What the DCEU should have been like. (Take N+1)

[FaxModem1]

I'm referring to his joking manner to the General at the end of the film. It's a jarring disconnect. I guess snapping necks brings out the joker in Clark.

You've gone from "making jokes" to "joking manner." How strange. At any rate, I don't get joking manner from that conversation.

"That's a 12 million dollar satellite."
"It was."

"Come on General, I'm from Kansas."

It's like the events of the Battle of Metropolis never happened, and they have no reason to worry.

You know, same way he did in Batman vs Superman, before a nuke sucker punched him, keep punching the guy into orbit and out of the way of thousands of people?

Watch the final fight again. He punches Zod upwards a few times, to no real benefit. He even grabs him and flies upwards with the same problem. It turns out that the guy with lifelong practice at fighting is good at it. The comparison with Doomsday doesn't work, because unlike Zod, Doomsday didn't fly about and was largely a big dumb animal.

Lifetime of fighting like a normal Kryptonian/human, not a flying superhuman person.

Either way, there's a huge tonal disconnect with the megadeaths we see in the film's climax and the supposed happy ending we receive in the film. As if there was a rewrite or the creators of the film didn't want us to care about all the people that died. And only had to do so when fans pointed it out, and so they made it Batman's motivation in the sequel.

[FaxModem1]

All that said, I think a potential franchise builder could be a Seven Soldiers of Victory film. Bringing in a bunch of Silver Age heroes and putting them in the 21st century could have an interesting twist.

Though giving each person their own movie would be the smarter way to do it.

[NeoGoomba]

The worst thing they did, to me, was completely ruin Pa and Ma Kent. The family who teach Superman to discover and embrace Humanity were reduced to angry, bitter people who thought their son was too good for the world, and tried to get him to abandon Earth and just look after himself. Fix them, and I think a lot of Man of Steel's tonal problems get rectified, which would then flow into BvS (which should never have been made - Should have been "World's Finest") and JL.

They just never should have given it to a nihilist like Snyder, who once stated that he would have Batman get raped in prison if they'd just let him film it.

[K. A. Pital]

What. I don‘t like Batman but what the f?

Sickening to use someone’s characters to get off on your violent fetishes...Snyder is really an asshole.

[The Romulan Republic]

But its gritty and edgy. And therefore more realistic/better.

The worst thing they did, to me, was completely ruin Pa and Ma Kent. The family who teach Superman to discover and embrace Humanity were reduced to angry, bitter people who thought their son was too good for the world, and tried to get him to abandon Earth and just look after himself. Fix them, and I think a lot of Man of Steel's tonal problems get rectified, which would then flow into BvS (which should never have been made - Should have been "World's Finest") and JL.

They just never should have given it to a nihilist like Snyder, who once stated that he would have Batman get raped in prison if they'd just let him film it.

Well, apparently the Kent stuff was basically him giving a hand job to the ghost of Ayn Rand.

[Crazedwraith]

The worst thing they did, to me, was completely ruin Pa and Ma Kent. The family who teach Superman to discover and embrace Humanity were reduced to angry, bitter people who thought their son was too good for the world, and tried to get him to abandon Earth and just look after himself. Fix them, and I think a lot of Man of Steel's tonal problems get rectified, which would then flow into BvS (which should never have been made - Should have been "World's Finest") and JL.

They just never should have given it to a nihilist like Snyder, who once stated that he would have Batman get raped in prison if they'd just let him film it.

To be fair, it's not bad for the Kents to be worried about Clark and exposure and so on. he's their son, they have right to be concerned. At to MoS' credit it had least had Pa be conflicted about telling Clark not to help when it was but to him bluntly.

But I would like to make their influence on Clark and his moral's clearly and ultimately have him support them as Superman, perhaps suggesting the alter ego? One of the things that bugged me about MoS was that he suits up specifically for a grudge match with Zod, it's not really a heroic identity it's him as son of Jor El really.

