Justice League Zack Snyder Directing Justice League - Part 6

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It's not what he is saying at its core, its the phrasing. It sounds weird to say this will end one way and present 2 possible endings. Just to the ear it sounds stupid, this is why I think the line needed tweaking. As it stands, he sounds like a more serious version of the Spanish Inquisition guys in Monty Python when they keep adding things to their list.

I thought the line was pretty straight forward myself. But as with my above post, maybe the way Snyder presents these things is the problem.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I thought the line was pretty straight forward myself. But as with my above post, maybe the way Snyder presents these things is the problem.

We seem to be arguing 2 different things. I don't find the line confusing, I understand what he is saying. My point is the way he says it sounds weird when you hear it. Has nothing to do with it being straight forward. I understood the line just fine. It's straight forward and understandable. It just sounds odd. It's odd in the way John Madden saying "90% of the game is half mental" is odd. I get the point, but it doesn't sound right because he's using the word half in the same sentence he's using a percentage, but the word half indicates its own percentage. Same thing with Zod. He is saying it can end one way, but using Either and Or in a sentence with 1 outcome is odd from a linguistic perspective because using Either and Or together like that indicates 2 things (either this or that). This is why I find the line odd.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

There's only ONE way this ends Kal, either I kill you or you kill me, we kill each other, we let each other live, we pick up a PS4 at Bestbuy and settle it in a game of FIFA, you buy ME brunch and I choke on a piece of chicken, I buy YOU brunch and you choke on a piece of salmon.

One way Kal.

 

[Flint Marko]

He screamed for a second

He actually screams for more like four seconds.

Semantic pedantry that completely misses the point.

We do not immediately cut to him joking around with a general. It's at least 30 seconds later, because there's a sequence of Lois holding him.

And he's not joking around, he's a having a fairly serious conversation with the General. He pretty much never jokes around with the General in the ensuing sequence. I'm not sure what you're talking about with that.

Fairly serious? It's arguably the most light-hearted exchange in the movie up until that point, and it's the next scene after he kills Zod.

Spoiler

"That's a 12 million dollar piece of hardware!"

"It was! I know you're trying to find where I hang my cape."

"I'm from Kansas!"

"He's kind of hot."

Nothing like exchanging banter right after murdering someone to really drive that "cost" home.

As I already told you, I'm not talking about the future cost to Superman, but the act itself in the moment.

Superman very clearly experiences immense emotional pain because of what he has done. Whether the cost was temporary pain or not, there was still a cost.

"Temporary pain" (re: yelling for a moment) does not equal "great cost". You said that Snyder's intent was to demonstrate "the gray areas in the realm of heroism, where sometimes heroes might have to do something terrible, at great cost."

If that was truly his intent then he failed.

 

[The Guard]

Fairly serious? It's arguably the most light-hearted exchange in the movie up until that point, and it's the next scene after he kills Zod.

But whether the scene has a lighthearted tone or not, it's still not remotely Superman joking with the General as you previously stated.

"That's a 12 million dollar piece of hardware!"

Said angrily by the General after he curses Superman out. This is not an attempt to joke with Superman in the least.

"It was! I know you're trying to find where I hang my cape."

Said to the General without a smile and with his arms crossed. It's a warning, not a joke. He's deadly serious. The whole exchange is about Superman showing that he knows they're spying on them, and showing that he has the power to prevent it. It's meant to be amusing to the audience, but it is not Superman himself engaging in "joking" with the General.

"I'm from Kansas!"

Not sure what the exclamation point is about. He doesn't say "I'm from Kansas" in an excited way. He very matter of factly conveys that he's one of them.

"He's kind of hot."

This is a joke. However, this isn't addressed to Superman himself, Superman is certainly not involved in this portion of the conversation, nor does it involve him joking with the General.

Nothing like exchanging banter right after murdering someone to really drive that "cost" home.

Two men scowling at each other and having a relatively serious conversation.

And no one said that the scene with the General drives the cost home. What drives the cost home is the expression of intense emotional pain and shock. Because it's a movie, and that's generally how movies drive things like that home. Via the expression of emotion after the development of an event.

"Temporary pain" (re: yelling for a moment) does not equal "great cost".

Semantic pedantry that completely misses the point.

 

[The Guard]

Agree with this, I have seen so many misinterpreted moments in Snyder's movies. Personally I get his movies and more often than not what he is trying to say in scenes. Maybe it's something in the execution that makes people misinterpret his stuff?

