Justice League official "Zack Snyder" cut on HBO Max

[TREK_GOD_1]

Exactly. But clearly many people would rather have something that conforms to safe expectations rather than have them challenged. Oh well.

Yes, safe as in Superman being forever stuck in the mid Golden - early Silver age of comics, the version that had DC readers groaning with its simplistic, naive nonsense, and pushing DC to make necessary changes to the character.

I disagree that his attempt was poorly executed. Moreover, what I especially found refreshing was the Kents NOT portrayed as “paragons of virtue” but rather as flawed and conflicted about coping with their adopted EXTRATERRESTRIAL child. It portrayed a very believable sense of anxiety about what would happen if the post-Watergate state discovered their son.

Excellent, well-reasoned point. Snyder's Kents were realistic; they did not come into the world knowing how to raise an alien. Some who see Superman/Clark as some camp counselor type habitually forget that he is an alien with no shared identity, culture or inherent connection to mankind, so he had to be trained to live that way. As a result, Man of Steel's Clark/Superman was handled with logic--sense. His adoptive father warning him about exposing himself was 100% correct and believable, as no responsible parent living in this world would throw their hands up and gleefully instruct an alien to expose the true self tied to his Clark identity to the world, when he would be the instant target of every government--especially the U.S. government.

The failing of so many Superman adaptations is that those writing the film (or TV series) drilled that camp counselor / pseudo-God idea into their heads, when Superman as a creation was not intended or written in that way at all. Dawn of Justice addresses that perfectly on two fronts: one, some humans do place him in a God-like role, when he does not want to be seen in that way at all. Two, it is this idolatry that fuels the hatred of Lex Luthor--a militant atheist--who has his arrogant belief in man (buying/building himself into the greatest of everything--in contradictory fashion, a God-like figure to be worshiped) all deflated by an alien, who is beyond his comprehension and ability to ever be more than the alien. That fueled his plot to kill Superman, what he represents (to some) and in Luthor's mind, it would be destroying the very idea of God in general. That was the most believable, logical view of how many people would react to a super-powered alien in the early years. The ridiculous notion of Superman winking, grinning and being your uncle and/or God-figure never made sense in the past or present, especially in live action adaptations, where viewers are seeing a fictionalized version of the world, but it is familiar as a stand-in for it.

Short version is A) Man of Steel, by a whisker, is my favourite Superman film (The Movie is my second)

I have them tied, but Cavill is the more believable portrayal of the character.

Amy Adams is the definitive Lois Lane

Agreed.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I don't care how much you dislike a movie, the moment you start making reaction videos that are longer than the fucking movie you're supposedly analyzing, you're just talking to hear yourself talk. Jesus Christ.

Indeed.

 

[JulieYBM]

Realistic does not entertaining make. I also don't even think Clark is particularly realistic, either. Growing up without an outlet for his physicality would make him way more well-read and way more battle hungry.

 

[Noname Given]

Trailer: https://twitter.com/zacksnyder/status/1328727811595517953?s=21

So, it's all in black & white for that pseudo noir feel...got it.

 

[JD]

Exactly. Some really need to look into Superman's published history--the very beginning where he reveled in the death of people he considered bloodsucking criminals (some of those panels were posted on this board). That was the original intent for the character, not the camp counselor from the silly Weisinger/Plastino/Swan period, the Reeves TV series, etc. The latter version eventually had late 60's Julius Schwartz, et al.,authorize changes to the character because the readers thought he was stale and hokey compared the rest of the DC titles--and they were right. For those wanting that tired version, they have the aforementioned period of comics / Reeves TV series / The Super Friends, etc. to relive, but that is not the only way Superman works (and again, he did not start off that way), particularly in stories set in a world similar to our own. The naive, Pollyanna approach cannot work anymore, hence one of the major reasons Superman Returns--an obsessive homage to Donner's film--failed to resonate with modern audiences.

\The vast manjority of the time the first appearances of a character are the or at least one of the worst versions of that character. At the beginning, we're only seeing an experimental version of the character, as the people in charge are trying to figure out who or what the character is supposed to be. It often times takes years to really figure out who or what a character or story is going to be. That's why it's pretty rare for the first season of a TV show to be it's best, because it takes time to work out the bugs, and figure out what you really want to do with the story and characters.
When I'm going to see a adaptation of a long running character, I don't want to see the early version of that character, I want to see the iconic version of the character, the one who everybody pictures when they think of that character, the one really made the character popular. The only time starting with the early version of the character really works is when you following a specific journey that the character went on. With Superman, the early days of the character have been retold with the modern version of the character enough that going back to the version in the early comics is not necessary if you want to start with his origin.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

\The vast manjority of the time the first appearances of a character are the or at least one of the worst versions of that character.

