BvS The Official Zack Snyder Directs Everything Thread

[Masone]

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.

Majority of people liked it.

 

[InJustice]

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.

DA_Champion has a point. Zack isn't the type of director to "follow the grain," so to speak. His preference is more towards upsetting the status quo.

 

[roach]

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.

Films are not about telling people what they want to hear

 

[DA_Champion]

Films are not about telling people what they want to hear

The majority of Hollywood films are actually, even moreso the successful ones.

 

[InJustice]

As much as films are supposed to be about telling people what they don't want to hear, many films end up telling people what they want to hear anyways.

Theatre is a much better forum for upsetting entertainment (as oxymoronic as it sounds. Even then, critics ***** about certain aspects of a play being too violent, disturbing etc., so much so that they miss the message).

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

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 really do think that Superman Returns stirred up a lot of people to want Superman to be PERFECT in the next film.

If Zod's killing didn't mean so much to Superman (and I'm not the one who demanded Superman to verbally acknowledge it-I'm kind of glad he didn't [it's a film, and key moments should be able to convey a lot of information]*ducks for cover*) then it would be just another hero killing the villain. It wouldn't feel significant, and people wouldn't dwell on it as much.

I still say it was a "third film decision" in a first-installment. It'd be like having Spider-Man realize the intensity of Harry Osbourne's rivalry early on in the Raimi films. I personally think Harry's arc unfolds the most organically in the whole trilogy, even 3, though I could do without the random butler showing up. Wouldn't it have been a lot more powerful for Harry fly in a hospital, prompting Spiderman to chase him, only for Harry to escape with the medical report?

 

[Lencho01]

If they really wanted to explore Superman's aversion to killing, it would've been cool to have seen the process of how with all his powers, he's pretty much watching everyone die around him. His powers, values, and morals are what helps him to view the world differently from everyone else that all sentient life is precious to him however evil it may be.

And if they were going to route of both Kents being dead, how that affects his relationship with people. The two people who fully truly knew him are gone and whether he realizes it, turns him into a loner. With everyone else, he's either Superman or Clark Kent, never both. This could've also tied into his relationship with Batman (and Alfred & Robin) and how much he trusts them who sorta replace the Kents as his new family being in the know of him 100% . Superman's the real loner, not Batman since he keeps people at arms length for the most part due to the fear of losing them.

But, I don't think that'll ever happen with any future live-action Supermen and probably not as effectively with the MOS Superman. So, whatever.

 

[Herolee10]

The dark knight spent most of the film emphasizing on how batman didn't kill people and yet he pushes Harvey to his death at the end in order to save Gordon's son.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ But that movie was strong, so it doesn't matter.



I think it all goes down to preconceptions. Throwing out MoleMan and Bat66, Superman's first movie had him avoiding physical conflicts. Batman's had him blowing up a factory.

So then, subconsciously, Superman is thought of as a pacifist, and Batman a warrior. And the truth is that Batman generally isn't a reckless militaristic brawler, and Superman often has to fight characters that share (or outmatch) his power levels.

 

[DA_Champion]

The dark knight spent most of the film emphasizing on how batman didn't kill people and yet he pushes Harvey to his death at the end in order to save Gordon's son.

That's not a plot hole, it's actually well-done.

It shows that the Joker has won, that Batman has been comprehensively defeated. He keeps giving ground throughout the movie and at the end Batman not only kills, but he kills Harvey Dent.

Batman killing Harvey is well-integrated into the movie and into the overall story. The repercussions continue into TDKR.

 

[Herolee10]

Yeah, I'm betting that if mos was seen as a overall great film by fans and critics alike, ppl wouldnt bring this issue as much

 

[Herolee10]

That's not a plot hole, it's actually well-done.

It shows that the Joker has won, that Batman has been comprehensively defeated. He keeps giving ground throughout the movie and at the end Batman not only kills, but he kills Harvey Dent.

Batman killing Harvey is well-integrated into the movie and into the overall story. The repercussions continue into TDKR.

And batman letting ra's to die, shooting talia's driver, and driving talia into her fatal accident, what are the story reasons for those?

 

[DA_Champion]

And batman letting ra's to die, shooting talia's driver, and driving talia into her fatal accident, what are the story reasons for those?

Those are weaker stories.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

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.

If such an act was to take place in the real world, many would indeed find it somewhat disturbing. However, stories (especially fictional works) presented in the colorful world of cinema are subject to different rules/laws.

As others have already suggested, tone is a significant factor. A film protagonist isn't judged solely by his/her actions. Although Reeve's Superman retaliates against Zod in brutal fashion, the way the scene unfolds, it's as if he's doing something incredibly heroic. Everything from the camera angle to the particular choice of song used at the precise moment Zod's hand is crushed contributes to the message that's being conveyed over celluloid.

Don't get me wrong: smart people won't be fooled. We'll always see what the studios want us to miss. The thing is, they aren't really concerned with those who look to scrutinize/analyze their films. At least they weren't back then -- in the seventies and early eighties.

 

[Masone]

If they really wanted to explore Superman's aversion to killing, it would've been cool to have seen the process of how with all his powers, he's pretty much watching everyone die around him. His powers, values, and morals are what helps him to view the world differently from everyone else that all sentient life is precious to him however evil it may be.

