Justice League Henry Cavill IS Clark Kent/Superman - - - - - Part 14

[Arachnerd]

Shh, m1ll3r doesn't respond well to logical responses.

 

[GothamBat]

We all know an outflow of incandescent energy derived from a star is basically just like a stream of warm water from a kitchen faucet. You can just put your hand over it to block it. No biggie.

 

[Micromind]

The Superman in Snyder's movies does have to deal with physical damage in some form to him, he is not invulnerable.

Take for example, the effect of nuke on him when Doomsday and Superman are targeted, or the toll destroying the World Engine takes on him.

 

[BH/HHH]

The arm over Zod’s eyes was genius. A really good joke, but also a clever one that highlights how dumb the reasoning behind the neck snap really was.

OK so let’s say he covers Zod’s eyes, then what does he do?

 

[FunkMiller]

OK so let’s say he covers Zod’s eyes, then what does he do?

Are you seriously suggesting there’s no way to rewrite that ending that does not result in Superman having to kill Zod? Because that’s ridiculous. This is fiction. You can write yourself out of any corner if you have to.

...so, how about Superman is in an agony of indecision because he’s stuck in an unwinnable situation? He can’t let Zod carry on, but he can’t kill him either. Maybe they riff on the way Joker dies in TDKR - Superman stops just short of cold blooded murder and Zod finishes the job for him. Fits perfectly okay with both characterisations throughout the movie.

The neck snap was dumb for a Superman movie, and will remain dumb until the end of time. They could have written it better and differently. They didn’t.

 

[FunkMiller]

Shh, m1ll3r doesn't respond well to logical responses.

M1ll3r certainly doesn’t know how to respond to a 404 broken link to a picture...

 

[BH/HHH]

Are you seriously suggesting there’s no way to rewrite that ending that does not result in Superman having to kill Zod? Because that’s ridiculous. This is fiction. You can write yourself out of any corner if you have to.

...so, how about Superman is in an agony of indecision because he’s stuck in an unwinnable situation? He can’t let Zod carry on, but he can’t kill him either. Maybe they riff on the way Joker dies in TDKR - Superman stops just short of cold blooded murder and Zod finishes the job for him. Fits perfectly okay with both characterisations throughout the movie.

The neck snap was dumb for a Superman movie, and will remain dumb until the end of time. They could have written it better and differently. They didn’t.

Not the way the film had gotten to that point no. Saying they shouldn’t have written it like that is a lazy response.

So Zod commits suicide like Joker did in DKR? Hmm not sure that would have been anymore accepted in all honesty but I’d have been ok with that same as I was the neck snap.

You can not like it but to say they shouldn’t have done it is dumb imo. I think this just proves that some people have an idea of what superman should and shouldn’t do and if it deviates from what they think then it’s dumb or not what Superman would do. When it actuality you just don’t like it.

 

[Nemeres]

Well, obviously Clark helped people and stood proud in front of humans before the alien invasion. Clark saving the life of famous reporter, Lois Lane, comes to mind. It was the same reporter who learned of his story and chose to risk her life and career to protect him that signalled it was the right time to come forward. According to Clark, Lois believing in him made a difference to him. And, of course, you must recall Jonathan Kent neither made any conditional remarks nor did he ever suggest to Clark that saving people in the shadows was an option to avoid using his gifts and standing proud in front of the human race. He always clarified his call for patience with a "When" rather than an "If." He also told his son he didn't have all the answers right before he died. Jonathan's guidance wasn't a hard line; it wasn't codified.

Jonathan didn't give his son all the answers, and Clark didn't follow his father's ideas to the letter. Just because it was an alien invasion that marked the right time for Superman to debut doesn't mean it was the only way Jonathan's vision for his son could have played out. Clark clearly decided to come forward after seeking the advice of ordinary human beings like Lois and Father Leone. Jonathan only ever encouraged his son to trust his gut and come forward when the time was right. That's it. To suggest that because the right time was an alien invasion that it could only ever have been an alien invasion is illogical. Jonathan Kent did not raise his son to believe that he should never proudly share his blessings with the world. He taught him to be patient and strategic.

