Justice League Zack Snyder Directing Justice League - Part 6

[misslane38]

But they set that moment up. The team chose Superman to kill Zod in that manner. A manner in which looked open to other possibilities.

Choke him out. Fly him up, sideways. Scar his hands and block the laser. Go to the family quickly and engage his heat vision.

For crying out loud, Jor El was a scientist and was able to subdue Zod. It goes to show that the house of El is not your typical Kryptonian. They set that up in that very movie.

And then what? Superman chokes him out, flies him up, and blocks the laser. He saves the family and doesn't kill Zod. What about the next family, the next building, the next city, and so on? There is no Phantom Zone. There is no kryptonite. What happens next? What other options were available to Superman to deal with Zod who could not be reasoned with, depowered, or imprisoned?

 

[GothamBat]

Man I can't watch the opening scenes of BvS and not get chills. Especially when Martha and Thomas are down and little Bruce does that scream that they opted to partially mute to the point where it's barely audible. So haunting.

 

[Jekecy]

And then what? Superman chokes him out, flies him up, and blocks the laser. He saves the family and doesn't kill Zod. What about the next family, the next building, the next city, and so on? There is no Phantom Zone. There is no kryptonite. What happens next? What other options were available to Superman to deal with Zod who could not be reasoned with, depowered, or imprisoned?

Those are leading questions. The circumstances are directly controlled by the director, there is no such thing as an impossible fictional scenario, just a limited imagination.

Zack himself says he wrote it in to specifically target that endpoint. So he wanted Supes to kill Zod.

 

[The Guard]

For crying out loud, Jor El was a scientist and was able to subdue Zod. It goes to show that the house of El is not your typical Kryptonian. They set that up in that very movie.

1. Jor-El is clearly not JUST a scientist, because he has Kryptonian war armor and can fight a bit.
2. Jor-El subdued a non superpowered Zod in what amounts to a sneak attach. Hardly the same scenario that Superman is in. Jor El wasn't contending with a Zod who had superpowers, or who could shoot heat vision from his eyes, OR who was in the state of extreme rage and grief that Zod was in when Superman was trying to subdue him.

And if you're going to talk about applying logic, then you have to also consider the film's logic, which is that, in that moment, there were no other good options to save the life of that family.

Those are leading questions. The circumstances are directly controlled by the director, there is no such thing as an impossible fictional scenario, just a limited imagination.

Zack himself says he wrote it in to specifically target that endpoint. So he wanted Supes to kill Zod.

No such thing as an impossible fictional scenario...but interestingly enough, apparently its impossible to accept or imagine that the scenario presented in MOS was the only viable option, because otherwise the creators get labeled as having a limited imagination.

 

[chintai80]

all i know is if i was a dood living here on the earth and if zod invaded with the intent on killing every human being here, i hope to god superman snaps his neck.

instead of going "naw. i will fly him up to space instead so i still have the moral high ground"

lol

 

[Jekecy]

But interestingly enough, apparently its impossible to accept or imagine that the scenario presented in MOS was the only option, because otherwise the creators get labeled as having a limited imagination.

Never labeled Zack that, unless he's been one to claim "impossible fictional scenarios".

But sure, have at it at defending his honor.

 

[The Guard]

Never labeled Zack that, unless he's been one to claim "impossible fictional scenarios".

But sure, have at it at defending his honor.

My point has next to nothing to do with Snyder, and everything to do with the way this film is being assessed, and the way logic is being applied (or ignored) by viewers.

You're rather obviously sidestepping my point, which is that the inability to believe that a scenario may be the "only good choice" is also somewhat limited in terms of the application of one's imagination.

 

[Jekecy]

You're rather obviously sidestepping my point, which is that the inability to believe that a scenario may be the "only good choice" is also somewhat limited in terms of the application of one's imagination.

And how does this apply to what I've originally written to misslane?

My issue is how she proposed lines of questioning as if the moment in question was a fully realized real-life scenario, and not fabricated chain of events purposefully positioned to create an open pathway for Supes' last resort.

