Support NeoGAF

[BlackGoku03]

If you're against destroying the truck of a dirtbag asshole to teach him a lesson, your problem is as much with Superman as portrayed in the Snyder films as it is with Superman as portrayed by everyone else ever, and every vigilante superhero for that matter, because that is how the whole genre operates.

"trying to see the good in everyone" doesn't mean "never hurting anyone ever", because sometimes they're warlords, or they're loose in a big city doing as much damage as they can with no intention of ever stopping. There's a nuance there, and you'd have to argue in pretty bad faith not to see it.

At the very least in BvS, Wonder Woman has actually withdrawn from the world, having taken from her confrontation with Ares the idea that her intervention in mankind's affairs only made things worse. And then, seeing Superman fight, she's inspired to come back, because, and that's key to the worldview of Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice, "men are still good".

It's no use man. I see what you're saying and agree. Superman in our world would be treated just like he is in Snyder's movies. I really feel that the media was a third character in BvS... they did a good job at showing how we'd react.

But, like other certain groups, people who criticize these films go for the low hanging fruit and it prevents them from seeing anything else. It also prevents them from arguing/discussing this franchise in good faith. Especially when most people have been conditioned to a certain type of Extended Universe, they can't help but to compare.

But anyway, I liked the themes of MoS and BvS. I liked the action and the story. I like Clark's overall story arc. I see some of the jarring character choices and film-making missteps but I can still enjoy the movies. I'm excited to see JL as well so my opinion won't count in this discussion.

 

[foxuzamaki]

I'd argue that Clark has even more reason to protect the Earth. Having grown up in it, he's seen the good in the world.

Diana comes to the world and is immediately exposed to war, sexism, pollution, political cowardice, etc.

That ignores that Diana is inherently stubborn

 

[CoolestSpot]

That ignores that Diana is inherently stubborn

I also have problems with Wonder Woman's protrayal on a fundamental level, but that's another thread for another time.

She's done pretty well for the most part, unlike the other two heroes that make up DC's trinity.

 

[MHWilliams]

It's no use man. I see what you're saying and agree. Superman in our world would be treated just like he is in Snyder's movies. I really feel that the media was a third character in BvS... they did a good job at showing how we'd react.

But, like other certain groups, people who criticize these films go for the low hanging fruit and it prevents them from seeing anything else. It also prevents them from arguing/discussing this franchise in good faith. Especially when most people have been conditioned to a certain type of Extended Universe, they can't help but to compare.

But anyway, I liked the themes of MoS and BvS. I liked the action and the story. I like Clark's overall story arc. I see some of the jarring character choices and film-making missteps but I can still enjoy the movies. I'm excited to see JL as well so my opinion won't count in this discussion.

A bit less of the "woe is me" martyr talk.

Again, there is a clear disconnect from sizable parts of the audience and the text onscreen.

Why?

 

[DocSeuss]

Well then black Adam is a more realistic character for the snyderverse and probably how superman would generally be. Not a happy camper ala Reeves

Man, just 'cause babies are extremely fragile things that I can barely believe exist doesn't mean I don't love and care for them. How awful do you have to be to believe that someone not as strong as you is inherently worth less than you?

If I had the powers of Superman, I certainly wouldn't turn into some selfish jackass who cares for no one. Helping people is fun and good. I'd love to be able to help people more now than I already do.

This is probably why I prefer Captain Marvel to Black Adam.

 

[gioGAF]

Snyder blew it. His vision of Superman is terrible. Man of Steel has its problems, but BvS just totally shits the bed.

I thought Man of Steel was simply okay and an acceptable launching point. We do get a Superman who seems to be facing the problems of a teenager as a grown ass man, but my hope was that this would be rectified in future installments (couldn't have been more wrong). The most ruinous moment in MoS is hard to overlook and is enough to call it quits on the franchise:

- Superman stands by and WATCHES HIS FATHER DIE. This scene is ridiculous and frames Superman as a mindless coward. I get that his father didn't want Superman to reveal himself, but to allow your father to die in front of you and not have the conviction or courage to do something about it is pathetic. Superman cannon has his father die of a heart attack, which contains many key lessons for Superman (human frailty, value of life, he has no power over such things, etc.), this tornado nonsense is just cringe-worthy.

BvS is not really a Superman movie, he is more of a prop for the Batman story arc. He is killed without the impact of the comic version (Comic - he is a beloved hero to all who stops a global threat when all others have failed by giving his life. BvS - not). Superman is still a whiny teenager in BvS. I could understand his bumbling if he was in college or something, he looks like a man to me. Seems like he should have his act together.

Not only is he an unacceptable Superman, he is an unacceptable adult in this film. Snyder should have gone with Superboy with all this nonsense.

 

[ElNarez]

I feel through all of this Bleepey, you refuse to engage with the idea that there is a hard disconnect between the text of MoS and BvS, and what many people took away from it. Veelk has offered that the disconnect is due to the way the film was shot. And perhaps that's it, given, as you point out that other interpretations fall to similar actions but are seen as more inspiring.