[Tribble]

The worst thing they did, to me, was completely ruin Pa and Ma Kent. The family who teach Superman to discover and embrace Humanity were reduced to angry, bitter people who thought their son was too good for the world, and tried to get him to abandon Earth and just look after himself. Fix them, and I think a lot of Man of Steel's tonal problems get rectified, which would then flow into BvS (which should never have been made - Should have been "World's Finest") and JL.

They just never should have given it to a nihilist like Snyder, who once stated that he would have Batman get raped in prison if they'd just let him film it.

To be fair, it's not bad for the Kents to be worried about Clark and exposure and so on. he's their son, they have right to be concerned. At to MoS' credit it had least had Pa be conflicted about telling Clark not to help when it was but to him bluntly.

But I would like to make their influence on Clark and his moral's clearly and ultimately have him support them as Superman, perhaps suggesting the alter ego? One of the things that bugged me about MoS was that he suits up specifically for a grudge match with Zod, it's not really a heroic identity it's him as son of Jor El really.

IMO instead of "i dunno, maybe?" Pa's response should have been more along the lines of "of course you were right to save them. I'm just worried about you being revealed to the world because I dont think the world is ready for someone with your gifts. And to be honest, I dont think you're ready to handle having the world always watching you."

Alsi instead of Pa's ridiculous death in the movie, I would have him die of his usual heart attack. You can still have Clark be all depressed about and do some soul searching by quietly touring the world etc. Afterall, what is the point of his powers if he wasnt even able to save his own Pa?

[Crazedwraith]

I forgot to mention I wouldn't have killed him off at all tbh. The heart attack thing would be a rehash of Reeves' movie.

[Gandalf]

"That's a 12 million dollar satellite."
"It was."

"Come on General, I'm from Kansas."

It's like the events of the Battle of Metropolis never happened, and they have no reason to worry.

Those are the jokes to which you allude, or is this the tone thing? I get more "ticked off" from that exchange.

Lifetime of fighting like a normal Kryptonian/human, not a flying superhuman person.

Exactly. Zod knew how to fight peers. Powers enhanced the shit out of that, and he was a quick study on account of a lifetime of training. Superman had never had to fight a peer before.

Either way, there's a huge tonal disconnect with the megadeaths we see in the film's climax and the supposed happy ending we receive in the film. As if there was a rewrite or the creators of the film didn't want us to care about all the people that died. And only had to do so when fans pointed it out, and so they made it Batman's motivation in the sequel.

I took it to be more like a disaster film, where an horrific thing happened, and everyone's recovering for a brighter tomorrow.

Also, fans forced Batman's motivation in BvS?

[FaxModem1]

"That's a 12 million dollar satellite."
"It was."

"Come on General, I'm from Kansas."

It's like the events of the Battle of Metropolis never happened, and they have no reason to worry.

Those are the jokes to which you allude, or is this the tone thing? I get more "ticked off" from that exchange.

Lifetime of fighting like a normal Kryptonian/human, not a flying superhuman person.

Exactly. Zod knew how to fight peers. Powers enhanced the shit out of that, and he was a quick study on account of a lifetime of training. Superman had never had to fight a peer before.

Either way, there's a huge tonal disconnect with the megadeaths we see in the film's climax and the supposed happy ending we receive in the film. As if there was a rewrite or the creators of the film didn't want us to care about all the people that died. And only had to do so when fans pointed it out, and so they made it Batman's motivation in the sequel.

I took it to be more like a disaster film, where an horrific thing happened, and everyone's recovering for a brighter tomorrow.

Also, fans forced Batman's motivation in BvS?

Fan whining did. There was a huge internet backlash about all the deaths shown in a Superman film. Zack Snyder was surprised about it while the fans were also presumably also cool with the probable billions of deaths in Star Wars VII.

And then Batman's lines in the following film:

"Jesus, Alfred, count the dead. Thousands of people. What's next, billions? He has the power to wipe out the entire human race and if we believe there is even a one per cent chance that he is our enemy, then we have to take it as an absolute certainty and we have to destroy him."

While it's not directly stated. It does seem like they're trying to deal with the fact that their movie about a hero representing hope has to also deal with the fact that they made their icon unable to save thousands of people and could only win by snapping the villain's neck in a false dilemma(the family could have just moved out of the way, for instance).

