Justice League Zack Snyder Directing Justice League - Part 8

[Black Narcissus]

One of the hnngh rumors during mos was that of batplane showing up. We would see the batplane putting out fires from a distance and Superman notices this and has a curious reaction to it, but Zod punches him into a building or something. lol

 

[Limonade]

You mean like when Superman gave Zod a and them a slow death in the comics

Hahaha! That's not even close remote to my point of that post. lol

But I suppose if it was accidental or unintentional... you could give Zod a death similar to Kilmonger.

 

[Erzengel]

Well you can always do it the Marvel way where the hero moves out the way or something and the villain kills themselves leaving the hero blameless.

Batman - Joker falls to his death (albeit, Batman grappling his leg to the building)
Batman Returns - Penguin falls to his death
Batman Forever - Two Face falls to his death

Point is, it was a DC thing way before a Marvel thing which even that is a misnomer as Marvel characters aren't handcuffed by no killing rules. Pepper killing Iron Monger & Killian. Fury killed Pierce. Guardians killed Ronan. Vision killed Ultron. Ant-Man killed Yellowjacket. Groot killed Ego. Black Panther "killed" Killmonger.

 

[misslane38]

I’m not inciting any debate about the material here, I’m pointing out the absurdity in still making excuses for the failure of the DCEU.

They were helmed by a director with a decorated track record of poor reception and poor box office but now the problem here is that the DCEU is just “too real” for audiences.

Flint Marko, in the past month I have literally debated with several critics of these films on these boards who explicitly suggested that the realistic approach was precisely the problem with Snyder's films and the DCEU. I was told multiple times that Superman films and Superman stories work best when narrative conceits guarantee easy choices, simple conflicts, and minimal realistic consequences. These same sentiments have been echoed in this very thread during this very debate during the last 24 hours. I am merely responding to and referring to the arguments I have seen critics of these films make.

A director's track record is irrelevant when we are in the middle of a very specific conversation about one specific and controversial storytelling decision. The answer to the question, "What is wrong with Superman killing Zod?" cannot be Zack Snyder is a filmmaker with a lackluster resume. That's a fallacious and illogical argument, and it exemplifies exactly the sort of head in the sand nonsense surrounding this film's discourse that I find objectionable.

 

[_Superman_]

Batman - Joker falls to his death (albeit, Batman grappling his leg to the building)
Batman Returns - Penguin falls to his death
Batman Forever - Two Face falls to his death

Point is, it was a DC thing way before a Marvel thing which even that is a misnomer as Marvel characters aren't handcuffed by no killing rules. Pepper killing Iron Monger & Killian. Fury killed Pierce. Guardians killed Ronan. Vision killed Ultron. Ant-Man killed Yellowjacket. Groot killed Ego. Black Panther "killed" Killmonger.

And why is no one up in arms about these deaths? Why is it when Superman does it all hell breaks lose. I mean what else could he do fight Zod until the both grow tired.

 

[Erzengel]

People hold Superman and Batman to higher standards whether it's hypocritical or a double standard. And people will make exception for say Superman killing Doomsday as either a) he's a monster and/or b) he also dies in the process. The whole snapping of Zod's neck with his bare hands is personal almost intimate in a sense. Which is probably why a lot of people didn't take to it.

 

[Black Narcissus]

And why is no one up in arms about these deaths? Why is it when Superman does it all hell breaks lose. I mean what else could he do fight Zod until the both grow tired.

Because bald @Polux is right in a sense of Snyder not holding back. If Superman had killed Zod in another way, it would be easier to accept, but he made us watch while he used his bare hands and snap, felt almost intimate. lol

 

[Flint Marko]

The answer to the question, "What is wrong with Superman killing Zod?" cannot be Zack Snyder is a filmmaker with a lackluster resume.

It can be answered with exactly that.

Zod’s death doesn’t work because its the big climax of the movie that is neither led up to nor is it followed up in any capacity whatsoever. The movie does it out of nowhere and breezes past like it, and the third act itself, didn’t take place. It’s treated as a huge deal but there’s zero thematic or underlying story reason why he kills Zod other than “because it’d be cool” and that about sums Snyder up. Any argument that goes “but Donner” is engaging in what-about-isms that I have no interest in, mainly because I don’t particularly love the Donner films either.

We’ve had that debate before, but it isn’t my point which is this: I’ll concede that there are people out there with double standards who judge these movies unfairly as long as we stop pretending they represent the majority of us who responded negatively to these movies.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I still remember my heart jumped outta my chest when the neck snap happened. To watch this crazy super powered battle end in such a bare bones, human way, I just wasn't expecting that.

