Justice League Zack Snyder Directing Justice League - Part 6

[heatvision38]

No he specifically meant after the fight, Batman and Superman talking things out would be too silly, so that's why they become friends so quick without even figuring out what just happened. Superman just lets Batman go save his mom, even though Batman tried killing him and Superman could've saved Martha in a second but he chose not too. Snyder even said he thought about having a "Heat" type scene with Batman and Superman talking about their opposing points of views but it was too silly.

Yet in the Justice League animated series and the Batman/Superman animated movie they talk things out all the time and it's completely fine because it's done well and the characters stay true to themselves.

I'll start with the 2nd point first. Cartoons and comics can often do things live action cannot. What may look silly in live action may not in a comic or cartoon.

The first part, how do you know that's what Snyder means? And Batman and Superman did not just become friends (Batman's comment to Martha about being her son's friend was meant to reassure her as well as being a nod to the audience since we know he just tried to kill her son). By this point, Clark knows Batman is Bruce, knows that there are two threats, one to his mom, and the bigger one, which is Lex doing something crazy with the scout ship. Superman chose to put his feelings aside and let Batman save his mom so Supes could stop the larger threat.

 

[heatvision38]

Yup, one day people will realize that most of the time Snyder just says and does things...

Yesterday he explained why Bruce used a spear to hunt Superman instead of a more practical weapon. Because there's a painting of a guy stabbing Jesus with a spear.

So that's was Bruce's reasoning I guess.

"You know what'd be cool? If I were to off this clown with a spear, just like in that one painting"

It's not just because of the biblical metaphor. Bruce explicitly says to Alfred that his family lineage started as hunters of animals. What is a spear but the tool of such a hunter. That was Bruce's rationale. He had the kryptonite gas canisters already. Batman, the hunter, wanted to finish off his prey.

 

[misslane38]

https://www.reddit.com/r/DC_Cinematic/comments/4ddyo6/zack_snyder_believes_superheroes_have_no/

That's the link to the interview he did with Empire Magazine. He starts talking about how Superheroes can't talk in their suits at 5:55 into the interview.

Right, so I am correct in saying that the rationale was about building up to the fight. Snyder wanted a more "Heat" like scene for their first confrontation where they are more fully expressing their points of view, which is why that conversation happened at the gala in their civvies, so to speak. Any conversation of a more serious nature happening while in costume wouldn't really work. Snyder even said they tried it, and it didn't. I imagine the reason why was mostly due to Batman's cowl and voice changer getting in the way of authenticity. I think, for him, the nature of that conversation required that these characters have the time and space to chat and have their guards down. Accordingly, he chose to have their first conversation out of costume at the gala instead of having a bigger and flashier costumed confrontation be thier first interaction and discussion.

Thank you! Finally someone who gets it. I'm a BvS defender myself, but that comment by Snyder was one of the dumbest things he's said and that's saying a lot, considering how he said that Batman could get raped in his movie. Nolan knew what he was doing and that interrogation scene is still one of the greatest scenes in film history for a reason. Snyder is just so concerned with his visuals and a "deeper meaning" that he forgets to focus on the story and the narrative and the characters themselves

Another misrepresentation. First, I don't get why you're bringing up an interrogation scene. Second, Snyder said that if one was being sincere and honest about doing a realistic and serious take on Batman (and the context here was, I believe, was reflecting on Nolan's Batman Begins), then logic suggests that realistically Bruce would have been raped in prison.

Everyone says that about "Batman Begins." "Batman's dark." I'm like, "Okay, no, Batman's cool." He gets to go to a Tibetan monastery and be trained by ninjas. Okay? I want to do that. But he doesn't, like, get raped in prison. That could happen in my movie. If you want to talk about dark, that's how that would go.

When Snyder says, "That could happen in my movie" he isn't saying that he would do it. However, what he is saying is that it's a bit of a cheat to describe Nolan's work as "dark" or realistic, when it avoids the dark realities of what Bruce's experience would likely have been. So, for his films, if he decides to and then declares that his movie is a darker or more realistic take on something, then he would deliver that instead of lie or only do it half way. In addition, Snyder said Bruce would be raped in prison if Bruce Wayne existed within the context of the Watchmen universe. He was saying, if one is seeking to take the mythology of Batman super seriously and super realistically, then the real life awful things that happen in prison could happen to Bruce Wayne. In other words, if Batman were a Watchmen character, then prison rape could have been part of his past. Once again, context is key.

