Justice League Henry Cavill IS Clark Kent/Superman - Part 1

[Logan0327]

i would of preferred superman crashing behind the general ,broke the gun and taking him out of the room through the way he came down

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

i would of preferred superman crashing behind the general ,broke the gun and taking him out of the room through the way he came down

Oh I definitely think they could and should have done it a different way. The way the scene is presented I can see why people think he killed. But there is also enough in the scene to suggest he didn't kill the general as well IMO.

 

[moviefreak]

The talk about Superman killing the warlord is amongst nitpick of the highest order. You knew very well that Superman did not killed the poor guy.

Oh, I forget that you want realism in MOS/BvS and that Superman's interaction with human to conform to our known law of physics. It'll never work --best to keep it in the realm of fantasy.

 

[Jekecy]

Funny, that's my exact reaction to people insisting that someone who went through numerous walls at breakneck speed walked away from it.

You never saw him go through a wall. You saw him from the front, with Superman at a blur going past him and leaving many broken walls at their trail.

The digital versions are out, you're free to show proof that the warlord himself, physically collided with walls which would assuredly have killed him.
This is what I mean when I say people are seeing what they want to see.

I’ve already showed you an example from the comic books where Superman has carried one person in one hand, and stuck out his other. It’s one of the quintessential poses next to the hands on the hips.

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen someone outright ignore it, or dismiss it as even a sliver of a possibility.

There’s not a single mention from Clark, Lois, or the others that he killed the guy. You don’t think that would be a gross oversight, especially considering they took the time to show Clark’s immediate remorse with Zod, the very dialog “I didn’t kill those people, if that’s what they’re saying”, and how the main plot involves consequences of Superman’s actions?

There’s a lot of logical gaps you have to gloss right over in order to jump to this conclusion. This is either stubbornness at play, or an insistence to add another tally mark to the “wrongdoings” Snyder has made with the character (like we need any more).

 

[Rowsdower!]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I don't think it was supposed to imply that Superman killed that guy. HOWEVER, given the controversy that surrounded Superman killing Zod in MOS (something I had no problem with but I know it was a divisive move) and the promise by Zack that Superman would "never" kill again because of how awful it made him feel, it's a little jarring that the FIRST scene we see Superman in BvS requires the viewer to do mental gymnastics to explain how he DIDN'T kill someone.

 

[Nemeres]

Exactly. At worst Superman knocked the wind out of the General while scaring the piss out of him for pulling a gun on his girl.

The assumption is that Supes' forearms and shoulders made contact with the wall while the General was protected by Superman.

I get it, but it doesn't fly with me. My reached conclusion is also the easiest to assume. "Man gets hit by object at high speed strongly enough to be driven through walls. Bones break. He dies." The alternative requires too much fill-in logic, as proven by the discussion above. After the MOS kerfuffle, there was no reason for this to be an ambiguous issue, and realizing that would've made this a stronger film.

 

[Logan0327]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I don't think it was supposed to imply that Superman killed that guy. HOWEVER, given the controversy that surrounded Superman killing Zod in MOS (something I had no problem with but I know it was a divisive move) and the promise by Zack that Superman would "never" kill again because of how awful it made him feel, it's a little jarring that the FIRST scene we see Superman in BvS requires the viewer to do mental gymnastics to explain how he DIDN'T kill someone.

yup it was in poor taste it felt like a scene where zack said this looks cool instead of actually thinking about what supermen as a character would do

it was too violent i liked the film but that scene annoyed me

 

[Jekecy]

We don't have to go through mental gymnastics. Again, Clark says "I didn't kill those people" 2 scenes later. Not a single person or event brings it up. Logic dictates you take it at face value.

The only reason this discussion has kept going is because people insist otherwise. So the other side is entertaining it in detail. I've said it before but this topic is unnecessary and a time waster. Fortunately I'm at work, so...

 

[Flint Marko]

You never saw him go through a wall. You saw him from the front, with Superman at a blur going past him and leaving many broken walls at their trail.

Conversely, we don't see Superman taking the brunt of the impact or sticking his hand out or anything.

The digital versions are out, you're free to show proof that the warlord himself, physically collided with walls which would assuredly have killed him.
This is what I mean when I say people are seeing what they want to see.

You're free to show proof as well.
This is what I mean when I say people are seeing what they want to see.

I’ve already showed you an example from the comic books where Superman has carried one person in one hand, and stuck out his other. It’s one of the quintessential poses next to the hands on the hips.

And that does nothing to inform this discussion. I'm debating the contents of the film itself.

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen someone outright ignore it, or dismiss it as even a sliver of a possibility.

I'm not dismissing it as a possiblity, but I'm saying there's nothing in the film to make us think this took place.

There’s not a single mention from Clark, Lois, or the others that he killed the guy. You don’t think that would be a gross oversight, especially considering they took the time to show Clark’s immediate remorse with Zod, the very dialog “I didn’t kill those people, if that’s what they’re saying”, and how the main plot involves consequences of Superman’s actions?

There's also not a single mention of Zod's death in Man of Steel or BvS. Does that mean he didn't die?
"Those men" doesn't refer to the terrorist who was put through a wall. In the theatrical cut, this was referring to either the villagers who were killed once Superman left the power vacuum, or the men killed by Lex's goons. I'd be curious to see how/if the UC illuminates this because as it stands "those men" only refers to the deaths that Superman is being held accountable for - and again, why would he be held accountable for killing a terrorist who murdered an FBI agent and was threatening to kill an American citizen?