It didn't have to be, but it was. It's the moment we're given, implying no other occasion was worthy enough, and it's how the film vindicates Jonathan's stance -- the absolute necessity of “waiting”, past his entire twenties and well into his thirties if must be -- and it doesn't question it, nor do any of the characters. Lois says she doesn't believe it's an option for him to stop helping people, but the argument that he's been as good as a costume-less Superman during his entire soul-searching period wouldn't really hold up when it's clear that the events where he's intervened are only those that he's happened to witness. He's known by only a handful of folks and by no one outside of the bus and rig incidents. Not to remove credit from those saves, but if what's being judged is how they relate to Jonathan's philosophy and the mark it left on his son, they seem to have occurred in spite of it and not because. We see where he is at 33 and we see where he stands in regards to coming up with a life plan of his own that involves making himself truly available to the world. There's not enough there that would have led to a hypothetical of Clark revealing himself if he had never come across Jor-El or without Zod's cue.

 

[FunkMiller]

Not the way the film had gotten to that point no. Saying they shouldn’t have written it like that is a lazy response.

So Zod commits suicide like Joker did in DKR? Hmm not sure that would have been anymore accepted in all honesty but I’d have been ok with that same as I was the neck snap.

You can not like it but to say they shouldn’t have done it is dumb imo. I think this just proves that some people have an idea of what superman should and shouldn’t do and if it deviates from what they think then it’s dumb or not what Superman would do. When it actuality you just don’t like it.

Your entire viewpoint on this is ‘I like the neck snap, so there’s no way they could have written it any differently.’

If you didn’t like it, I’m sure you could come up with myriad ways in your head for the film to have avoided it.

Like, Superman flying Zod out of the train station and into orbit where the fight continues until they hit space, where the strength of the sun’s rays are too much for Zod, having only been exposed to them for a very short time, and they kill him. Nice Icarus metaphor, nice death, nice solution to dilemma.

And you’re damn right I don’t like the neck snap - because it’s dumb, easily avoidable and bad for Superman’s character.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Huh. Was I the only one that went "Ohhhhh ****tttttt!!!!" when he did that?? It was an awesome moment.

Though that was put in for the Supes fans who were upset about BvS, I felt it was a mic drop moment to be sure.

 

[misslane38]

It didn't have to be, but it was. It's the moment we're given, implying no other occasion was worthy enough, and it's how the film vindicates Jonathan's stance -- the absolute necessity of “waiting”, past his entire twenties and well into his thirties if must be -- and it doesn't question it, nor do any of the characters. Lois says she doesn't believe it's an option for him to stop helping people, but the argument that he's been as good as a costume-less Superman during his entire soul-searching period wouldn't really hold up when it's clear that the events where he's intervened are only those that he's happened to witness. He's known by only a handful of folks and by no one outside of the bus and rig incidents. Not to remove credit from those saves, but if what's being judged is how they relate to Jonathan's philosophy and the mark it left on his son, they seem to have occurred in spite of it and not because. We see where he is at 33 and we see where he stands in regards to coming up with a life plan of his own that involves making himself truly available to the world. There's not enough there that would have led to a hypothetical of Clark revealing himself if he had never come across Jor-El or without Zod's cue.

No, it doesn't imply that only an alien invasion would have been only thing sufficient to draw Clark out as Superman. It doesn't imply anything. What you're basically doing is engaging in fallacious thinking that most closely resembles this fallacy.

HYPOTHESIS CONTRARY TO FACT: This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact.

Clark's saves here and there indicate that he's doing what Jor-El spoke of in regards to flying: pushing his limits. With Lois, he pushed hardest because she knew who he was on the base and saw his face all while being a world famous reporter. Notice how before Zod even invaded, Lois was on the cusp of publishing his story, even coming to his home and asking him to let her do so.