Nonsense (and the 1st appearances and impact of Batman, Superman and too many to list here prove how incorrect you are), and I'm talking about the early stories, not just a first appearance. The essence of who the character is can be found there, hence the reason generations of Batman fans were elated to see the Novick/Robbins, then Adams/O'Neil version return Batman to his dark foundation, completely rejecting the idiotic, grinning den leader he had become throughout most of the Golden and early Silver Age. The same applies to Superman.

The Weisinger/Plastino/Swan version of Superman was watered down and childish, which made the character a joke until--once again--DC responded to readers and began to change Superman toward the end of the 1960s.

At the beginning, we're only seeing an experimental version of the character

No, you are not.

That's why it's pretty rare for the first season of a TV show to be it's best

Short list: Star Trek (TOS), the original Twilight Zone, even the generally insipid Lost in Space prove you wrong. Part of the job of producers (who are not rookies or film students, but seasoned professionals) is to hit the ground running with their vision--to hook the audience, not stumble around, hoping to get a second season to get their bearings. The business of TV never worked that way. Sponsors and networks did not invest in series with the asterisk that they will have to wait until a second season to get it right. If they're not getting it right, more often than not, they were not going to survive to see a second season. In comic terms, Superman hit the ground running as a revolutionary, highly entertaining character that captured the imagination of readers from the start. Yes, the early Superman. The book did not need to limp to the pallid version in question to get it right.

I want to see the iconic version of the character, the one who everybody pictures when they think of that character,

You are saying "everybody" thinks of that version. Clearly, people have different ideas about of the character they feel is the best/correct version. You are responding to a Superman that had to be changed, which means there was a problem with that interpretation--a situation fans and creators did not see as "iconic", and no one is begging for the Weisinger/Plastino/Swan model to be the Superman of this century.

 

[JD]

Nonsense (and the 1st appearances and impact of Batman, Superman and too many to list here prove how incorrect you are), and I'm talking about the early stories, not just a first appearance. The essence of who the character is can be found there, hence the reason generations of Batman fans were elated to see the Novick/Robbins, then Adams/O'Neil version return Batman to his dark foundation, completely rejecting the idiotic, grinning den leader he had become throughout most of the Golden and early Silver Age. The same applies to Superman.

Even when they went back to a darker version of Batman, they still didn't go all the way back to the earliest version where he was carrying a gun, and hanging people from the Batwing. That's the kind of thing that you get in the earliest versions, that is eventually phased out as they settle on who the character is going to be.

The Weisinger/Plastino/Swan version of Superman was watered down and childish, which made the character a joke until--once again--DC responded to readers and began to change Superman toward the end of the 1960s.

That one might have gone extreme in that direction, but that doesn't mean we have to go to an extreme in the other one.

No, you are not.

Yes we are, because they are just starting out and trying to figure out what the stories and characters are going to be. That's why we end up with so many retcons, because they are getting rid of and adjusting the things that don't work. Even if they go into things with a pretty clear idea of what the character is, there are still things that end up not working that they get rid of, and they also tend to adjust things based on the audience's reaction.

Short list: Star Trek (TOS), the original Twilight Zone, even the generally insipid Lost in Space prove you wrong. Part of the job of producers (who are not rookies or film students, but seasoned professionals) is to hit the ground running with their vision--to hook the audience, not stumble around, hoping to get a second season to get their bearings. The business of TV never worked that way. Sponsors and networks did not invest in series with the asterisk that they will have to wait until a second season to get it right. If they're not getting it right, more often than not, they were not going to survive to see a second season. In comic terms, Superman hit the ground running as a revolutionary, highly entertaining character that captured the imagination of readers from the start. Yes, the early Superman. The book did not need to limp to the pallid version in question to get it right

Yes, there are some shows where the first season was the best, that is why I said pretty rare, not that it never happens. But still most shows tend to not really hit their stride until the second or third seasons. It takes time to really figure out work what does and doesn't work with the stories and the characters.

