

So I guess him destroying most of the people in Metropolis with Black Zero didn't count then huh?

 

[Boy Scout]

So I guess him destroying most of the people in Metropolis with Black Zero didn't count then huh?

Hell naw!

 

[Marvin]

You ignored the context of the situation in order to support your argument.

I asked you when the movie said it was right, you said when he saved the planet. I said ok. Well if that's the determining factor...

If Superman hadn't killed Zod, Zod would have gone on to murder everyone on Earth. Killing him prevented that from taking place. It was justifiable homicide. I'm not sure what's debatable about that.

Easy, is it at all possible that the bad guy forced the good guy into a no win situation where there was no choice that was morally unquestionable?

That's the difference between the best choice and the right choice. Superman made the best choice he could in the situation. The right choice was beyond him.

Because he's a soldier. Superman is not.

So if Cap wasn't a solider, but all other things being equal(superpowered superhero), than he'd be considered a "time bomb" in your book?

What I'm trying to get at is, just because a person is capable of putting someone down, doesn't make them some sort of time time. It makes them a functional moral hero. For some reason when this is applied to superman, it simply doesn't compute without hyperbole.

Not sure what it is about having a "no kill" policy that makes a character two-dimensional, but okay.

It implies no grey area. No degree of compromise and analog. Just two decisions resulting in right or wrong. Kinda like two dimensions. The comics have evolved beyond those days.

I don't even know how to respond to that.

To be honest I'm not surprised.

The point was that batman, a hero with a very clear no kill rule(far clearer than Superman mind you) has been put in positions where the audience didn't know if he was going to kill or not kill the joker based on how far the bad guy pushed him. Resulting in a very interesting tension filled read for the audience.
It's a viable creative logic. Not sure why that doesn't make sense when applied to superman.

 

[MrGreen]

Off-topic:

What do you think of Nikolaj Coster Waldau (Game of Thrones) as Aquaman in the eventual JL movie?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I think he'd be a great choice, if not entirely original.

 

[TeeKay]

So I guess him destroying most of the people in Metropolis with Black Zero didn't count then huh?

I meant when he was threatening Supes "I'm going to make them suffer Kal, these humans you've adopted, I'll take them all from you one by one".

 

[MrGreen]

I think he'd be a great choice, if not entirely original.

I've never seen the suggestion before but anyway, just some random idea I got at work

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Hate to rain on your parade then. But he's been suggested many times over the past few years.

 

[MrGreen]

Hate to rain on your parade then. But he's been suggested many times over the past few years.

Anyway, I just thought it would be a good idea

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

It is a good suggestion because he's a good actor, but you could understand why many people would have thought of it given Jaime Lannister on Game of Thrones. A blonde, bearded nobleman who is fierce in battle, nigh unbeatable, and gets his hand cut off.

On the surface, in a general way, their fairly similar characters.

 

[MrGreen]

It is a good suggestion because he's a good actor, but you could understand why many people would have thought of it given Jaime Lannister on Game of Thrones. A blonde, bearded nobleman who is fierce in battle, nigh unbeatable, and gets his hand cut off.

On the surface, in a general way, their fairly similar characters.

I'm still watching GoT and I didn't know about the hand

 

[herolee10]

I meant when he was threatening Supes "I'm going to make them suffer Kal, these humans you've adopted, I'll take them all from you one by one".

And given the fact that he had just killed most of the people in the city, we knew that he wasn't bluffing and what he was capable of so I don't see why we needed to see him go after countless people while fighting Superman. He wanted to take out Superman first and make Superman die with the notion that no one would be left on Earth to stop him from killing everyone else.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I'm still watching GoT and I didn't know about the hand

Oh, by the old gods and the new, I'm so sorry

 

[Lily Adler]

It's funny that these accidental spoilers always seem to occur on these type of boards, especially when GoT or TWD are on.

 

[Wheels]

The Superman character has evolved over time and the no kill policy has become a staple, but lets not pretend it's always been there. We all know the real reason heroes stopped killing in these books was the Comics Code Authority. Sure the policy was kept around for a lot of heroes but that was the initial reason for it. I mean Superman killing is not preferred by me, but it doesn't go against the character at all. You certainly can't say the filmmakers don't get Superman based on that. They might not get my idea of Superman though.

