BvS The Official Zack Snyder Directs Everything Thread

[InJustice]

Superman didn't kill Zod, the scene where they're taken by the police was deleted in the Theatrical version, but has been present in most other versions of the film.

The police scene wasn't present in the original SII cut I saw on TV, nor the Donner's cut.

 

[Herolee10]

Agreed. As others have said, if it's not in the theatrical cut, then it's not canon. Plus, let's not forget on what superman did to his evil clone and nuclear man

 

[I Am The Knight]

Eh, who cares if Superman killed Zod in Superman II or not. That has no bearing on Superman having to kill Zod in MOS. Every day I see the same crap in here. "Well he killed Zod in SII!" followed by another poster saying "But not in the obscure version of the film I saw!". It doesn't matter. Either defend or criticize the killing of Zod in MOS based on what was presented in Snyder's film. I believe Snyder himself said that he approached MOS as if there had never been a Superman movie made before.

 

[Guts]

he also killed zod in the comics.

 

[MrsKent26]

Eh, who cares if Superman killed Zod in Superman II or not. That has no bearing on Superman having to kill Zod in MOS. Every day I see the same crap in here. "Well he killed Zod in SII!" followed by another poster saying "But not in the obscure version of the film I saw!". It doesn't matter. Either defend or criticize the killing of Zod in MOS based on what was presented in Snyder's film. I believe Snyder himself said that he approached MOS as if there had never been a Superman movie made before.

I won't speak for everyone else, but I didn't bring up Superman killing Zod in Superman 2 as a reason for why it's fine that he did it in MOS. My point was that some people judge MOS supes harshly for killing Zod and don't judge Reeve supes for doing the same. I've heard MOS supes called a murderer on a number of occasions and rarely hear it about Reeve Supes.

 

[Lencho01]

Superman needed to kill Zod to know that killing is wrong?

Yes, because you have to try something to realize you don't like it. Sorta like eating certain foods. t:

 

[Masone]

No hero has a true no-kill rule. Every hero that apparently has that rule would do the same as Superman. It's just convenient writing that they are able to avoid those types of situations. That type of situation arises so many times in everyday life, like what was mentioned before, cops deal with it, soldiers deal with it.

It's amazing that so many heroes have been able to avoid situations like that, especially with such insane murderous villains. *rolleyes*

Convenient writing.

I'm glad Snyder and Goyer decided to break that BS convenience and have a villain really put the hero to a test.

 

[Harley2004]

I don't not know why he even has to address that, that he snapped Zod's neck. The fact that Superman and Zod leveled a city, I would think is what Lex and maybe even Batman for that matter will make him answer for.

 

[Guts]

I won't speak for everyone else, but I didn't bring up Superman killing Zod in Superman 2 as a reason for why it's fine that he did it in MOS. My point was that some people judge MOS supes harshly for killing Zod and don't judge Reeve supes for doing the same. I've heard MOS supes called a murderer on a number of occasions and rarely hear it about Reeve Supes.

especially when the reeves superman did it with a smile on his face.

 

[DA_Champion]

Zack Snyder originally changed the ending because he found it unsatisfying, the way Zod just fell into the phantom zone.

I think the stuff about "origin of the no-kill rule" is retroactive BS, maybe from Goyer.

 

[InJustice]

I won't speak for everyone else, but I didn't bring up Superman killing Zod in Superman 2 as a reason for why it's fine that he did it in MOS. My point was that some people judge MOS supes harshly for killing Zod and don't judge Reeve supes for doing the same. I've heard MOS supes called a murderer on a number of occasions and rarely hear it about Reeve Supes.

Exactly. If anything, it's worse that it happened in SII because of the tonal shift from killing to happy-go-lucky. That was seriously disturbing.

 

[EssayM]

I think the reason people care less about the SII death than the one in MoS has to do with tone. Zod's death in SII was a silly, comic-booky thing; it's completely bloodless, and by comic book logic he could totally have survived it (We don't see him hit the bottom of the pit or anything). By contrast, the death scene in MoS (which part I actually have seen, because spoilers are for wusses ) is much more visceral and brutal, and not nearly as triumphant. If it was something like Supes throwing Zod into the Phantom Zone or something less gruesome, it probably would have gone over better.

Perhaps an improved ending (from a writing standpoint, from what you guys are saying the scene was supposed to accomplish) would maybe be to cut out the family and instead have Supes almost deliver a death blow to Zod...only to pull back and walk away at the last second, showing that he refuses to kill. Zod doesn't accept the surrender and lunges at Supes, but somehow accidentally offs himself in his determination (I don't know, crashes into something or whatnot). Supes doesn't have to kill, Zod's determination is still illustrated, and the threat is still ended.

Or maybe I'm just an idiot.

