Zack Snyder Talks BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN; Gives Thoughts on Seeing Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman Together for the First Time

by     Posted 216 days ago

batman-vs-superman-zack-snyder

Even though Zack Snyder currently can’t really say anything incredibly substantial about Batman vs. Superman (unofficial title), he can talk around it, and that’s close enough for most fanboys.  In a recent interview with Forbes, Snyder gave his thoughts on both characters and seeing them together on screen.  Personally, the most disconcerting part of the interview is when the interviewer says, “Superman is kind of the ideal of what we’d like to be, and Batman is kind of rooted in what we are. He reflects what we are, so to speak,” and Snyder replies, “Oh, 100%. And I think that’s at the heart of that, you know.”  I could not disagree more with that response.  I think an “idealist versus pragmatist” approach is understandable, but please don’t lump me in with a billionaire who treats a crime-ridden city like a playground so he can constantly work though his childhood trauma.

Hit the jump for more of what Snyder had to say about the Batman vs. Superman costumes, seeing Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman together on screen for the first time, when we might start seeing official images, and more.  The film stars Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck, Jesse Eisenberg, Gal Gadot, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Jeremy Irons, and Laurence FishburneBatman vs. Superman opens May 6, 2016.

batman-vs-supermanSnyder tells Forbes that while he has always harbored a desire to do a Batman movie, that wasn’t his foremost concern for the sequel.  When it came to reintroducing the Dark Knight, Snyder gave the idea ample consideration:

Once you say, “What about Batman?” then you realize, “Okay, that’s a cool idea. What else?” I mean, what do you say after that? …But I’m not gonna say at all that when I took the job to do Man of Steel that I did it in a subversive way to get to Batman. I really believe that only after contemplating who could face [Superman] did Batman come into the picture.

The director also talked about doing the screen tests for the costumes, and even though he hasn’t seen Cavill (Superman), Affleck (Batman), and Gadot (Wonder woman) officially on-screen together, he has seen their stand-ins together wearing the costumes:

Even just Batman and Superman standing next to each other… [I]t’s kind of epic. You do sort of sense the weight of the pop culture iconography jumping out of its skin when you’re standing there looking at the two of them and Wonder Woman. It’s crazy. But it’s fun. I mean, I have the first photo, I’ve got it in my archive because I was like, “Okay, I better keep this, it’s gonna be worth something,” [laughs]!

Personally, I hope that’s something he’ll put on the Blu-ray extras.  If it’s such a big deal for him, I’m sure the fans would go nuts over it.

wonder-woman-superman-batmanWhen it comes to what fans will officially see in the near future, Snyder’s not quite sure.  Filming begins soon, but he’s not sure of the studio’s marketing timetable since the release date is almost two years away:

Because the movie takes place so far from now, it’s hard to know exactly. That all gets tied to marketing and strategies for the movie. It’s not just a free-for-all, which I’d love it to be. Because I take a picture of the suit with my camera– I’m actually staring at one right now in my office. And it’s just massive on my wall in my office and it’s epic, let me tell you! And I’m like, “God, I want to send this to the Internet immediately.” But I know I’m not allowed to [laughs]! I do value the sort of excitement of the way the film is [revealed]… the pieces that are released and sort of trickle out to everybody, and those reveals are exciting milestones for us.

But, when we finally do show it, it’s gonna be real fun. And it’s true, you gotta make sure– you’re gonna want the real shot…

Hopefully, Warner Bros. will go the same route they did when it came to Christopher Nolan‘s Batman movies—release official images before outdoor filming begins so that the first look is an ideal image of a character rather than a blurry snapshot taken with a camera phone.

Finally, Snyder had an interesting quote when it came to how he views violence in his movies:

I really wanted to show the violence is real, people get killed or get hurt, and it’s not fun or funny. And I guess for me, it was like I wanted a hero in Superman that was a real hero and sort of reflected the world we live in now…

As we’ve been writing the script and talking about what to do with these characters, how they face off and why and what it means, you know, we’ve really tried to think about it in a real– I guess in a way that talks about who we are as well.

It’s fascinating that Snyder sees Man of Steel that way—”people get killed or get hurt”—when he shows absolutely none of that in the movie.  I’m also not sure what he means when he says Superman was “a real hero and sort of reflected the world we live in now…”  Can someone explain that in the comments section?

batman-vs-superman




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • Groesencratz

    Matt, with regards to the ‘real hero’ comment, I think he’s essentially trying to say that a Superman of our current world wouldn’t be able to avoid damage or destruction and wouldn’t be able to be a perfect boy scout as he was portrayed in the past. Whether he’s right or not is a different question…

    • RecoveR

      I also think that he is talking about superheroes in our generation, almost every hero is damaged in some sort of way or has a character flaw, perhaps what he means is that (in his version of superman) Superman can’t save every human being, superman can be a flawed character, perhaps everything isn’t truth, justice and the american way anymore, and its about more than that.