I will offer a counterargument: there's a disconnect between the text of Snyder's films and what people took from it because so much of the critical discourse around movies today has been homogenized, notably through things like review aggregators, but also in the endless youtube hot take industrial complex.

The consensus around Zack Snyder and his movies is that he's some idiot jock who doesn't get the material he's adapting and who just wants to do big crazy visual spectacle. All of his movies are then looked at through this prism, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that people are all too eager to peddle because well, that's the consensus.

The problem is that, in order to make this work, you have to have a viewing of the text so selective that all subtext, and key parts of the text itself, are left completely ignored. It leads to completely sterile platitudes like "this isn't my Superman", "Superman doesn't smile", "okay, Superman does smile, but he isn't shouting directions at people", and that discourages debate in a way that is helpful to no one.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Ironically he was too sublte with why he'd dodge the tanker. Look what happened earlier in the movie when just a train was thrown as him

https://youtu.be/xqlaXylsMwQ



Would premeditated violence like the diner scene in the Donner films be better compared to something done the heat of the moment? Serious question.

You don't have to reframe every criticism as a comparison to Donner's films, you know. It's entirely possible to criticise Snyder's films for things they do as standalone movies.

 

[Cuburt]

Snyder has talked about wanting to adapt The Fountainhead, right?

The fact that he's an objectivist, or at least a fan of objectivist thinking, makes everything about his vision of Superman as presented make absolute sense.

Yeah I think knowing that about Snyder not only makes sense of his take on Superman, but also why his vision for and the world view of Superman just doesn't reconcile with Donner's Superman or many other takes of Superman, for that matter.

Personally, I think there is some troubling implications, such as that Superman would become a murdering fascist dictator if Lois was killed, but even that points to how Superman doesn't care about people all that much and that him helping them isn't necessarily because he has a love for all mankind. Much of his motivation seems to be driven out of a selfish love, and that probably even plays out to why he thinks saving the Earth is important, because the people he loves most, Lois and Martha, are on it.

Also, I think Snyder's vision of Superman as a god figure is much more old testament than new testament.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

I will offer a counterargument: there's a disconnect between the text of Snyder's films and what people took from it because so much of the critical discourse around movies today has been homogenized, notably through things like review aggregators, but also in the endless youtube hot take industrial complex.

The consensus around Zack Snyder and his movies is that he's some idiot jock who doesn't get the material he's adapting and who just wants to do big crazy visual spectacle. All of his movies are then looked at through this prism, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that people are all too eager to peddle because well, that's the consensus.

The problem is that, in order to make this work, you have to have a viewing of the text so selective that all subtext, and key parts of the text itself, are left completely ignored. It leads to completely sterile platitudes like "this isn't my Superman", "Superman doesn't smile", "okay, Superman does smile, but he isn't shouting directions at people", and that discourages debate in a way that is helpful to no one.

People being selective with the film doesn't negate the myriad of analyses that actually and legitimately point out the issues with MoS/BvS's editing, narrative, plot elements and character development as a whole. That's why I don't understand why anyone defending BvS and MoS has to always point out the homogenized consensus while singlehandedly disregarding issues with the text itself. And therein lies the problem, even here in NeoGAF: It's easy to blame "youtube hot takes" and the whole self-fulfilling but I think the larger issue is I've noticed that people often refuse to directly counter the argument that's given to them, and will resort to obtuse comparisons or changing the argument for no legitimate reason. That also discourages debates, which is precisely what you're doing by shifting the argument from looking at the text to somehow surmising that it's the consensus that tainted everything.

 

[Discotheque]

Yeah I think knowing that about Snyder not only makes sense of his take on Superman, but also why his vision for and the world view of Superman just doesn't reconcile with Donner's Superman or many other takes of Superman, for that matter.

Personally, I think there is some troubling implications, such as that Superman would become a murdering fascist dictator if Lois was killed, but even that points to how Superman doesn't care about people all that much and that him helping them isn't necessarily because he has a love for all mankind. Much of his motivation seems to be driven out of a selfish love, and that probably even plays out to why he thinks saving the Earth is important, because the people he loves most, Lois and Martha, are on it.

Also, I think Snyder's vision of Superman as a god figure is much more old testament than new testament.

Although I don't really have a problem with the portrayal itself (it certainly wouldnt be my take on the character but I've enjoyed it) i agree with all of this. It became even more apparent after it was revealed he was a fan of rand.

 

[Veelk]

I will offer a counterargument: there's a disconnect between the text of Snyder's films and what people took from it because so much of the critical discourse around movies today has been homogenized, notably through things like review aggregators, but also in the endless youtube hot take industrial complex.

The consensus around Zack Snyder and his movies is that he's some idiot jock who doesn't get the material he's adapting and who just wants to do big crazy visual spectacle. All of his movies are then looked at through this prism, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that people are all too eager to peddle because well, that's the consensus.

The problem is that, in order to make this work, you have to have a viewing of the text so selective that all subtext, and key parts of the text itself, are left completely ignored. It leads to completely sterile platitudes like "this isn't my Superman", "Superman doesn't smile", "okay, Superman does smile, but he isn't shouting directions at people", and that discourages debate in a way that is helpful to no one.

