What are your issues with the DCEU Superman?

[The Laughing Fish]

sh*t like this is why the age of the internet and bloggers suck. Any idiot who can type can be called a "writer," even though they don't fact check and are f***ing ignorant. And it's not like we're talking about some grand deep detail that takes a bit of studying or whatever to master. Knowing what "IN COLD BLOOD" means should be f***ing simple. It's pathetic. But they can get by with it and somebody who's just as ignorant is going to read the sh*t and be like "Oh, it was in cold blood, wow" and it just starts a domino effect of stupid motherf***ertude.

I hate people.

If you think this is bad, wait till you hear people's overreaction to Cavill's comments about the #metoo movement he made a couple of days ago. 

As I told you before in the WW thread, THIS is the reason why I have no respect for people for their misguided outrage over MOS and BvS. Not only do they fail to understand the context of what was happening in that scene with Zod, they simply don't understand what the term "in cold blood" means. Same thing goes for the term "murder". Murder, according to multiple dictionary sources, means to "to kill of another human being without justification or excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought". I'm not an expert on common law by any means, but from what I understand, Superman's actions could be compared to committing justifiable homicide.

These films have their flaws, no doubt. If somebody says "Zod's death wasn't an issue, but I didn't like the film because x, y and z", that's perfectly fine.
If the circumstances were normal, I'd agree with you when you say understand why some people have a problem with them. But these loudmouths don't just express their subjective dislike for them, oh no, they get all high and mighty about it, because they supposedly don't like the idea of Superman and Batman having blood on their hands. All the while not even recognising their own hypocrisy with their praise of Wonder Woman and past Batman and Superman films for doing the exact same thing. How many bloody times do people with common sense have to point this out to these delusional idiots?

Make no mistake, mass media manipulation does play a part in this perception. Particularly bottom feeder YouTube channels and blogs. For example, I wasn't a fan of The Last Jedi. But I'm not blind, I've seen a lot of videos on YT taking advantage of piling on the film just for the sake of clicks. I had to unsubscribe somebody because he went from expressing honest movie reviews, to constantly report anti-Star Wars news day-in, day-out ever since TLJ was released. He did this for a very good reason, it helped him grow his channel and get plenty of subscribers, who are dumb enough to donate their own money to his Patreon account.

I have no doubt that clickbait sites like Collider, ComicBook.com, comicbookmovie.com and Batman-News take advantage of the hysteria over the DCEU on purpose. As a matter of fact, another stupid website Comic Book Resources routinely posts blog articles of James Gunn explaining to fans on Twitter what were the meanings to his Easter eggs and ideas of scenes in his Guardians of the Galaxy films. Zack Snyder engages with fans on another site called Vero, and what CBR do? They spin it by running these headlines "Zack Snyder needing to explain BvS shows it's a bad film". When fans called out on their double standards, CBR doubles down by running the same headline again. The worst thing is, this actually works! People get brainwashed by this rubbish.

As for people in general? This video highlights how people are susceptible to the herd mentality perfectly.

I must seek this book by Gustave Le Bon, sounds very fascinating. Nonetheless, my rant's over.

[The Laughing Fish]

Following the rumours over Henry Cavill supposedly leaving the role yesterday, the actor came out with this strange little video on Instagram, with a caption saying "Today was exciting".

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnpPIrmFN9n/?hl=en&taken-by=henrycavill

[The Laughing Fish]

Hm. So it looks like the takeaway lesson here is that it's okay for one fictional character to kill another fictional character. The key issues are to blast the Williams Superman theme in the background and instantly forget that the character just took someone else's life. After all, actions never have consequences (anybody who says otherwise is lying or selling something, eh?) so it's best to just do whatever and forget about it as quickly as possible.

Got it.

I was talking about the top statement. The music doesn't matter. The tone being consistent in it and after it do. Actions not having consequences is the exact problem with MOS. The action of killing doesn't have a consequence in SMII either. But it doesn't pretend it will. It just isn't treated hugely. MOS is inconsistent. It wants to give the illusion of consequences. But it doesn't walk the walk in this situation. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

It's going to be hard to not sound insulting here, but I'll try to do my best.

You've said a lot of intellectually dishonest things ever since you've started participating on this forum. Your particular criticisms of MOS for not exploring the consequences over Superman killing Zod, while refusing to acknowledge those consequences were explored in BvS, as well as the nonsense you wrote about Superman didn't inspire people throughout the films, is definitely one of your most ridiculous comments. It also shows a staggering lack of self-awareness because you continue to deny the lack of consequences of Nolan's Batman killing in each film. Never mind the fact you continue to deny he ever killed anyone despite what is seen and heard on screen, as well as always moving the goalposts to desperately deny any sort of inconsistency. Not only does it make you a hypocrite, it ruins any point of trying to have a conversation with you, because you lack reasoning and have a distorted perspective when it comes to movies in general. It's just projection.

I'm sorry that sounds harsh Dagenspear. Believe it or not, I don't want to insult you. If I didn't know any better, I would've thought you were trolling. But instead, I'm rather concerned about your state of mind. The stuff you say for the vast majority of the time makes me worried about your mental health.

[Dagenspear]

It's going to be hard to not sound insulting here, but I'll try to do my best.

You've said a lot of intellectually dishonest things ever since you've started participating on this forum. Your particular criticisms of MOS for not exploring the consequences over Superman killing Zod, while refusing to acknowledge those consequences were explored in BvS, as well as the nonsense you wrote about Superman didn't inspire people throughout the films, is definitely one of your most ridiculous comments. It also shows a staggering lack of self-awareness because you continue to deny the lack of consequences of Nolan's Batman killing in each film. Never mind the fact you continue to deny he ever killed anyone despite what is seen and heard on screen, as well as always moving the goalposts to desperately deny any sort of inconsistency. Not only does it make you a hypocrite, it ruins any point of trying to have a conversation with you, because you lack reasoning and have a distorted perspective when it comes to movies in general. It's just projection.

