Hero Cake

What he meant was there are consequences to playing hero. How can anyone not comprehend this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0HzLtt6aUpI
youtube.com/watch?v=3cyzfd4mBTw
youtube.com/watch?v=ZHBXXRuQ8Pc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The invincible son scene makes more sense now a thousandfold.

Because he delivers it in the most sociopathic way possible.

It sounds like a story Bill Paxton would tell his sons in Frailty.

What a baseless and stupid reason.

No, it's indicative of everything wrong with BvS.

Ideas are irrelevant if the execution is botched, and every attempt Snyder makes to convey an idea is botched by his direction or the screenplay.

You can say "Scene A conveys Idea B" but that doesn't matter if you screw it up.

>How can anyone not comprehend this?

Your first mistake was assuming people actually have high enough IQs to understand it.

I understood it just fine. Let me post a counter argument:
Why does there have to be?

How is it sociopathic when he admits it kept him up at night for years?

How's sociopathic when Pa Kent said that him drowning the neighbor horses aciddentaly kept him awake with nightmares and filled with guilt for weeks?

Why there have to be consequences?

It telegraphs Clark moving past his self-doubts about being Superman.

Because there's consequences to everything. That's just how it works.

It's not complex, bro. It's just a bad scene.

It's a fucking superman story there doesn't need to be fucking consequences in a comic book movie anyways.

>Why there have to be consequences?
Yes. Why, in a narrative that's supposed to be about heroism, is heroism painted as inherently pyhrric?

Why does Clark need self doubt? Why is tortured angst necessary? What's wrong with confidence?

Why? It's fiction. It works how you say it works.

>Because there's consequences to everything. That's just how it works.
Well, yes, by definition there's consequences to every choice, whether to act or to not act. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying. It's better to do your best, and deal with the consequences if they turn out to be bad, than to give up before you even find out what they are.

>Why does Clark need self doubt? Why is tortured angst necessary? What's wrong with confidence?
Because it's a good counterbalance to Superman's power. If he's confident AND had all those powers he's just a mary sue like everyone thinks.

Why are we pandering to idiots that never got the appeal to the character in the first place and want him to be another interchangable angsty byronic asshole?

People comprehend it, it's just stupidly done and faggots keep defending this shit

You can have self-doubt without tortured angst but Snyder doesn't know how to pull that off.

Sure you did before this thread

What Snyder failed to show was the actual point of the scene. While Pa tells Superman that yes there will always be consequences you still have to act and try to do the right thing. Up to this point superman was almost paralyzed due to trying to be perfect and not fuck up anything, instead of realizing that no matter how powerful or good he is, he can't be perfect and save everyone.

In the movie this came off as flat, and felt emotionless. It could have been great if it was delivered better, and Clark showed more doubt in his ability to save everyone.

>Why there have to be consequences?
Everything has consequences.

There are consequences for letting people die, too

Like dead people

A guy in Texas saw that a bunch of poor kids were being made fun of for having to use the back of a truck as a swimming pool, so he bought them an inflatable one and started charity called Pools for Kids that donates to the needy.

What's the consequence there, Zack?

Having self doubt after getting an up close and personal view of an entire building blowing up and not being able to stop it, doesn't make you an angsty byronic asshole.

Some might even call it......... "Character Development"

Some rich kid name Pool Destructor goes around and kills poor kids in pools.

They can. It's easy. Pre-Marvel Disney did the same thing, without beating it over the audience for 2 hours, or making their protagonists unlikable as they did so.
The problem is, if there is one superhero that should be able to save the farm and the horses it should be Superman. Want to make that message? Go make another movie about another superhero who fits the ideas, concepts, and questions better.

...

What's the point of your counter argument?

There's a point to the scene, dude.

Superman started to believe in the media narrative that his presence was bad and only brought problems. Lois told him otherwise, but he was still in doubt after what happened in the capitol.