I've made my peace with the necksnap existing on film, Snyder's reasons for it, and the fans constant bickering over it. I couldn't care less about that topic, 6 years after the fact.

 

[misslane38]

Those are leading questions. The circumstances are directly controlled by the director, there is no such thing as an impossible fictional scenario, just a limited imagination.

Zack himself says he wrote it in to specifically target that endpoint. So he wanted Supes to kill Zod.

You sound like Chidi from The Good Place when he was in denial about the truth of the trolley problem:

[YT]lDnO4nDA3kM[/YT]

So, in the alternative scenario, Superman killing isn't a matter of morality at all, just chance -- a fortunate escape from moral decision making courtesy of a storyteller/story (a deus ex machina, if you will). Because if your Superman is only incapable of killing because he is never in a situation where he has to make that decision, then he isn't someone who doesn't kill. A person's morality and ethics are defined by the choices her or she makes. If Superman is written in stories where the circumstances allow him to not confront the killing issue -- the trolley problem -- then he still hasn't been written as someone who wouldn't kill.

Snyder decided to confront the issue head on and answer the question of whether Superman would kill, if it was a choice between innocent people or the life of a villain, to show that part of being Superman is making hard choices like that. He decided to make Superman's morality concrete instead of abstract or theoretical. Why? Because, like Chidi in The Good Place clip above, it's all well and good to preach on high about morality, or in this case a character's morality, but if that morality is never tested by writing the scenario, then you're running away from the character and defining their ethics.

 

[The Guard]

And how does this apply to what I've originally written to misslane?

My issue is how she proposed lines of questioning as if the moment in question was a fully realized real-life scenario, and not fabricated chain of events purposefully positioned to create an open pathway for Supes' last resort.

I don't want to speak for misslane, but this is the context she was provided in the discussion. Someone essentially said "But he theoretically could have done this instead", as if this would have solved the problem. But their suggestion demonstrated an incomplete logic, so she pointed out the logical issues with the "solutions" provided. At least that's how I read it.

Beyond that, you also said that there is no such thing as an impossible fictional scenario, just a limited imagination.

How can there be "no such thing" as an impossible fictional scenario if imagination itself is not limited?

The impossible fictional scenario IS the result if someone's imagination, and believing it can exist also requires imagination.

 

[misslane38]

1. Jor-El is clearly not JUST a scientist, because he has Kryptonian war armor and can fight a bit.
2. Jor-El subdued a non superpowered Zod in what amounts to a sneak attach. Hardly the same scenario that Superman is in. Jor El wasn't contending with a Zod who had superpowers, or who could shoot heat vision from his eyes, OR who was in the state of extreme rage and grief that Zod was in when Superman was trying to subdue him.

Forgive me for butting in, but didn't Zod murder Jor-El? When did Jor-El subdue him? Ultimately, the only thing that stopped Zod on Krypton was the fact that everyone there had the same strength/powers (no superpowers from Earth's yellow sun) and the fact that they had authorities who could apprehend Zod and then sentence him to the Phantom Zone -- an option Superman did not have.

 

[Jekecy]

You sound like Chidi from The Good Place when he was in denial about the truth of the trolley problem:

[YT]lDnO4nDA3kM[/YT]

I'm so curious at the purpose of this introduction. Am I to blush in embarrassment? Realize the error of my ways? Call an assistant to log this exhibit into the case files? Retaliate with my own clever YouTube clip? I must know.

So, in the alternative scenario, Superman killing isn't a matter of morality at all, just chance -- a fortunate escape from moral decision making courtesy of a storyteller/story (a deus ex machina, if you will). Because if your Superman is only incapable of killing because he is never in a situation where he has to make that decision, then he isn't someone who doesn't kill. A person's morality and ethics are defined by the choices her or she makes. If Superman is written in stories where the circumstances allow him to not confront the killing issue -- the trolley problem -- then he still hasn't been written as someone who wouldn't kill.

Again with the leading. Yes, if an alternative was shoddily written with no sense of stakes and provided a deus ex machina, then this comment may have pertinence. Unfortunately since I did not provide any examples whatsoever, you can't just place that on my plate and pretend it's a meal of my own making.