I will counter that counterargument: This is conspiracy theory nonsense. The entire thrust here is that viewers, as a whole, cannot be fair criticism of Snyder's work because the 'consensus' is that he sucks, is ridiiculous. There are a select few reviewers, like Arnold White, who specifically go out of their way to troll review, but they are in the vast minority.

The truth is, the vast majority of people, myself included, were 100% behind Man of Steel when it came out and thought it was a decent, if imperfect, beginning to the DCEU. And while I was definitely not 100% behind BvS, that one similarly had everyone hoping it would be good.

And what your describing doesn't really occur with other people. M Night Shalaman was a super star, until he started making movies that were awful, then people turned on him. Pixar was unstoppable, until they made cars which was questionable and then cars 2 which sucked. Meanwhile, after a set pattern of 3 DCEU movies bombing hard, both commercially and financially, Wonder Woman came out and got a lot of success of both kinds, with strong arguments backing why it's good. The consensus breaks all the time once a break in the pattern comes out. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to agree with the consensus, but when you ask, people articulate why they think the way they pretty often and thoroughly, and to write them off as drones who just want to cash in on the "lolol Snyder sucks amirite" bandwagon is pretty disingenuous.

So the idea that Snyder is going to be persecuted regardless of what he does is nonsense. We just want a good movie.

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

Are there any regular human people that are stand up dudes in Snyder's Superman movies? It seems like unless you are related to the superheroes, every other human being is either a weak victim or an asshole. Even Nolan's Batman universe believes and shows that there are good Samaritans in Gotham city that aren't just Jim Gordon or love interest. They aren't just people waiting to be saved, but people willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. It doesn't seem like Cavill's Superman believes in protecting people because he believes they are capable to good. He believes in protecting people because they are weak and he is the only one who is capable of protecting them from each other.

I think people don't like Snyder's Superman for reasons other than his take on Superman himself. His world in general feels very cynical of human beings.

 

[ElNarez]

Personally, I think there is some troubling implications, such as that Superman would become a murdering fascist dictator if Lois was killed, but even that points to how Superman doesn't care about people all that much and that him helping them isn't necessarily because he has a love for all mankind. Much of his motivation seems to be driven out of a selfish love, and that probably even plays out to why he thinks saving the Earth is important, because the people he loves most, Lois and Martha, are on it.

You're talking about a nightmare sequence. Certainly, one laden with signs and portents of future plot points in the DC movie chronology, but, at its heart, still just the delusion of a paranoid mind. The implication that it's saying anything about Superman, when literally all of it takes place in Batman's mind, is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I'm talking about "selective reading of the text".

 

[EGM1966]

The core probelem is the dissonance created by the script and how Snyder shot the scenes. The result is as noted in OP: not just a lack of clarity but conflicted clarity. It's obvious nobody involved (including Cavil) really has a clear and consistent view of who this character is, what motivates him and why we should bother to care about him and the events that happen to him. Individual scenes can be good and make sense in isolation but the whole doesn't gel: worse it's actively fractured.

The comparison with Cap America makes sense because it's clear the creative team have an aligned and consistent vision of who he is.

Ultimately at this point Snyder's Superman is merely a poor man's Doctor Manhatten who's also a bit emo. Which makes for a particularly uninteresting character.

 

[Veelk]

You're talking about a nightmare sequence. Certainly, one laden with signs and portents of future plot points in the DC movie chronology, but, at its heart, still just the delusion of a paranoid mind. The implication that it's saying anything about Superman, when literally all of it takes place in Batman's mind, is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I'm talking about "selective reading of the text".

A selective reading of a text where Batman's paranoid mind accurately predicts the look and feel of the alien who is about to invade earth before he's even made aware of their existence?

Which then goes on to predict the exact look of one of his allies in the Flash before he's even met him?

It was pretty clearly a glimpse into the future, or atleast a potential future. There's no other way to explain that unless you're either putting forth that it's sheer contrived coincidence that Bruce is able to see things to be.

 

[Bit-Bit]

Short story is Snyder is stuck in the philosophy of Watchmen and wants his Superman to be Dr. Manhattan.

Uh no. Superman repeatedly tries hard to save humanity, often at the risk of losing his own life.

Manhattan is disconnected from humanity and could not care less what happens to the world in his absence.

 

[Frozenprince]

Honestly my thing has always been that they needed to just do another, good, solid Superman movie.

Not run headfirst into the wall of CONNECTED UNIVERSE and especially not mashing TDKR and Death of Superman together with a bit of WW spliced in there.

Superman needed his own movie to be his own thing and grow and develop so we can identify with him as a superhero. We only get pieces of that in a 2 1/2 hour poorly edited mess, instead.

 

[Cuburt]

You're talking about a nightmare sequence. Certainly, one laden with signs and portents of future plot points in the DC movie chronology, but, at its heart, still just the delusion of a paranoid mind. The implication that it's saying anything about Superman, when literally all of it takes place in Batman's mind, is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I'm talking about "selective reading of the text".

Flash literally appears seconds later confirming his paranoia of Superman.

Bruce! Listen to me now! It's Lois! Lois Lane! She's the key! Am I too soon? I'm too soon! You were right about him! You've always been right about him! Fear him!