Then in the mountain Pa Kent told him about when he tried to save his farm and felt like hero, but the next day discovered that he had drowned the horses from another farm. He didn't intended for that to happen, but still feel awful about it. What helped him was that he met Ma Kent and she gave him strenght during the bad moments to still keep going and doing good.

Clark took that to heart and came back, because he knew that Lois would always be there to help him and that he needed to keep going despite the screw ups.

Yeah. Cynics would call it that.
He developed from an 11 year old that just wanted to help people regardless of the consequences, o a confused and lost 32 year old that needs to learn "you can't save everyone" multiple times" to a sad sack that just goes through the motions because it's time for the movie's big action sequence.

All this shit is in the service of what? Going back to the character he was when he was eleven before all this "character development" even happened.

This idea that Superman has to be perfect and consequence-free is dumb as fuck. You guys don't want a character or a hero, but some God or something.

Even in comics and cartoons Superman is always faced with screws ups and consequences.

Take Johns recent run on Action Comics where Superman without wanting killed tons of aliens. Where were you there to complain?

In "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" Alan Moore wrote the line "This is an imaginary story. Aren't they all?"

If you have to imagine a world of heroism, why bog it down and insist that victories be pyhrric? What do you have to gain from idealism constantly being dragged down?

Why not focus on the REWARDS of doing good rather than unintended (and incredibly contrived, forced) consequences?

As you snyderfags are eager to point out, this superman is not comics superman.

You're totally wrong.

Superman in this movie was a happy and confident guy that didn't cared what people told about him in the TV because he knew what they were accusing him of was bullshit.

He only felt frustrated as a reporter because no one wanted to report on Batman doing awful shit in Gotham due to that not being news worthy.

Then after the capitol bombing he felt bad because the terrorist who killed everything there was one of the many victims of the Metropolis attack. This made him think back on all the media bad-mouthing and wonder if he was really doing good.

But after talking with the ghost of his dad he learned that there will always be some unintended consequences to any action and that he can't control everything. Yes, he feels awful about it, but he can count on Lois to him through these wrought patches That's why he decided to come back and later sacrifice himself.

NOBODY WOULD COMPLAIN IF THIS WAS A COMIC ARC.

Yes, but Superman fucking up happens in all media. Complaining that the same happened in a movie is pretty autistic.

That made me laugh way too hard.

>IF YOU LOVE THESE POOLS
>YOU CAN MOURN THEM!

>Take Johns recent run on Action Comics where Superman without wanting killed tons of aliens. Where were you there to complain?
Johns wrote Superman. Not Action. And where was I? Squeeling like a little girl for moments like this.

And this.

It's strange that hero cake didn't become a meme...

Also:
>Pa Kent lets horses drown.
>Wanted Clark to let children drown in MoS.
Pottery

He still killed a dimension filled with aliens.

If this had happened in a movie Sup Forums would be calling for the death of the director.

And especially this since Snyder would have let the building crush the people so he could have Superman mope about it for half of the movie.

And this, where Superman reminds people that they have the power to help everyone solve their problems together.

So why Snyder didn't do that in BvS?

Yeah, for me it's this. It's not a difficult to understand scene, but it's another wet blanket atop a pile of wet blankets that is the Superman arc in this movie. It's not that it makes no sense, it's that it makes the movie even more unlikeable to me. And the fact that it ends with the suggestion to cling to Lois for hope makes Clark look even more dependent and unmotivated that he looks, anyway.
I mean, it's allowed to portray being Superman as kind of a slog, but I don't have to like it.

I know you're not going to be able to hear this but what happens can be received differently via context. How it happens matters.

I'm okay with a Superman that struggles. Maybe even a Superman that fails. But the fact that he needs hand holding from force ghosts just grates. The fact that there HAS to be consequences and pyrrhic victories 100% of the time is depressing. The fact that he's absolutely lacking in charisma is pathetic.

They "humanized" him but only by focusing on humanity's flaws, because giving him any of humanity's strengths makes him a "mary sue".