You are saying "everybody" thinks of that version. Clearly, people have different ideas about of the character they feel is the best/correct version. You are responding to a Superman that had to be changed, which means there was a problem with that interpretation--a situation fans and creators did not see as "iconic", and no one is begging for the Weisinger/Plastino/Swan model to be the Superman of this century.[/QUOTE]
OK, fine I shouldn't have said everybody, but there are certain versions of characters that tend to be the version that most people think of, and not just us fans who are familiar with their history, I'm talking about the average person on the street who has never read a comic book, and only knows the character from previous movies and TV shows.
I think you can at least agree with me that when it comes to characters like Batman, or Superman, or Spider-Man, that there tends a specific image that most people, again not just us comic book fans who are familiar with all of the different ways the character has been presented over the decades, have in mind.
For Superman, I'm not necessarily talking about the version you keep going to, which I've never read, I'm talking about the version in books like Geoff John's Secret Origin, All-Star Superman, Last of Son of Krypton, or Justice.

 

[Ovation]

there are certain versions of characters that tend to be the version that most people think of

At the risk of sounding dismissive (and it is not my intent)--so what? Just because people have expectations of a "version that most...think of" it doesn't mean that that version is, in and of itself, more "correct" than another. I was largely spoiler-free about Man of Steel and expected it to be a rather "safe re-telling" of the usual version of Superman's story, with updated visuals. If it had been, I probably would still have liked it (much like I enjoyed the first Captain America movie in the MCU), but I wasn't expecting it to threaten to displace Superman: The Movie from top spot, let alone actually do it. I was pleasantly surprised by Snyder's version. Was it perfect? Certainly not. Aside from the fact that nothing is "perfect" (except Amy Adams as Lois ) I do not like some of the story beats and pacing. But I was very happy to see someone take a different tack from the 12,947 previous iterations. When my expectations are challenged in films and books, I'm always appreciative, even if I ultimately don't like the result. I am grateful to see someone make the effort. And when it does work (for me--obviously mileage may vary), I'm ecstatic.

I get that some, even most, people didn't like Snyder's take on the character. That's fine. What I find objectionable is the argument that there is a "correct way" to adapt the character and other ways are illegitimate in and of themselves (not that I've seen you make that argument, but I've certainly seen more than one affirmation that there's only "one way" to portray Superman [or any other famous fictional figure adapted from another medium]).

 

[Sci]

I don't care how much you dislike a movie, the moment you start making reaction videos that are longer than the fucking movie you're supposedly analyzing, you're just talking to hear yourself talk. Jesus Christ.

I don't think that's being fair to critical analysis as a practice.

 

[The Realist]

At the risk of sounding dismissive (and it is not my intent)--so what? Just because people have expectations of a "version that most...think of" it doesn't mean that that version is, in and of itself, more "correct" than another. I was largely spoiler-free about Man of Steel and expected it to be a rather "safe re-telling" of the usual version of Superman's story, with updated visuals. If it had been, I probably would still have liked it (much like I enjoyed the first Captain America movie in the MCU), but I wasn't expecting it to threaten to displace Superman: The Movie from top spot, let alone actually do it. I was pleasantly surprised by Snyder's version. Was it perfect? Certainly not. Aside from the fact that nothing is "perfect" (except Amy Adams as Lois ) I do not like some of the story beats and pacing. But I was very happy to see someone take a different tack from the 12,947 previous iterations. When my expectations are challenged in films and books, I'm always appreciative, even if I ultimately don't like the result. I am grateful to see someone make the effort. And when it does work (for me--obviously mileage may vary), I'm ecstatic.

I get that some, even most, people didn't like Snyder's take on the character. That's fine. What I find objectionable is the argument that there is a "correct way" to adapt the character and other ways are illegitimate in and of themselves (not that I've seen you make that argument, but I've certainly seen more than one affirmation that there's only "one way" to portray Superman [or any other famous fictional figure adapted from another medium]).

Well, there’s a “correct way” for each individual viewer. I think that a Superman who never smiles sucks. TG1 thinks a Superman who EVER smiles sucks. Nobody’s preference is more “right” than any other*, but when you feel passionately about a character, you tend to declaim in absolutes.

* I don’t actually believe this.