It's not just Snyder's movies, though, it happens in other films as well. I think it's that audiences sometimes aren't specifically told what a scene is about, and either don't know how to read a film or don't want to. It's the equivalent of someone reading cliff notes VS puzzling out the meaning of a literary work for themselves. Comprehension doesn't seem to be a strong suit with many these days. It's not that they are too dumb to understand something, many simply don't try. No one wants to look beneath the surface for anything. Yes, the mothers have the same name, but there's more to it. People don't want to look for the "more".

And for whatever reason, mainstream cinema (and popular literature, really) has become more and more about holding the audience's hand through things. This is just the reality. It isn't that movies are getting dumber overall, because I think we're at something of a high point in terms of mainstream cinema exploring relevant themes and developing characters, but films are utilizing more and more exposition, which used to be the cardinal sin. Snyder's films don't have a lot of exposition in the areas of character and theme.

Ok, rant over.

That said, I don't understand how someone (especially a critic or cinema/literature fan) can watch a scene where someone is clearly engaging in wrong or evil behavior and on a slippery slope, is about to kill someone in cold blood with a spear that poisons them, reconsiders, expresses immense disgust with themselves after they realize this, and still doesn't make the "Oh no, I have become the villain" connection.

 

[Flint Marko]

But whether the scene has a lighthearted tone or not, it's still not remotely Superman joking with the General as you previously stated.



Said angrily by the General after he curses Superman out. This is not an attempt to joke with Superman in the least.



Said without a smile and with his arms crossed. It's a warning, not a joke. He's deadly serious. The whole exchange is about Superman showing that he knows they're spying on them, and showing that he has the power to prevent it. How is that remotely funny?



Not sure what the exclamation point is about. He doesn't say "I'm from Kansas" in an excited way. He very matter of factly conveys that he's one of them.



This is a joke. However, this isn't even addressed to Superman himself, S Superman is certainly not involved in this portion of the conversation, nor does it involve him joking with the General.



So...you think that two men scowling at each other and having a relatively serious conversation about Superman's impact on American interests is banter.

Saying "Well, it was a 12 million dollar plane" is pithy banter that can adequately be described as a "joke". Same with "I'm from Kansas!" - these two lines are indicative of a light-hearted conversation meant to elicit laughter/amusement.

I'm sure you're going to disagree, but let's be very clear: I don't care. I'm not going to address any rebuttal you might have to this because it has basically nothing to do with the point I was making, which is that cutting away from Zod's death to a lighthearted scene completely undermines any "cost" there might have been.

How'd I know you were going to (yet again) rabbit trail this debate away away from the actual point?

Semantic pedantry that completely misses the point.

Cute, but it's actually my entire point and one that you're continually avoiding

I'll put it in bold so there's no mistaking it: You said there was a "great cost", but yelling for a moment is nothing even close to that. That's undeniable. I'd argue there was no cost whatsoever as Zod's death is quickly brushed aside where we are then presented with the most light-hearted scenes in the movie. Zod's death is never brought up again and it has no impact or any cost whatsoever. So, again, if that were truly Snyder's intentions, he failed spectacularly.

 

[Erzengel]

I think you can still "get" what Snyder was trying to do just dislike how he did it.

 

[Micromind]

I think "The cost" was Superman realized that he lost the last connection he had to his Kryptonian heritage and culture and he was responsible for that.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think you can still "get" what Snyder was trying to do just dislike how he did it.

Agreed. What Snyder decided to do with the characters was clearly polarizing. Worked for some and not for others.

 

[Erzengel]

I think him destroying the ship was a much better way of showing him choose Earth over Krypton and his heritage.

 

[The Guard]

Saying "Well, it was a 12 million dollar plane" is pithy banter that can adequately be described as a "joke". Same with "I'm from Kansas!" - these two lines are indicative of a light-hearted conversation meant to elicit laughter/amusement.

I'm sure you're going to disagree, but let's be very clear: I don't care. I'm not going to address any rebuttal you might have to this because it has basically nothing to do with the point I was making, which is that cutting away from Zod's death to a lighthearted scene completely undermines any "cost" there might have been.

How'd I know you were going to (yet again) rabbit trail this debate away away from the actual point?

Cute, but it's actually my entire point and one that you're continually avoiding

I'll put it in bold so there's no mistaking it: You said there was a "great cost", but yelling for a moment is nothing even close to that. That's undeniable. I'd argue there was no cost whatsoever as Zod's death is quickly brushed aside where we are then presented with the most light-hearted scenes in the movie. Zod's death is never brought up again and it has no impact or any cost whatsoever. So, again, if that were truly Snyder's intentions, he failed spectacularly.

