Justice League 4K UHD (2017)

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Replace the neck-snap with Superman super-punching Zod into the far reaches of space or some stupid shit like that, with some quip afterward, and MoS would be much more beloved. It's that simple. There's no scientific process here.

I doubt that. People had way more problems with Man of Steel than the neck snap and lack of jokes.

[imsounoriginal]

People liked MoS when it first came out, before it became cool not to. Critics were always lukewarm but its audience scores were fine. I remember those days. They were good days.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Replace the neck-snap with Superman super-punching Zod into the far reaches of space or some stupid shit like that, with some quip afterward, and MoS would be much more beloved. It's that simple. There's no scientific process here.

Or if there was some sort of build-up to the neck snap - if Superman truly struggled with the idea of taking another life - then the moment would feel earned and more people would appreciate it, even if they might not like it.

Just because Snyder intended for that scene to be a big moment for the character doesn't mean that it actually was. Intent doesn't matter nearly as much as the execution of the idea, and that's where Snyder failed. Because the film never even established that Superman doesn't want to kill anyone, we don't feel anything when he kills Zod. Because there's no stakes if you never establish a conflict in the first place. The film takes it for granted that the audience knows Superman doesn't kill, and thus fails to set up the core of the film's emotional climax. That Snyder and Goyer failed so spectacularly to sell what should have been the film's biggest moment is a testament to their lack of understanding of basic screenwriting and direction. Like, this isn't even the stuff they teach you in college, it's what they teach you in your creative writing classes in high school. And they couldn't even pull that off.

[imsounoriginal]

Yeah I don't know what to tell you. Worked for me. To each his own.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Yeah I don't know what to tell you. Worked for me. To each his own.

So why did it work for you?

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

I think the whole "critics are wrong" stance is wrong itself.

That's 'cause it suits you to align with critical consensus more often than it doesn't.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

So why did it work for you?

Probably because of the reason you stated: even if the movie doesn't explicitly mention or show Superman's "no-kill" rule or show the build-up to it, as a Superman fan, I know about it so I bring that knowledge into the movie with me. I'm not saying MoS is objectively the best or a great CBM (although I do think it gets more flack than it deserves). But as far as my own enjoyment of it, I have no issues with it.

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Or if there was some sort of build-up to the neck snap - if Superman truly struggled with the idea of taking another life - then the moment would feel earned and more people would appreciate it, even if they might not like it.

Nonsense. The entire fight sequence, struggle and adversarial conversation prior to the kill is Superman struggling to reign him in another way. If he wasn't struggling not to end it the easiest, quickest way he would have killed him before it even got going, at the very first sign of collateral damage. Even before Zod the movie shows you how he's let tons of things slide over the years instead of flicking some drunk jerk's head off his shoulders just because he can.

You guys act like he pulled up, jumped out the police car and shot someone within 2 seconds like Tamir Rice.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Or if there was some sort of build-up to the neck snap - if Superman truly struggled with the idea of taking another life - then the moment would feel earned and more people would appreciate it, even if they might not like it.

Just because Snyder intended for that scene to be a big moment for the character doesn't mean that it actually was. Intent doesn't matter nearly as much as the execution of the idea, and that's where Snyder failed. Because the film never even established that Superman doesn't want to kill anyone, we don't feel anything when he kills Zod. Because there's no stakes if you never establish a conflict in the first place. The film takes it for granted that the audience knows Superman doesn't kill, and thus fails to set up the core of the film's emotional climax. That Snyder and Goyer failed so spectacularly to sell what should have been the film's biggest moment is a testament to their lack of understanding of basic screenwriting and direction. Like, this isn't even the stuff they teach you in college, it's what they teach you in your creative writing classes in high school. And they couldn't even pull that off.

I wish I could like this more than once.

Snyder's intent is clear when you think about it, but it's never clearly communicated to the audience during the film. His intent is fine, but his execution of that intent sucks.

It's why the Martha scene failed. We all know what Snyder intended by that scene, for Batman to realise he's gone too far when he hears Superman say his mother's name, but it's not executed at all well leading to audiences thinking they stop fighting just because their mothers have the same name. We know it's Batman realising he's gone too far when Superman shouting "Martha!" reminds Batman of his own father saying the same before he died, but it's just not executed that well.

Personally, I feel this is an extension of Snyder often trying to do a little too much in the DC films. There's a fantastic film about three men living under the shadows of their dead fathers, their promises to said dead fathers and how this affects them buried in Batman v Superman. This really should have been the core personal conflict for the character arcs of the three leads (Batman, Superman, Lex Luthor) and then having these character's promises and devotion to their dead fathers be what puts them against each other. Instead this gets entirely lost under all the other themes and ideas Snyder tries to explore with the story.

It's why most of the better regarded superhero movies by critics and audiences often have very simple plots. They do less with the story but have a stronger central theme. For example; Thor - Humility, Spider-Man - Identity and Responsibility (the very first line of the film is "Who am I?"), Ant-Man - Family, Batman Begins - Fear, The Dark Knight - Duality, Logan - Love and Life Fulfilment, Iron Man 2 - Legacy etc.

Batman v Superman does have several themes, but it has so many that it can't really do anything with them and in the end never actually develops any of them enough. Is Batman v Superman about fathers? Is it about power? Hope? Sacrifice? Mothers? And that isn't even all of them.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

Nonsense. The entire fight sequence, struggle and adversarial conversation prior to the kill is Superman struggling to reign him in another way. If he wasn't struggling not to end it the easiest, quickest way he would have killed him before it even got going, at the very first sign of collateral damage. Even before Zod the movie shows you how he's let tons of things slide over the years instead of flicking some drunk jerk's head off his shoulders just because he can.

