Justice League Zack Snyder Directing Justice League - Part 6

[heatvision38]

That's great. If that doesn't illustrate the differences between the two...

 

[heatvision38]

To bad Snyder ruined it by making her the anti-Uncle Ben. "You don't owe them anything". Umm, I prefer the "with great power comes great responsibility" as opposed to the "Let a busload of kids die maybe" and "with great power comes no responsibility, feel free to be a terrible person it's ok" of Snyder's ma and pa kent.

Except none of this is what actually happened.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It would've been painful for me as a viewer, though. I wouldn't want to hear Clark tell anyone -- promise anyone -- that he would never kill a threat like Zod again. He killed Zod because he was a deadly threat that could not be contained by the resources available to Superman at the time. If someone like that were to happen again, I would want Superman to kill again. I wouldn't want him putting his own desire to avoid feeling bad over the lives of others. Clark did the right thing and said the right thing to Lois: he didn't kill anyone in the desert.

The principles Superman would apply post-Zod would be the principle of doing everything you can to prevent a Zod situation from happening again, and if it happens again, do everything possible to avoid killing. BvS puts Superman in this position via Lex's ultimatum. Superman considers the possibility of killing Batman to save Martha, but he doesn't kill Bruce. That is the only principle to which Superman should hold himself accountable.

This was Snyder's intention:

"I wanted to create a situation where Superman has gotta do what he’s gotta do or he is going to see these people get chopped in half. And I think Zod knows that. It’s almost like suicide in a way, it’s like death by cop. If Kal has the ability to kill him then that’s a noble way for him to die. It’s echoes the ‘A good death is its own reward’ concept in a movie, and if there were more adventures for Superman in the future, you now don’t know 100 percent what he’s gonna do. When you really put the concept that he won’t kill in stone and you really erase it as an option in the viewer’s mind, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a code.

“But again you’ll always have this thing in the back of your mind. This little thing of… ‘How far can you push him? If he sees Lois get hurt or he sees something like his mother get killed… you just made Superman really mad. A Superman that we know is capable of some really horrible stuff if he wants to do it. That’s the thing that’s cool about him I think, in some ways, the idea that he has the frailties of a human emotionally but you don’t wanna get that guy mad…"

I know Zack's intent, but intent doesn't matter if the audience is confused. With film, if a large percentage of the audience does not catch the message, that says there was an issue communicating with the audience. So while that may have been painful for you on one hand, I do think it woukd have helped the movie overall. Intent is great, but film is all about communicating that to your audience. This is an area I feel Snyder needs to improve. There is much I liked about his efforts with the DCEU, but on the whole, this was his biggest area of improvement, IMO

 

[heatvision38]

She literally lists all the good things he can be and then says "or don't. You don't owe them anything". It's the exact opposite thing that Uncle Ben said. If the "great power" line is at all admirable then she is a bad person for telling her son the opposite.

As for the previous poster, yeah he was going for making her more human, but instead he just made her a worse person. They could have made Captain America "more human" by the same logic if he'd flipped off the president in Civil War except that part of what makes many comic characters what they are is that they are people who are constantly trying to do the right thing. Snyder just doesn't like those kinds of characters, which one of the reasons why he was so wrong to write/direct these characters.

Comparisons between Captain America and Superman can only go so far. The same for Superman and Spider-Man. Superman is a super powerful alien viewed like a god by many, who can bend the world to his favor if he so chooses, or inspire others on a global scale. Neither Cap nor Spider-Man have even a fraction of the power or background Superman does, and therefore don't come with a fraction of the complicated choices that a being like Superman would come with.

Martha (who I am sure was having a tough time seeing her son be treated so poorly in recent months despite his best efforts to be a hero) tells Clark that whatever he does, it should be because he chooses to, not because he is expected to. "With great power comes great responsibility," at least the way it seems you are interpreting that line, is essentially telling someone that you should do something and if you don't, well, then you aren't being a good person. That can put a lot of pressure on an individual. What Martha was doing was saying, "Hey, I support you either way, whatever decision you make, with your amazing gifts, I support you." I also truly believe in her heart of hearts, she knew her son well enough that she knew what he was going to do. It was just her way of letting him know that it's his choice and she supports him, that her love for him will always be unconditional, that around her, he is still just Clark.

 

[heatvision38]

Contextually, Martha is pretty clearly saying that he should decide what Superman represents, and how he operates. She is not telling him not to save people at all. The scene is presented in the context of the films' conflict, which is not about whether he should save people, but what he should represent for them.

That's why the writers present it via her phrasing the issue as three different things he can represent if he so chooses:

-Hero
-Angel
-Monument

and not as a moral issue. She's basically telling him that it's up to him whether he decides to be a symbol to the world now that he's revealed himself.

It's not an accident that the two scenes where he talks to his loved ones about the issues he's facing end up being placed in the context of the future of Superman as a symbol in the world.