 

[misslane38]

Now he put up a Mapplethorpe painting in the room to hamfist in the symbolism even more. But he couldn't get the basic story to work in 2.5 hours. This man's priorities are seriously out of whack.

You are presuming, without evidence of any kind, that Snyder's symbolism occupies all of his time and effort. Rather than, as one would expect for a man with a background in art history, something that happens almost second nature. The painting's symbolism isn't hamfisted because its symbolism isn't overt in any way. It's an easter egg at best.

Yesterday he explained why Bruce used a spear to hunt Superman instead of a more practical weapon. Because there's a painting of a guy stabbing Jesus with a spear.

So that's was Bruce's reasoning I guess.

"You know what'd be cool? If I were to off this clown with a spear, just like in that one painting"

For heaven's sake, Snyder isn't saying Bruce chose a spear because of a painting. He's saying he chose a spear because of its religious meaning. The world was treating Superman as a messiah or god, so Batman was going to kill him like one. He even prefaced his coup de grace via spear with the line, "You were never a god. You were never even a man!"

Bruce literally banging some rando and popping pills with alcohol is not enough to show that he's in a dark place, we need a specific painting that symbolizes that this is a man having sex with randos and popping pills with alcohol.

Pretentiousness at it's finest.

Could WB possibly have gotten anyone less suited for the DCEU?

It's almost like you've never read or analyzed a work of literature in your life. Authors do this sort of figurative storytelling all the damn time in their work. It's not unique to Zack Snyder, and it's not even something that is meant to engage the general audience. It's merely an extra layer for those who seek to spend more time with the film. The painting is not needed to convey Bruce's state of mind. It's there to reward the viewer who wants to look for more.

 

[idiot09]

You are presuming, without evidence of any kind, that Snyder's symbolism occupies all of his time and effort. Rather than, as one would expect for a man with a background in art history, something that happens almost second nature. The painting's symbolism isn't hamfisted because it's symbolims isn't overt in any way. It's an easter egg at best.



For heaven's sake, Snyder isn't saying Bruce chose a spear because of a painting. He's saying he chose a spear because of its religious meaning. The world was treating Superman as a messiah or god, so Batman was going to kill him like one. He even prefaced his coup de grace via spear with the line, "You were never a god. You were never even a man!"



It's almost like you've never read or analyzed a work of literature in your life. Authors do this sort of figurative storytelling all the damn time in their work. It's not unique to Zack Snyder, and it's not even something that is meant to engage the general audience. It's merely an extra layer for those who seek to spend more time with the film. The painting is not needed to convey Bruce's state of mind. It's there to reward the viewer who wants to look for more.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. You wrote everything I wanted to say, but much better.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

It's not just because of the biblical metaphor. Bruce explicitly says to Alfred that his family lineage started as hunters of animals. What is a spear but the tool of such a hunter. That was Bruce's rationale. He had the kryptonite gas canisters already. Batman, the hunter, wanted to finish off his prey.

For me hunting makes one a hunter, not the use of a spear.

I want things to make sense in the world they're trying to sell us. The gas was a nice touch but this is definitely a Batman who would also make Kryptonite tipped hollow points and once the gas knocked Superman down would unload on him with an (automatic) rifle.

He also hunts Gothams criminals, but he has no problem using machine guns there.

This is the Batman they've given us, a Batman who is so convinced that Superman is a threat that needs to be dealt with ASAP. A Batman who has spent months preparing to take this guy down. He's not gonna make a spear on a whim like that.

 

[misslane38]

For me hunting makes one a hunter, not the use of a spear.

I want things to make sense in the world they're trying to sell us. The gas was a nice touch but this is definitely a Batman who would also make Kryptonite tipped hollow points and once the gas knocked Superman down would unload on him with an (automatic) rifle.

He also hunts Gothams criminals, but he has no problem using machine guns there.

This is the Batman they've given us, a Batman who is so convinced that Superman is a threat that needs to be dealt with ASAP. A Batman who has spent months preparing to take this guy down. He's not gonna make a spear on a whim like that.

He's acting like a hunter because he lured Superman through a series of traps to weaken him enough so that he could finish him off face to face. He wants to finish him off face to face rather than through bullets shot from afar because this kill is personal. He wants Superman to be powerless -- to feel powerless -- under his feet while he makes him get a little taste of blood. Do you bleed? You will.