      • Diego Fernando Salazar Proaño

        Exactly my thoughts! I mean, it wasn’t necessary for Snyder to show a close up of pile of corpses under rubble: people get killed or hurt just because of the destruction the Terraforming Device causes and, indeed, it wasn’t fun to see but helped raise the stakes of Supes fight and him not avoiding to go to the limits to stop the carnage.

      • The Flobbit

        Stakes can be raised without the slightest hint of violence. Honestly the skyscraper destruction was so stomach-churning, gratuitous and needless it ruined the otherwise great film for me. Think how much better that battle would be if Supes and Zod fought in the Grand Canyon – if we could see mountains exploding and forests levelled, rather than see millions of people meet their brutal end.

      • Diego Fernando Salazar Proaño

        What? How could you possibly establish that a character is willing to commit genocide just by showing “mountains exploding and forests levelled”? Sorry but you just can’t! If you don’t show Zod leveling an entire city to make HIS point, then what the hell is he doing? He is not here to rule us like in Superman 2, he is here to destroy us in order to rebuild his civilization! And you just can’t establish that without showing people dying and/or in mortal danger. The skyscraper destruction was MEANT TO be stomach-churning and was necessary to establish to what lenghts Zod was willing to go to reach his goal.

      • The Flobbit

        I’ll tel you how: through good acting and dialogue. My point is that Snyder did not have to do it the way he did.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        Then I guess my question is who IS Superman if you strip away those values? Is Superman nothing more than a suit and a set of superpowers?

      • RecoveR

        That’s a fair point, although i always thought of Man of Steel as a sort of prequel to the superman we all know. About Superman not killing anyone, i suppose he never really had a reason to and then at the end of man of steel, he’s put in that position and it tore him apart, hopefully that’s how he decides on the no killing rule etc

      • Diego Fernando Salazar Proaño

        When did Superman get stripped of the Truth and Justice part (the American way now sounds like utter crap if you ask me… but now that we talk about it, I never understood what does it mean.)? Clark always went after truth and justice, otherwise he wouldn’t have done what he did. He rejected joining his fellow kryptonians because what they were going to do was not Just. Truth is there in how he lives his life and how he influences other peoples lives. It’s more complex take, but his main values are there. Therefore: Superman

      • YodaRocks

        I think that has got a lot to do with the fact that Superman is an alien who happens to be superhuman on earth, rather than being a God. I think that is what Nolan, Snyder and Goyer were going for in the first movie and will be a continuing theme in the second. I think we’ll eventually get to the point where Superman will be the boy scout we have known him to be, and that the movies are a journey towards that goal. I think this is where the Batman-is-a-veteran angle also comes in. Superman will learn something from him and maybe from Wonderwoman.

      • Django9000

        This the entire DC conundrum writ large: if Batman Begins was real world – based, how on Earth do you write your way out if the issue of A super alien who defies ALL laws of physics, once you try to expand that “gritty, realistic” comic universe? His only way out really is to make things Look like Frank Miller ‘s classic dark knight story, for which the art and atmosphere ultimately trump the story, in hindsight. My guess is any person defending Snyder ‘ s Man of Steel simply aren’t aware of the wealth of stories in the long history of books he can pick & choose from, as Nolan did. But for whatever reason, he doesn’t seem capable of doing without missing the crucial character beats that define these characters. Prime example- Rorschach is a horror-movie-like murderer of criminals in his film, vs. Giving even a child killer a fighting chance, (if he’s willing to saw his hand off, to escape a burning building.) Twisted Justice vs. downright psychopathology. Snyder may have read comics, doesn’t “get” that talented writers have spent generations crafting their stories as reflections of the real world already. Listen to the comics, not your inner shock value marketing committee, dude.

      • Batt Damon

        I’d argue that Miller’s Dark Knight Returns isn’t gritty and realistic. It’s operatic. It starts off with Batman at his lowest. He’s old, he’s retired, everything important to him is lost. Over the course of those four issues he regains his sense of self and finally takes out his villains once and for all culminating in a battle with god himself, with Batman coming out on top. That’s not exactly realistic if you ask me.

      • lordjim

        batman begins is not inside a real world, the whole evil plan to poison the city is a science fiction device that defies the laws of physics.and it´s not even gritty, it´s still very much a comic book, taxi driver is gritty.