I'm not avoiding the issue, Flint. I just don't agree with you. I think we've established that. I don't agree that someone experiencing terrible pain isn't a great cost, even if that pain is temporary, or we don't see the outcome of the act.
I don't see the need to go round and round and round with you on that, or the issue of whether two men scowling at each other and holding a serious conversation about their future interactions is joking.

I will say this: Joking, by definition, requires an attempt to provoke laughter or amusement. Nothing about Superman's delivery, his body language, or his statements in the satellite scene or in the General's reactions suggest that Superman is trying to make the General himself laugh, or that the General accepts it as such. Superman is delivering a serious message here. The destruction of the satellite is a serious thing. "It was" is not just him being flippant, it's him saying "I can do this to your equipment, and you can't stop me".

When you say that Superman is joking with the General, you are essentially saying that he is trying to make the General laugh.
Because that's what joking means. That's the definition of it.

But context matters. The scene is mostly serious. The information conveyed between Superman in The General is also mostly serious.

I will concede that some of the interactions they have can be seen as jokes for the viewing AUDIENCE, as I already pointed out in my previous post. But Superman and The General themselves are not, in fact, "joking" with each other in the context of the scene.

 

[Spider-jedi]

It's not just Snyder's movies, though, it happens in other films as well. I think it's that audiences sometimes aren't specifically told what a scene is about, and either don't know how to read a film or don't want to. It's the equivalent of someone reading cliff notes VS puzzling out the meaning of a literary work for themselves. Comprehension doesn't seem to be a strong suit with many these days. It's not that they are too dumb to understand something, many simply don't try. No one wants to look beneath the surface for anything. Yes, the mothers have the same name, but there's more to it. People don't want to look for the "more".

And for whatever reason, mainstream cinema (and popular literature, really) has become more and more about holding the audience's hand through things. This is just the reality. It isn't that movies are getting dumber overall, because I think we're at something of a high point in terms of mainstream cinema exploring relevant themes and developing characters, but films are utilizing more and more exposition, which used to be the cardinal sin. Snyder's films don't have a lot of exposition in the areas of character and theme.

Ok, rant over.

That said, I don't understand how someone (especially a critic or cinema/literature fan) can watch a scene where someone is clearly engaging in wrong or evil behavior and on a slippery slope, is about to kill someone in cold blood with a spear that poisons them, reconsiders, expresses immense disgust with themselves after they realize this, and still doesn't make the "Oh no, I have become the villain" connection.

i think everyone got that like most people say on this forum. its the execution. Just cuz it worked for you doesnt mean it will work for everyone. That like saying because im good at calculus everyone must be good at calculus.

take teachers for example. you can have one that only needs one class to teach a topic and most students will get it or a another teacher that needs several classes to teach the same topic cuz he uses a different teaching method

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think "The cost" was Superman realized that he lost the last connection he had to his Kryptonian heritage and culture and he was responsible for that.

That's definitely what Snyder was going for, but again...the movie doesn't provide a moment where Zod's death was addressed again, so while that was the intention, the audience doesn't feel it as much because it is not focused on again. Even in BvS, it's not really brought up again. The fight with Zod was and the destruction of Metropolis is, but not the act of killing Zod. This is why I think Superman needed a moment to reflect on this or show how it impacted him in a scene set sometime after Zod's death. This is again where I see an example of what Snyder wanting to communicate with the audience fell short a bit.

 

[The Guard]

i think everyone got that like most people say on this forum. its the execution. Just cuz it worked for you doesnt mean it will work for everyone. That like saying because im good at calculus everyone must be good at calculus.

take teachers for example. you can have one that only needs one class to teach a topic and most students will get it or a another teacher that needs several classes to teach the same topic cuz he uses a different teaching method

Except that I and several others here went through what feels like dozens and dozens of arguments after the film came out that made it clear that...a lot of people didn't. There are people who legitimately thought the moment was just about their mothers having the same name, and insisted that there was nothing else to the scene.

The teacher analogy makes sense. I do think his style (and the writers' style) is a bit out of step with the current mainstream presentation of themes and characterization.

 

[Erzengel]

This kinda reminds me of the "Noooo" scene from Revenge of the Sith. On paper, it's very sad scene where Anakin loses the one person he loved most so a guttural scream or No seems pretty appropriate. However, when filmed, it works fine with him destroying everything, the Emperor secretly smiling and fails when he screams of no. And now it's an internet meme.

Personally, I would have nixed the spear and have him pull out a gun with kryptonite bullets and at Batman's lowest, he would have dropped the gun realizing he was becoming Chill.

 

[Flint Marko]

I think "The cost" was Superman realized that he lost the last connection he had to his Kryptonian heritage and culture and he was responsible for that.