 

[Frozenprince]

Flash literally appears seconds later confirming his paranoia of Superman.

That one, totally and entirely unnecessary scene undoes the entire movie and it's narrative and goals.

The movie is 2 1/2 hours of trying to get you to buy in to this idea that Superman is a pure and incorruptible spirit of hope and humanity and yet halfway through the film they tell you in explicit terms "No he's basically his girlfriend dying away from being an unrepentant sociopath who kills most of the world".

You can't square the two. They are entirely incompatible with one another.

BvS was not nor was it ever intended to be a deconstruction of the SUperhero film or comic. It's played entirely straight, right on through, there's no ambiguity in the ending or what the message it's trying to convey to you is. It WANTS the audience to buy in that Clark Kent is this dopey, good meaning kid from Kansas that can throw a skyscraper and wears tights and inspires people. But the actual events in the film, including the acting, direction, editing, dialogue, and scene pacing all show a distinctly different character than the interpretation that the film is trying to make you buy into.

WB/DC was not trying to make Watchmen with Superman, they intended and released it with the intention that it would be the starting point for it's cinematic universe with the heroic and virtuous Superman at its helm.

 

[ElNarez]

I will counter that counterargument: This is conspiracy theory nonsense. The entire thrust here is that viewers, as a whole, cannot be fair criticism of Snyder's work because the 'consensus' is that he sucks, is ridiiculous. There are a select few reviewers, like Arnold White, who specifically go out of their way to troll review, but they are in the vast minority.

The truth is, the vast majority of people, myself included, were 100% behind Man of Steel when it came out and thought it was a decent, if imperfect, beginning to the DCEU. And while I was definitely not 100% behind BvS, that one similarly had everyone hoping it would be good.

And what your describing doesn't really occur with other people. M Night Shalaman was a super star, until he started making movies that were awful, then people turned on him. Pixar was unstoppable, until they made cars which was questionable and then cars 2 which sucked. Meanwhile, after a set pattern of 3 DCEU movies bombing hard, both commercially and financially, Wonder Woman came out and got a lot of success of both kinds, with strong arguments backing why it's good. The consensus breaks all the time once a break in the pattern comes out. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to agree with the consensus, but when you ask, people articulate why they think the way they pretty often and thoroughly, and to write them off as drones who just want to cash in on the "lolol Snyder sucks amirite" bandwagon is pretty disingenuous.

So the idea that Snyder is going to be persecuted regardless of what he does is nonsense. We just want a good movie.

You're saying there's no such thing as consensus, then you're saying there was a consensus around Man of Steel, but actually it was good, and then you're saying that the problem is not the consensus because sometimes it changes. Which responds to just about none of what I was saying.

The important thing is the current critical consensus around Snyder, not what it was, and not what it will be, but how he's perceived now, which is as this crypto-randian jock who thinks everything is Watchmen somehow.

 

[ElNarez]

A selective reading of a text where Batman's paranoid mind accurately predicts the look and feel of the alien who is about to invade earth before he's even made aware of their existence?

Which then goes on to predict the exact look of one of his allies in the Flash before he's even met him?

It was pretty clearly a glimpse into the future, or atleast a potential future. There's no other way to explain that unless you're either putting forth that it's sheer contrived coincidence that Bruce is able to see things to be.

I'm not saying it wasn't a portent of the future, I am saying that what you are seeing is colored by the beliefs of Batman at this point in time. The Flash coming in after that sequence is talking about something we have no context for, but Batman sees it as confirmation that he is right to go after Superman, because that's what he's told himself was the right course of action.

PS: I do realize the irony in this being an example of confirmation bias, which is what I have spent a fair few posts denouncing in the context of the critical consensus around Zack Snyder

 

[RS4-]

And yet people wonder why this Superman isn't all gleeful. If Superman actually existed in our world, I guarantee you he wouldn't be anything like Reeve's.

lol if Superman pulled some guy out of a burning truck, that dude would sue him.

 

[Frozenprince]

I am tired of these threads basically just being the (statistically) 4-5/10 people on average that enjoyed the film for what it was telling everybody else that they don't "get it".

Like, no, I get it. Again, the film really isn't that complex. The narrative while jumbled in fucking horrible editing is straightforward and easy to understand, the climax builds off that, and the ending is the same core message that the film attempts to convey, that Superman represents the best of humanity.

I get it. I get what they wanted to do, they tried to tell a very normal and traditional Superman story, guest starring Batman. I am saying and have always said that they did that badly. Because the actions being dictated to me on screen clash with that narrative and that message over and over and over and over. At no point is "He's an alien in a world that hates him" supposed to be the key element to his character, it's a character beat that he's supposed too, in the film itself and presented as such, be above. That he does the right thing because it's right. Again, the film makes no pretensions about this.

It just does all this badly, which is why people interpret it as being "darker" or a "deconstruction of who and what Superman is" when the film isn't that in any capacity.

 

[Imperfected]

I wasn't sure what it was I hated so much about Snyder's Superman until I saw My Hero Academia. The All Might character really is a diametrically opposed take on the character that does right everything that Snyder does wrong.