      • DEADP00L

        American way. Superman was created during the precursor to WW2. The American way was the rallying point for the troops when WW2 came to be. Superman became Dc’s Captain America and the difference between the Nazi German way ie fascism. While he didn’t punch Hitler in the face or was as politically driven, he was a character the troops adored. The ideal he stood for. Superman became America personalized, that indestructible, all power and almost God-like shining beacon up on the hill of innocence until proven guilty and due process.

        He hasn’t been that way in a loooooong time. Wish he was to be honest, imagine Superman taking on the now firmly morally bankrupted and corrupted number one super powered government today – that’s a movie I’d pay to see,

        But this Superman isn’t that Superman, he’s the HULK minus the green skin and shoots lazers out of his eyes.

      • Frank

        Have you read any of the Authority? Or Cla$$Wars? Both of them take on the government, quite interestingly. Worth checking out, you might enjoy.

      • DEADP00L

        Oh thanks I’m loading up on comics so I’ll check them out.

      • Batt Damon

        Superman was created in 1938 before there was even a notion of America going to war. The early Superman stories were morally ambiguous. Superman was at odds with the police and didn’t have a problem taking human life if it was for the greater good. It wasn’t until WW2 that he morphed into the big blue boy scout. I kind of get where Snyder was going with the character but he did a terrible job of portraying it on screen.

      • DEADP00L

        …That’s what I said.

      • Grayden

        That’s every hero or villain if you take away their values or lack thereof.

        Before Batman Begins I don’t think many people looked at Batman/Bruce Wayne with any sort of psychological curiosity. Now people look at these characters in a realistic way or if they existed in our world. In doing that, I don’t think you can expect them to retain that sort of sanitized presence they had on the comic book page.

        In that way , I think Snyder is saying real heroes wouldn’t appear pristine or act with such linear judgement. They would react to an invading force just as we would, specifically Superman since he was raised as a human. Comic book Superman would worry about civilian casualties but how many times have you seen a building destroyed or Supes thrown through a building on the page and never thought of the collateral damage?

        If we’re going to accept Superman, and other characters, in the real world, then we can’t judge them based on their comic book counterparts.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        That’s a somewhat cynical view of the “real world” and perhaps that’s part of my problem with the movie. I can accept cynicism with Batman (although I would say Batman had been explored with psychological curiosity in the comics and in the movies before “Begins”; in terms of the movies, Burton saw Batman as an odd outsider (shocker) and Schumacher saw campy kink), but it feels forced on a character like Superman.

      • diles1

        but Is Superman himself cynical? Just because the world is dark doesn’t mean the hero is dark. Clark is trying to find himself in this film, a point made abundantly clear by Snyder and Goyer long before the film came out. One of the leading themes in the film is “can Clark trust humanity?” Throughout the film we see Clark wrestle AGAINST Pa Kent’s (justified) cynicism and risk exposing himself by saving people. I think by the end of the film he has made his choice, although Zod was not offering a very attractive offer in the first place. Now it is up to us to accept him, which leads naturally to a clash with Batman and Lex Luthor.

        Also, Matt, one of your questions here is what does the film suggest is the origin of morality? Well, I think the film itself isn’t clear on this point. Morality can, theoretically, develop out of the daily habits and maxims of people like his Earth parents. Or maybe Clark is simply good, born good, a product of his Kryptonian origin. The Kryptonians were very keen on, and capable of, genetic manipulation and practically feudal role assignment from birth. Yet, the film constantly stresses CHOICE. Superman is offered a choice: Earth or the dark legacy of a doomed Krypton in the form of Zod’s genocide. It’s a bit of an easy choice, in part because one offers an ultimatum, while the other simply has no choice. I don’t think the film offers an easy answer on the origins of morality, and maybe it’s better that it doesn’t.

      • Django9000

        You clearly haven’t been reading the comics since the 70s, which introduced Ras Al Ghul, Luis Fox, and many elements that became the stories of Nolan ‘ s first two films.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        Actually, I have. That’s why I said Batman had been explored with psychological curiosity in the comics. The most notable is obviously The Dark Knight Returns, and other writers have followed suit (whether it’s to the benefit or detriment of the character is another conversation).

      • lordjim

        tim burton´s batman was psychologically more realistic, because he couldn´t even act as a playboy when he was bruce wayne, he was still a weird loner, not good with people and truly batshit crazy.nolan´s version was sanitized compared to burton´s.

      • Frank

        I think what Snyder means is that there was a time in America where propaganda could paint a picture that everything we were doing was just. Now the layers have been peeled back, and more than ever we see how unclean our justice can be. Needless wars, torture, the NSA, etc. Superman was a poster boy for a clean America, but this is less real now. And so now, Superman still represents his values, but not our government’s agenda. He reflects the times, recognizes the problems we do. It’s analogous to the death of American exceptionalism. Not Superman’s values but our own.