But that isn't actually addressed in the movie. I mean yes, he killed the last remaining Kryptonian so we the audience make that connection, but they don't do anything with it. So there's no real meaning or dramatic heft beyond him yelling for a second. If that's enough for you then fine, but I think that's very unsatisfying.

 

[Spider-Fan]

This kinda reminds me of the "Noooo" scene from Revenge of the Sith. On paper, it's very sad scene where Anakin loses the one person he loved most so a guttural scream or No seems pretty appropriate. However, when filmed, it works fine with him destroying everything, the Emperor secretly smiling and fails when he screams of no. And now it's an internet meme.

This is a perfect analogy, and I do feel Lucas had a similar issue with the PT conveying the message Lucas wanted.

Only, I would personally watch either Snyder DC film over the Star Wars PT.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

It's not just Snyder's movies, though, it happens in other films as well. I think it's that audiences sometimes aren't specifically told what a scene is about, and either don't know how to read a film or don't want to. It's the equivalent of someone reading cliff notes VS puzzling out the meaning of a literary work for themselves. Comprehension doesn't seem to be a strong suit with many these days. It's not that they are too dumb to understand something, many simply don't try. No one wants to look beneath the surface for anything. Yes, the mothers have the same name, but there's more to it. People don't want to look for the "more".

And for whatever reason, mainstream cinema (and popular literature, really) has become more and more about holding the audience's hand through things. This is just the reality. It isn't that movies are getting dumber overall, because I think we're at something of a high point in terms of mainstream cinema exploring relevant themes and developing characters, but films are utilizing more and more exposition, which used to be the cardinal sin. Snyder's films don't have a lot of exposition in the areas of character and theme.

Ok, rant over.

That said, I don't understand how someone (especially a critic or cinema/literature fan) can watch a scene where someone is clearly engaging in wrong or evil behavior and on a slippery slope, is about to kill someone in cold blood with a spear that poisons them, reconsiders, expresses immense disgust with themselves after they realize this, and still doesn't make the "Oh no, I have become the villain" connection.

You don't get it, the issue I have with that scene is this.

Why would Snyder choose to even have Superman call Martha's name? Why not have him say "Save my mom"?

Someone is about to kill you, you're not gonna say "save Martha!" you'll probably say something like "Please save my mother" or "save my mom"

This is how you connect to people in that moment. Hell most of the audience had probably already forgotten that Bruce's mom's name was Martha. This was just a poor decision.

Snyder goes out of his way to have Superman refer to his mother by her first name in this situation, something people rarely do, something that is rarely seen in other movies. The norm is to call your mother "mom" It's what's been set up in that world as well.

Why in MoS did Superman not say to Zod "You think you can threathen Martha!!!" as he was tackling him? because it's weird. It's weird and people should just acknowledge that it's weird. Instead of being shocked that people are confused about the scene or disliked it.

Personally, I would have nixed the spear and have him pull out a gun with kryptonite bullets and at Batman's lowest, he would have dropped the gun realizing he was becoming Chill.

You could easily have this parallel and drive the point home. Kill 2 birds with one stone because you get rid of that ridiculous spear too. But I guess it's too "on the nose"

Better to potentially confuse your audience while gaining nothing.

 

[The Joker]

The Martha scene in BvS is one of the most laughably bad scenes ever put into a CBM.

 

[Erzengel]

This is a perfect analogy, and I do feel Lucas had a similar issue with the PT conveying the message Lucas wanted.

Only, I would personally watch either Snyder DC film over the Star Wars PT.

I'd rather watch the Prequels myself.

 

[The Guard]

See, while you can certainly read that Superman's despair after killing Zod is about Krypton, I don't think that's meant to be the central intent of the scene.

I think the loss of Krypton's potential is actually about Zod more than it is about Superman.

I think it's meant to be their fundamental difference in ideologies. Zod wants Krypton to return at all costs, and Superman doesn't. "Krypton had it's chance" is basically him summing up how he feels about the situation.

After Superman grounds the ship, Zod even gives that speech where he basically tells Superman that he may not care about Krypton, but it was all that Zod knew and all he had before they fight ("You chose the humans over us")

During the earlier battle, Superman chooses Earth over Krypton, and it's not a particularly difficult choice for him. He disagrees with the approach Zod and the other Kryptonians want, he's not willing to sacrifice Earth to bring Krypton back. In part because he's been conditioned to believe it was a failed society by Jor-El before this, and because Zod has gone too far.

I really think the scene where Superman kills Zod is about him thinking he can stop Zod, but then having to do what he does, period, and not so much about the loss of his heritage, especially since the last link to his heritage was eventually a murderous tyrant, though given what we see leading up to that, a reading that he's upset about a number of things, including the fate of his heritage, is valid.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I'd rather watch the Prequels myself.