 

[AMUSIX]

Also, Superman doesn't care about walls. He sees a wall, he thinks, "hey, there's something I can slam a guy though!" Doesn't matter if his foe is just a normal dude, or a superpowered being, or some guy in a suit of armor. Foe + Wall = SMASH!

 

[Secret Fawful]

Snyder has talked about wanting to adapt The Fountainhead, right?

The fact that he's an objectivist, or at least a fan of objectivist thinking, makes everything about his vision of Superman as presented make absolute sense.

Oh my god, an Ayn Rand-esque Superman is....that combination is a NIGHTMARE.

 

[dragonyeuw]

My impressions on both the Reeve Superman and Cavil Superman - and I say this fully aware they're unique takes on the character and the world they exist in per the respective director(s) vision - is that Reeve's Superman by his very nature would strive to do good regardless of his superior gifts. He's just a do-gooder by nature blessed with abilities beyond that of normal man. Cavil's Superman, if not for the abilities he was graced with, I don't see him as someone who would do the right thing if not for his powers putting him in a situation where he feels compelled to do so. Reeve's Supes, without his powers, would spend a whole day helping old ladies across the street( borrowing a phrase read earlier in this thread) or would climb the highest tree to save a child's cat( yes, an obvious reference to that scene from Superman the movie). Nothing about Cavil's Supes leads me to believe he's that kind of person naturally. Perhaps there's a fair argument that Reeve in Cavill's world wouldn't be 'that' guy, but I see Cavill's conflict as Superman as the embodiment of the lessons taught to him by his parents:

What should I do, just let him die? "Maybe".
Be everything they want you to be, or none of it. You don't owe this world a thing.

And those lessons play out quite clearly, especially in the BvS montage, that the wheels are turning while he's doing these good deeds.

 

[Frozenprince]

Tbh a not insignificant issue is that Cavill is a pretty shitty physical actor. He struggles to emote convincingly.

Great body, perfect voice, has never really been able to get body language right.

 

[Veelk]

I'm not saying it wasn't a portent of the future, I am saying that what you are seeing is colored by the beliefs of Batman at this point in time. The Flash coming in after that sequence is talking about something we have no context for, but Batman sees it as confirmation that he is right to go after Superman, because that's what he's told himself was the right course of action.

PS: I do realize the irony in this being an example of confirmation bias, which is what I have spent a fair few posts denouncing in the context of the critical consensus around Zack Snyder

That... is not confirmation bias. Or even a subtextual reading of the film. It's just pure baseless speculation. Nothing in the film suggests that the vision Batman saw was altered to fit his prejudices. Unless you have a reason to doubt the authenticity of the vision, there's no reason to doubt that that is what really happened, atleast in one timeline.

Also, if your interpretation is accurate, that makes it even more pointless than it was before. Batman was already going after superman, he doesn't need confirmation bias to keep going.

You're saying there's no such thing as consensus, then you're saying there was a consensus around Man of Steel, but actually it was good, and then you're saying that the problem is not the consensus because sometimes it changes. Which responds to just about none of what I was saying.

I'm not saying that a consensus doesn't exist. I'm saying there is no reason to think of it as a reason to discount hundreds of thousands of well articulated opinions about why Snyder's movies suck. It's literally just an inverted sort of populism. That Snyder's work must have merit because everyone thinks it doesn't. It's nonsense and all you're doing here is trying to broadly discredit people with an opinion that happens to align with the consensus, and that is bullshit conspiracy theory nonsense.

 

[Shoeless]

It would be nice if Diana teaches Clark something that eventually helps him to reach his own convictions about being a hero.

I thought that what Snyder was trying to do in both MoS and BvS with the media and the ethical/philosophical implications of Superman in the real world were actually valuable questions that should be asked. But he stumbled on portraying the internal struggle and cost of this. Worse, it made it look like Clark was having a hard time caring for people.

Contrast that with the way Diana takes the British officers to task in their war room, and then becomes increasingly angry at the resigned way everyone reacts to No Man's Land, and by the time you get through that action sequence, and then see how she interacts with the crowd of villagers once she's saved them and it's a huge contrast in the treatment of heroism.

I get Snyder wanting to start Superman in a less certain place, and then earning his position as part of the DC holy trinity, but I think he put Clark too deep in the hole to begin with to make for a credible "climbing out."

 

[ElNarez]

That... is not confirmation bias. Or even a subtextual reading of the film. It's just pure baseless speculation. Nothing in the film suggests that the vision Batman saw was altered to fit his prejudices. Unless you have a reason to doubt the authenticity of the vision, there's no reason to doubt that that is what really happened, atleast in one timeline.

Also, if your interpretation is accurate, that makes it even more pointless than it was before. Batman was already going after superman, he doesn't need confirmation bias to keep going.

Dreams acting as promonition is nothing new in fiction. There is weird time shit happening, but, essentially, this is still Batman seeing it, which you know because it is sandwiched between two sequences of Batman at his desk, because the dream sequence itself is following Batman and is shot from Batman's point of view, and and in it he's doing the things that Batman planned on doing.