        My biggest problem with the portrayal of Superman in Man of Steel was that no man would let his father die if he had the power to stop it. That ruined the movie and was so far from reality I couldn’t take it.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        But how does Superman represent those positive values? And if he has them, where does he get them when Pa Kent is willing to say, “Yeah, maybe you should let a bus full of kids die.” You can say that it’s understandable Jonathan Kent would want to protect his son’s true identity, but regardless, positive values are never imparted to young Clark.

      • Frank

        I agree with the bus thing. Felt that was out of character too. To play devil’s advocate, Pa Kent may have been reflective of a father whose son didn’t come with a manual, which feels more real and relevant. I think Pa Kent had as many questions as answers. Ultimately, Clark didn’t listen to Pa Kent – he did what was right despite himself. Where did this come from? I’m not sure. It raises the question of morality and genetics. Jor-El had ideals that bucked against other Kryptonians. Clark echoes that sentiment. I just can’t get behind why he didn’t save his own dad. He could have defied Pa Kent again, saved him, and had to leave town because of this. Pa Kent could have died while Clark was away and it would have been more credible.

      • Anthony Sturm

        I believe his decision to let his father die plays into the larger story. After the incident with the bus, Clark was already under the microscope. Saving his father under extraordinary circumstances would have jeopardized his true identy further.

      • Frank

        Exactly! It would have forced him to leave home. Imagine this. He defies his father, only to draw greater scrutiny. He has to leave and reconcile with the fact that when the prodigal son returns, his father has died. Hits all the emotional notes, but is believable. You would have to be bloodless to let your father die. Something I’d expect from Zod maybe, but not Clark.

      • Mister Moustache

        Here’s what Jonathan says:

        ” Maybe; but there’s more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world… When the world finds out what you can do, it’s gonna change everything; our… our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human… everything. You saw how Pete’s mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark.”

        So his concern is not really just about Clark exposing himself, it’s not like: “You know, let people die because otherwise they’ll bother you”. That’s not the point at all. It’s not just about affecting Clark, it’s also about how it would impact the whole world. Jonathan doesn’t have the answers, but he knows that Pete’s mom reaction is just a sample of something that would probably take global proportions. When he tells Clark to let him die, he’s just acting according to his own beliefs, he’s sacrificing his life for his son and for the world, because he wants Clark to be ready and find himself and make a choice. Clark’s dillema to save his father or not (important to remember: Jonathan stops him, so Clark’s decision at first was to save his father, yes) was really about going against everything his father taught him his whole life. Even though he’s unsure, he trusts Jonathan and makes the sacrifice to let him die. In the end, the way he finds to conciliate his own impulses with his father’s teachings is to live like a nomad, helping people and vanishing to keep his existence a secret.

        There are no easy answers nor absolute certainties, therefore it’s controversial. But I think that’s also more intellectually stimulating, to think about these characters as people dealing with issues that are really morally plural, in the sense that they admit different moral standards without being corrupted. The main point is, whether you think it’s good or bad, I’m just 100% against the notion that it’s “wrong”.

      • The Flobbit

        Snyder really doesn’t mean that. He *thinks* he means that. He really wants his film to have deep and thought-provoking themes, and so he’s very happy when people like you overthink it. Honestly, we could analyze this till the cows come home, going into Freudian theory, the nature of government and colonization, but I don’t think that Snyder intended any of that – he just wanted to make a Superman movie.

      • Jean Andre Vizueta

        Not sure how to answer but then you got a different character tryng to pose as superman i think you can change certain things to a heroe in any adaptation before he is not a hero anymore is always my main problem when they try to “update” a character to modern times making it dark and gritty without keeping the essence of him that is his moral values is ironic that batman is the one who sacrifices himself to salve others whitout having to kill others to learn that lesson

      • The Flobbit

        Superman is nothing without those values. Superman is at heart, a rather bland, black-and-white, emotionally perfect Christ-figure sent to save us, which is why it is so damn impossible to make him compelling, which is FURTHER why when people try to make him compelling they go the way of Batman and give him angst and conflict.

        That’s not the way. To make Superman compelling, you have to make the people AROUND him compelling: Lois Lane, Lex Luthor, Batman, etc. In this way Superman can react with and against them.

        Secondly, to make Superman an interesting character, you have to take away his powers. This has been done most famously in All-Star Superman. It’s almost a fact: you don’t feel suspense or danger when you have a guy who can survive death and rewind time.