 

[Boy Scout]

Easy, is it at all possible that the bad guy forced the good guy into a no win situation where there was no choice that was morally unquestionable?

It's possible, but it's also irrelevant.

That's the difference between the best choice and the right choice. Superman made the best choice he could in the situation. The right choice was beyond him.

What are you even saying right now? In this discussion, the situation is everything, and when you consider the situation and what was at stake, Superman made the right choice. Trying to separate the situation from the discussion isn't going to do anything for your argument.

So if Cap wasn't a solider...

But he is.

but all other things being equal(superpowered superhero), than he'd be considered a "time bomb" in your book?

What I said was the way Snyder described him made him sound like a time bomb. Read what I write.

It implies no grey area. No degree of compromise and analog. Just two decisions resulting in right or wrong. Kinda like two dimensions. The comics have evolved beyond those days.

If you say so.

To be honest I'm not surprised.

Good for you.

The point was that batman, a hero with a very clear no kill rule(far clearer than Superman mind you) has been put in positions where the audience didn't know if he was going to kill or not kill the joker based on how far the bad guy pushed him.

Tension was created because the audience was unsure if Batman was capable of taking a life. We didn't know if he would be able to bring himself to kill the Joker, regardless of his actions. Superman, on the other hand, is capable of killing someone. He's done it before. And Snyder always wants us to have that thought in the back of our minds. With Batman, the writers rely on uncertainty to create tension. With Superman, that particular uncertainty doesn't exist, because we know what he's capable of.

Personally, I think that if I have to question if Superman is going to actually go through with killing someone because of his past actions, there's a problem.

Not sure why that doesn't make sense when applied to superman.

I never said it didn't make sense, but nice try.

 

[Lily Adler]

I demand a S/B mad libs!

 

[John Lambert]

I hope if they do cast a Batman love interest, they give her a new name so that she can be cast without regard to ethnicity.

That said, I would really love to see Vicki Vale done in this film. However considering how many purist who do not accept deviations in ethnicity of characters there are, I would not really recommend that course.

The reality is that over half the children born in the US are non-white. People can no longer hold on to insisting on white casts. Anyway, considering how many non-Native Americans have been cast as Native Americans over time, insisting on ethnic accuracy in casting is not going to work.

Anyway, they cast a Hispanic as Susan Storm in Fantastic 4. The boat of casting Hispanic people in basically white roles has already sailed.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

Would love if we got a shot like this in the film.

 

[John-An]

My real problem (in terms of adaptation) is an iteration of Superman who willingly kills is not a good iteration of the character, as Grant Morrison said "Batman fights death, Superman fights the impossible" it's central to their characters.

He did because he had no choice... He chose the family. We saw the reaction that Superman won't do that again and will search the best option... Snyder himself said that...

 

[D.P.]

Would love if we got a shot like this in the film.

That would be amazing.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I would love it if the ending is them becoming true allies. Not any of this uneasy friendship crap of the last 25 years. Imagine if the end is something like say, some kind of powerful metahuman in Gotham, could be from Bat's rogues, up to no good. Bats comes in, sizes things up and says, "Surrender (villain name here)! Don't make me call in my friend." Of course the villain balks, says "What friend, freak?" to Batman. Supes comes crashing through the ceiling landing right next to Batman. "This friend." Side by sid shot of the two getting ready to wreck shop on the bad guys. Then I can die happy.

 

[herolee10]

I would love it if the ending is them becoming true allies. Not any of this uneasy friendship crap of the last 25 years. Imagine if the end is something like say, some kind of powerful metahuman in Gotham, could be from Bat's rogues, up to no good. Bats comes in, sizes things up and says, "Surrender (villain name here)! Don't make me call in my friend." Of course the villain balks, says "What friend, freak?" to Batman. Supes comes crashing through the ceiling landing right next to Batman. "This friend." Side by sid shot of the two getting ready to wreck shop on the bad guys. Then I can die happy.

Considering the tone that they've established with MOS, I doubt that they'd go with an ending like that. I could imagine something like that back during the days when Joel was directing Batman films.lol

I think one of the potential final scenes between them could be Clark visiting Bruce in Gotham, maybe coming upon Bruce as he's paying respects to his parents at the site of their murders and them reaffirming each other in a good way that they have each other's backs in case if either of them faces a situation that's too great for one of them to handle alone.