Again, we have NO CONTEXT as to why Flash pops up. All we know is that apparently, he's appeared at the wrong time. It's all the information we have on his intent beyond the extremely vague things he says. The point is that it could mean anything, but Batman sees it as more evidence of the urgency of his mission to kill Superman, and that in itself is the point of the scene as a statement on who Batman is at this point in time.

 

[More_Badass]

I think the most jarring moment in Mos and BvS, even more than the Zod neck snap, was in BvS, when the warlord has Lois hostage and Supes just superspeed-smashes him through like three walls

Like...that guy is dead

There are so many other ways he could have stopped the guy. Ways we've seen countless times in the comics and cartoons. Melted the gun, or made it too hot for the guy to hold, or just put his hand over the muzzle.

I think the ”he destroyed Metropolis" criticisms are totally overblown and I can reason why he would have to kill Zod in that moment, but that scene in BvS was just so blatant and weird

 

[Veelk]

Dreams acting as promonition is nothing new in fiction. There is weird time shit happening, but, essentially, this is still Batman seeing it, which you know because it is sandwiched between two sequences of Batman at his desk, because the dream sequence itself is following Batman and is shot from Batman's point of view, and and in it he's doing the things that Batman planned on doing.

In movies, sure. In 'normal human' characters who are not being imparted a vision by a supernatural entity, it's not as popular, no. Generally speaking, if a premonition is happening, there is often some kind of supernatural force at work, either from a character or upon a character. By this logic, we can expect Batman to turn into a CGI rabbit and break into song next film as animal tranformations, CGI, and musical numbers are nothing new in film either.

And none of that is evidence of the vision itself being tainted either, nor is it subtext to read into that. Like I said, you're just speculating. Which is fine, but just because it CAN be true isn't a reason to believe it is true. (because literally anything can be true in fiction. That's the neat thing about it, there's no limit on reality there.)

Again, we have NO CONTEXT as to why Flash pops up. All we know is that apparently, he's appeared at the wrong time. It's all the information we have on his intent beyond the extremely vague things he says. The point is that it could mean anything, but Batman sees it as more evidence of the urgency of his mission to kill Superman, and that in itself is the point of the scene as a statement on who Batman is at this point in time.

Dude, the dialogue flash gives little reason to think it's anything else. "You were right about him, Lois is the key". It might turn out to be something else, but again, that's not bias. I don't have a bias against superman, and short of talking about someone entirely unknown in an entirely unforeshadowed situation, there's no one else that associates 1. Batman's convictions and 2. Lois being important. You're right that it COULD mean anything, but with the information available, none of it makes sense except superman.

Which, btw, is still pointless from a narrative prespective. Batman doesn't need Flash cheerleading his side. Nor do I think that if Flash said "Don't kill superman, he's super cool", that he'd let that stop him or write it off as anything more than a dream. I don't understand why you think Batman applying confirmation bias to something he was going to do with or without dream flash's encouragement is something to be lauded as good writing.

I think the most jarring moment in the Mos and BvS, even more than the Zod neck snap, was in BvS, when the warlord has Lois hostage and Supes just superspeed-smashes him through like three walls

Like...that guy is dead

There are so many other ways he could have stopped the guy. Ways we've seen countless times in the comics and cartoons. Melted the gun, or made it too hot for the guy to hold, or just put his hand over the muzzle.

I think the ”he destroyed Metropolis" criticisms are totally overblown and I can reason why he would have to kill Zod in that moment, but that scene in BvS was just so blatant and weird

Well, if the conversation I am having now makes any sense, it could be because it's Lois. You can do a lot of bad shit, but if you hurt Lois, you're fucking DEAD

Spoiler

unless your lex luthor

.

 

[Imperfected]

There are so many other ways he could have stopped the guy. Ways we’ve seen countless times in the comics and cartoons. Melted the gun, or made it too hot for the guy to hold, or just put his hand over the muzzle.

It's important to establish that his personal relationships and emotions completely trump any personal ethics with regards to abuse of power. I guess. I mean, I don't know why, it's never really paid off in any substantial way aside from Dudes Shouting Martha.

 

[dragonyeuw]

I get Snyder wanting to start Superman in a less certain place, and then earning his position as part of the DC holy trinity, but I think he put Clark too deep in the hole to begin with to make for a credible "climbing out."

If you're going to go for the 'Superman needs to find his place in the real, grounded modern world' direction, honestly I think that's a great story to tell. What I gather from various criticisms isn't that this story isn't one worth telling but, it needs a director who can tell that story while keeping the essence of what makes the character inspiring intact. It's a fine balance and Snyder in two attempts IMO has not proven himself capable of effectively toeing that line.

 

[ElNarez]

In movies, sure. In 'normal human' characters who are not being imparted a vision by a supernatural entity, it's not as popular, no. Generally speaking, if a premonition is happening, there is often some kind of supernatural force at work, either from a character or upon a character. By this logic, we can expect Batman to turn into a CGI rabbit and break into song next film as animal tranformations, CGI, and musical numbers are nothing new in film either.

And none of that is evidence of the vision itself being tainted either, nor is it subtext to read into that. Like I said, you're just speculating. Which is fine, but just because it CAN be true isn't a reason to believe it is true. (because literally anything can be true in fiction. That's the neat thing about it, there's no limit on reality there.)