      • lordjim

        to make superman compelling you have to give him clark kent.

      • The Flobbit

        Exactly; this is what was done so brilliantly in All Star Superman.

    • nick

      why was my comment erased, because a made a good point about the film??

      • lordjim

        because your point is a secret and the world is not ready yet.

  • ValentineNick

    Well I can say at least this director isn’t getting accused for teen rape like Singer.

    • Diego Fernando Salazar Proaño

      What? When did that happen?

      • ValentineNick

        Just Recently, I read it on Onion AV Club.
        Just google it.

    • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

      If you want to keep that contained to X-Men stories, I’ll allow it (barely), but it has no place in this conversation.

      • ValentineNick

        Sorry Matt. Just shocks me.

      • lordjim

        i´m shocked by your understanding of accusations as truth.
        it´s become really easy to destroy innocent people´s lifes because of pople like you, reminds me of mccarthy.

      • Anuj Pradhan

        Now that you’ve pointed out the X-Men stories page, I just wanted to point out that that link (to the new featurettes) isn’t working, it keeps redirecting you to the home page.

    • lordjim

      what the hell is your problem?
      oh, i undesrtand, in these marketing crazy times accusation seems to be a verdict then?
      go read or watch the crucible and learn something!

  • Person

    I just don’t understand the point of interviewing Snyder (or anyone related) about the movie two years before it comes out. He can’t say anything, and whatever he says sounds ridiculous. I think he did a good job with Man of Steel, so I’ll hold out hope for this, but the more he talks about it in these vague terms, the more my confidence drops. I have a feeling WB is banking on the novelty factor of having these three on-screen for the first time to sell tickets, and that this will essentially be like Iron Man 2, aka a two-hour trailer for the bigger superhero mash-up.

  • Joseph

    Regarding this comment — “It’s fascinating that Snyder sees Man of Steel that way—”people get killed or get hurt”—when he shows absolutely none of that in the movie.”

    Actually, they showed thousands of people getting killed in Man of Steel. Half of Metropolis is destroyed. (Maybe its not all bloody and graphic up-close…but they definitely show MANY people getting completely crushed and toppled by falling buildings). A lot of fans were outraged at all the destruction and civilian casualties, saying “Superman would never let that happen! This movies is BS…blah blah blah”.

    So I like Zack Snyder’s comment about showing viewers “the world we live in now”…because in the real world, people get killed, and not even Superman would be able to save them all.

    • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

      But it’s always in long shots, which keeps it in the abstract. It’s destruction, but not destruction that’s intentionally designed to make you feel uncomfortable (otherwise you wouldn’t enjoy the wham-bam of the fight between Superman and Zod). And while I understand that Superman can’t save ALL people, he should be able to save more than four.

      • Diego Fernando Salazar Proaño

        Well, when 9/11 happened, in my country everything was reported in long shots and not less shocking because of that. The destruction of Metropolis was uncomfortable to watch because you could see the panic, the horror and you could imagine that thousands of people inside those buildings were dying. I felt horrified watching those scenes and, as I said, raised the stakes. If Superman (who actually saved the rest of Metropolis by destroying the World Engine) could have just “rewinded” the whole thing it would have been just a joke. Regarding Zod an Kal’s final brawl, it looked pretty obvious for me that some parts of the city were evacuated by then. Still, it showed that Zod, all by himself, could still cause some severe casualties if Superman didn’t stop him.

      • Mister Moustache

        There’s even a little subplot showing the Daily Planet staff trying to survive in the chaos. We can see very clearly hundreds (even thousands) of people running in the streets, the movie is very clear about the fact that people are getting crushed there. I mean, it’s a PG-13 movie, it doesn’t show corpses or whatever, but it establishes exactly what’s happening: people are dying.

        It was clearly designed to make people feel uncomfortable, in my opinion. And it worked, discomfort is the basis of the complaints.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        See, I don’t think it was. Even by Snyder’s own admission, he was excited to see Superman actually have a brawl as opposed to fighting against someone like Lex Luthor who could never match Superman physically (unless he had a Kryptonite suit or something).

        The action scene is meant to exhilarate, and thus diminishes any impact of the resulting chaos and destruction. There’s never a pause to even consider that death. Superman feels more guilt about snapping Zod’s neck than he does about all the people that just died.

      • Lance

        IMO, Snyder is great with the visuals, but he doesn’t always have the greatest touch when it comes to thinking through all the storytelling ramifications. Sucker Punch, for example.

        He’s fine when dealing with a relatively simple story like 300, which is all about bravado and chest thumping “This! Is! Sparta!” rhetoric, but not more complicated fare.