If I had directed that scene, I would've let that moment linger on a bit longer.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Eh, I knew when the phantom zone went away and we had no kryptonite yet, it was leading up to Superman killing Zod. I just didn't know how, but I saw it coming a mile away after that. lol

 

[Da-Scribe]

Yeah the movie made it pretty clear that killing Zod was the only way out in terms of the story. And with an entire movie about Supes searching to figure out his origin, and then him killing that last connection to it, it felt like a pretty clear way of Zack trying to show him choosing humanity first. The reasons for Zod's death, narratively and thematically, seemed pretty heavy handed to me.

I dunno, I can definitely think of much more heavily revered movies that also have villain deaths that are way more unnecessary.

 

[misslane38]

It can be answered with exactly that.

Zod’s death doesn’t work because it is neither led up to so that it lands nor is it followed up in any capacity whatsoever. The movie breezes past like it, and the third act itself, didn’t take place. There’s zero thematic or underlying story reason why he kills Zod other than “because it’d be cool” and that about sums Snyder up. Zod’s death was botched in Man of Steel, and any argument that goes “but Donner” is engaging in what-about-isms that I have no interest in, mainly because I don’t particularly love the Donner films either.

We’ve had that debate before, but it isn’t my point which is this: I’ll concede that there are people out there with double standards who judge these movies unfairly as long as we stop pretending they represent the majority of us who responded negatively to these movies.

I'll stop arguing those people represent the majority when I stop seeing the majority of criticisms stemming from precisely that point of view. No one in this thread for the last 24 hours of debating this topic has once said anything close to what you just argued is the real reason why the killing of Zod in MoS is received differently than the killing of Zod in Superman II, Post-Crisis comics, the Supergirl television series or other superheroes that kill (e.g. Captain America, Wonder Woman).

There is no underlying storytelling reason for Wonder Woman to kill Ludendorff or Ares other than what Patty Jenkins said: these villains were dogs who needed to be put down. There is no underlying storytelling reason for Captain America's kills either. He just kills, and no one cares. Because Cap can kill and Superman can't. Because the former's executions are contextualized as unequivocally heroic while the latter's executions are contextualized as painful decisions.

It's naked and blatant hypocrisy that you have once again replicated. And, to any way suggest Snyder thought Superman killing Zod would be cool goes against the context of the act in the film and every single statement Snyder has made on the subject. It is a pure example of fallacious hyperbole.

 

[Flint Marko]

It isn’t, but have fun seeing only want you want to see.

BTW Snyder’s reason for killing Zod, according to him in 2013, was to explain Superman’s aversion to killing. Note that’s A) not in the movie and B) never brought up again. He also gave other answers in other interviews that make about as much sense, like wanting to make audiences unsure that Superman might kill in the future.

I think it’s worth noting that his fans do a better job of explaining his own decisions than he does. I’m not bringing that up to be mean, I’m saying that he has clear difficulty communicating and his filmography suffers for it. Again....that’s not our fault.

 

[misslane38]

It isn’t, but have fun seeing only want you want to see.

BTW Snyder’s reason for killing Zod, according to him in 2013, was to explain Superman’s aversion to killing. It’s neat how that’s A) not in the movie whatsoever given that his view of death/killing is never touched on and B) never brought up again in any way shape or form.

It’s almost like he consistently struggles to effectively communicate his themes and intentions...

Note that he didn't say anything about wanting to do it simply because it would be cool. And you are misrepresenting Snyder's comments. Snyder elaborated on his claim that Zod's death would lead to Superman's aversion to killing. He argued that he wanted to establish that Superman has it within him to kill if the situation warrants, and the killing of Zod exemplified such a scenario. He then further explains that the intention was to create a Superman for whom the audience knows and understands that he's making a choice when he decides not to kill a villain. In other words, it's not that Superman doesn't kill because he doesn't kill (i.e. a no-kill code). He doesn't kill because there are some situations where there may be a better way.

Snyder presented the idea that if, let's say Martha or Lois were in danger, would Superman kill? Having Superman kill Zod in MoS sets up the idea that, hey, maybe he might? Maybe Superman would kill someone if he or she were endangering someone's life, especially the life of someone he cared about. So, then, Snyder tests that hypothesis in BvS. He has Lex issue that very same ultimatum. Superman chooses not to kill Lex or Bruce. Because he recognizes in Batman what he didn't see in Zod, someone who still has a soul -- someone who can still be saved. He saves Lex from Doomsday because Lex is no longer a threat.

It's almost as though Snyder did exactly what he said he would do to make Superman killing Zod count for something. By the way, you are still making an argument few people make to oppose the decision to have Superman kill Zod, which means you have not yet provided sufficient evidence to refute my argument that this debate usually serves only to illuminate the hypocrisy and double standards of most critics.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

It isn’t, but have fun seeing only want you want to see.