At this point you're being willfully dense and I'm done entertaining you. If you're not getting the idea that sometimes movie sequences are shot so as to present a character's point of view on a situation, it's on you. I'm out.

 

[Veelk]

At this point you're being willfully dense and I'm done entertaining you. If you're not getting the idea that sometimes movie sequences are shot so as to present a character's point of view on a situation, it's on you. I'm out.

I'm acknowledging your theory, but all it is is a theory. Your own personal little piece of writing to make a little more sense of Snyder's movie.

The point here is I am asking you to provide evidence that the vision itself was somehow altered because it was Batman viewing it. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence of that. Which makes it speculation. Which, again, is fine, but you can't expect other viewers to accept it just because you do. For that, you have to substantiate it with evidence. Until you do, it is baseless. Which is okay, I do it all the time too. But it's a thing I only do for myself. You can't offer it as a retort to someone pointing out the gaps in the movie that are there.

 

[Shoeless]

If you're going to go for the 'Superman needs to find his place in the real, grounded modern world' direction, honestly I think that's a great story to tell. What I gather from various criticisms isn't that this story isn't one worth telling but, it needs a director who can tell that story while keeping the essence of what makes the character inspiring intact. It's a fine balance and Snyder in two attempts IMO has not proven himself capable of effectively toeing that line.

Yeah, I completely agree with this. He definitely had the right idea, but the way he set about trying to answers these questions was--aside from the fascinating media montage in BvS--not very successful.

I've said it before, but I really wish we'd actually gotten some of that government hearing hashed out, with people actually debating Superman's "rights" as a superhero to act in America, rather than getting everything hamstrung by the bomb.

 

[Frozenprince]

"The extremely vague thing he says" he literally says Bruce is completely right about Superman and that Lois Lane is the only thing keeping what we, the audience, just saw from happening.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Nailed it.

Compare the MoS behavior to Wonder Woman in No Man's Land.

Snyder Supes has yet to do anything even nearly as heroic as that. That one scene is more Superman than anything in either MoS or BvS.

He blew up the World Engine and saved all 7 billion of us. That's mad heroic.

 

[Cuburt]

Dreams acting as promonition is nothing new in fiction. There is weird time shit happening, but, essentially, this is still Batman seeing it, which you know because it is sandwiched between two sequences of Batman at his desk, because the dream sequence itself is following Batman and is shot from Batman's point of view, and and in it he's doing the things that Batman planned on doing.

Again, we have NO CONTEXT as to why Flash pops up. All we know is that apparently, he's appeared at the wrong time. It's all the information we have on his intent beyond the extremely vague things he says. The point is that it could mean anything, but Batman sees it as more evidence of the urgency of his mission to kill Superman, and that in itself is the point of the scene as a statement on who Batman is at this point in time.

Who else can Flash be talking about but Superman? It way too conveniently fits with the end of his dream where Supes says Lois was his world and how Bruce took her from him before killing him.

But lets say for a second Flash was talking about someone else who Bruce was right about (without mentioning him by name and giving Bruce some much needed context) and that Lois is the key for some other contrived reason, why would Flash need to warn Bruce if it was, say, Darkseid or some other obvious villain? The way he says "you've always been right about him" makes it sound like Bruce saw something that no one else did, such as being suspicious of the beacon of hope and hero to the world, Superman.

The Knightmare dream could have been completely made up (if you just ignore how he knew what Parademons looked like or being somewhere that might be Apokolips), but even if that were all manifested in Bruce's psyche, Flash was real because we know that is how his powers work, Bruce has never met the guy to know what the looks like, and it happens after he wakes from a dream, meaning we can take that series of events at face value. It seems he may then wake from a second dream, but the more likely explanation is he just passed out again since you can see the papers still flying around in the background, confirming that Flash appearing wasn't a dream.

Since Bruce's dream was oddly specific including details that he wouldn't know at the time, it's possible that Bruce wasn't dreaming but being given a premonition. Flash asked if he is too soon, but it's possible that he was right on time given the content of Bruce's dream and it's possible that Bruce told Flash about that early dream and Flash tried to go back to that point to warn him, given that it would be the soonest you can warn Bruce of his impending heel turn of Superman that no one saw coming. Flash wouldn't realize if it was the right time because he didn't even know Bruce at that point and would just be going off what Bruce told him.

It's certainly possible that they just shoehorn some other twist into Flash going back in time, because comics, but we've seen more to enforce that it is a vision of a "possible" future (since Flash is going back in time to prevent it, meaning the future can be changed) and Superman himself even tells Lois she is his world right before sacrificing himself for her. Of course, Batman doesn't hear their talk and assumes he is sacrificing himself for the world, so he flip flops on his suspicion of Superman and doesn't heed Flash's warning at all. Thanks for dooming us all, Bats.

 

[neojubei]

He blew up the World Engine and saved all 7 billion of us. That's mad heroic.

And killed thousands of people in metropolis fighting zod.

