What's wrong with zack snyder?

>“In the original version of the script, Zod just got zapped into the Phantom Zone,” Snyder explained in 2013. “But [screenwriter] David [S. Goyer], Chris and I had long talks about it, and I said that I really feel like we should kill Zod, and that Superman should kill him. The ‘Why?’ of it for me was that if was truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained… I wanted to create a scenario where Superman, either he’s going to see [Metropolis’ citizens] chopped in half, or he’s gotta do what he’s gotta do.”
But yeah tell me again about how each role in the filmmaking process is completely siloed, the writer just writes and does all the writing, the director just directs

>Director changes the writing
>It's worse

Should have stuck to directing.

Then you're taking Superman agency. Superman isn't saving people because he wants to. He is saving them out of obligation because he was drilled into that role since he was 3 years old all because he was born with powers. He'll probably start to resent his powers.

He did, chief among them, to make his own decisions and to make them as a man first and an invincible alien god second, if at all.

It's a nice story anon, but it's not at all comparable.
You're saying that comic Jonathan would force Clark to be a good person, which simply isn't true. He teaches him good values in the hope that they take hold
Let a bunch of people die because people can't be tested to keep your secret and maybe that will turn out bad is not a good value
And remember, Jon isn't neutral in the debate, he scolds Clark for doing, the "maybe" is only after Clark tries to justify it.
He's actively punishing his son for saving the kids

>No, that’s not what I’m saying.
It's exactly what you're saying. You even put it as
> drilling into his head that he has some sort of obligation to help people
And I'm saying it's not what Jon does.
He doesn't drill or forces Clarke to do these things, he teaches him the values, what they mean, why do they mean something and hopes he'll do the right thing

And?

>Never once does he say that he should have let them die
He literally does say Clark maybe should've
> Superman lets people die every day. He has to, because if he didn’t, it’s all he’d do.
I know, and I've seen better ways to depict that exact idea/scenario

Nobody is telling him to be Superman, but saying he's not ready is not the same as saying he should let a bunch of people die out of convenience

>It’s not about what he did
It very much is. They question the action itself not why he didn't took pains to hide hi identity while doing it.
>Jon and Martha try to downplay it, but how many more times can they do that?
Again, the idea that they're worried is not bad, it's the implication that his secret is more important than 30 odd lives

Not to mention that Jonathan Kent never talks about him never ever saving anyone. His whole spill is about the importance of macro versus the micro. Clark has the opportunity to change the entire world, of saving the entire world. He couldn't risk future opportunity by trying to save random farmers in Smallville. Even then Jonathan is conflicted about what he is saying.

>He couldn't risk future opportunity by trying to save random farmers in Smallville
Yeah, "greater good" is very much not a Superman thing. He's supposed to be the perfect solution to tye trolley problem, not part of it

>doesn't matter what Superman thing is
It very much does
>Jonathan is a person. He's a flawed human being and a flawed father dealing with something extraordinary. He's scared for his boy and trying his best
And that's well and good, but there's better ways to show that other than saying that maybe a bunch of kids should've died in order to protect his secret.
There's a good story about it in American Alien

>Or can't autists understand emotion?
First, Costner isn't a good actor
Second, I like how we went from "it's in the dialogue" to now apparently being entirely dependent on the great acting of Costner

Why would Pa Kent risk his 10 years old son to be exposed as an alien?

>Why would Pa Kent risk his 10 years old son to be exposed as an alien?
He wouldn't. But more significantly he also shouldn't want 30 kids to die to protect it

>Jonathan is telling him that, at least at the age of thirteen, if he couldn’t find a way to save them clandestinely, then maybe it was better he didn’t save them
You're very much assuming that, because the film just states that Jonathan thinks that maybe saving lives isn't worth it
It's like the thing about the "he's not ready yet" which isn't in the film itself.
Which brings us back to the main point, which is that even if the ideas weren't bad the execution was

>You're purposely ignoring the rest of the movie
No, I'm not. You're the one filling out meaning that simply isn't there

And yet he doesn't communicate this to Clark at all. It takes a decade after he dies for Martha to bring it up in passing.

It's literally the only context. We aren't talking about whether Pa Kent is a believable character, we're talking about whether he or not he was a massive moron in instilling values in Clark. Him secretly harboring feelings that Clark would be a hero is completely meaningless. The only values we see him impart to Clark in the movie are those of hesitation, ambiguity, and fear.

Yes, it is. Your argument is that the actual context as depicted within the film is wrong because there's a Pa Kent secretly also believed Clark would be a hero. Except the latter has nothing to do with the former. If he never shares those feeling with Clark, then all we're left with is him telling Clark that it might be wise to let people die to protect his secret. That's the context in which Clark was actually raised. You're talking about Pa Kent's secret, unshared thoughts on the matter.