It's all about Bruce reasserting himself as the alpha. Shooting someone from a distance doesn't have the same amount of poetry. The importance of Batman returning to his Wayne legacy of hunting has much more to do with the idea of seeking prey rather than interceding in criminal proceedings. Batman has shifted away from behaving as a guardian and protector figure to a man who is actively looking for targets to subdue. It's selfish, predatory, and personal. That's the "Why?" of the spear. It's intimate. It's the most potent way Batman can savor his power over "The Superman."

The spear in Christian tradition and imagery is associated with the crucifixion -- an act that was intended to upend the image of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. If Jesus were the Son of God, God himself, or messiah, why would he not save himself? Why would God not save him? Why would he bleed or suffer at all? The spear effectively ends the life of Jesus; thus, it is proof of his mortality.

Everything about the spear in BvS is about underscoring the dominion of man over the heretic. It's about showing the pretender god that he's nothing. It's about the pretender god having to face the full weight of that "truth" right before he dies.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

You are presuming, without evidence of any kind, that Snyder's symbolism occupies all of his time and effort. Rather than, as one would expect for a man with a background in art history, something that happens almost second nature. The painting's symbolism isn't hamfisted because its symbolism isn't overt in any way. It's an easter egg at best.



For heaven's sake, Snyder isn't saying Bruce chose a spear because of a painting. He's saying he chose a spear because of its religious meaning. The world was treating Superman as a messiah or god, so Batman was going to kill him like one. He even prefaced his coup de grace via spear with the line, "You were never a god. You were never even a man!"



It's almost like you've never read or analyzed a work of literature in your life. Authors do this sort of figurative storytelling all the damn time in their work. It's not unique to Zack Snyder, and it's not even something that is meant to engage the general audience. It's merely an extra layer for those who seek to spend more time with the film. The painting is not needed to convey Bruce's state of mind. It's there to reward the viewer who wants to look for more.

Hey I get what you're saying but deliver a quality film too? Because it's simply looking like he is overly concerned with these easter eggs and symbolisms but those are just extras. I don't really care that he had a background in art history this is a director they paid to make a movie that's gonna kickstart a cinematic universe.

Now you may not find it grating all these posts lately about the minutiae of Snyders scene set ups and symbolisms but to me he just failed in delivering what he was hired to do. It's like you get a pricey striker to your team to score goals and hopefully get your team out of the gutter but all the time he's doing fancy tricks with the ball yet he never scores.

Then, to the chagrin of the fans of the club (not his fans but of the club) he goes online to explain hoe he does this trick or that trick. Meanwhile they're losing every match because they never score.

Make a great movie first, Nolans movies had plenty of symbolism but they were great movies first and that is what I'm interested in. That'll keep people coming back to your film in the first place to even pick up all these details and you won't have to go online to explain it every day because people have seen your movie a dozen times because it's a great piece of entertainment.

Saying that Snyder is an art history guy and that's why he works the way he does really doesn't help his case, it just cements mine that he's the wrong man for the job.

 

[heatvision38]

For me hunting makes one a hunter, not the use of a spear.

I want things to make sense in the world they're trying to sell us. The gas was a nice touch but this is definitely a Batman who would also make Kryptonite tipped hollow points and once the gas knocked Superman down would unload on him with an (automatic) rifle.

He also hunts Gothams criminals, but he has no problem using machine guns there.

This is the Batman they've given us, a Batman who is so convinced that Superman is a threat that needs to be dealt with ASAP. A Batman who has spent months preparing to take this guy down. He's not gonna make a spear on a whim like that.

The fight with Superman was meant to be very personal for Batman. Simply shooting him down with kryptonite-laced bullets would have been very impersonal. Keep in mind that Superman personifies all that Batman cannot control at this point in his life, the being which Batman can transfer his feelings of powerlessness and rage onto, ergo why he makes the destruction of Superman his mission. He wanted to have Superman under his boot heel. He wanted to make him bleed up close before he killed him. He wanted to have the opportunity to vent on Superman when Superman was powerless. We have to think of the psychology of the characters, where they are at. There was a reason Bruce took the approach that he did.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Batman only transferred his feelings onto Superman. Superman was truly no more Batman's target than he is Lex's. How often does Lex say that it's Superman that's blocking humanity's potential or that Superman, as a god (as Lex views it) could decide to turn on humanity if he so chose, when in reality, it's Lex's own narcissism, his own insecurity that's at the heart of him wanting to destroy Superman, not Superman himself. The same applies to Batman in this movie. Batman rationalizes his reasons for wanting to take down Superman (including the 1% line) whereas Alfred tries to get Bruce to see that what he really is doing is giving into his fear and rage. But make no mistake, Batman's desire to get rid of Superman was actually the manifestation of his own struggles; it was a defense mechanism just as it has always been for Lex. So, in the end, even though Bruce gave all these reasons for why he needed to "destroy" Superman, it was actually always personal for him just as it has been for Lex all these years in the various mediums. And being personal, he would want to kill Superman in a personal way.