And what I don't get is like, he's the ONLY character that needs to be dumbed down for casuals like this. Nobody is insisting Flash or Wonder Woman be borderline depressives that regard doing the right thing as we might a trip to the dentist. But with Superman there's this complexity addiction that's just so unnecessary.

Same reason Whedon didn't in AoU. He was so shocked at the outrage over the destruction in MoS that he needed to write 3 different characters vocalizing that no one was around in areas where shit was getting fucked up, because if they didn't he absolutely would have done that.

The whole message is:

LOVED ONES GIVES US STRENGHT.

That's it. There's nothing bad about this. Take Batman and Lex Luthor, that were utterly alone and because of that lost their way. While the reason Superman is such an awesome guy is because he always had people that like him in his life.

>Superman
>Talking to a large group of people
In the DCEU? It'd never happen.

>He still killed a dimension filled with aliens.
He killed a dimension filled with aliens who received sustenance from the life-force of those brought to them from other dimensions. They're viruses. In scientific terms they were never alive to begin with so he couldn't have killed them.

See, you say that, but then you expect me to forget that Superman's Pal gets shot in the head for no other reason than to shock audiences.

>force ghost
>not an illusion due to alltitude

He still killed them.

Also, the same happened with Dr. Light in Trinity War. He burned Dr. Light with his heat vision, but that wasn't his fault although it still happened.

Of course not. If Superman did that, BvS would be baseless, because people would be able to say something like
>Yeah, he spoke to me for a few minutes after stopping a hold up at my mini mart. Seemed like a real upstanding guy, just trying to help people out. I don't know where these media types try to paint him like he's trying to take over the world or something.

The problem with the whole "there are consequences to being a superhero" is that you can't do that AND still insist that his presence is a 100% good thing.

I mean hell, you want to talk consequences? Zod got summoned to earth in the first place because of Clark's existence. We'd be better off had his ship gotten crushed in a black hole.

>The fact that there HAS to be consequences and pyrrhic victories 100% of the time is depressing.

Superman is shown helping people tons of time and the times he "fails" aren't his fault, but a scheme done by Lex to paint a bad image.

Basically Superman never did anything bad in the movie. The bad things that happened were done by the villain.

In BvS the normal people adored Superman, it was only the congress and the media that bad talked him.
The normal people only turned on him after the capitol bombing.

Might have worked too if Cavill and Adams had more chemistry than Anakin and Padme.

>The problem with the whole "there are consequences to being a superhero" is that you can't do that AND still insist that his presence is a 100% good thing
You are fucking retarded. Kill yourself.

>He still killed them.
Technically all he did was prevent them from consuming people from Earth who were being fed a line of BS. Will they be hurting? Yes. May they die? Certainly. But Superman didn't fly in and heat vision every one of them or snap each of their little necks. He simply prevented people from Earth being taken to them and served up on silver platters.
As I have said about the DCEU from the get go. Technically, the plot and events within it aren't bad, or against the book. It's biggest problem is how the events are presented within their execution. Want to know why something bothers me in MoS but not Johns's Superman run? Johns can present the same event in a manner that feels like Superman more than Snyder ever could.
>Also, the same happened with Dr. Light in Trinity War. He burned Dr. Light with his heat vision, but that wasn't his fault although it still happened.
Actually it was revealed that Dr. Light drew the heat vision from Superman. Superman had no culpability in it, which is why Dr. Light was back mere issues after it happened.

Not enough focus to have the weight you're claiming it does.

>Actually it was revealed that Dr. Light drew the heat vision from Superman. Superman had no culpability in it, which is why Dr. Light was back mere issues after it happened.

He still killed Dr. Light. Shit is worse than whatever happened in BvS.

Here's your (you) Snyderfag.
This Superman has only ever saved the world from problems that only exist because of him

>This Superman has only ever saved the world from problems that only exist because of him

In Grant Morrison's run the Multitude only destroyed planets upon planets because of Superman. The Collector (Brainiac) only came to Earth because of Superman as well.

Basically, every bad guy in Morrison's run only did bad shit because of Superman.