BTW Snyder’s reason for killing Zod, according to him in 2013, was to explain Superman’s aversion to killing. Note that’s A) not in the movie and B) never brought up again. He also gave other answers in other interviews that make about as much sense, like wanting to make audiences unsure that Superman might kill in the future.

I think it’s worth noting that his fans do a better job of explaining his own decisions than he does. I’m not bringing that up to be mean, I’m saying that he has clear difficulty communicating and his filmography suffers for it. Again....that’s not our fault.

This is the thing that I hate about Snyder's DCEU. Anytime a fan brings something up to Snyder on social media, he's just like "Yep, that's precisely what I was doing with this." To the point that people have prescribed far more meaning to his movies than he ever intended. Because he never explains his films -- he lets others do it for him, and just agrees. Which shows that he didn't have any intent behind it in the first place.

 

[misslane38]

This is the thing that I hate about Snyder's DCEU. Anytime a fan brings something up to Snyder on social media, he's just like "Yep, that's precisely what I was doing with this." To the point that people have prescribed far more meaning to his movies than he ever intended. Because he never explains his films -- he lets others do it for him, and just agrees. Which shows that he didn't have any intent behind it in the first place.

You've literally just described how humans respond to art. It's the intention of art. The intention of art is to begin a dialogue between artist and those who interact with art. Snyder's intention is the intention of any artist: to raise questions, to engage an audience, to start a conversation.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Eh, one doesn't have to be a Snyder fan to get what he was going for. I only truly like Watchmen director's cut and most of MOS, but I got what he was going for. Pretty heavy handed really. Sometimes almost too on the nose. I respect him for not holding back tho. lol

Now back to this Zod business:

 

[Flint Marko]

I would only accept the neck snap if Superman were smiling!

 

[Da-Scribe]

This is the thing that I hate about Snyder's DCEU. Anytime a fan brings something up to Snyder on social media, he's just like "Yep, that's precisely what I was doing with this." To the point that people have prescribed far more meaning to his movies than he ever intended. Because he never explains his films -- he lets others do it for him, and just agrees. Which shows that he didn't have any intent behind it in the first place.

So basically, Snyder's work is worthy of ire because rather than explain it all outright, he occasionally confirms fan theories and this then proves he never truly had an explanation in the first place?

Bit of a reach to me.

 

[heatvision38]

That was the interview I remember, about being taken aback and his response about subconsciously changing his direction towards JL, which again...went into principle photography a month after BvS's release.

Chris Terrio also said that the intention was for BvS to be the darkest chapter of the three movies and that JL would "redeem" (his word) those actions in BvS. I imagine that the response to BvS caused Snyder and Terrio to add some more playfulness than they might have otherwise, but either way, I still expect that they would have gone in a lighter direction. That had been set up from the beginning.

 

[heatvision38]

Nah see... this is where we might disagree... because even in the first Spider-man film we saw... that you could still kill off the villain without having the hero commit the act... it could be a thing of his own doing... or something completely different in regards to over-exposure of Kryptonite. Singer's Superman Returns has gotten half the fans get a knee-jerk reaction to Donner's solution for Zod.

Spider-Man was acting solely on instinct there: deadly object sent by villain coming his way, spider sense tingles, jumps out of the way. Anything beyond that is not on Spider-Man. In BB, Batman could have saved Ra's. If it were Rachel, he would have had time to save her. It wasn't a time issue. It was a choice issue. For Spider-Man, that wasn't the case.

 

[heatvision38]

Eh, I would still only change a few things in the last part of MOS. Still keep Superman killing Zod tho, just in a different way.

I think if Snyder took a scene after the Zod snapping scene to show the effects of what happened, that would have helped. To go right into the more playful drone downing sequence then to Clark Kent was an odd transition, imo.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I think if Snyder took a scene after the Zod snapping scene to show the effects of what happened, that would have helped. To go right into the more playful drone downing sequence then to Clark Kent was an odd transition, imo.

Yeah it needed something in between. Should've slapped on a "6 months later" tag with some shots of the clean up and rebuilding efforts.

 

[Erzengel]

Chris Terrio also said that the intention was for BvS to be the darkest chapter of the three movies and that JL would "redeem" (his word) those actions in BvS. I imagine that the response to BvS caused Snyder and Terrio to add some more playfulness than they might have otherwise, but either way, I still expect that they would have gone in a lighter direction. That had been set up from the beginning.

Darker also applies to Empire Strikes Back, TDK, etc. but being darker doesn't necessarily equate with knowingly going in a direction that fans may not appreciate. So if they were going to go in a lighter direction with JL all along, that meant they had to go even lighter than they intended? Regardless, it didn't seem they anticipated the reaction of BvS and I imagined they still subconsciously or consciously tried to make changes.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

A montage of Superman helping the metropolis rebuild effort would have been appreciated