All of this is unbelievably obvious and unbelievably irrelevant to the point. It doesn't matter if Pa Kent is conflicted. The manner in which this conflict manifested itself in Clark's upbringing was through his father telling him sometimes secrets are more important than busfulls of children. Literally everybody understand what Snyder was trying to do with the scene and literally everybody, but you understands that the way in which it was executed was beyond moronic. That you don't get this and instead of somehow got it in your head that it's everyone else who doesn't understand is baffling.

I didn't think it was moronic. I thought it was fresh and humanizing. It felt like something out of a scifi movie and not a comic book movie. Jonathan felt like a real human being and not Yoda. Jonathan was worried about his son, as a father, which is believable, and not trying to teach his son to be a hero, like a flawless wise old man, which is more an archetype that needs to exist to the hero can have some motivation than an actual real character.

But that's me. You do you.

I know, but my reasoning stand.
Jonathan Kent usually in the comics is portrayed as this wise old man in flashbacks that have these little nuggets of folksy wisdom that always translate into the perfect answer to whatever issue Superman is in that particular arc struggling with. Jonathan is always perfect, always have the perfect answer, always accepts everything, always support everything. He's depicted as an idealization. Same as Superman himself.

In the movie Jonathan was a flawed person and a flawed father. He didn't have all the answers, he didn't agree with Clark, and his and Clark's relationship wasn't perfect. You could see he was a somewhat selfish worrywart. He could only see the bigger picture and what the future held, but not the here and now.

I thought that was a refreshing take. Same with Superman being lost about what he has to do and not being able to be everywhere at once or able to fix everything. I loved that in the movie Superman and the military had to put their differences aside and work together to save the world because neither one could save the world alone.

>I thought that was a refreshing take
It's not refreshing, anon. It's literally rehashing the comics:

Snyder's Superman is the most comic accurate. Zoomers and redditors never read anything released before the 90's.

The scene demonstrating that he was worried about Clark and the scene being batshit moronic are not mutually exclusive. This is the einstein brained take you somehow can't seem to wrap your head around. You continue to pretend as if everyone just doesn't get the completely obvious while seemingly unable to recognize that a scene communicating something about a character doesn't make that scene good.

It sounds like you just don't get the scene, anon. You're incapable of looking beyond the explicit character details and seeing what is actually happening. All you've done is said, "Jonathan is scared for his son, this depiction shows him scared for his son, this is a good depiction," as if there's no possible way of demonstrating this without suggesting that it could be okay to needlessly allow a bus of children to die. This scene and the scene in which he kills himself in a tornado are so unbelievably clumsy, like Snyder didn't think the audience would get it unless he put Clark and Jonathan in the most ridiculously moronic scenarios imaginable.

Getting what they were going for is exactly why you didn't get the scene. You're too hung up on what they were going for to actually understand what was happening on screen. You've allowed authorial intent to prevent objective analysis of what's shown on screen. You're approaching this from the completely wrong direction.

It is objective. You aren't actually looking at the scene. You're looking at what you think the author intended for the scene. To be fair, you need to not suffer from autism to pick up on this distinction.

No, you aren't. You're ignoring half the scene and focusing only on Jonathan's character as understood through authorial intent and ignoring the entire other half in which he comes across as a nutjob, telling his son to consider letting children die. It's like you only got part way through actually understanding the scene and decided that was good enough because you liked part of it.

Again, the reasons behind the maybe are totally irrelevant. We aren't talking about Jonathan, the character. We're talking about how Jonathan raised his son. And from what the movie showed us, it's a miracle Clark turned out how he did. Thank god he found his real dad who actually had a little faith that saving children from dying might actually be a good call.

>as if there's no possible way of demonstrating this without suggesting that it could be okay to needlessly allow a bus of children to die.
Here's the thing. The scene wouldn't be any good without that. Take that out and there's no drama, no conflict. It would be just another generic scene you'd find in every other superhero movie.

It is the fact that it deals with such a heavy subject and has Jonathan struggling with the idea of Clark risking his life and exposure to rescue people, and him having to weight Clark safety over the safety of others that makes the scene so compelling.

You don't like it because it makes Jonathan a flawed person, i like it because it makes Jonathan someone not perfect.

That's your opinion, and i don't care for your shitty opinion.

>Here's the thing. The scene wouldn't be any good without that
Bullshit, someone linked Birthright. It did the same thing better. And again so did America Alien in humanizing Jon
>You don't like it because it makes Jonathan a flawed person, i like it because it makes Jonathan someone not perfect.
No, that's you confusing intention with execution again
You like it because you think it makes Jonathan flawed, and that apparently is new to you
I and other don't like it because it's making Jonathan a selfish dick that is imparting bad lessons to his son

>American Alien and Birthright were going for different things
American Alien sure. Birthright not so much.
>The execution is fine
It isn't. Child death implication isn't s good thing.
>Jonathan prioritizing the safety of his son over others, because his son is young and not...
We all know that. And again, it's not done well and it was done better in other places

>But when you show literally nothing but negative, fearful lessons being imparted by Pa Kent throughout the movie
But that's not true because the ending shows us that Jonathan always had faith that Clark one day would be a hero.