 

[heatvision38]

He's acting like a hunter because he lured Superman through a series of traps to weaken him enough so that he could finish him off face to face. He wants to finish him off face to face rather than through bullets shot from afar because this kill is personal. He wants Superman to be powerless -- to feel powerless -- under his feet while he makes him get a little taste of blood. Do you bleed? You will.

It's all about Bruce reasserting himself as the alpha. Shooting someone from a distance doesn't have the same amount of poetry. The importance of Batman returning to his Wayne legacy of hunting has much more to do with the idea of seeking prey rather than interceding in criminal proceedings. Batman has shifted away from behaving as a guardian and protector figure to a man who is actively looking for targets to subdue. It's selfish, predatory, and personal. That's the "Why?" of the spear. It's intimate. It's the most potent way Batman can savor his power over "The Superman."

The spear in Christian tradition and imagery is associated with the crucifixion -- an act that was intended to upend the image of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. If Jesus were the Son of God, God himself, or messiah, why would he not save himself? Why would God not save him? Why would he bleed or suffer at all? The spear effectively ends the life of Jesus; thus, it is proof of his mortality.

Everything about the spear in BvS is about underscoring the dominion of man over the heretic. It's about showing the pretender god that he's nothing. It's about the pretender god having to face the full weight of that "truth" right before he dies.

Well said.

 

[misslane38]

Hey I get what you're saying but deliver a quality film too? Because it's simply looking like he is overly concerned with these easter eggs and symbolisms but those are just extras. I don't really care that he had a background in art history this is a director they paid to make a movie that's gonna kickstart a cinematic universe.

Now you may not find it grating all these posts lately about the minutiae of Snyders scene set ups and symbolisms but to me he just failed in delivering what he was hired to do. It's like you get a pricey striker to your team to score goals and hopefully get your team out of the gutter but all the time he's doing fancy tricks with the ball yet he never scores.

Then, to the chagrin of the fans of the club (not his fans but of the club) he goes online to explain hoe he does this trick or that trick. Meanwhile they're losing every match because they never score.

Make a great movie first, Nolans movies had plenty of symbolism but they were great movies first and that is what I'm interested in. That'll keep people coming back to your film in the first place to even pick up all these details and you won't have to go online to explain it every day because people have seen your movie a dozen times because it's a great piece of entertainment.

Saying that Snyder is an art history guy and that's why he works the way he does really doesn't help his case, it just cements mine that he's the wrong man for the job.

Snyder is not explaining these easter eggs in lieu of making a good film. He's having fun interactions with his fans who are enjoying revisiting his work. If you want to critique his filmmaking, that's fine, but making pot shots against Snyder's symbolism is a straw man. There is no correlation between visual symbolism and bad storytelling. If Snyder's filmmaking didn't work for you, then there's no evidence suggesting his artistic choices were the cause of the flaws you feel are in the film.

The whole point of these little extra details is that they enrich the film, but they are also not necessary to one's experience of the story. It's like garnish or elaborate plating at a fancy restaurant. You don't have to eat the garnish to enjoy the food. You can have beautifully plated food that doesn't taste very good; you can have beautifully plated food that tastes delicious. There are no rules.

Snyder's interest in art history and symbolism is not a valid reason to critique his work. It is not something one can point to as the reason why his films work or do not work. There are plenty of successful and respected directors who are interested in similar allusions and symbols in their work. If you don't like Snyder's films, then dislike them for their flaws.

 

[SgtRob]

I pity the fool who tries to rape Batman.

Anyway, it must be really hard for all u smart ppl to live among is dummies. I mean, u totally get the deep meaning of comic book movies!