 

[Ovation]

Well, there’s a “correct way” for each individual viewer. I think that a Superman who never smiles sucks. TG1 thinks a Superman who EVER smiles sucks. Nobody’s preference is more “right” than any other*, but when you feel passionately about a character, you tend to declaim in absolutes.

1. I've never seen a Superman who never smiles--even Cavill's.
2. TG1 puts Superman: The Movie ex aequo with Man of Steel (even I don't do that--I place Man of Steel ahead by a whisker )
3. Occupational hazard about declaiming in absolutes--as an historian, I'm essentially duty-bound to avoid doing so.

* I don’t actually believe this.

Too bad. You really should. It's why I have no objection to your objection about Snyder's version of Superman.

No one can force someone to like something. No artist (in any medium) should expect that a work of art (commercial, fine, or other) must be universally acclaimed. But artists are entitled to put out what they wish and let the chips fall where they may. It is the desire of those who oppose that artistic licence to claim any such attempt is illegitimate in and of itself that is objectionable. The artist is not owed adulation, but the audience is not owed fulfilled expectations. The latter is only owed an experience--not a pleasing one.

 

[The Realist]

I've never seen a Superman who never smiles--even Cavill's.

Exaggeration (slight) on my part, but the overriding tone of Snyderman is unrelenting emotional constipation.

TG1 puts Superman: The Movie ex aequo with Man of Steel (even I don't do that--I place Man of Steel ahead by a whisker )

Yet he consistently treats “grinning” as the ultimate in damning critiques.

Too bad. You really should. It's why I have no objection to your objection about Snyder's version of Superman.

No one can force someone to like something. No artist (in any medium) should expect that a work of art (commercial, fine, or other) must be universally acclaimed. But artists are entitled to put out what they wish and let the chips fall where they may. It is the desire of those who oppose that artistic licence to claim any such attempt is illegitimate in and of itself that is objectionable. The artist is not owed adulation, but the audience is not owed fulfilled expectations. The latter is only owed an experience--not a pleasing one.

I was funnin’ a little with that, but it’s true I don’t share your “the artist is never wrong” premise.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

The latter is only owed an experience--not a pleasing one.

I don't quite agree with this regarding studio summer superhero blockbuster movies.

And if studios felt this way too, they wouldn't be aiming for that billion dollar mark with each release, if only hoping for simply an experience and not relying on the pleasing experience that generates great word of mouth and dollar signs. They're not going for high art with these types of movies (we can debate if they should, obviously), they're going for happy people wanting to spend money on their product, leaving happily and telling others to spend money on the product so they can be just as entertained. And if people are paying money for this, there certainly are expectations of this.

("Pleasing" does not have to mean "happy", either, but can mean many different things to different people.)

 

[JD]

At the risk of sounding dismissive (and it is not my intent)--so what? Just because people have expectations of a "version that most...think of" it doesn't mean that that version is, in and of itself, more "correct" than another. I was largely spoiler-free about Man of Steel and expected it to be a rather "safe re-telling" of the usual version of Superman's story, with updated visuals. If it had been, I probably would still have liked it (much like I enjoyed the first Captain America movie in the MCU), but I wasn't expecting it to threaten to displace Superman: The Movie from top spot, let alone actually do it. I was pleasantly surprised by Snyder's version. Was it perfect? Certainly not. Aside from the fact that nothing is "perfect" (except Amy Adams as Lois ) I do not like some of the story beats and pacing. But I was very happy to see someone take a different tack from the 12,947 previous iterations. When my expectations are challenged in films and books, I'm always appreciative, even if I ultimately don't like the result. I am grateful to see someone make the effort. And when it does work (for me--obviously mileage may vary), I'm ecstatic.

I get that some, even most, people didn't like Snyder's take on the character. That's fine. What I find objectionable is the argument that there is a "correct way" to adapt the character and other ways are illegitimate in and of themselves (not that I've seen you make that argument, but I've certainly seen more than one affirmation that there's only "one way" to portray Superman [or any other famous fictional figure adapted from another medium]).

I admit, I was bad about that for a while, but after a few of these kinds of discussions, I gave it some thought, and realized that I was just talking about my own preferences, not rules about how the characters should be done. Now, I'm just trying to counter @Trek_ God_1's points, and address why me, and from what I've seen quite a few other people, don't agree with him.

 

[Ovation]

I don’t share your “the artist is never wrong” premise.