        Goyer’s got to take responsibility for this one, too. I’ll give him credit for having a lot of ideas he wanted to get out about Superman, but he needed to sort through exactly what he wanted to say better. It feels like there’s too many different ideas bumping into each other in this movie, and none of them get explored as much as they should, because there’s always another idea to move onto.

      • brNdon

        Because all of those deaths were not a direct result of his actions. Yes he was involved, but he didn’t grab anyone else by the neck and spin their head 180 degrees.

      • Mister Moustache

        But it is exciting to see Superman finally fighting his equal, it is cool to see those super-powers represented faithfully, which doesn’t mean the consequences embedded in that will be comfortable to watch. I don’t think there’s a dichotomy there. More than that, I believe part of the excitement is in the fact that the consequences of those powers are represented, the notion that it’s not fun to have those god-like figures fighting in the middle of a town is actually one of the things that makes it interesting to watch, to me. And I think that’s clearly represented by the film through every narrative element: the visuals are mostly grey and apocalyptic, the score is oppressive, there’s no comic relief, the editing and camerawork conveys that sense of urgency and, as I said before, the film establishes the fact that people are dying several times. Once the World Engine starts terraforming, the movie is very graphical about what is happening to those people. It takes a time to show that those streets are full of people and those bulildings are collapsing and killing them. Even in the fight between Superman and Zod the movie shows some people on the street, scared, trying to run everytime those aliens approach. There’s even this moment right after Zod destroys a building with his heat vision, Superman is flying away, escaping from the wreckage, but halfway he gets hit and falls and rolls through the foundations of a parking lot. We can see people running while the structure begins to stumble and I remember just feeling uncomfortable with that amount of tragedy. So I think while there’s something visually compelling and “exhilarating”, it also has a very tangible tragic dimension to the whole thing. And seriously, if there wasn’t, so I don’t know why would so many people be so bothered by it. I mean, the whole point of the complaints is the assumption that Superman is “not caring” about people and “allowing them to die”, so at least the fact that people are dying and it is sad is a common principle.

        Now, I know I’m already writing too much, but about the pause you mentioned… I don’t think a pause was needed, I think the idea is to have that urgency, Zod is coming with everything and he’s mad. It makes him a greater threat. Superman has no time to moan the deads in the heat of the fight. And I don’t think he’s responsible for those deaths, neither. Zod has the advantage during the whole fight, Superman hits him 3 or 4 times, Zod is intercepting most of his punches and throwing him around. The only time during the fight that Kal has the advantage is in the end when he gets he general in the armlock. That’s the moment he’s able to make a choice and that’s why he feels “guilt” for killing Zod, because that was HIS choice, the people who died before weren’t. He actually almost died destroying the World Engine to save as many lives as he could. So I think giving it a “pause” to make the audience digest the deaths would’ve been artificial in this case, since the whole point was to portray that alien invasion as a catastrophic and urgent event. The primary consequences are obvious, people will moan the victims and rebuild he city, no need to show that. It will probably play a big part in the sequel, allowing them to use it as a gateway to bigger themes that had no space to be properly discussed in the end of the first film, so personally I’m ok with that.

      • The Flobbit

        I think you’re just proving the point about how morally bankrupt the film is. If we aren’t meant to care about the millions crushed to death in a skyscraper or killed when their planet is destroyed, how are we meant to care about Superman killing Zod?

      • Oolie zool

        I half agree. They wanted you to get an idea that it was happening, while glossing over what was happening. I think there’s a quick scene with the world engine where a car gets slammed on someone, but it’s so fast and such a blur with everything that’s going on that you hardly cringe when you see it. He wanted people to know this was massive destruction, but he didn’t want anyone to feel it.

      • brNdon

        What about in any of the animated incarnations? Superman TAS, Justice League, or any of the animated films. I can recall countless times that Superman or his many foes have gone blasting through a building during a fight. Were all of those buildings conveniently evacuated?

        Why wasn’t this an issue before Man of Steel?

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        Because cartoons have a different feel than live-action.

      • Theodore Trout

        I just wanna get a little geeky here and point out that Superman should not be able to snap Zod’s neck, because Zod is invulnerable.
        Superman could simply block Zod’s heat vision with his hand because his hand is invulnerable.

      • diles1

        Superman is not aware of his own strength. One of the more interesting trajectories in the film is Clark finding the scope of his own powers. Also, if Clark grabs Zod by the face, he loses his grip on him and the brawl could continue, endangering even more lives. Remember: Zod is a trained killer; Clark is an amateur with more strength.

        Who says Zod is unvulnerable? Zod is killed in the comics AND in a previous Superman film.