It was a film made to deconstruct the man of tomorrow, by the man who, if he put Batman in prison, would have had Batman raped. Because being the symbol of hope and being responsible for thousands of innocent civilian deaths meshes perfectly together cinematically.

[Crazedwraith]

I don't know if it was specifically because the fan outcry that did it. But BvS did address the damage at the start and then take pains to obviously state no one was getting hurt in the Doomsday fight, which is a contrast to MoS to say the least.

[Gandalf]

Either way, there's a huge tonal disconnect with the megadeaths we see in the film's climax and the supposed happy ending we receive in the film. As if there was a rewrite or the creators of the film didn't want us to care about all the people that died. And only had to do so when fans pointed it out, and so they made it Batman's motivation in the sequel.

I took it to be more like a disaster film, where an horrific thing happened, and everyone's recovering for a brighter tomorrow.

Also, fans forced Batman's motivation in BvS?

Fan whining did. There was a huge internet backlash about all the deaths shown in a Superman film. Zack Snyder was surprised about it while the fans were also presumably also cool with the probable billions of deaths in Star Wars VII.

Neither of those links back up what you say. Did you just look at the headlines and assume that I would too?

And then Batman's lines in the following film:

"Jesus, Alfred, count the dead. Thousands of people. What's next, billions? He has the power to wipe out the entire human race and if we believe there is even a one per cent chance that he is our enemy, then we have to take it as an absolute certainty and we have to destroy him."

While it's not directly stated. It does seem like they're trying to deal with the fact that their movie about a hero representing hope has to also deal with the fact that they made their icon unable to save thousands of people and could only win by snapping the villain's neck in a false dilemma(the family could have just moved out of the way, for instance).

It was a film made to deconstruct the man of tomorrow, by the man who, if he put Batman in prison, would have had Batman raped. Because being the symbol of hope and being responsible for thousands of innocent civilian deaths meshes perfectly together cinematically.

Yeah, you still haven't really proven that he was responsible for all of those deaths. Also, I love that people are still whining about Superman killing Zod. Zod made it clear that he wasn't going to stop until one of them was dead, and then when Superman had his arm around Zod's neck, pretty much dared him to do it. One could argue that it was suicide by superpowered cop, as Zod had lost pretty much everything he'd been bred to protect.

[Crazedwraith]

That argument doesn't hold water for me. Sure, they wrote a scenario where Clark 'had to kill', that doesn't mean I wouldn't have preferred a story where they hadn't written that.

[FaxModem1]

I took it to be more like a disaster film, where an horrific thing happened, and everyone's recovering for a brighter tomorrow.

Also, fans forced Batman's motivation in BvS?

Fan whining did. There was a huge internet backlash about all the deaths shown in a Superman film. Zack Snyder was surprised about it while the fans were also presumably also cool with the probable billions of deaths in Star Wars VII.

Neither of those links back up what you say. Did you just look at the headlines and assume that I would too?

In fact, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, he recalled someone recently telling him that they couldn't recall another movie with so much collateral damage. "I went, really? And I said, well, what about ['Star Wars: The Force Awakens']? In ‘Star Wars’ they destroy five planets with billions of people on them. That’s gotta be one of the highest death toll movies in history, the new ‘Star Wars’ movie, if you just do the math."

There you go. Please read it again.

And then Batman's lines in the following film:

"Jesus, Alfred, count the dead. Thousands of people. What's next, billions? He has the power to wipe out the entire human race and if we believe there is even a one per cent chance that he is our enemy, then we have to take it as an absolute certainty and we have to destroy him."

While it's not directly stated. It does seem like they're trying to deal with the fact that their movie about a hero representing hope has to also deal with the fact that they made their icon unable to save thousands of people and could only win by snapping the villain's neck in a false dilemma(the family could have just moved out of the way, for instance).

It was a film made to deconstruct the man of tomorrow, by the man who, if he put Batman in prison, would have had Batman raped. Because being the symbol of hope and being responsible for thousands of innocent civilian deaths meshes perfectly together cinematically.