It's not really in the context of "don't save people anymore", it's about whether he should "answer" to what others want or expect of him. I think it's pretty unlikely he'd just stop saving people in general regardless of what she says or wants. He's been doing it since he was a child.

This. I think people forget the bolded part. It's not like Martha doesn't know her son.

 

[The Guard]

I know Zack's intent, but intent doesn't matter if the audience is confused. With film, if a large percentage of the audience does not catch the message, that says there was an issue communicating with the audience. So while that may have been painful for you on one hand, I do think it woukd have helped the movie overall. Intent is great, but film is all about communicating that to your audience. This is an area I feel Snyder needs to improve. There is much I liked about his efforts with the DCEU, but on the whole, this was his biggest area of improvement, IMO

Eh, at some point you have to stop holding the audience's hand through every major emotional beat. I don't think too many audience members were all that confused by the Zod death scene. The sequence was controversial among critics, audiences and fans, but not because it was incoherent, it was controversial because of the morality of it in relation to popular versions of the character.

The people who hate the moral decision on principle don't really appear to be confused about the scene's intent, they don't like it in terms of it not being "faithful" to a preferred version of the character.

I think misslane is onto something...I do think that if Snyder has Superman flat out say "I won't kill again", it somewhat waters down the sequence's intent, which is pretty clearly that there are gray areas in the realm of heroism, where sometimes heroes might have to do something terrible, at great cost. He wasn't exactly wrong to do it, and he wasn't exactly right to do it. I suppose there would be some character value in having him say "I will/have to find a better way moving forward" and evolving him in that way, and showing that evolution in a future storyline.

 

[Flint Marko]

I think misslane is onto something...I do think that if Snyder has Superman flat out say "I won't kill again", it somewhat waters down the sequence's intent, which is pretty clearly that there are gray areas in the realm of heroism, where sometimes heroes might have to do something terrible, at great cost.

What great cost? Having to fall on your knees and scream "no"? Because that's literally the only consequence we saw of him killing.

 

[heatvision38]

What great cost? Having to fall on your knees and scream "no"? Because that's literally the only consequence we saw of him killing.

Which is something he will always have to carry around with him, that he killed, that he killed the last of his kind to boot. That scream tells you how affected by this Clark was. So clearly this is something that he will carry with him. That is a consequence, an internal one.

 

[Flint Marko]

Which is something he will always have to carry around with him, that he killed, that he killed the last of his kind to boot. That scream tells you how affected by this Clark was. So clearly this is something that he will carry with him. That is a consequence, an internal one.

Except we have no idea if he's actually carrying that around with him. It's never brought up again in any way, shape, or form. We only get that scream, which is merely thin, unsatisfying shorthand in lieu of actually showing us how he's impacted going forward.

 

[Spider-jedi]

you can make a piece of art for people and deliver it how you want. but delivery doesn't determine the type of reception you will receive. if you convey a message and you are not at least clear in someway people will not get what you are saying.

I see the intent in ZS work. it worked for some of you not me though. i respect the guys work but i still think the movie is below par.

 

[The Guard]

What great cost? Having to fall on your knees and scream "no"? Because that's literally the only consequence we saw of him killing.

In this case, taking the life of another person, Zod. Killing someone is not often looked on as a small thing...except maybe in action comedies.

I'm talking about the actual act of taking Zod's life, not neccessarily referring to the ongoing personal cost to Superman. I'm referring to the more obvious connotations of the scene, the brutal execution of Zod to prevent his actions. It's not presented as anything but unpleasant.

 

[heatvision38]

Except we have no idea if he's actually carrying that around with him. It's never brought up again in any way, shape, or form. We only get that scream, which is merely thin, unsatisfying shorthand in lieu of actually showing us how he's impacted going forward.

I don't necessarily need to see that. That scream was horrific, it was clearly painful. One doesn't have that experience and not carrying it forward. Does that mean we have to see the character talk about it in future movies so that we know he still was affected by that decision?

 

[Black Narcissus]

I don't necessarily need to see that. That scream was horrific, it was clearly painful. One doesn't have that experience and not carrying it forward. Does that mean we have to see the character talk about it in future movies so that we know he still was affected by that decision?

We gotta wait till IW to see Thor react to the death of his two friends.

One of them got a better gig tho.

 

[Flint Marko]

In this case, taking the life of another person, Zod. Killing someone is not often looked on as a small thing...except maybe in action comedies.

I'm talking about the actual act of taking Zod's life, not neccessarily referring to the ongoing personal cost to Superman. I'm referring to the more obvious connotations of the scene, the brutal execution of Zod to prevent his actions. It's not presented as anything but unpleasant.

He screamed for a second and then we immediately cut to him joking around with a general. It never comes up again after that. That's treating this as a small thing, there's no "cost" beyond being sad for a brief moment.

I don't necessarily need to see that. That scream was horrific, it was clearly painful. One doesn't have that experience and not carrying it forward. Does that mean we have to see the character talk about it in future movies so that we know he still was affected by that decision?