There is absolutely a scenario that carries just as much emotional weight and moral dilemma, and still result in no fatalities by Superman's hands. Doesn't matter what that is composed of, it's not my job. And unless you're prepared to make an argument no such creative possibility exists to arrive at such an equation, no one else needs to in this hypothetical.

Snyder decided to confront the issue head on and answer the question of whether Superman would kill, if it was a choice between innocent people or the life of a villain, to show that part of being Superman is making hard choices like that. He decided to make Superman's morality concrete instead of abstract or theoretical. Why? Because, like Chidi in The Good Place clip above, it's all well and good to preach on high about morality, or in this case a character's morality, but if that morality is never tested by writing the scenario, then you're running away from the character and defining their ethics.

Am I to understand you don't think Superman's morality and ethics have ever been properly addressed in the character's history, until this moment in the film?

 

[Patchwork Man]

Forgive me for butting in, but didn't Zod murder Jor-El? When did Jor-El subdue him? Ultimately, the only thing that stopped Zod on Krypton was the fact that everyone there had the same strength/powers (no superpowers from Earth's yellow sun) and the fact that they had authorities who could apprehend Zod and then sentence him to the Phantom Zone -- an option Superman did not have.

Exactly this. Some arguments only work when you leave something out.

 

[Jekecy]

Beyond that, you also said that there is no such thing as an impossible fictional scenario, just a limited imagination.

How can there be "no such thing" as an impossible fictional scenario if imagination itself is not limited?

The impossible fictional scenario IS the result if someone's imagination, and believing it can exist also requires imagination.

There are not enough stress balls in the world to alleviate some of your comments.

Pretend I took the time to answer that question, and imagine the ensuing conversation at hand. You've already thought that through, so you and I both know we ended this topic with a full understanding it was a game of semantics that didn't actually need to be stretched thin. There...I saved us 15 minutes!

 

[misslane38]

I'm so curious at the purpose of this introduction. Am I to blush in embarrassment? Realize the error of my ways? Call an assistant to log this exhibit into the case files? Retaliate with my own clever YouTube clip? I must know.

Wow. You can do whatever you want. I just wanted to share something that was relevant. I wasn't aiming for or expecting anything specific other than a little more civility than can be found in this particular reaction.

Again with the leading. Yes, if an alternative was shoddily written with no sense of stakes and provided a deus ex machina, then this comment may have pertinence. Unfortunately since I did not provide any examples whatsoever, you can't just place that on my plate and pretend it's a meal of my own making.

I'm not doing anything other than engaging in a thought experiment here. I also don't know what this has to do with bad writing or stakes. A deus ex machina doesn't have to be bad just as having a character not be saved as a result of a deus ex machina isn't bad either.

There is absolutely a scenario that carries just as much emotional weight and moral dilemma, and still result in no fatalities by Superman's hands. Doesn't matter what that is composed of, it's not my job. And unless you're prepared to make an argument no such creative possibility exists to arrive at such an equation, no one else needs to in this hypothetical.

I disagree. Superman benefits from being put in that situation so he has to make a choice that defines his morality in concrete terms. He is not someone who does not kill his enemies, even when there are no alternatives and innocents will suffer, if he is never put in a situation where he must decide. That was the point with Chidi. He was comfortable in his ethical knowledge and stance when it was all theoretical, but he felt differently when he actually had to make the decision and affect real people that he could see and touch.

Am I to understand you don't think Superman's morality and ethics have ever been properly addressed in the character's history, until this moment in the film?

I didn't say that. I was speaking in general and hypothetically. The other times Superman killed Zod, he did it in cold blood; he had other options and Zod was depowered and thus not a threat. In other stories, where he has killed, it ruins him. He exiles himself and refuses to be Superman. There are also stories where they explore this issue by proxy, having his fellow heroes make such decisions so that he can express his morality in how he judges them (e.g. when Diana kills Max Lord, he shuns her for not having sufficient remorse). It's arguable whether these approaches sufficiently explored the dilemma or if they have any more appeal then what Snyder did. I respect what Snyder did because it was simple and honest. It presents a scenario where killing is the most moral choice, yet it also shows that even though something is moral or ethical it can still be a heavy and difficult thing to do.