Bryan Singer's superman in superman returns was a better superman than synder's/

 

[Frozenprince]

There is no ambiguity in the Flash time travel scene. Absolutely none. As a viewer, it's deliberately placed directly after Knightmare with very clear wording to give the thematic weight to Batman's arc in the film.

He's told, point blank, with no uncertainty that he's right.

 

[Shoeless]

And killed thousands of people in metropolis fighting zod.

Bryan Singer's superman in superman returns was a better superman than synder's/

There were a lot of problems with Superman Returns, but the one thing Singer totally nailed was the actual "return." That shuttle sequence, and, more importantly, the reaction of the world, and Superman himself to his return was the heart of that whole movie. It was an amazing sequence, especially the way the crowds were cheering and hugging each other as they saw Superman look out from that plane he'd just saved. That was a real Superman Moment.

 

[More_Badass]

And killed thousands of people in metropolis fighting zod.

Bryan Singer's superman in superman returns was a better superman than synder's/

Why do people always say this? Where exactly does Superman kill thousands of people? The collateral damage we do see is evacuated buildings. And when they are in populated areas, that's Zod's fault, not his. Zod is the one throwing him through buildings and the one taking the fight into areas where people are. Zod is the one that kicks the satellite and Superman back into the city

I don't get why people always say Superman killed so many people during the fight.

 

[Htown]

Bryan Singer's superman in superman returns was a better superman than synder's/

Yeah I think I've said this before, but even though Man of Steel is a better movie than Superman Returns, it has the worse version of Superman.

Why do people always say this? Where exactly does Superman kill thousands of people? The collateral damage we do see is evacuated buildings. And when they are in populated areas, that's Zod's fault, not his. Zod is the one throwing him through buildings and the one taking the fight into areas where people are. Zod is the one that kicks the satellite and Superman back into the city

I don't get why people always say Superman killed so many people during the fight.

Yeah, Superman isn't responsible for those deaths, but again it's a problem of the portrayal. It comes across like he doesn't care what happens to them until the very end of the fight. It would have been much better if we had seen Superman take time out of the fight, even opening himself up to more of Zod's attacks, in order to get civilians out of the way or prevent debris from falling on them. It makes Supes look like he cares, and it lays a stronger foundation for the fight's climactic moment.

 

[PanSexual_Peacock]

And killed thousands of people in metropolis fighting zod.

Bryan Singer's superman in superman returns was a better superman than synder's/

I see you didn't pay much attention to the film. The majority of the death and destruction came from the World Engine. By the time Supes and Zod actually fight, downtown Metropolis is basically cleared already. Pay attention to the buildings. They were empty.

 

[Cuburt]

I see you didn't pay much attention to the film. The majority of the death and destruction came from the World Engine. By the time Supes and Zod actually fight, downtown Metropolis is basically cleared already. Pay attention to the buildings. They were empty.

Except they keep showing cutaways of crowds people standing in the streets as building explode and topple on top of them as they fight in MoS.

And just ignore the beginning of BvS where we literally see someone in the building as it comes down and people just begin to evacuate the building only minutes earlier.

 

[neojubei]

Yeah I think I've said this before, but even though Man of Steel is a better movie than Superman Returns, it has the worse version of Superman.



Yeah, Superman isn't responsible for those deaths, but again it's a problem of the portrayal. It comes across like he doesn't care what happens to them until the very end of the fight. It would have been much better if we had seen Superman take time out of the fight, even opening himself up to more of Zod's attacks, in order to get civilians out of the way or prevent debris from falling on them. It makes Supes look like he cares, and it lays a stronger foundation for the fight's climactic moment.

Well murderous batman did held superman accountable for the deaths in metropolis

I see you didn't pay much attention to the film. The majority of the death and destruction came from the World Engine. By the time Supes and Zod actually fight, downtown Metropolis is basically cleared already. Pay attention to the buildings. They were empty.

If the city was evacuated why was batman so mad?

Why do people always say this? Where exactly does Superman kill thousands of people? The collateral damage we do see is evacuated buildings. And when they are in populated areas, that's Zod's fault, not his. Zod is the one throwing him through buildings and the one taking the fight into areas where people are. Zod is the one that kicks the satellite and Superman back into the city

I don't get why people always say Superman killed so many people during the fight.

So when was the Wayne tech building evacuated? Try to imagine all of Manhattan evacuated in a few hours, not going to happen. Supes could have taken zod away from the city. And to insult to injury kisses Lois in the tattered remains of the city.

There were a lot of problems with Superman Returns, but the one thing Singer totally nailed was the actual "return." That shuttle sequence, and, more importantly, the reaction of the world, and Superman himself to his return was the heart of that whole movie. It was an amazing sequence, especially the way the crowds were cheering and hugging each other as they saw Superman look out from that plane he'd just saved. That was a real Superman Moment.

This article sums it up best Bryan Singer's Superman is the Hero America Needs

Except they keep showing cutaways of crowds people standing in the streets as building explode and topple on top of them as they fight in MoS.

And just ignore the beginning of BvS where we literally see someone in the building as it comes down and people just begin to evacuate the building only minutes earlier.

I guess you and i were not paying attention to the movie that showed people in buildings being destroyed in not one but 2 movies.