>He still killed Dr. Light.
He was literally just standing there. It would be like if he was holding a gun and Dr. Light walked up to him and pulled the trigger because that is what happened. Superman did nothing actively. Dr. Light's abilities drew the heat vision from Superman because the heat vision was a source of light drawn to him. Shit was revealed in one of the ARGUS centric issues IIRC, after Light came back. Pretty sure it was either explained to him or Trevor.

This
You guys can scream all you want "you just don't get it!" but it won't change the fact that a lot of the movie's themes plot-developments are half-assed at best, and you're always there filling the gaps with your headcanon and then calling everyone dumb for not seeing it the same way

And don't try pretend that never happens. Remember how people defending BvS after it came out tried to convince everyone that the african people were accusing Superman of "escalating the conflict" by mistake, and not that they actually thought he killed those soldiers?

If Superman wasn't there his heat-vision wouldn't kill Dr. Light. If Superman hadn't fought Shazam none of that would have happened.

That's a lot worse than Lex killing people in an attempt to make Superman feel guilty.

Half-assed how?

Before you clicked "post" did it occur to you that maybe you should'nt have used the New 52 run as an example?

Because now all I have to say is "Yeah. And that sucked too."

>If Superman hadn't fought Shazam none of that would have happened.
You mean the Shazam who had been corrupted by Pandora's Box? So just sit back and let him fuck shit up?
Pa pls.

No, i mean the Shazam that only wanted to bury Black Adam.

Superman showed up already punching him.

A while back somebody was storytiming Birthright's first issue and contrasting its handling of Superman with Snyder's. The self-doubt and resentment from Pa Kent absolutely came up and were handled so much fucking better in that comic.

No they weren't. Pa Lent is a straight up asshole in Birthright.

Oh. So the one the Trinity tried to halt so he wouldn't cause an international incident? Becaue that's what they were trying to do, while naiive Billy thought he could just go anywhere in the world without consequence.

He was an asshole out of fear and sadness and jealousy (see: trying to destroy the pod and accidentally taking down his barn), but in the end he wasn't trying to teach Clark that he should hide himself from the world and that heroism is generally phyrric.

Honestly movie Pa Kent is just so shitty compared to any version of the character I can think of.

It was the JL that caused the international incident, not Shazam. It was the JL that Amanda's JLA were there to stop.

>what he meant was
wow it's like no one had a problem with comprehending this message since it's in every fucking superhero movie ever and people had more of a problem with how it was presented

apply this to every other problem in BvS too

Too much stuff is presented and resolved in a matter of one or two lines
One of the protagonists is trying to kill the other for the whole movie but then he stops and turns into a best buddy because of a name. Do we know why exactly? No, we just know that the name gave him PTSD or something


I mean, let's imagine this conversation:

Why did Batman stop killing Superman because of a name?

>Oh, oh, i know why that happened!

Oh wow really? Let's hear it!

>Hearing "Martha" reminded Bruce of his own traumatic loss so he realized Supes was going through some shit too
Mh, i guess that's better. It would've been nice if they made it more clear, and Bruce's motivations to kill Supes really have nothing to do with wether the latter can suffer or not, but i guess...

>NO, NO, that's not it! Bruce saw what a monster he became because of his loss and obsessions so he didn't want Supes to turn in that monster too!
What? So because of a name he fears Superman even more? That doesn't really make any sense, if anything it's one more reason for him to kill him right away...

>YOU FOOLS, Bruce remembered his visions of the future and realized that Martha was the key to all this!
What, Flash mentioned Lois, not Martha...

>Ugh, you guys are so dumb, Bruce just realized that Superman had parents too, he humanized the god
But he was talking about Superman's parents just a moment before!
>Uh it doesn't count cuz he thought they were ALIEN parents
But the dialogue is relevant, in that couple of lines he was assuming Superman was a poor fool misguided by false promises... if that's not humanizing a person i don't know what is!