 

[Masone]

I think the reason people care less about the SII death than the one in MoS has to do with tone. Zod's death in SII was a silly, comic-booky thing; it's completely bloodless, and by comic book logic he could totally have survived it (We don't see him hit the bottom of the pit or anything). By contrast, the death scene in MoS (which part I actually have seen, because spoilers are for wusses ) is much more visceral and brutal, and not nearly as triumphant. If it was something like Supes throwing Zod into the Phantom Zone or something less gruesome, it probably would have gone over better.

Perhaps an improved ending (from a writing standpoint, from what you guys are saying the scene was supposed to accomplish) would maybe be to cut out the family and instead have Supes almost deliver a death blow to Zod...only to pull back and walk away at the last second, showing that he refuses to kill. Zod doesn't accept the surrender and lunges at Supes, but somehow accidentally offs himself in his determination (I don't know, crashes into something or whatnot). Supes doesn't have to kill, Zod's determination is still illustrated, and the threat is still ended.

Or maybe I'm just an idiot.

That's just convenient writing. All you've done is remove the situation entirely and changed it to something completely different. All that tells you is that Superman is against killing, it doesn't tell you why and it doesn't answer whether he'd kill under the right circumstances and what kind of effect would come from him being forced to do something he didn't want to do. I'm more interested in the effects and stories that come from killing than seeing that same old, tired scene where the hero can conveniently stick to his morals because the writers conveniently put him in a situation where there were other options. As if there are always other options.

And it sounds really similar to Goku vs Frieza.

 

[InJustice]

I think the reason people care less about the SII death than the one in MoS has to do with tone. Zod's death in SII was a silly, comic-booky thing; it's completely bloodless, and by comic book logic he could totally have survived it (We don't see him hit the bottom of the pit or anything). By contrast, the death scene in MoS (which part I actually have seen, because spoilers are for wusses ) is much more visceral and brutal, and not nearly as triumphant. If it was something like Supes throwing Zod into the Phantom Zone or something less gruesome, it probably would have gone over better.

Perhaps an improved ending (from a writing standpoint, from what you guys are saying the scene was supposed to accomplish) would maybe be to cut out the family and instead have Supes almost deliver a death blow to Zod...only to pull back and walk away at the last second, showing that he refuses to kill. Zod doesn't accept the surrender and lunges at Supes, but somehow accidentally offs himself in his determination (I don't know, crashes into something or whatnot). Supes doesn't have to kill, Zod's determination is still illustrated, and the threat is still ended.

Or maybe I'm just an idiot.

The scene in SII was brutal. Prior to Superman throwing Zod onto the pit, he depowered Zod and broke his hand. As for comic book logic, nothing in the movie lets you know that they survived, so you're led to believe that Zod, Ursa, and Non are dead (anything other than theatrical cut is not canon). SII's scene was visceral considering that SII's Superman was doing it out of revenge and spite. I don't know how you could say the Zod death scene in Man of Steel was visceral considering he had a choice: let Zod live and allow him to continue his rampage, or kill Zod and save the family. He had plenty of reason to do what he did.

 

[DA_Champion]

Oh, people did get it, it was just very poorly done. Look around and you'll see plenty of films with similar structure that are vastly better handled.

That's actually not true. The vast majority of viewers had no idea that the movie was about sweet pea and not baby doll, let alone the less obvious things.

Yeah, I would agree with that. It's the "real world" story where that movie fails, miserably. Oscar Isaac does what he can in the villain role, but it isn't enough to save it.

There's no real-world in Sucker Punch, the whole thing is made up of dream layers, unlike say 300 where the last 1% of the movie was in the real world.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Exactly. If anything, it's worse that it happened in SII because of the tonal shift from killing to happy-go-lucky. That was seriously disturbing.

Come on now. It wasn't disturbing at all. It was a quickie villain defeat that I didn't even categorize as a kill as a kid or adult. Zod and company fell into fog.

 

[EssayM]

That's just convenient writing. All you've done is remove the situation entirely and changed it to something completely different. All that tells you is that Superman is against killing, it doesn't tell you why and it doesn't answer whether he'd kill under the right circumstances and what kind of effect would come from him being forced to do something he didn't want to do. I'm more interested in the effects and stories that come from killing than seeing that same old, tired scene where the hero can conveniently stick to his morals because the writers conveniently put him in a situation where there were other options. As if there are always other options.

Sometimes people like convenient endings, particularly if they're triumphant (see Avengers and Pacific Rim). And from what I've heard (again...I really need to watch this movie), they don't really do what you're saying with it either.

And it sounds really similar to Goku vs Frieza.

And that's a bad thing?! (DBZ fan over here). Plus the action was pretty DBZ-esque anyway, might as well go all the way. Would've been better than DBE.

 

[InJustice]

Come on now. It wasn't disturbing at all. It was a quickie villain defeat that I didn't even categorize as a kill as a kid or adult. Zod and company fell into fog.