      • The Flobbit

        I like how in this comment, you wrote the EXACT opposite of what I feel. I felt the destruction was very uncomfortable and ugly, and it really distracted from the fight, as opposed to the rock-em sock-em fights of Pacific Rim, where skyscrapers get levelled, but we know there’s no one in them, so we can focus on the awesome fights. In fact, the destruction of Smallville and Metropolis leaves a bad taste in the mouth long after the credits roll.

    • RecoveR

      I see where you’re coming from, In today’s world, lots of people have to die in a superhero movie to make the superhero relevant, if it was simply a bank robbery or a hostage situation, then the police or any branch of government agency can take care of that, and it’d be too easy and too boring for a movie involving superman to watch. The stakes need to be higher. if no one died we’d all be saying “well it wasn’t that bad, it’s not like anyone died” which, In turn makes the villains not seem like a threat and therefore; boring.

  • MiguelCamilo

    “Hit the jump for Collider’s opinions on an interview not originating on this site!”

    Desperate much?

    • http://www.collider.com/ DNAsplitter

      That’s the point of this site is to get people discussing their opinions. Why else come here?

      • Fitzchiv

        no its not, its primarily a movie gossip and news blog, i couldnt care less about your or matt goldbergs opinion, its the trailers, news, gossip that keeps me coming back!

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        We don’t cover gossip (or at least not in the conventional sense of “bullshit about celebrities’ lives).

      • Oolie zool

        That’s only partly true. You can find bland reporting of movie news in a variety of places. You come here because you like the way they package it and obviously you participate in the comments.

    • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

      Sorry you just wanted the straight fanboyish interview with Forbes. We’re not desperate. If you don’t believe us, feel free to leave. We won’t be begging for you to come back.

      • MCP

        Ya, what he said. Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out!

  • Steven

    They’re gonna make a colossal balls of this.

  • Django9000

    I’m with Goldberg on this in that I strongly feel Snyder sees superheroes as a way to make money rather than tell inspiring stories. His coveting of the original photo of the trinity in costume reeks of once being a kid who bought every foil or hologram covered first issue of a comic, completely irregardless if the story inside. His movies feel like the hundreds of profit driven misguided imitators that made superheroes darker & grittier, with no sense of irony or layered meaning or deeper sense of the roots these characters come from. Say what you will, but Superman is & always will be the farm boy of middle america, making sense of life in the big city. So long as he handles Clark that way, & his interaction w Bruce accordingly, I’ll consider his opening weekend alongside the actual heroic figure, Steve Rogers, who holds to the comics code of ethics. Tell a great story- save the disaster porn for Mr. BAY.

    • STAR-LORD #ROUGE SQUAD

      Why do you idiots keep saying the complete opposite of what it is? He didn’t want to kill him!!!! Lmao I’ll say it again he didn’t want to kill him!! Why is this so hard to get thru your thick skulls,I hope none of you never find yourself in a life or death situation. Or worse me be in the same room as you when the shit hits the fan lmao. You would be the one to afraid to kill the guy trying to kill you and everybody else. Please stay in your home at all times because the world is to violent for you.

      • Merlin235

        That’s a pretty myopic view of how crisis situations are handled. It’s generally not the ‘baddest man’ in the room who resolves those situations, no matter how many Hollywood films portray it like that, or how invincible internet anonymity makes you feel. I can’t believe your comment got 5 up votes.

      • STAR-LORD #ROUGE SQUAD

        I don’t care how many votes I get. I have an opinion I say it and practice my freedom of speach. Why is it so important to get an up vote? You don’t have to agree,but it doesn’t make it any less true. You also got what I said wrong,but my point is even good people killed some at some point. Your can’t be that blind to the facts,can you? I think it might be too late for you,so try to lower your expectations.

      • Merlin235

        At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      • STAR-LORD #ROUGE SQUAD

        Dude your mad I got up votes?? You must not get out much,enjoy the weather lmao! Maybe you can get some up votes in real life.

  • ikkf

    When the interviewer and Snyder are saying Batman is “who we are,” he isn’t saying we’re billionaire playboys–they’re saying we’re all flawed, imperfect human beings with complex emotions who make mistakes, which is exactly what Bruce Wayne is.

    Can’t believe the author of this article would interpret that any other way.

    • RedMercury

      he isn’t saying we’re billionaire playboys

      Speak for yourself… :^D

    • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

      But that’s not the juxtaposition Snyder is talking about. If he were, that would mean Superman is a perfect and a simpleton. Since Man of Steel works hard to dispel both those qualities, so how could that stand in opposition to Batman?

      I interpret his statement as we want to have Superman’s values but we’re stuck being brooding pessimists like Batman. I don’t agree with the latter part of that comparison.