Jonathan's attitude was only ever about readiness. He repeatedly said, and I've repeatedly quoted to you, he could envision Clark standing proud in front of the human race someday in a way that would change the world. He just urged caution to his son when he was a child, and as soon as Clark wasn't a child anymore Jonathan was more open to Clark finding his own way. Before he died he admitted to a teenage Clark who was just declaring how he wanted to "do something useful with [his] life" that he may have reached his limits, saying "Clark has a point. We're not [his] parents. But we've been doing the best we can. And we've been making this up as we go along, so maybe...Maybe our best isn't good enough anymore."

It's not fair or accurate to claim that Jonathan didn't want his son to be a hero or become someone like Superman one day, and it's illogical and pointless to suggest that Clark would have remained forever hidden had Zod not invaded; there are too many possible variables and permutations to claim that as fact.

 

[BH/HHH]

Your entire viewpoint on this is ‘I like the neck snap, so there’s no way they could have written it any differently.’

If you didn’t like it, I’m sure you could come up with myriad ways in your head for the film to have avoided it.

Like, Superman flying Zod out of the train station and into orbit where the fight continues until they hit space, where the strength of the sun’s rays are too much for Zod, having only been exposed to them for a very short time, and they kill him. Nice Icarus metaphor, nice death, nice solution to dilemma.

And you’re damn right I don’t like the neck snap - because it’s dumb, easily avoidable and bad for Superman’s character.

That isn’t the case at all. The way the film was structured it made sense to end it like that. Tonally this is the only type of Superman film you can do it with. So the question isn’t whether or not the film should have been written the way it was. The question is the way the film played out at that point and with the PZ closed how else were they supposed to have Superman stop Zod? A man who can’t be imprisoned. Now you did answer tbat with your second paragraph but you also said something along the lines of it was dumb to even write the film that way. I object to that not because I am OK with it but because of the style of film and the way it played out it made sense. To say that superman shouldn’t be put into this situations is when I start to get annoyed because then you are saying there are places creatively that writers shouldn’t be able to take Superman and that’s dumb. Shall we go back to all the Superman writers of the past that have put Superman into kill situations and tell them they shouldn’t have done it because some fans can’t accept the character doing things that they don’t like? It’s easy for us to criticise and be armchair directors regarding scenes or panels as we already have the template there with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[misslane38]

Your entire viewpoint on this is ‘I like the neck snap, so there’s no way they could have written it any differently.’

If you didn’t like it, I’m sure you could come up with myriad ways in your head for the film to have avoided it.

Like, Superman flying Zod out of the train station and into orbit where the fight continues until they hit space, where the strength of the sun’s rays are too much for Zod, having only been exposed to them for a very short time, and they kill him. Nice Icarus metaphor, nice death, nice solution to dilemma.

And you’re damn right I don’t like the neck snap - because it’s dumb, easily avoidable and bad for Superman’s character.

I don't understand this approach. You're not arguing any of these alternatives with an awareness that having circumstances solve the dilemma for Superman ultimately doesn't say anything about Superman's morality, because it's removing his agency. Choices reveal character, and by removing choice, you aren't presenting scenarios that characterize Superman as any more moral than what we got. You're just avoiding the situation.

Diana killed Ludendorff when she should have spared him like Maru, which could have been avoided had she used her lasso to determine if he was truly Ares the way she verified Sir Patrick was Ares with the lasso moments later. Reeve Superman could have done a range of different things than kill a powerless Zod in Superman II, yet he did it with glee knowing he had other options. One night, Batman in The Dark Knight got to preserve his one rule by not killing the Joker earlier in the evening, but broke it soon after when, just like the Zod situation, a family with children was threatened, and he killed Harvey Dent.

To refer back to a previous example I provided in this or another thread about a similar topic, you are acting like Chidi in the NBC comedy The Good Place who is fine lecturing people about ethics, but when forced to confront the Trolley Problem for real, he struggles. Superman killing Zod was the best and most moral thing to do in that situation, and he's put in that situation precisely to reveal character by giving him a choice.

 

[Patchwork Man]

Are you seriously suggesting there’s no way to rewrite that ending that does not result in Superman having to kill Zod? Because that’s ridiculous. This is fiction. You can write yourself out of any corner if you have to.