It is disturbing. The movie goes from Superman cracking Zod's hand and throwing him into the pit, to walking with Lois with a smile on their face. The tone shift is jarring and non-sensical.

Like I said, there is nothing in the movie to let you know that Zod, Ursa, and Non survived so it's not like it's absolutely ridiculous to assume Zod et al are dead, it's plausible.

 

[Masone]

Sometimes people like convenient endings, particularly if they're triumphant (see Avengers and Pacific Rim). And from what I've heard (again...I really need to watch this movie), they don't really do what you're saying with it either.

Actually it does. It tells us what kind of effect it would have on Superman(him breaking down) and it lays the groundwork for him being so against killing, always trying to find another way. What we get in MOS 2 will tell us even more about the kind of effect it had no him. That scene accomplishes all those things.

Having yet another convenient ending to a villain where the hero conveniently doesn't have to kill is boring. Don't care what those minority wanted, the movie turned out better because of it.

Notice how the group of criticizers of that scene can't even attack what happened in the scene itself, can only attack the writing for not being convenient. They are in agreement that Superman had no choice, but criticize the writer and director for putting Superman in that situation. Convenient things like all the villains being miraculously subdued by a black hole doesn't happen in the real world, and they don't conveniently fall on their own swords in the nick of time either. When there are no other options, you have to do what you have to do. Now let's see how Superman grows from it.

Another thing that accomplishes is that now villains have another avenue to attack Superman. I'd love to see Manchester Black as the guy that plays off that and puts Superman to the test. We can really find out about Superman's morals with Manchester Black as the villain.

 

[DA_Champion]

It's the tone that's different in MoS, not the developments. The Superman kill rubbed a lot of people the wrong way because it is emphasised, and then he feels guilty afterwards. People want to see Superman happy, not guilty.

Some of you will answer now "oh but that makes people hypocritical", well no ****. People are hypocritical, they like to pretend that there is no evil in the world, and if you tell them about evil they stick their head in the sand.

A superman movie that indulges people and tells them what they want to hear would have done better. This is a thing with Zack Snyder... he doesn't tell people what they want to hear.

 

[I Am The Knight]

It is disturbing. The movie goes from Superman cracking Zod's hand and throwing him into the pit, to walking with Lois with a smile on their face. The tone shift is jarring and non-sensical.

Like I said, there is nothing in the movie to let you know that Zod, Ursa, and Non survived so it's not like it's absolutely ridiculous to assume Zod et al are dead, it's plausible.

I believe the Williams theme starts to play when Superman reveals that he tricked Zod and company. That's probably the most triumphant piece of music for a superhero, ever. It doesn't play as a shocking or disturbing scene. There is no jarring tonal shift. Zod and company fall into fog. Wheter they live or die is up to you, really. It's kinda glossed over to be honest, and I doubt Donner intended for people to have debates about it. It was still a comic book movie at the end of the day, and not everything was meant to be taken terribly seriously. Except you have, for some reason.

 

[EssayM]

It's the tone that's different in MoS, not the developments. The Superman kill rubbed a lot of people the wrong way because it is emphasised, and then he feels guilty afterwards. People want to see Superman happy, not guilty.

Some of you will answer now "oh but that makes people hypocritical", well no ****. People are hypocritical, they like to pretend that there is no evil in the world, and if you tell them about evil they stick their head in the sand.

A superman movie that indulges people and tells them what they want to hear would have done better. This is a thing with Zack Snyder... he doesn't tell people what they want to hear.

I'll give you that the tone was a key factor in people's reactions, but...Zack Snyder "doesn't tell people what they want to hear"? I just...no.

 

[Lencho01]

Superman doesn't always have to come off as happy. I don't think people had a problem with Superman feeling guilty about killing. Just that not much reflection came from it, which leads me to think they didn't change the ending of the film to work with it. The ending we got seems it would've worked better if they stuck with Zod going into the PZ with the others.

 

[Masone]

It's the tone that's different in MoS, not the developments. The Superman kill rubbed a lot of people the wrong way because it is emphasised, and then he feels guilty afterwards. People want to see Superman happy, not guilty.

Some of you will answer now "oh but that makes people hypocritical", well no ****. People are hypocritical, they like to pretend that there is no evil in the world, and if you tell them about evil they stick their head in the sand.

A superman movie that indulges people and tells them what they want to hear would have done better. This is a thing with Zack Snyder... he doesn't tell people what they want to hear.

The majority of the people liked that scene.

 

[DA_Champion]

I'll give you that the tone was a key factor in people's reactions, but...Zack Snyder "doesn't tell people what they want to hear"? I just...no.

Did you watch MoS and read the reviews?

Zack Snyder presented a Superman who couldn't save everybody, whereas for a lot of people the whole point of Superman is that he can save everybody.

All of Snyder's endings that I can recall are imperfect not completely happy endings.