I don't think "the artist is never wrong". I think "the artist is never wrong to try". A subtle, but important distinction (to me).

I don't quite agree with this regarding studio summer superhero blockbuster movies.

And if studios felt this way too, they wouldn't be aiming for that billion dollar mark with each release, if only hoping for simply an experience and not relying on the pleasing experience that generates great word of mouth and dollar signs. They're not going for high art with these types of movies (we can debate if they should, obviously), they're going for happy people wanting to spend money on their product, leaving happily and telling others to spend money on the product so they can be just as entertained. And if people are paying money for this, there certainly are expectations of this.

("Pleasing" does not have to mean "happy", either, but can mean many different things to different people.)

Of course, you don't have to agree. But I do include "blockbuster" movies. Take The Last Jedi. I loved that it went against expectations where Luke was concerned. And doing so was not a small risk (given the backlash it generated). I'd argue the same applies to Man of Steel. Whenever I buy a book, a concert ticket, a museum exhibit ticket, a movie ticket, a sports event ticket, etc., I never consider myself owed (re: guaranteed) satisfaction. I have varying expectations of the likelihood of satisfaction, based on prior experience with authors, filmmakers, musicians, etc.--but I never feel they owe me satisfaction. They owe me an experience in exchange for the price of admission/access. If my favourite band puts out a new album and its music is radically different than what they have put out before, that's entirely within their right. I am not owed satisfaction with the result. I'm owed the album I purchased. However, despite being my favourites, I do not owe them adulation. I'm perfectly within my right to be disappointed. What I won't do is argue they should never have attempted a different kind of music at all. The same applies to authors, artists, filmmakers, etc. They are free (and ought to be encouraged) to try whatever expression of their creativity they wish. I am free to decide whether I like it. It is not my place (nor anyone else's in the audience) to tell them what they are or are not allowed to try.

I admit, I was bad about that for a while, but after a few of these kinds of discussions, I gave it some thought, and realized that I was just talking about my own preferences, not rules about how the characters should be done. Now, I'm just trying to counter @Trek_ God_1's points, and address why me, and from what I've seen quite a few other people, don't agree with him.

Fair enough.

 

[Sci]

Smiling, not smiling -- whatever. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Snyder's deconstruction of Superman wouldn't be so frustrating if he actually had something to say about the idea of Superman. He doesn't. "Man, the Kents sure would be different if they had to raise Clark in a meth'ed-out dying rural hellhole!" is not a statement about the idea of Superman.

 

[Sci]

I think a good comparison to the question of how to do a dark reboot of an existing property correctly is to compare and contrast the Snyder version of Superman to Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard.

There are a lot of people who feel that Star Trek, and particularly the character of Jean-Luc Picard, should always be presented in an optimistic, heroic light. I happen not to agree with them -- I think Picard is less of an archetype than Superman and so I like more psychological complexity for him -- but that's not the whole story on why their negative reactions to DIS and PIC are unfair.

The larger issue is that DIS and PIC have an actual dramatic purpose to their dark reinterpretation of an existing mythos. These shows are both reacting to real-world events, and to Star Trek's traditional idealism, and are trying to fuse the two, so as to say, "Okay, so how would Roddenberrian idealism react to these less-than-ideal circumstances? What can Roddenberrian idealism teach us about or inspire us to do in the real world?"

Whereas, Snyder... just doesn't appear to have a greater artistic purpose in his depiction of a darker, less-optimistic Superman. He's not using this darker Superman to say anything about how people should react to adversity or darkness. He's not using Superman to say anything about humanity's capacity for good or for evil. He doesn't even seem to be saying anything about the nature of heroism, unless he's trying to deny that it exists with that "Be their hero. Or don't be. You don't owe these people anything." Honestly the only thing I can think with that quote is that maybe he's trying to use Superman to advance some Ayn Randian, anti-empathy, nobody-has-inherent-moral-obligations-to-anyone-else theme. But even that's a bit of a stretch, since Superman spends most of Batman v. Superman helping people but looking resentful about having to do it. The movies are so thematically incoherent that I've yet to hear anyone find a coherent artistic purpose from them.

Edited to add: In fairness, I know that at least one writer for Jacobin interpreted Man of Steel as an allegory about the injustice of Zionist colonialism. Which seems... a bit of a stretch to me.