It means you do something with it instead of absolutely nothing.

 

[misslane38]

I know Zack's intent, but intent doesn't matter if the audience is confused. With film, if a large percentage of the audience does not catch the message, that says there was an issue communicating with the audience. So while that may have been painful for you on one hand, I do think it woukd have helped the movie overall. Intent is great, but film is all about communicating that to your audience. This is an area I feel Snyder needs to improve. There is much I liked about his efforts with the DCEU, but on the whole, this was his biggest area of improvement, IMO

But you are criticizing Snyder for not clearly communicating something he explicitly says he did not want to communicate. He did not have Clark tell Lois he would never kill after what happened with Zod because Snyder explicitly constructed a scenario in which Superman had to kill Zod in order to establish that there will never be a way for Superman to 100 percent rule out killing as an option. Snyder can't improve upon communicating a message he had no intention of communicating.

 

[chintai80]

We gotta wait till IW to see Thor react to the death of his two friends.

One of them got a better gig tho.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Not true, bald man. He screams and then Lois comes and hugs him and what not. Eh, if it didn't work for you that's fine tho, but that Superman felt real to me for a moment, surely more real than Reeves ever did to me. lol

Zod bless this type of fandom for keeping this same debate alive. That takes commitment.

 

[chintai80]

lol reeves superman just smiled and laughed it off after he crushed a depowered zod's hand and threw him down a chasm to his death in superman 2.

but the whole movie had a lighthearted tone so it can get away with it.

 

[misslane38]

He screamed for a second and then we immediately cut to him joking around with a general. It never comes up again after that. That's treating this as a small thing, there's no "cost" beyond being sad for a brief moment.

I'm sorry, but what else should we have do or feel? He did the right thing. It was a hard thing to do, and it was clearly painful, but it isn't really something worth beating himself up about and shouldn't be something he carries with him always. Do we want him to do the right thing and stand by it without moping, or do we want Superman to let even the right things he does send him into an existential crisis of despair? Diana doesn't dwell on those she kills to protect and defend innocents. It certainly isn't something that particularly weighs on MCU characters. Superman kills a depowered Zod in Superman II with a smile, and that's it.

Superman treats killing Zod with grief in the moment and nothing more because he doesn't know he's a character in a story. He doesn't know that there is a "no kill code" expected of him. He responds the way I suspect a vast majority of people would respond to making a decision like that. Frankly, the fact that he shows any sort of vulnerability and sadness after the fact makes him unique among superheroes.

 

[GothamBat]

I don't have a problem with Superman killing... I just wish it was set up better. Or at all. It just comes off borderline comedic from how out of left field it is. It's also silly to see him all worked up over those 4 people when he definitely killed at least about 50 people just from creating falling debris like 2 minutes prior

 

[Black Narcissus]

lol

You bastahs would march down the streets in protest over MY version of Supes. Forget this damn origin flick and papa bear Kent refusing to be saved thing, we go straight into Supes murdering Lois and then losing his mind and killing joker over this. Cut to WW in that one piece suit ( I can hear them hate articles from here) and we go from there. lawd.

 

[misslane38]

I don't have a problem with Superman killing... I just wish it was set up better. Or at all. It just comes off borderline comedic from how out of left field it is. It's also silly to see him all worked up over those 4 people when he definitely killed at least about 50 people just from creating falling debris like 2 minutes prior

It's out of left field to have to kill a psychotic villain who has promised to kill everyone just to make you suffer? Superman isn't worked up about all of the collateral damage because the whole time the collateral damage was happening he was trying his best to make it stop. You're acting like he was flippant about the falling debris when it's pretty obvious he's barely able to keep up with Zod and has very little control over the fight. Superman just learned how to fly and had never been in a superpowered fight before. He's not careless; he's inexperienced and out of his depth.

 

[heatvision38]

We gotta wait till IW to see Thor react to the death of his two friends.

One of them got a better gig tho.

 

[Spider-Fan]

But you are criticizing Snyder for not clearly communicating something he explicitly says he did not want to communicate. He did not have Clark tell Lois he would never kill after what happened with Zod because Snyder explicitly constructed a scenario in which Superman had to kill Zod in order to establish that there will never be a way for Superman to 100 percent rule out killing as an option. Snyder can't improve upon communicating a message he had no intention of communicating.

The reason I say it would have fit that scene is because in the desert sequence, one of the things he's accused of his burning up the bodies in the village and everything like that. So having that conversation would have felt natural. So Superman saying he does not kill fit there. But this is not the only such example I would point out where there was a miscommunication. The biggest is the Martha scene. I get what the scene is conveying and what it was supposed to mean, but people at large have adopted it as a meme. Again, this is an example of the message and goal not being fully achieved with the audience at large. There are several examples where Zack meant A, but audience saw B. This is why I think this is an area of improvement for him overall.

 

[Black Narcissus]

MOS still my favorite DCEU film so far, but that aint saying much. lol