      • ikkf

        I believe when they said Superman is “kind of the ideal of what we’d like to be,” they were talking about the bland archetype the character used to be, before MOS. And they spoke of that as a contrast to the very imperfect, very human Batman.

      • Jean Andre Vizueta

        i don’t know i feel in MOS he is even more bland in the context that he has less personality than in the Donner movies and not given the time to flesh out the character besides the flashbacks the movie tries to break the archetype but ends making him a Jesus metaphor

      • ikkf

        Clark Kent may come across to some people as flat, either due to Cavill’s performance or Snyder’s direction, but I think the approach to the character’s development was very different from the past. They put a lot more focus on his emotional isolation than in the past.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        I don’t think people want to be bland archetypes…

      • ikkf

        They were talking in a figurative sense.

  • God’s Diamond

    I know most of us fans dislike goyer, and for good reason, I was feeling better when in a recent article he stated that they weren’t trying to emulate marvel movie wise. For the most part I liked man of steel and I like ben affleck as batman and Jeremy irons as alfred, but I still feel disappointed they have basically hijacked this movie. I was hoping for a strictly superman movie. I hope they officially reveal the title as world’s finest and not b vs s.

  • Theodore Trout

    Perhaps Superman needs to be perverted to match American society’s degeneration into fascism ? Just so we won’t feel the need to measure up to an ideal we can’t measure up to anymore.

    • Merlin235

      They’re trying man, they’re trying. MoS was a good first step.

  • yrulaughing

    “quick, summarize Man of Steel!”
    “Superman… murders… the audience.”

  • DEADP00L

    I’m already bored of this movie and they haven’t even started shooting it yet.

  • demonicstrawberry

    It’s pretty obvious in the article that he’s comparing the “real hero” version of Superman in Man of Steel, complete with a more complex, morally ambiguous setting and tone of our current times, to the cheesy, time-rewinding Christopher Reeve movies. Not sure how you’re confused by that, unless you’re just being willfully obtuse.

    • The Flobbit

      The only willingly obtuse people here are you and Snyder. Snyder feels a need to destroy his own superhero films by making a moral symbol of right vs wrong into a dark, gritty, conflicted hero.

      If Superman is this dark, I shudder to think what they’ve done to Batman.

      • demonicstrawberry

        Take off your Snyder-hating goggles, and you’ll realize that this version of Superman is nowhere close to being “dark.” And I greatly prefer this version to the shallow “symbol” you’re spouting about.

      • The Flobbit

        Well that makes you exactly one, completely wrong, fanboy striving against the soul sucking masses of the Internet. Bravo, and continue on in your doomed quest! Goodbye!

      • demonicstrawberry

        Fangirl, actually. Don’t let the door knock off those goggles on the way out. Without such a blatant crutch, you wouldn’t be able to enjoy your hate-watching so much. So long!

  • AprilshouldbeRedhead

    I still dont believe Snyder even directed Man of steel …the movie feels like a bunch of post-its from the studio…a bunch of studio notes…”shoot it hand held cuz thats what we think made the batman movies work”…”dont use yer stupid slo-mo cuz nolan never does”……”half ass the action video game style but keep it out of the trailers so fans think there is something big on the way but wont know otherwise until we have their money”……fuck off. I like the story but I dont see any trace of Snyder in the film. its a studio marketing project just like the new TMNT movie will be

  • The Flobbit

    Snyder is all over the place. It’s like he knows nothing about the mythos of either superhero, and is just there because he’s a fanboy.

    His quote about violence makes me do nothing but laugh. Is that why in 300, half-naked beefcakes kill people in the most beautiful, unrealistic way possible? What a fool.

  • tom

    It would be great seeing Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman on screen together but Superman, Wonder Woman and Ben Affleck, no interest. The rest of the cast is the nail in the coffin that this movie is just not for me. Whoever does go, enjoy!

  • milo

    Three together for the first time? Lego movie. Been there, done that. And I’ll be shocked if this turns out to be a better movie than that.

    • Strong Enough

      fuck the lego movie

  • Pingback: Zack Snyder Talks Batman, Superman, and Real World Violence — GeekTyrant

  • Pingback: BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN Batmobile Teased by Director Zack Snyder

  • lordjim

    well i´m from austria, and not long ago we had a case where a guy was seven years in prison for raping his daughter, then it came out that his daughter had been lying all the time and he was actually innocent – his life was ruined anyway.there was a case in germany not long ago where a tv guy was accused of having raped women, it turned out he was innocent, his carreer was ruined nontheless, and stuff like that happens all the time, especially these media crazy days.

Click Here