Yeah, you still haven't really proven that he was responsible for all of those deaths. Also, I love that people are still whining about Superman killing Zod. Zod made it clear that he wasn't going to stop until one of them was dead, and then when Superman had his arm around Zod's neck, pretty much dared him to do it. One could argue that it was suicide by superpowered cop, as Zod had lost pretty much everything he'd been bred to protect.

Superman goes after the uninhabited plot device in an ocean first, then the inhabited one in a major city second. Sure, the US military was aiding in Metropolis, but that cost a lot of lives due to placing the ocean one as a higher priority.

[Gandalf]

Fan whining did. There was a huge internet backlash about all the deaths shown in a Superman film. Zack Snyder was surprised about it while the fans were also presumably also cool with the probable billions of deaths in Star Wars VII.

Neither of those links back up what you say. Did you just look at the headlines and assume that I would too?

In fact, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, he recalled someone recently telling him that they couldn't recall another movie with so much collateral damage. "I went, really? And I said, well, what about ['Star Wars: The Force Awakens']? In ‘Star Wars’ they destroy five planets with billions of people on them. That’s gotta be one of the highest death toll movies in history, the new ‘Star Wars’ movie, if you just do the math."

There you go. Please read it again.

I was referring to the claim that you made about fan whining affecting Batman's motivations in BvS. You know, the thing I specifically challenged.

Yeah, you still haven't really proven that he was responsible for all of those deaths. Also, I love that people are still whining about Superman killing Zod. Zod made it clear that he wasn't going to stop until one of them was dead, and then when Superman had his arm around Zod's neck, pretty much dared him to do it. One could argue that it was suicide by superpowered cop, as Zod had lost pretty much everything he'd been bred to protect.

Superman goes after the uninhabited plot device in an ocean first, then the inhabited one in a major city second. Sure, the US military was aiding in Metropolis, but that cost a lot of lives due to placing the ocean one as a higher priority.

Someone's reaching. The characters had a plan. The US government uses their local resources to destroy the local world engine. Superman goes to the one in the Indian Ocean because presumably there's no convenient phantom drive on a C-17 out there and Superman is quite fast.

[FaxModem1]

Neither of those links back up what you say. Did you just look at the headlines and assume that I would too?

In fact, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, he recalled someone recently telling him that they couldn't recall another movie with so much collateral damage. "I went, really? And I said, well, what about ['Star Wars: The Force Awakens']? In ‘Star Wars’ they destroy five planets with billions of people on them. That’s gotta be one of the highest death toll movies in history, the new ‘Star Wars’ movie, if you just do the math."

There you go. Please read it again.

I was referring to the claim that you made about fan whining affecting Batman's motivations in BvS. You know, the thing I specifically challenged.

I have no smoking gun with Zack Snyder claiming that was the reason he gave it as Batman's motivation. But it is noticeable that Batman's flawed motivation for the film, worrying that Superman will kill them all, is due to the thousands of deaths in Metropolis, while fans were complaining about the thousands of deaths in Metropolis. And how at the time, there was no plan for Batman to be in the sequel, at all. This was a sequel justification for why the thousands of deaths were necessary narratively, it was to set up Batman's motivations for why he should kill Superman. In the film itself, it's to 'provide stakes', by having the audience watch thousands die, and is quickly forgotten about by Superman's dismissal of why the world should worry about him in the ending, when his fellow people just killed off a sizable part of Metopolis's population.

Yeah, you still haven't really proven that he was responsible for all of those deaths. Also, I love that people are still whining about Superman killing Zod. Zod made it clear that he wasn't going to stop until one of them was dead, and then when Superman had his arm around Zod's neck, pretty much dared him to do it. One could argue that it was suicide by superpowered cop, as Zod had lost pretty much everything he'd been bred to protect.

Superman goes after the uninhabited plot device in an ocean first, then the inhabited one in a major city second. Sure, the US military was aiding in Metropolis, but that cost a lot of lives due to placing the ocean one as a higher priority.

Someone's reaching. The characters had a plan. The US government uses their local resources to destroy the local world engine. Superman goes to the one in the Indian Ocean because presumably there's no convenient phantom drive on a C-17 out there and Superman is quite fast.