To each their own. The way they opted to do the CG in the PT makes them almost unwatchable to me anymore, AOTC in particular.

 

[The Guard]

You don't get it, the issue I have with that scene is this.

Why would Snyder choose to even have Superman call Martha's name? Why not have him say "Save my mom"?

Because they have the same name, and them having the same name is part of the scene. It's an interesting coincidence, and rather than dump all the info about what is going on at once, because it's a film, the writers chose to parcel the info out in what is me ant to be a slow burn sequence.

And because they wanted to have Lois reveal that Martha is his mother.

And because the coincidence of their names being the same triggers Bruce, and reminds him where he came from.

It's a fictional story. Characters don't always do the most prudent thing. Sometimes writers have them do the thing that leads to the most drama.

Someone is about to kill you, you're not gonna say "save Martha!" you'll probably say something like "Please save my mother" or "save my mom"

The obvious answer here is: How is Batman going to know who he's supposed to save if Superman says is "Save my mom" and then Batman kills him?

Beyond that, people don't seem to dislike the scene because they said "Martha" instead of "my mom". People mock the fact that their mothers have the same name and for some reason that coincidence is something to be ridiculed.

This is how you connect to people in that moment. Hell most of the audience had probably already forgotten that Bruce's mom's name was Martha. This was just a poor decision.

Now wait a minute. It's not like the scene doesn't end with us realizing that "Martha" is Clark's mother. The subtext of "save my mom" is very much in the film once Lois shows up, so if people are going to connect to that, then shouldn't they have connected to it anyway?

Snyder goes out of his way to have Superman refer to his mother by her first name in this situation, something people rarely do, something that is rarely seen in other movies. The norm is to call your mother "mom" It's what's been set up in that world as well.

Because it's rarely seen in other movies or rarely occurs in real life, it's wrong? What kind of creative logic is that?

Because it's not the norm, then it follows that Clark thinks that the name "Martha" is important for Bruce to hear. Maybe he doesn't want Bruce to KNOW Martha is his mother, because then Bruce, who has a bone to pick with Superman, might not want to help in that instance.

Or maybe he's, I don't know, dying from Kryptonite poisoning and that's all he can think of or remember after who knows how many blows to the head, beatings, falls and poisonings, that her name is Martha.

Why in MoS did Superman not say to Zod "You think you can threathen Martha!!!" as he was tackling him? because it's weird.

Because it's not about how he addreses her as her son in BVS...it's about getting the specific info about her name to Bruce.

Superman did not need to tell Zod that his kidnapped mother's name was Martha. He needed to explain to Zod that he was pissed off that he dared to threaten his family. Entirely different scenarios.

It's weird and people should just acknowledge that it's weird. Instead of being shocked that people are confused about the scene or disliked it.

A lot of things are weird. A guy dressed in a bat costume killing a superpowered alien with a spear made out of glowing green rock is weird.

Being weird does't make something an invalid creative choice.

I should point out that while there's a vocal section of the audience that hated and ridiculed the moment, it did work for many as well. The moment did not work for everyone, but it is hardly universally hated.

 

[Spider-jedi]

You don't get it, the issue I have with that scene is this.

Why would Snyder choose to even have Superman call Martha's name? Why not have him say "Save my mom"?

Someone is about to kill you, you're not gonna say "save Martha!" you'll probably say something like "Please save my mother" or "save my mom"

This is how you connect to people in that moment. Hell most of the audience had probably already forgotten that Bruce's mom's name was Martha. This was just a poor decision.

Snyder goes out of his way to have Superman refer to his mother by her first name in this situation, something people rarely do, something that is rarely seen in other movies. The norm is to call your mother "mom" It's what's been set up in that world as well.

Why in MoS did Superman not say to Zod "You think you can threathen Martha!!!" as he was tackling him? because it's weird. It's weird and people should just acknowledge that it's weird. Instead of being shocked that people are confused about the scene or disliked it.




You could easily have this parallel and drive the point home. Kill 2 birds with one stone because you get rid of that ridiculous spear too. But I guess it's too "on the nose"

Better to potentially confuse your audience while gaining nothing.

i agree with this. for me it felt so weird to say his moms first name. who does that?

this made me feel like superman did some research on bruce and used the name of his mom to manipulate him into stopping. the end result was what he wanted in batman not killing him but it felt like so unlike superman to emotional manipulate someone like that.

batman did already mention to supes that his parents must have told him he was special. so he already knew that he had a mother.

thats how i saw it or how i understood it. please dont kill me