...so, how about Superman is in an agony of indecision because he’s stuck in an unwinnable situation? He can’t let Zod carry on, but he can’t kill him either. Maybe they riff on the way Joker dies in TDKR - Superman stops just short of cold blooded murder and Zod finishes the job for him. Fits perfectly okay with both characterisations throughout the movie.

The neck snap was dumb for a Superman movie, and will remain dumb until the end of time. They could have written it better and differently. They didn’t.

Completely out of character for Zod. Try again.

 

[idiot09]

Superman has killed in comics before, so its not out of character.

And when Dan Jurgens says they did Superman killing done better than in the comics, I take his word

 

[Arachnerd]

It seemed plainly obvious that Zod, being left without a purpose, was indirectly forcing Superman to either kill him or let him kill every single person on the planet. He did want to die, but not by his own hand. He wanted Supes to do it so he'd have to live with the guilt of knowing that he ended the life of the last kryptonian in the universe besides him, making him the only one left.

If I recall correctly, Snyder described in an interview that Zod's actions in that moment were comparable to suicide by cop, and I think that's a fair assessment.

Now m1ll3r, if you wanted to discuss how they chose not to explore the aftermath of Supes' decision and how it affects him, then I'd be keen to agree with you.

 

[FunkMiller]

I don't understand this approach. You're not arguing any of these alternatives with an awareness that having circumstances solve the dilemma for Superman ultimately doesn't say anything about Superman's morality, because it's removing his agency. Choices reveal character, and by removing choice, you aren't presenting scenarios that characterize Superman as any more moral than what we got. You're just avoiding the situation.

Diana killed Ludendorff when she should have spared him like Maru, which could have been avoided had she used her lasso to determine if he was truly Ares the way she verified Sir Patrick was Ares with the lasso moments later. Reeve Superman could have done a range of different things than kill a powerless Zod in Superman II, yet he did it with glee knowing he had other options. One night, Batman in The Dark Knight got to preserve his one rule by not killing the Joker earlier in the evening, but broke it soon after when, just like the Zod situation, a family with children was threatened, and he killed Harvey Dent.

To refer back to a previous example I provided in this or another thread about a similar topic, you are acting like Chidi in the NBC comedy The Good Place who is fine lecturing people about ethics, but when forced to confront the Trolley Problem for real, he struggles. Superman killing Zod was the best and most moral thing to do in that situation, and he's put in that situation precisely to reveal character by giving him a choice.

And Superman (Snyder) makes the wrong choice to have Superman murder Zod in cold blood, instead of finding another way. I gave you one other choice Superman could have made to change the situation. There are many others.

Simple as that.

And you’ll all argue for paragraphs that this isn’t the case, because you like Snyder and his neck snapping ways, so won’t accept the idea that it could have been written differently, and still stayed true to the movie that preceded it. But it could have. By a better filmmaker.

 

[Patchwork Man]

And Superman (Snyder) makes the wrong choice to have Superman murder Zod in cold blood, instead of finding another way.

There are many things we all would change about every single CBM, if we could. But let me show you how you are wrong. Superman did not kill Zod "in cold blood." To kill "in cold blood" would signify Superman killed Zod sans emotion. We know by watching the film, as you and I both have (numerous times, I'm certain), that that is not the case. Superman's kill was not calculated, it was not methodical. It was a decision made in the heat of battle to save the lives of hapless Earthlings.

Simple as that.

 

[misslane38]

Now m1ll3r, if you wanted to discuss how they chose not to explore the aftermath of Supes' decision and how it affects him, then I'd be keen to agree with you.

What is there to explore? What effect should killing Zod have on him? Superman made a difficult decision that clearly broke his heart, but it was the best decision he could have made. In the future, I'd expect he would respond similarly. And, correct me if I'm wrong, no one seems to have any interest in watching Superman perseverate: to "mope" or to be "conflicted" about anything for long. From what I gather from the reception of Diana killing (and even Superman killing in Superman II), it seems preferable for heroes to kill with confidence. No regrets.

 

[misslane38]

And Superman (Snyder) makes the wrong choice to have Superman murder Zod in cold blood, instead of finding another way. I gave you one other choice Superman could have made to change the situation. There are many others.