The lesson Jonathan imparted was that Clark wasn't ready yet. That's it. You've literally Jonathan saying:
>And I don't blame you, son. It'd be a huge burden for anyone to bear; but you're not just anyone, Clark, and I have to believe that you were... that you were sent here for a reason. All these changes that you're going through, one day... one day you're gonna think of them as a blessing; and when that day comes, you're gonna have to make a choice... a choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not.
Then there's this:
>Jonathan Kent: I know you did, but we talked about this. Right? Right? We talked about this! You have...!
And finally:
>Jonathan Kent: 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 Jonathan imparted tons of shit, but you fricking autistic fricks just focus on the "MAYBE" and ignore everything said, the context in which it was said, the rest of the movie, and everything else and in between.

The question is that Jonathan, as a father, was worried about his own son. He was acting selfish, as any other father would. He was scared of his son hurting himself, he was scared of other people's reaction to what his son did and exposing his son. His son was only 13 at the time. So yes, he was placing the safety of his son over the children of others. He was being selfish, but that's a human response. And even then he was sure about it and was conflicted over it.

Your problem is that you don't want a human character because of the icky feel you get over Jonathan not being pristine.

There isn't since the point is a father worrying about his own children putting themselves in danger to save others. A 13 years old children.
That's like saying that a father should be okay with their 13 year old son trying to stop a school shooting because "he saved all those school kids" while ignoring how much danger their son place himself in.

>You're saying that a father telling his son that if he can actually 100% save the kids from a shooter, it's better to let them all die than take any risk
Yes, because it is a dangerous thing to do. He can get hurt, he can be followed, he can be impacted by the media coverage, any numbers of things can happen to this kid.

>Yes, because it is a dangerous thing to do. He can get hurt, he can be followed, he can be impacted by the media coverage, any numbers of things can happen to this kid.
Yes all those things CAN happen. But what WILL happen is 30 kids dying
And I can't call the person who'd make that decision anything close to a good man and certainly not a man ato impact good values on his son

>So a father has to sacrifice the well-being of his own child for the safety of those other 30 kids? All it matters is the numbers game? That's it?
Can't you read? A father would want to impart in his child that the possibility of him taking a risk is not greater than the lives of 30 people
>Well, then we should selected people to serve as test subjects because their sacrifice can result in the betterment of several other lives. It's a numbers game, after all.
And now you've flipped the script. A few pairs ago it was about how Clark letting these people die was the good choice because long term he gets to save more latter when he's an adult

I am using your argument against you, numbnucks. You argument is all about how right it is because Clark managed to save 30 people, and that 30 lives out weight 1.

This isn't the comics where everything is always good and everything always turn out right. Pete's mom was already trying to turn Clark into a miracle child.

If that 13 year old son is literally bulletproof, then yes, that father would be crazy to suggest he should have just let the school shooting continue.

>What situation could arise where Jonathan would support his son taking action if not saving a bus full of children?
When his 13 year old son is not 13 anymore.

It isn't about being right. Just because Clark saving those kids was a right thing to do doesn't mean it was the smartest thing to do. Just because a kid risking his life to stop a school-shooting, or a robbery, or a serial killer, or any number of dangerous fricked up things are also the "right" things to do doesn't mean that a fricking kid should do them.

You're exploiting these kids.

The Boys is literally all about heroes who care more about image and public perception than actually doing the right thing. What the frick are you even talking about?

Real, well adapted kids don't want to let their classmates needlessly die, anon. Homelander is fricked up because he didn't have a family and grew up in a lab. Clark has a family, and that family is supposed to be imparting good moral value and a meaningful sense of self worth. Not questioning why he would deign to rescue a school bus.

>And Jonathan is a good father who's importing good moral values and a meaningful sense of self worth.
A sense of self worth, here meaning his problems are more important that anyone one else's

>He is not a man who works as a cop or firefighter. He is a boy
And nobody is asking him to, besides your strawman.
The question is action within his grasp and deadly apathy being better than potential risk

It is a matter of Clark not being ready yet to face the challenges and burdens of any potential fallout. That's all MoS and BvS is about. Jonathan believed that Clark as a 13 year old boy and Clark as a 17 years old teenager wasn't ready to face such challenges and burdens. And in BvS we see Clark as a 30 and something older man struggling with such challenges and burdens.

>Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
See, but the movies aren't about it being easy peasy lemon squeezy. It is about how tough i can be to be a superhero in a grounded world. It tries to do something different with Superman where shit not always go easy or right for the character. Where he isn't instant beloved by all aside from a few supervillains who're so obviously evil and should be disregarded.

Jonathan Kent, in the first movie, thought that Clark as a kid or teenager wasn't ready yet so he shouldn't be placed in situations where he can risk self-harm or exposure.

Maybe he should've waited until he was 50 to act

It doesn't matter, because the important bit is Clark's age and the fact he is not prepared for such a burden. He shouldn't risk himself. It doesn't matter if it is to save a bus of stand in the line of gunfire. Either scenario is dangerous. They carry their own set of complications where any number of things can go wrong. Clark is too young to handle that shit.

I don't have any issue with the movie. I understood fine what happened and what they were going for. You're the ones nitpicking the movie 9 years after its release, not me.

And now Pa Kent is purposely raising his son to be an instrument of his oppressive
Midwestern will and spread it to the kingdoms of men
You get more ridiculous every post

>they aren't ready to fight crime
Literally no one is telling him to fight crime. Or even for him to go around stopping accidents. It's about a single accident where Clark was present, saved 30 people and got scolded for it

>bus full of kids sinking into water
>you, a superpowered individual, know you can save them
So what's the smart thing to do? Let them die, cover up the deaths and pretend you're the sole survivor because muh swimming skills. Sure that's a smart thing to do if you're not a good person. It's machiavellian, shows a disregard for human life and narcissistic af since you're willing to let countless people die just to keep your secret identity. Real people might do these things, imo most people probably would be cowardly and save their own ass in this situation. However, these aren't stories about real people they're about superHEROES, they're supposed to be good people. Jonathan is supposed to be a moral compass and raise Clark to become superman.

You're exploiting these kids.

Teaching someone to do good and save people is somehow exploitation? So if a kid saves someone from a burning building because he was raised right, he's being exploited. Superpowered or not, that kid would be a hero. Even if there are minor negative consequences to his life because of the unwanted attention, he did the right thing because an innocent person lives.

That's some THE BOYS type of shit. That's like saying you can use a indestructible baby as a battery ram.

Are you literally comparing a voluntary heroic act to using a child as a battery ram? Sure using superpowered teens in military conflicts is questionable at the very least but that's not what happened. Clark saved a bus full of kids from drowning in Kansas. If it was humanely possible then he would be a local hero.

If indestructible kids aren't ready to frick or vote then they aren't ready to fight crime. That's my stance on it.

If my son beats up a bully, stops a mugger in an alleyway and does some heroic shit I'd be proud of him as a father. Of course I wouldn't force him to go be a weapon for the state but doing the right thing and helping people because you can is unquestionably good no matter how old you are.

>You'd be scared as shit
You can be both if you're not an butthole

>Jonathan is telling him that, at least at the age of thirteen, if he couldn’t find a way to save them clandestinely, then maybe it was better he didn’t save them.
which literally translates to "saving them wasn't convenient so don't do it". Yes, Kent is literally telling Clark that his secret identity remaining a secret is more important than the lives of 30 children. Why do you condone this psychopathy?

Homo

He didn’t drill that into his head.

Parents should always teach by example, first and foremost. Jonathan illustrates firsthand that what he’s telling his thirteen-year-old son to do is not the same behavior he expects of a grown man of good character. He stresses to him that a day will come when he chooses to either reveal himself to the world or let it remain a secret, but that the age of thirteen is not that time.

>I’m saying that drilling into his head that he has some sort of obligation to help people is exactly the opposite of raising a hero
And yet that's literally what Jor El does the second Clark discovers his hologram and Clark immediately decides it's the best idea ever and now he's going to wear spandex and fight bad guys.

No, he tells him what he will be. He literally lays out the path he will take like a college guidance counselor. Clark never makes a real decision in the entire movie. He's just following the instructions laid out by other people.

No, it isn't. Clark is literally fulfilling the plan he initiated when they had a natural birth. He literally says Clark is destined the be what he and Clark's mother meant for him to be. He then goes on to literally spell out exactly what he expects of him. It's prophecy. So on the nose and explicit, I don't understand how you could possibly be having trouble with this.

He’s not punishing his son. Did you not notice when he stepped out there to talk to him, what prompted him to?

>It was an act of God, Jonathan.

That’s what he fears, that this alien god, at the impressionable age of thirteen, might take into his head that that’s precisely what he is. That’s what he’s been taking pains to avoid. He and his wife, better than anyone else, understood what a danger it was, not just to Clark but to the future, for Clark to come into the public eye too soon.

>how do you raise someone to handle trauma?
The single mother epidemic really has destroyed your generation.

clark was essentially raised by a single mother after pa kent in his infinite wisdom stopped his invincible son