I'm sorry that sounds harsh Dagenspear. Believe it or not, I don't want to insult you. If I didn't know any better, I would've thought you were trolling. But instead, I'm rather concerned about your state of mind. The stuff you say for the vast majority of the time makes me worried about your mental health.

I don't deny that Nolan's Batman killed. He did. BvS doesn't deal with Clark's reaction to killing Zod. That's what I mean when I talk about consequences. I maintain that the idea of Superman inspiring people isn't something that movie develops. I agree the movie says he did. But I don't think the movie develops it. My statements about him not inspiring people in this thread, as far as I've seen, post here:

I saw this nice collage that somebody on Twitter compiled to illustrate examples how Superman touched people's lives, and connect them to a line spoken by Batman in the latest Justice League trailer.



Source: https://twitter.com/TheoB0rg/status/892457373260017664

One can state the execution hasn't always been the best, but it's foolish to say Snyder's Superman hasn't made a positive influence to the world in the DCEU.

That's the thing here: He didn't make people see the best of themselves at all. People just did it. Nothing Superman does would effect people this way. Superman doesn't turn Batman around. Batman sees Superman as a person based on something they have in common. Superman's actions aren't different here than they are in MOS. There's no reason for it to change anything. The only thing that holds water to me is the bully to friend thing. Society wouldn't treat Superman as if his loss was the equivalent of the loss of many lives. Ally wasn't earned. That soldier was one in connection to trying to save the world irregardless of Superman. There's no reality to many of these statements. Society doesn't change like that. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

I assume this is what you're talking about. But I was talking about these situations and that I think it doesn't apply.

[thecolorsblend]

BvS doesn't deal with Clark's reaction to killing Zod.

"They need to see the fraud you are. With their eyes. The blood on your hands."

Not very long after that line was delivered, Superman took a spike to the chest... which wouldn't have been possible if he hadn't killed Zod back in MOS.

So hmm.

I assume this is what you're talking about. But I was talking about these situations and that I think it doesn't apply.

Of course. They're not precisely the same so that must mean they're complete opposites, right?

[Dagenspear]

"They need to see the fraud you are. With their eyes. The blood on your hands."

Not very long after that line was delivered, Superman took a spike to the chest... which wouldn't have been possible if he hadn't killed Zod back in MOS.

So hmm.

That's not about how he deals with it.

Of course. They're not precisely the same so that must mean they're complete opposites, right?

I don't think Clark inspired them. Except for the bully.

[thecolorsblend]

That's not about how he deals with it.

You say this after Superman was accused of the desert massacre and a big percentage of the public believed it, which is partly why Superman had that crisis of confidence in the movie.

I sometimes wonder if we even watched the same movie.

I don't think Clark inspired them. Except for the bully.

Not the exact same! Must be total opposites!

[The Dark Knight]

You say this after Superman was accused of the desert massacre and a big percentage of the public believed it, which is partly why Superman had that crisis of confidence in the movie.

BvS Superman rules more and more as time goes on because he reflects the times and is not a shallow cardboard cutout. He's someone with amazing patience, with his demeanor being insanely in control despite being framed for crimes he did not commit, enduring media hounding on said false conspiracies. Innocent until proven guilty? Not anymore. Due process goes out the window and the victims must be believed no matter what, facts be damned. Perception carries more weight in the age of clickbait headlines. Can you begin to grasp how FRUSTRATING that would be, especially for a man with incredible power? How do you even really prove your innocence in this instance other than saying it didn't happen, and by continuing to exhibit heroic behavior? And even then, said heroic behavior isn't enough to shake the negativity pushed upon him. People say Snyder didn't respect Superman, but what is that charge based on? Giving him emotional complexity and adversity? That's exactly what the character needs. Kicking sand in the face of heroes gives them obstacles to overcome, which is the whole point. It seems Snyder was too effective in this regard for some people. Ridiculous.

[Dagenspear]

You say this after Superman was accused of the desert massacre and a big percentage of the public believed it, which is partly why Superman had that crisis of confidence in the movie.

I sometimes wonder if we even watched the same movie.

That's not about how he deals with his feelings in killing Zod.

Not the exact same! Must be total opposites!

I don't agree.

[The Laughing Fish]

Why is Batman more important than every warlord, terrorist, crime boss in the world?

How many of those unofficially operate under the imprimatur of their local police and law enforcement?

Of those, how many are literally across the bay from Metropolis?

Whether you like it or not, stories about Batman are a completely valid thing for Clark to advocate with Perry.

That, and Superman perceiving Batman as a serious threat early on in their careers is a precedent in the comics. When both characters met each other for the first time in John Byrne's Man of Steel mini-series, Superman went to Gotham City with the intention to capture Batman and turn him over to the police, because Batman was working outside the law. It was until he was coerced by Batman and learned about Magpie being a bigger threat at large that they had to work together. But nonetheless, Superman was wary of Batman because he didn't approve vigilantism and outlaws. In the end though, he permits Batman to continue roaming through the streets because he realises Gotham City needs him, but Superman promises to keep a close eye on him to make sure his actions don't go too far.

In BvS, Batman appeared to have Gotham City's law enforcement by his side, as Clark Kent saw in that cartoon sketch at the police station while trying to investigate the Santos case with uncooperative cops in the Ultimate Edition. If the police, as an institution, never supported Batman's violent methods, there's no doubt in my mind Superman would've tried to apprehend Batman, instead of giving him that tense warning at the end of the Batmobile chase scene.