Best way to do it is with a villain that pushes him to his limits, like Ra's and the Joker. Someone that will specifically test the hero so their morals are at the forefront. With Ra's it was about Batman not doing what needed to be done, with Joker it was about pushing Batman to the edge of his limits in the wake of all the destruction and deaths.

They have the perfect setup with MOS for a villain that pushes Superman to his limits and tests his morals. Lex, Manchester Black, Darkseid, so much potential.

 

[Lencho01]

Best way to do it is with a villain that pushes him to his limits, like Ra's and the Joker. Someone that will specifically test the hero so their morals are at the forefront. With Ra's it was about Batman not doing what needed to be done, with Joker it was about pushing Batman to the edge of his limits in the wake of all the destruction and deaths.

They have the perfect setup with MOS for a villain that pushes Superman to his limits and tests his morals. Lex, Manchester Black, Darkseid, so much potential.

Not really. You can show how he feels about killing without having to push any limits through what he says and his actions.

 

[Mysteryman]

Michael Bay is a much worse director than Zack Snyder, we are in agreement on that.

ME Three!

 

[Masone]

Not really. You can show how he feels about killing without having to push any limits through what he says and his actions.

You can, but the best way is to do it in relation to the villain's doings.

 

[Lencho01]

You can, but the best way is to do it in relation to the villain's doings.

I don't understand why you feel that's the best way. But, whatever.

 

[serendipity]

I think the problem with the no-killing rule is that realistically, the hero can't be expected to always abide by that rule perfectly. Otherwise it's moral absolutism. Superman clearly didn't want to have to kill Zod, but there was no other way to stop him. I realize that was a conscious decision by Snyder & Goyer, but it felt way more meaningful to me than if he had just sent Zod into the Phantom Zone or something.

Then again, I'm not a big Superman fan, so maybe that has something to do with why I don't have an issue with it.

 

[gonza_sf]

I think the problem with the no-killing rule is that realistically, the hero can't be expected to always abide by that rule perfectly. Otherwise it's moral absolutism. Superman clearly didn't want to have to kill Zod, but there was no other way to stop him. I realize that was a conscious decision by Snyder & Goyer, but it felt way more meaningful to me than if he had just sent Zod into the Phantom Zone or something.

Then again, I'm not a big Superman fan, so maybe that has something to do with why I don't have an issue with it.

I with you 100% and i am a huge Superman fan. I was shocked by that scene, but it felt righteous and somehow it felt good. Superman barely exists in man of steel. Maybe the killing of Zod, is what ignites the no-killing rule for him.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Part of me wishes they'd just abandon the "no kill rule" for Superman and Batman in the movies. Because it just creates problems anyway. I love Nolan's Bat-trilogy, don't get me wrong... but it almost seemed silly to establish the no-kill rule there because it just creates goofy scenarios. Batman won't kill Ra's, but he'll leave him to die on a train that's about to crash because of things that HE set in motion (which, if you ask me, is pretty much the same thing as killing him). Batman won't kill the Joker, but he'll kill Harvey Dent in the next scene (yeah, it was an accident but still... he had the presence of mind to save the Joker's life, but not Harvey's?). Bruce wouldn't kill that farmer to appease the League of Shadows, but he destroyed their lair, killing most of them and probably killing the farmer anyway.

Now, I'm not saying that they should go the Tim Burton route and just have Batman kill EVERYONE he comes in contact with but maybe relaxing the no-kill rule a bit would be the character's benefit, I don't know.

 

[InJustice]

Part of me wishes they'd just abandon the "no kill rule" for Superman and Batman in the movies. Because it just creates problems anyway. I love Nolan's Bat-trilogy, don't get me wrong... but it almost seemed silly to establish the no-kill rule there because it just creates goofy scenarios. Batman won't kill Ra's, but he'll leave him to die on a train that's about to crash because of things that HE set in motion (which, if you ask me, is pretty much the same thing as killing him). Batman won't kill the Joker, but he'll kill Harvey Dent in the next scene (yeah, it was an accident but still... he had the presence of mind to save the Joker's life, but not Harvey's?). Bruce wouldn't kill that farmer to appease the League of Shadows, but he destroyed their lair, killing most of them and probably killing the farmer anyway.

Now, I'm not saying that they should go the Tim Burton route and just have Batman kill EVERYONE he comes in contact with but maybe relaxing the no-kill rule a bit would be the character's benefit, I don't know.

I agree. If Nolan/Goyer didn't spend a lot of time developing Bruce's aversion to killing, only to contradict the aversion, then I would have no problem with the events that happened in TDKT, since it's ******** to limit a hero from killing. It's like I said before, is a police officer morally dubious if he/she accepted killing as an option to neutralize the offender?

I get that comic book movies are supposed to be a hyperidealized world, and that no-kill rule is part of the ideal, but to expect the hero to live up to the no-kill ideal in a realistic world is non-sense.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, it is a bit silly, especially for a character like Batman who doesn't have superpowers to fall back on.

 

[DA_Champion]

Notice that every single marvel character has discarded the no-kill rule and the secret identity.