 

[Jekecy]

I'm not doing anything other than engaging in a thought experiment here. I also don't know what this has to do with bad writing or stakes. A deus ex machina doesn't have to be bad just as having a character not be saved as a result of a deus ex machina isn't bad either.

What exactly was the thought experiment? We're not in disagreement a poor execution which you had outlined isn't a proper alternative.

I disagree. Superman benefits from being put in that situation so he has to make a choice that defines his morality in concrete terms.

Benefits Superman how? As a brand? As a character, inside his universe? As a hero audiences will decide whether they'll invest in the long-term?

He is not someone who does not kill his enemies, even when there are no alternatives and innocents will suffer, if he is never put in a situation where he must decide. That was the point with Chidi. He was comfortable in his ethical knowledge and stance when it was all theoretical, but he felt differently when he actually had to make the decision and affect real people that he could see and touch.

The trolley problem was specifically crafted as a no-win scenario in which an individual takes on absolute culpability no matter what. I can't take that as the be-all barometer for moral or ethical dilemmas. These aren't real life scenarios or real life people. Again, as it's all designed.

For clarification, the events and decisions as it occurred in the film, I don't take particular issue with from a logical standpoint. I get it.

But I will play devil's advocate in presenting the opposing viewpoint that it's simply an undesirable outcome for this character in particular, and on his debut no less. So I ask: is there a way to explore Superman's stance on mortality without sacrificing his innocence, and without sugarcoating the solution? I think so. For this first outing at least, it would have gone a long way in engaging the audience to stick through with his journeys and sympathize when the time comes to make even harder decisions in the future.

It's all in the past now however. Snyder's Superman has effectively fell by the wayside. However I would argue crucial decisions such as this, fast-tracked that demise and marred his reputation with the general audience.

 

[heatvision38]

Man I can't watch the opening scenes of BvS and not get chills. Especially when Martha and Thomas are down and little Bruce does that scream that they opted to partially mute to the point where it's barely audible. So haunting.

And notice they go from that beautifully haunting music (best death of Waynes music I've ever heard) to the Batman theme after they are killed, as if to say this is the moment when Batman is born.

 

[heatvision38]

Those are leading questions. The circumstances are directly controlled by the director, there is no such thing as an impossible fictional scenario, just a limited imagination.

Zack himself says he wrote it in to specifically target that endpoint. So he wanted Supes to kill Zod.

He wanted to put Superman in a situation that would test his ethics, what he's willing to do, and in turn, it clearly challenged many of the viewers as well. It's a mater of whether one can accept this or not.

 

[heatvision38]

Am I to understand you don't think Superman's morality and ethics have ever been properly addressed in the character's history, until this moment in the film?

Usually the writers find a way so that he has options, eg, phantom zone, red solar rooms, depowering, other heroes to help, etc, etc, etc. None of those were available here. In other words, in the comics, outside of a few scenarios like in Byrnes' run, they still give Superman an out. And then he is able to stand by his "I don't kill" ethos.

 

[misslane38]

What exactly was the thought experiment? We're not in disagreement a poor execution which you had outlined isn't a proper alternative.

I never said anything about poor execution. You're the one who assumed that I was using the term or concept of deus ex machina in a derogatory way. As for your thought experiment question, the thought experiment is what the "trolley problem" is. It's a made up scenario an academic designed so that people can work through hypotheses about the ethical conundrum created by harming one person to save many. I was originally applying the trolley problem to my analysis of the film.

Benefits Superman how? As a brand? As a character, inside his universe? As a hero audiences will decide whether they'll invest in the long-term?

As a character. Character is developed through choices. By designing a scenario that challenges Superman to make a choice between two alternatives, we get concrete insight into his character that wouldn't exist if that situation was avoided.

The trolley problem was specifically crafted as a no-win scenario in which an individual takes on absolute culpability no matter what. I can't take that as the be-all barometer for moral or ethical dilemmas. These aren't real life scenarios or real life people. Again, as it's all designed.