Maybe Superman should have targeted the one in the Indian Ocean second, so that thousands in Metropolis would not die. As you said, Superman is quite fast.

[Gandalf]

I have no smoking gun with Zack Snyder claiming that was the reason he gave it as Batman's motivation. But it is noticeable that Batman's flawed motivation for the film, worrying that Superman will kill them all, is due to the thousands of deaths in Metropolis, while fans were complaining about the thousands of deaths in Metropolis. And how at the time, there was no plan for Batman to be in the sequel, at all. This was a sequel justification for why the thousands of deaths were necessary narratively, it was to set up Batman's motivations for why he should kill Superman. In the film itself, it's to 'provide stakes', by having the audience watch thousands die, and is quickly forgotten about by Superman's dismissal of why the world should worry about him in the ending, when his fellow people just killed off a sizable part of Metopolis's population.

So you have no evidence, just a vague chain of events that you claim are related?

Also, what was the point of that link you posted?

Someone's reaching. The characters had a plan. The US government uses their local resources to destroy the local world engine. Superman goes to the one in the Indian Ocean because presumably there's no convenient phantom drive on a C-17 out there and Superman is quite fast.

Maybe Superman should have targeted the one in the Indian Ocean second, so that thousands in Metropolis would not die. As you said, Superman is quite fast.

Based on the concerns about him being weaker around the world engine, there looked to be a significant chance that he'd die destroying it. It'd be awkward to lose both Superman and the phantom drive on the same target.

[FaxModem1]

I have no smoking gun with Zack Snyder claiming that was the reason he gave it as Batman's motivation. But it is noticeable that Batman's flawed motivation for the film, worrying that Superman will kill them all, is due to the thousands of deaths in Metropolis, while fans were complaining about the thousands of deaths in Metropolis. And how at the time, there was no plan for Batman to be in the sequel, at all. This was a sequel justification for why the thousands of deaths were necessary narratively, it was to set up Batman's motivations for why he should kill Superman. In the film itself, it's to 'provide stakes', by having the audience watch thousands die, and is quickly forgotten about by Superman's dismissal of why the world should worry about him in the ending, when his fellow people just killed off a sizable part of Metopolis's population.

So you have no evidence, just a vague chain of events that you claim are related?

Also, what was the point of that link you posted?

Because, narrative wise, Man of Steel treats the thousands of deaths as something to be forgotten and brushed under the rug. We see thousands die, huge fight between Kryptonians, and then Superman laughs it off that the US military is worried about him, when the film demonstrated that they have a right to be. It's in the film, and it's a mess because of it.

Someone's reaching. The characters had a plan. The US government uses their local resources to destroy the local world engine. Superman goes to the one in the Indian Ocean because presumably there's no convenient phantom drive on a C-17 out there and Superman is quite fast.

Maybe Superman should have targeted the one in the Indian Ocean second, so that thousands in Metropolis would not die. As you said, Superman is quite fast.

Based on the concerns about him being weaker around the world engine, there looked to be a significant chance that he'd die destroying it. It'd be awkward to lose both Superman and the phantom drive on the same target.

Or Superman could have played interference on the Kryptonians while the US army use their phantom drive? Or the US military disables the Kryptonians due to their weakening while Superman focuses on the world engine? Or other options to stop the great big event that kills thousands? Or maybe Superman drops off the phantom drive to an Indian or Chinese military base and they use it while he focuses on Metropolis? Any plan that works better than having thousands die.

This is all meaningless, of course. It's because the script introduced these elements, and wanted to have a Superman film with a huge body count. That's what you're advocating for. That Superman should have to deal with thousands of dead bodies because he couldn't be in two places at once. The problem is, the film doesn't deal with that. He brushes it off at the end, and says that he's from Kansas, and the US military shouldn't worry about it. The film wants to hide the death toll that the audience witnessed, and the filmmakers are flummoxed that the audience is concerned about the thousands dying.

That's the issue. Thousands dying vividly on-screen, only for Superman to say that it's not an issue later on in the film, and we shouldn't worry about it. It's the difference between the potential Endor Holocaust in Return of the Jedi, and showing half the moon of Endor burning, then showing the Ewoks and Rebels celebrate. It's jarring, and shows bad structure in the plot.