The greentexts are all theories i've read dozens of times by fans. Which one is true? Which is headcanon? Why do we have to do this?
And i get it, someone may call all of this nitpicking, but if these guys talk so much about "reading between the lines" then such analysis comes with the territory. If the movie wants to be serious i'll treat it seriously

Ah yes. These guys. Who were sent by Waller after Billy refused to stop at the Trinity's request, because he was so deadset on burying BA. Heaven forbid, if he had done that, they probably wouldn't have been sent in the first place.

The JLA were sent after JL. The JL that went after Billy.

People get the scene, but it basically comes across as "trying is the first step towards failure."

Yes. And had Billy stopped without escalating things into a fight, the JLA wouldn't have needed to be sent.

>it basically comes across as "trying is the first step towards failure."
I don't like the movie or the scene, but it always felt to me more like You're never going to succeed without fucking up some way while achieving that success, AKA there is no victory but a Pyrrhic victory. It was probably another on the nose response from Snyder to people who didn't like MoS.

>guys seriously can you please keep it down I have got the worst headache

If the JL didn't tried to stop Billy nothing would have happened.

Billy would bury Black Adam and go home.

>AKA there is no victory but a Pyrrhic victory.

Why you keep saying this?

Superman didn't fucked things up in the movie.
Everything the media accused him of were fabrications done by Lex Luthor.
Even Wallace Keefer, that blamed Superman for his own personal problems, didn't really wanted to kill Superman. Lex used him.

I'd understand if Superman had tried to do something and fucked it up? Then that would had been a Pyrrhic victory.
But Superman did everything right. It was Lex that fabricated bullshit.

go to bed Joseph Vargas.

>Why you keep saying this?
Because Doomsday and Luthor were stopped, but it came at the cost of Superman.
I am not judging the movie based on the actions of the characters within it. I am judging it based on the storytelling choices made by the director and scriptwriter(s)
As narratives, the good guys are victorious at the end of MoS and BvS, but both victories come with significant losses attached to them.
As I said, Pa's message was as much about about conveying a message to the audience watching the movie as it was about conveying a message to Clark within the story.

Well put.

That movie was fucking awful, but you're right, it's very much more a Spergman movie than it is the FF movie people keep claiming it for. It's all about the one guy who can fix everything without interference from the state or anybody else, rather than being about a family coming together to fix their problems. Randroids: The Movie.

the scene doesn't stand on its own, its a part of several scenes, you may even say even different scenes from MoS but let's keep it at BvS UE.

youtube.com/watch?v=0HzLtt6aUpI

Here its obvious Clark is being conscious about his existence on earth and its consequences. He then asks Ma Kent why Pa Kent never left Kansas, meaning why Pa Kent felt so at home there that he had no reason to leave, she didn't know herself though as Pa Kent didn't give her a clear answer. He comments how everything is so complicated and she agrees.

youtube.com/watch?v=3cyzfd4mBTw

in this scene Pa Kent tells Clark how he fucked up and how he always felt guilty about it and it was because of Martha that he could get over it, Martha was the reason why Pa Kent stayed in Kansas.
>she was my world.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZHBXXRuQ8Pc

>you are my world

So yeah, overall, there is always gonna be consequences, something that will never change but that is different from the question of where you belong, where superman belongs and that is the easy question as Pa Kent said.

If there's any character Zach Snyder got completely right, it was Jonathan Kent.

In the court scene he could hear the bomb on the wheelchair guy, but he couldn't turn his head to look at him out of guilt.

That's not pa kent, that's a MEMORY of a story he told him

Nice actually. Hope Pa kent comesback in JL, really want to see him telling Clark to go back to earth

I remember that thread. Snyderfags just started screaming about autism and demanding literal interpretations while insisting that the real meaning of Man of Steel was hidden under multiple layers of symbolism.

I could honestly watch him give advice for two hours.

>Must there be a consequence?
>....There is.

Any victory that requires your death to achieve isn't going to be a win.
Not to mention that the only reason Doomsday exists is because Zod is a corpse. Which you guys were insistent was a good thing.

The consequences of superman murdering a person was that person coming back as a giant monster.