 

[Ovation]

Smiling, not smiling -- whatever. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Snyder's deconstruction of Superman wouldn't be so frustrating if he actually had something to say about the idea of Superman. He doesn't. "Man, the Kents sure would be different if they had to raise Clark in a meth'ed-out dying rural hellhole!" is not a statement about the idea of Superman.

Nah. He says more than that. He posits a world where, unlike the traditional accounts where Superman is almost universally acclaimed as a force for good by all but those who are "not good", the existence of an extraterrestrial being with nearly god-like powers is likely to provoke as much fear as it is joy. Added to that, he presents a post-Watergate, post-Vietnam War era for Clark's upbringing--a time when people were (and remain) far less trustful of the "truth, justice and American Way" (patent pending) ideal from earlier versions of the story. So his Kent parents are a bit rougher around the edges, without all the answers neatly packaged in a Norman Rockwell-esque fantasy. They make mistakes. They're not 100% morally upright or selfless. That's an interesting difference to explore. Then there is the fact Superman is basically on his first day on the job and he's confronted by Zod and company--a much more fearsome version than in 1978 (where Superman was no longer new to the job).

People are upset because Clark/Superman questions his proper place and role, his adoptive parents show some normal mistakes and, yes, a bit of selfishness (motivated largely by the fear they could lose their son), and Superman doesn't show his "veteran hero chops". Same thing was lobbed at Pine's Kirk (That's not the James T. Kirk I know and love from TOS), which, of course, was the friggin' point. In each case, expectations were upended. I enjoyed that--others did not. Too bad. They'll have to wait for another version, I guess.

As far as "saying something about Superman"? It's enough for me to simply have expectations challenged a bit. I don't look to superhero movies for deep examinations of existential questions (though I'd argue recasting Superman's early days the way Snyder did, while not at all deep, remains an examination of how the world would react to the existence of god-like extraterrestrials--existential enough for a comic book movie).

 

[Sci]

Nah. He says more than that. He posits a world where, unlike the traditional accounts where Superman is almost universally acclaimed as a force for good by all but those who are "not good", the existence of an extraterrestrial being with nearly god-like powers is likely to provoke as much fear as it is joy.

And? That's a premise, not a conclusion.

Added to that, he presents a post-Watergate, post-Vietnam War era for Clark's upbringing--a time when people were (and remain) far less trustful of the "truth, justice and American Way" (patent pending) ideal from earlier versions of the story. So his Kent parents are a bit rougher around the edges, without all the answers neatly packaged in a Norman Rockwell-esque fantasy. They make mistakes. They're not 100% morally upright or selfless. That's an interesting difference to explore. Then there is the fact Superman is basically on his first day on the job and he's confronted by Zod and company--a much more fearsome version than in 1978 (where Superman was no longer new to the job).

Again -- to what creative end? What is the dramatic purpose of the Kents being more morally fallible? How does that contribute to saying anything about the idea of Superman?

As far as "saying something about Superman"? It's enough for me to simply have expectations challenged a bit. I don't look to superhero movies for deep examinations of existential questions

Which is fine, but my problem with Snyder is that he uses the cinematic language of deconstructionism, but then doesn't follow up on the deconstructionist artist's obligation to use that deconstruction to say something. It's the equivalent of blowing a building up so archeologists can dig up that skeleton the building is on top of, but then blowing it up and never pulling out the skeleton.

Like, you can either use cinematic deconstructionism or you can prefer not to deeply examine existential themes. You can't do both.

 

[Ovation]

but my problem with Snyder is that he uses the cinematic language of deconstructionism, but then doesn't follow up on the deconstructionist artist's obligation to use that deconstruction to say something. It's the equivalent of blowing a building up so archeologists can dig up that skeleton the building is on top of, but then blowing it up and never pulling out the skeleton.

Like, you can either use cinematic deconstructionism or you can prefer not to deeply examine existential themes. You can't do both.

Says who? It's his movie. He can do what he wants. That you don't like what he did doesn't make him "wrong". You are free not to like what he did. He is under ZERO obligations to follow "rules" you think apply (unless it's an assignment you gave him and he didn't follow your instructions--fairly sure that's not the case). He did "says something". You find it wanting. Fine. I didn't. Also fine. Pretty much ends there (especially as my laptop battery is nearly dead and I have a two hour commute to home).

A la prochaine chicane.