[Gandalf]

Because, narrative wise, Man of Steel treats the thousands of deaths as something to be forgotten and brushed under the rug. We see thousands die, huge fight between Kryptonians, and then Superman laughs it off that the US military is worried about him, when the film demonstrated that they have a right to be. It's in the film, and it's a mess because of it.

Which has nothing to do with my questions, so... what's going on here?

Or Superman could have played interference on the Kryptonians while the US army use their phantom drive? Or the US military disables the Kryptonians due to their weakening while Superman focuses on the world engine? Or other options to stop the great big event that kills thousands? Or maybe Superman drops off the phantom drive to an Indian or Chinese military base and they use it while he focuses on Metropolis? Any plan that works better than having thousands die.

I love this. Peak SDN style "here's my plan for how it totally would have worked!" right there.

This is all meaningless, of course. It's because the script introduced these elements, and wanted to have a Superman film with a huge body count. That's what you're advocating for. That Superman should have to deal with thousands of dead bodies because he couldn't be in two places at once. The problem is, the film doesn't deal with that. He brushes it off at the end, and says that he's from Kansas, and the US military shouldn't worry about it. The film wants to hide the death toll that the audience witnessed, and the filmmakers are flummoxed that the audience is concerned about the thousands dying.

That's the issue. Thousands dying vividly on-screen, only for Superman to say that it's not an issue later on in the film, and we shouldn't worry about it. It's the difference between the potential Endor Holocaust in Return of the Jedi, and showing half the moon of Endor burning, then showing the Ewoks and Rebels celebrate. It's jarring, and shows bad structure in the plot.

It's amusing to see you say that the film wants to hide it death toll from the audience, then soon afterwards state that thousands die vividly on screen. But that's besides the point, like the evidence you post for your claims.

Superfights have consequences, especially when one side seems to have his heart set on genocide. It's hard to establish stakes (especially against apocalyptic opponents) going forward if you don't occasionally have moments like this. Maybe there should be some sort of league of people he could join, they could stand for justice or something. Superman can't do everything, but maybe they could do way more together.

Also, Superman doesn't say that "it's not an issue." He says that he's not an issue. Big difference. From Superman's perspective, he just helped save everyone, and now the US government is trying to keep a close eye on him. Presumably as someone raised as a white American, that's a bit jarring and unpleasant.

[FaxModem1]

The main point is that a Superman movie doesn't need to show us 9/11 style carnage? And if it really does, it should deal with that fact in it's own movie, and not just make it a plot point of the potential sequel? That Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope, and if you're going to try and have that be the message of your film, having thousands die horribly on-screen is a bad idea for the message that you're trying to convey?

[Gandalf]

The main point is that a Superman movie doesn't need to show us 9/11 style carnage? And if it really does, it should deal with that fact in it's own movie, and not just make it a plot point of the sequel? That Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope, and if you're going to try and have that be the message of your film, having thousands die horribly on-screen is a bad idea for the message that you're trying to convey?

I disagree completely. It's easy to have hope when nothing is too wrong. It's like a rich and safe person hoping that they'll be similar tomorrow. What's the point of that? But hope as an idea is best shown in the face of tragedy, because it gives the hope a place and a meaning. Like the Obama campaign's hope line, following the Bush years, or all of American media following 11/9.

[FaxModem1]

Then I guess it's a matter of taste. Because to me, the DCEU wasn't embracing hope. It was trying to revel in the grittiness and darkness of the world they created. Wherein the heroes won by killing people, beloved characters are killed for shock value, and the moral foundation of Superman was laid in that some people are better than others, and it's okay to let people die rather than have your secret identity exposed or if they don't like you.

It's all a bit warped morally and dramatically, for my taste.

EDIT: said killing would be Superman's killing of Zod, Batmans' wasting of countless mooks, beloved characters would be those like Dr. Hamilton and Jimmy Olsen, who seemed to die rather pointlessly, and Ma and Pa Kent's moral lessons to Superman were not to help others if it inconveniences you.