Simple as that.

Superman doesn't kill Zod in cold blood. That means something that is premeditated and without remorse. Stop with the hyperbole! Also, you can't say Superman doesn't find another way, because that presumes that there was one. In this situation, and in some situations in life, there aren't other ways or get out of jail free cards. Sometimes you have to make tough choices. None of your alternatives are viable, and some of them don't even accomplish the narrative goal of revealing Superman's character or morality since, as I said before, they remove his agency.

And you’ll all argue for paragraphs that this isn’t the case, because you like Snyder and his neck snapping ways, so won’t accept the idea that it could have been written differently, and still stayed true to the movie that preceded it. But it could have. By a better filmmaker.

Please. Your alternatives fail the logic test, and you can't even use proper vocabulary or avoid hyperbole (e.g. cold blood) in your poor attempt to make your point. You're now oddly conflating character with real life people by suggesting Snyder likes to snap necks. I assume you didn't mean it that way, but the way you composed your sentence is questionable. You also seem blind to the hypocrisy of your accusation because if I'm blinded by pro-Snyder bias, then you are blinded by your anti-Snyder bias. Look, we see the situation differently, and so it seems there's no convincing you to consider another point of view. Fair enough. We can agree to disagree, if you want.

 

[BH/HHH]

Superman has killed in comics before, so its not out of character.

And when Dan Jurgens says they did Superman killing done better than in the comics, I take his word

Out of character is such an incorrect term anyway. It’s just people trying to justify their opinions as been more valid. End of the day Superman is a near 80 year old character. He’s been reinvented many times over those years. Man of Steel is another interpretation and in that version it makes perfect sense for him to do what he did. Something other versions of Superman as you correctly state have done in the comics.

 

[Patchwork Man]

"But that's not Superman!"

Tony Stark wasn't a snarky quipper before 2008, but nobody seems to give a damn.

 

[kguillou]

Out of character is such an incorrect term anyway. It’s just people trying to justify their opinions as been more valid. End of the day Superman is a near 80 year old character. He’s been reinvented many times over those years. Man of Steel is another interpretation and in that version it makes perfect sense for him to do what he did. Something other versions of Superman as you correctly state have done in the comics.

Thank you, my man. That's how I always saw these movies and that's always what they intended to be: alternate/different take(s) on the character. Just like Superman Red Son, Earth One, Kingdom Come etc. This was Zack Snyder's twist on the character. Which is what attracted me to this version, its something we hadn't seen before.

But, I guess, as we just saw with Star Wars, deviating from the classic interpretations can be an arduous uphill battle with the fans.

 

[FunkMiller]

There are many things we all would change about every single CBM, if we could. But let me show you how you are wrong. Superman did not kill Zod "in cold blood." To kill "in cold blood" would signify Superman killed Zod sans emotion. We know by watching the film, as you and I both have (numerous times, I'm certain), that that is not the case. Superman's kill was not calculated, it was not methodical. It was a decision made in the heat of battle to save the lives of hapless Earthlings.

Simple as that.

Congratulations. You’ve become the internet in 2018.

 

[FunkMiller]

"But that's not Superman!"

Tony Stark wasn't a snarky quipper before 2008, but nobody seems to give a damn.

There must always be a point where you draw a line in an interpretation of a character so as not to move that character away from who he/she or it is. We merely differ on where that line is.

Thank you, my man. That's how I always saw these movies and that's always what they intended to be: alternate/different take(s) on the character. Just like Superman Red Son, Earth One, Kingdom Come etc. This was Zack Snyder's twist on the character. Which is what attracted me to this version, its something we hadn't seen before.

In an Elseworlds situation, in a film that was not supposed to kickstart a cinematic universe for a broad audience, I’d be happy to see how Snyder’s philosophical standpoint created interesting and novel twists on existing characters. Nothing wrong with that. If he’d made Red Son or Kingdome Come, he’d have probably done a decent job.

But in a movie that is meant to kickstart a cinematic universe, and have broad appeal? It’s cretinous to have made the decisions he did... and we’re seeing the fallout to this day.