The trolley problem represents the truth of such a dilemma. A true hero has to deal with these problems. If they don't, their ethics and heroism are a lie. What is the value of a "designed" hero whose so-called goodness only exists in theory, because it's never tested?

But I will play devil's advocate in presenting the opposing viewpoint that it's simply an undesirable outcome for this character in particular, and on his debut no less. So I ask: is there a way to explore Superman's stance on mortality without sacrificing his innocence, and without sugarcoating the solution? I think so. For this first outing at least, it would have gone a long way in engaging the audience to stick through with his journeys and sympathize when the time comes to make even harder decisions in the future.

His innocence wasn't sacrificed. He did the right thing. I actually think he did something that is more relatable and sympathetic than if he had not done it. Most other superheroes, even Diana, kill and it's not a barrier. Honestly, from most of my discussions with people about this, ultimately it seems that the morals or ethics of the situation aren't what upset them. It's that Superman didn't get to look like he "won" because he was sad he killed Zod, which is unlike Reeve Superman who killed Zod with a smile under worse circumstances to the glee of its audience. And, while I appreciate your optimism, I am skeptical that there is a way to achieve the same end as MoS using different means.

It's all in the past now however. Snyder's Superman has effectively fell by the wayside. However I would argue crucial decisions such as this, fast-tracked that demise and marred his reputation with the general audience.

Maybe so, but popularity doesn't necessarily equal quality.

 

[Aurakles]

There's definitely something to the fact that Snyder deliberately shows that the killing of Zod isn't a triumph, but a tragedy. We've seen the hero of the film killing over and over again, it happens with superheros and it's even happened with Superman before, but it's almost always framed in a completely positive light.

Snyder shows that even if it's someone trying to commit mass murder, it's still killing a person and we shouldn't celebrate it.
It's akin to the Batman/Superman fight it BVS, where the violence isn't glamourous, but gut wrenching. It's horrible watching Batman hitting Superman with a sink and throwing him off a ledge, because real violence is horrible, and we shouldn't enjoy watching people tear each other apart.
These moments challenge the preconceived notions of cinema, that violence is good and killing bad people is good.

I'd say that the MOS has the moral high ground over most film superheroes, because he cares about his enemy and is devastated by the fact that he had to kill someone. Usually other films will have the hero kill and be unaffected by it.

If you also have a problem with other heroes killing people, then you should cut MOS some slack because it's not the only offender, nor the worst example. If those films don't bother you, then aren't you really annoyed not by the fact the Superman killed Zod, but because he didn't do it with a smile?

 

[Elayis]

Per Snyder, Superman wasn't sad because he was forced to kill, he's sad because he lost his last link to Krypton.

 

[chintai80]

Per Snyder, Superman wasn't sad because he was forced to kill, he's sad because he lost his last link to Krypton.

yup. that's what i took from it. in an odd roundabout way, zod was his last link to his biological father as well.

i like the complexity of it - when anyone's forced to take a life, even for a good cause - there are conflicting feelings that come with it.

 

[Tra-El]

Per Snyder, Superman wasn't sad because he was forced to kill, he's sad because he lost his last link to Krypton.

Superman may have lost a living link, but not THEE link. The Codex represents the biological brainwaves and the genetic code to the entire civilization. This literally lives within' Kal.

In MoS, Superman was mentally prepared to face the fears of difficult choices, even when it pertained to Krypton. "KRYPTON HAD ITS CHANCE!' That line was a huge indicator for what was to come.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

Per Snyder, Superman wasn't sad because he was forced to kill, he's sad because he lost his last link to Krypton.

Superman may have lost a living link, but not THEE link. The Codex represents the biological brainwaves and the genetic code to the entire civilization. This literally lives within' Kal.

In MoS, Superman was mentally prepared to face the fears of difficult choices, even when it pertained to Krypton. "KRYPTON HAD ITS CHANCE!' That line was a huge indicator for what was to come.

Yes well, you should tell Snyder about this it seems. One of my main issues with Snyders DCEU, fans explaining his movie to him.

Funny thing is if he were to read this he would probably confirm that your take on it is right as well. -_-