Lol. U guys kill me

 

[Superchan]

The more Zack Snyder talks, the more I'm convinced he has no idea who these characters are. This is the same guy who said that superheroes lose all credibility when they talk to each other in their superhero costumes. That's why there's no scene of Batman and Superman talking things out after their fight, because it would've been too silly for Snyder...

Snyder was right!! The interrogation scene between batman and joker in TDK was just silly and so was the cap/Bucky scene at the end of Winter Soldier to mention a few. Again thank god he and his s****y DCEU failed miserably!

 

[souperman]

No he specifically meant after the fight, Batman and Superman talking things out would be too silly, so that's why they become friends so quick without even figuring out what just happened. Superman just lets Batman go save his mom, even though Batman tried killing him and Superman could've saved Martha in a second but he chose not too. Snyder even said he thought about having a "Heat" type scene with Batman and Superman talking about their opposing points of views but it was too silly.

Yet in the Justice League animated series and the Batman/Superman animated movie they talk things out all the time and it's completely fine because it's done well and the characters stay true to themselves.

I don't think he was referring to a specific scene. After the fight... that's just a timing issue. There was no time to chat. super hero work had to be done... unless you believe Superman could have saved his mom AND defeated Lex and Doomsday without the help of Batman or WW... Gotta let the Bat do something heroic to make up for being a D.

 

[Rwtakawalter]

I don't think he was referring to a specific scene. After the fight... that's just a timing issue. There was no time to chat. super hero work had to be done... unless you believe Superman could have saved his mom AND defeated Lex and Doomsday without the help of Batman or WW... Gotta let the Bat do something heroic to make up for being a D.

The biggest plot hole in BvS was how long it took Superman to fly to Metropolis from Gotham even though it's right there across the bay. It took him more time than it took Batman to beat all those thugs in the warehouse. Yet Superman can be on the other side of the world in seconds. And then Lois with the spear, throwing it around not knowing what to do, was so dumb and pointless.

While I still enjoyed the battles and the action in BvS, the story really fell apart in the 3rd act and the death of Superman was so tacked on and forced. Only if we had a true Batman vs Superman movie that focused on Batman and Superman's conflict entirely without killing off Superman or setting up for Justice League.

Also, Snyder's justification for killing off Superman was that he wanted Batman to be the leader of the JL, so he needed to push Superman out of the way. He literally didn't know what to do with Superman so he just killed him off, knowing he can bring him back whenever.

 

[heatvision38]

The biggest plot hole in BvS was how long it took Superman to fly to Metropolis from Gotham even though it's right there across the bay.

I agree with this part. Superman doesn't get there until after Batman does his thing with Luthor's thugs. Superman could have flown to the scout ship and back again like 10 times during that span. But lots of movies play with time like that (how does Iron Man get to Siberia only moments after Bucky and Cap when he left many hours later), so while I do wish they figured out a better solution to make this work, and it is a gripe I have in the movie, it happens.

 

[random_havoc]

Snyder was right!! The interrogation scene between batman and joker in TDK was just silly and so was the cap/Bucky scene at the end of Winter Soldier to mention a few. Again thank god he and his s****y DCEU failed miserably!

ummm, I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to be in this thread unless we want to praise Snyder as some sort of master filmmaker.. A master filmmaker who failed so badly that he almost killed the DCEU in its infancy, but, y'know, somehow still good..

 

[misslane38]

I'm so confused, guys. What are we talking about here? Superman never flies to Gotham the night of "Fight Night" because he's been told Martha will die if Superman flies to her. While Superman is talking to Lex at the scout ship, Batman reveals Martha is safe when he speaks to Lex via the comms. Superman doesn't reunite with Batman until much later because Doomsday is released, and Superman must battle him. He pursues him to space where he is nearly killed by a nuclear bomb blast. It takes him a while to return to the place where Batman and Wonder Woman are fighting Doomsday because he's recovering in space.

 

[random_havoc]

The biggest plot hole in BvS was how long it took Superman to fly to Metropolis from Gotham even though it's right there across the bay. It took him more time than it took Batman to beat all those thugs in the warehouse. Yet Superman can be on the other side of the world in seconds. And then Lois with the spear, throwing it around not knowing what to do, was so dumb and pointless.

While I still enjoyed the battles and the action in BvS, the story really fell apart in the 3rd act and the death of Superman was so tacked on and forced. Only if we had a true Batman vs Superman movie that focused on Batman and Superman's conflict entirely without killing off Superman or setting up for Justice League.