There’s a lot of logical gaps you have to gloss right over in order to jump to this conclusion. This is either stubbornness at play, or an insistence to add another tally mark to the “wrongdoings” Snyder has made with the character (like we need any more).

Actually my logic holds up - Superman has killed before, so there's no reason to believe a guy being plummeted at breakneck speed through a wall would walk away from that.
This bears repeating: Superman kills. Why are we to believe he won't do that again? Please answer this question.

 

[Logan0327]

^so your saying superman is lying???

 

[BlueLanternKal]

^so your saying superman is lying???

Obviously!! He's a filthy f***ing liar that murders civillains for fun and who uses his superpowers to get away with it.

C'mon man, you should know this by now!! Man of Murder .

 

[Jekecy]

You're free to show proof as well.
This is what I mean when I say people are seeing what they want to see.

The onus is on you to prove something, especially when it directly conflicts with the one line that addresses the entire event; "I didn't kill those people if that's what they're saying".

There's also not a single mention of Zod's death in Man of Steel or BvS. Does that mean he didn't die?

Are we going to ignore the dead body which was prominently featured? I don't see what your point is here. Zod's death was taken care of previously already.

"Those men" doesn't refer to the terrorist who was put through a wall. In the theatrical cut, this was referring to either the villagers who were killed once Superman left the power vacuum, or the men killed by Lex's goons. I'd be curious to see how/if the UC illuminates this because as it stands "those men" only refers to the deaths that Superman is being held accountable for - and again, why would he be held accountable for killing a terrorist who murdered an FBI agent and was threatening to kill an American citizen?

I don't think you've actually examined how senseless this supposition is. The terrorists were under the warlord's command. They're going to grill Superman on the death of the henchmen, but the (supposed murder of the) sole individual they answer to they'll just brush under the rug? That's not how foreign affairs work and it completely ignores the world conflict in Superman's 'unilateral decisions'.

If Superman in fact took out a terrorist leader, that's a highlight for his questioning. Not simply rushing in to save Lois and some thugs and villagers dying because of said intervention.

This bears repeating: Superman kills. Why are we to believe he won't do that again? Please answer this question.

What's there to answer, that's not the focal point of this discussion. You're introducing a hypothetical, I was under the impression (per your own words) we were discussing the contents of the film. Warlord demise was never referenced nor explicitly depicted, so it doesn't exist.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Did someone really just say there was no mention of Zod's death in MoS or BvS?

...lawd.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

Man you guys are all over the place on this...

Jimmy Olsen - CIA jackal. Not FBI.

Nairobi Leader - Seperatist General. Not warlord. In fact that was the whole point of Lois' interview. To determine whether or not these guys were terrorists and to let the American public know one way or another.

Drones - were most likely operated by CIA personnel.

CIA "good guys" on ground - were trying to get to the action to mitigate civilian casualties.

Mercanaries and Knayazev - worked for Lex Luthor were "loaned" as protection to Nairobi General as private contractors and were the only combatants with experimental rounds. They were there to frame Superman.

The soldiers/rebels - under the Nairobi General's command. They were protecting dissident civilians from the official government of Nairobi.

US - supposedly neutral to both sides of the conflict, but were trying to get Jimmy Olsen inside to broker with Nairobi General.

Official Nairobi government - ?? Likely a dictatorship if they did in fact massacre dissident non-combatants after Superman and CIA left.

 

[Black Narcissus]

^so your saying superman is lying???

Lawd.

 

[Sawyer]

^so your saying superman is lying???

*You're

 

[Black Narcissus]

*You're

 

[Miss Lois Lane]

There are more people invested in theories about The Wall on BvS threads than on entire Game of Thrones forums.

The crashy-through-wall guy is Schrödinger's Warlord. Like the film - he's alive! Hate the film - he's dead! The argument is going nowhere.

Can we all just take a moment to stop and objectify respectfully admire Henry Cavill?

Bonus: I was going through old gifs and found this one from ComiC Con 2013, quite amusing in retrospect t:

 

[Quasimod0]

Well in BvS, he can't smile or talk at all. Forget about both at the same time.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Well in BvS, he can't smile or talk at all. Forget about both at the same time.

Savage.

 

[Verick808]

Ah, the Wall. It's a pointless discussion that belongs in the BvS forums. Anyone who still believes Superman killed that guy, especially if they have seen the ultimate cut, is clearly believing what they want to and your not going to change there mind.

 

[Primal Slayer]

There are more people invested in theories about The Wall on BvS threads than on entire Game of Thrones forums.

The crashy-through-wall guy is Schrödinger's Warlord. Like the film - he's alive! Hate the film - he's dead! The argument is going nowhere.

Can we all just take a moment to stop and objectify respectfully admire Henry Cavill?

Bonus: I was going through old gifs and found this one from ComiC Con 2013, quite amusing in retrospect t:

 

[Angel0fDeath]

 

[BMCAABY]

Scientifically even Lois would die when Superman flies to save her….

 

[BlueLanternKal]

Scientifically even Lois would die when Superman flies to save her….

Actually this is another of Snyder's wins. If you notice every time Clark catches her he deccelarates under her so that the intertia/whip lash doesn't kill her.