You guys act like he pulled up, jumped out the police car and shot someone within 2 seconds like Tamir Rice.

How does Superman try and reign him in? He starts the fight by saying "You're a monster, Zod. And I'm going to stop you." He doesn't give Zod a chance to surrender or leave. He punches Zod into buildings. He doesn't try to restrain or capture Zod until it's too late. The only thing Superman does to try and stop the fight is punch Zod into space.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

That's 'cause it suits you to align with critical consensus more often than it doesn't.

No, it's because it's their job to give their opinion. Which they do. You can't really say someone is wrong for giving their opinion when that's their job. Yes there can be misinformed reviews, but that doesn't mean critics are wrong.

You can disagree with their opinion, but they're not wrong. It's just their opinion they are entitled to have and express just like you.

Mark Kermode is my favourite movie reviewer and I don't agree with him some of the time. Doesn't mean I've ever thought he was wrong though.

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

We all know what Snyder intended by that scene

We do? I thought you said before it was bad because someone on the internet needed to explain it.

How did the person on the internet figure out? They had all the same information available to them.

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

How does Superman try and reign him in? He starts the fight by saying "You're a monster, Zod. And I'm going to stop you." He doesn't give Zod a chance to surrender or leave. He punches Zod into buildings. He doesn't try to restrain or capture Zod until it's too late. The only thing Superman does to try and stop the fight is punch Zod into space.

Ah yes, Zod wasn't fighting Superman, he was just being pummelled by hyper aggressive Superman. He wasn't already terraforming the planet, he was just threatening to do it when Superman lost his mind and attacked him.

"I'm going to stop you." clearly expresses undeniably murderous intent.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

He starts the fight by saying "You're a monster, Zod. And I'm going to stop you." He doesn't give Zod a chance to surrender or leave.

Have you even seen Man of Steel? I doubt it.

General Zod: I'm going to make them suffer, Kal. These humans you've adopted, I will take them all from you one by one.

Superman: You're a monster, Zod, and I'm gonna stop you.

Superman didn't start a fight. Zod did it by threating to kill every single person on the planet.

Anything else?

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

No, it's because it's their job to give their opinion. Which they do. You can't really say someone is wrong for giving their opinion when that's their job. Yes there can be misinformed reviews, but that doesn't mean critics are wrong.

You can disagree with their opinion, but they're not wrong. It's just their opinion they are entitled to have and express just like you.

Mark Kermode is my favourite movie reviewer and I don't agree with him some of the time. Doesn't mean I've ever thought he was wrong though.

Why is it limited to jobs? It's people's jobs to make movies too, and you can absolutely tear those to shreds and theorize about how wrong they are. What makes opinions beyond reproach? Are opinions that aren't delivered in exchange for money the only ones that cab be wrong? You have no problem arguing with normal people's opinions online, so why do you think anything someone puts forth as a formal critique is beyond reproach?

I don't have a favorite reviewer. I don't have an all-time favorite top 10 critiques list.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Have you even seen Man of Steel? I doubt it.

Superman didn't start a fight. Zod did it by threating to kill every single person on the planet.

Anything else?

Superman says that line just before the final fight. Go and check.

By this point Superman had foiled Zod’s plan. But Superman did not give Zod the chance to surrender or leave Earth in peace.

[The_Donster]

How the hell does a Justice League thread turn into a MoS circle jerk?

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

Superman says that line just before the final fight. Go and check.

By this point Superman had foiled Zod’s plan. But Superman did not give Zod the chance to surrender or leave Earth in peace.

Which part of Zod's line you don't understand?

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Probably because of the reason you stated: even if the movie doesn't explicitly mention or show Superman's "no-kill" rule or show the build-up to it, as a Superman fan, I know about it so I bring that knowledge into the movie with me.

So if the scene only works when the audience already knows everything about the character, then why is it an origin story? What's the point of trying to reintroduce the character in the modern day if the film isn't going to bother explaining basic components of his character?

Originally Posted by LoSouL

Nonsense. The entire fight sequence, struggle and adversarial conversation prior to the kill is Superman struggling to reign him in another way. If he wasn't struggling not to end it the easiest, quickest way he would have killed him before it even got going, at the very first sign of collateral damage. Even before Zod the movie shows you how he's let tons of things slide over the years instead of flicking some drunk jerk's head off his shoulders just because he can.

He still destroys that drunk jerk's car instead of throwing him out of the bar (which is kind of his job, seeing as he works there).

Maybe if Zod tried to taunt Superman into killing him or something it might have gotten the idea across, but as it stands, it yet another example of Snyder failing to get his ideas across. Because I never got the impression that Superman was holding back at all during that entire fight, let alone the preceding half hour of action.

Originally Posted by LoSouL

You guys act like he pulled up, jumped out the police car and shot someone within 2 seconds like Tamir Rice.

First of all, it takes a special kind of tastelessness to invoke someone's actual death when talking about a comic book movie, of all things. Because of that, you're going on ignore after I post this.

Secondly, at no point have I ever talked about Superman being too eager to kill Zod. No one has talked about that. What I'm talking about is the moment where Superman decides to take Zod's life fails to have the necessary dramatic weight because the film had not previously established that Superman doesn't want to kill people. This was in response to imsounoriginal's comment that suggested it was merely the fact that Superman killed Zod that caused people to dislike Man of Steel, a comment which certainly lived up to his screenname.

Again: I understand what Snyder was trying to do with the scene. It's just that the execution suffered because he failed to establish the necessary information for that scene to work.

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

Superman says that line just before the final fight. Go and check.

By this point Superman had foiled Zod’s plan. But Superman did not give Zod the chance to surrender or leave Earth in peace.

Is this some sort of a joke? Zod would have never surrendered.

• Kal-El: No, stop! Don't do this!
• Zod: Never.