Also, Snyder's justification for killing off Superman was that he wanted Batman to be the leader of the JL, so he needed to push Superman out of the way. He literally didn't know what to do with Superman so he just killed him off, knowing he can bring him back whenever.

Yes! Other than ANYTHING to do with Lex Luthor (WHO WAS SO FRIGGIN AWFUL IT MAKES ME WANT TO MURDER SOMEONE!), and Batman slaughtering people en masse, the stupid death of Superman was what pissed me off the most. The death of Superman comic story was certainly not Shakespeare but it was definitely worthy of it's own movie. Tacking it on like he did was just awful.

 

[Rwtakawalter]

I'm so confused, guys. What are we talking about here? Superman never flies to Gotham the night of "Fight Night" because he's been told Martha will die if Superman flies to her. While Superman is talking to Lex at the scout ship, Batman reveals Martha is safe when he speaks to Lex via the comms. Superman doesn't reunite with Batman until much later because Doomsday is released, and Superman must battle him. He pursues him to space where he is nearly killed by a nuclear bomb blast. It takes him a while to return to the place where Batman and Wonder Woman are fighting Doomsday because he's recovering in space.

I'm talking about after the title fight when superman flies to lex. It takes him forever considering the fact that he flies faster than sound and it's only across the bay. Same problem happened in JL with the flash at the end battle.

 

[misslane38]

I'm talking about after the title fight when superman flies to lex. It takes him forever considering the fact that he flies faster than sound and it's only across the bay. Same problem happened in JL with the flash at the end battle.

I see. That doesn't seem like a plot hole, certainly not significant enough of one to get upset about; it doesn't affect anything.

 

[misslane38]

Yes! Other than ANYTHING to do with Lex Luthor (WHO WAS SO FRIGGIN AWFUL IT MAKES ME WANT TO MURDER SOMEONE!), and Batman slaughtering people en masse, the stupid death of Superman was what pissed me off the most. The death of Superman comic story was certainly not Shakespeare but it was definitely worthy of it's own movie. Tacking it on like he did was just awful.

Batman didn't slaughter anyone en masse, and DOS isn't worthy of its own movie. It's a slugfest with a mute and nonsentient being. As for the complaint that Snyder killed Superman for poor reasons like not knowing what to do with him, I disagree. He did it because Superman's absence would emphasize why he's needed, making the league harder to form and showing how he helps turn the tide.

 

[Rwtakawalter]

Yes! Other than ANYTHING to do with Lex Luthor (WHO WAS SO FRIGGIN AWFUL IT MAKES ME WANT TO MURDER SOMEONE!), and Batman slaughtering people en masse, the stupid death of Superman was what pissed me off the most. The death of Superman comic story was certainly not Shakespeare but it was definitely worthy of it's own movie. Tacking it on like he did was just awful.

I remember seeing a leaked photo on reddit of dead Superman days before the movie came out and everyone including myself thought it was fake and thought there was no way Snyder would kill him off this early. And then the movie came out...

 

[Rwtakawalter]

I see. That doesn't seem like a plot hole, certainly not significant enough of one to get upset about; it doesn't affect anything.

It's a huge plot hole for me.

 

[misslane38]

It's a huge plot hole for me.

Why? It doesn't affect the plot. What changes if he gets there faster?

I remember seeing a leaked photo on reddit of dead Superman days before the movie came out and everyone including myself thought it was fake and thought there was no way Snyder would kill him off this early. And then the movie came out...

But what's the big deal about having Superman die in BvS? The original DOS arc is narratively inert. It's mostly a long and drawn out slaughterfest followed by a bunch of pretender stories without Superman and a dumb arc about Lois getting close to an ex-boyfriend while she's grieving. Steel and Superboy were the only midly interesting things to come out of the story. Superman's death, while sad, served no purpose. The behind-the-scenes rationale for the storyline was even worse: it was designed to stall the wedding of Lois and Clark so the television show could catch up. It was all a gimmicky plot device.

Snyder's story gives Superman's death weight and purpose. It uses the sacrifice to jump start an age of heroes and encourages mankind to embrace the new, the different, the alien, the godlike, and the powerful as helpers. His death opens up an opportunity for the formation of the Justice League to encounter interesting conflict. Without an inspirational leader like Superman, would others like him be willing to come together and protect an unknown threat. Superman's return can be paired with the end of fear, the return of hope, and the successful formation of the Justice League. They literally could not do it without him.