Justice League official "Zack Snyder" cut on HBO Max

[theenglish]

Well, depends on the version of the mythos. Certainly it's a key event in Superman '78, which remains THE touchstone iteration of the Superman narrative in the minds of the general public (and deservedly so). It's indeed employed to good effect in Smallville, and Geoff Johns put Jonathan's death to devastating use in his excellent "Brainiac" comics arc. (Other, lesser talents have also offed the poor old fellow. )

But there are also prominent and successful versions of the story where Jonathan is still alive, even far into Clark's adulthood, like in John Byrne's post-Crisis comics reboot, or Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. I personally prefer my Jonathans alive, but can't argue that his death isn't often effective, narratively and emotionally.

They are alive in the comics again as well.

 

[JD]

OK, I official owe @TREK_GOD_1, and everyone else who has been defending the Snyder Superman a sincere apology, I have been a hypocritical idiot. I realized while I was out walking my dog this morning, that I am a huge fan of the live action Titans series, and that is probably even farther from the traditional version of those characters than anything Snyder did with Superman in his movies. Thinking about it more from that perspective, I realized that the MCU and Arrowverse, which are pretty much my gold standard for comic book adaptations have been just as guilty to. Hell, one my favorite Spider-Man adaptations, the PS4 game, basically turned it's version of Mary Jane into Lois Lane, which is a huge divergence from the comics, and it was one of my favorite things about the game. So I'm sorry.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

He told him that he should have let a bus full of children die. He KILLED HIMSELF to win an argument.

No. He was written as a character who knew the true nature of mankind---that they would have nothing short of a hostile reaction to him if he exposed his true alien nature, a prediction that came to pass in the rest of MoS and BvS.

People clearly don't care about letting the facts get in the way of a story.

Especially those who live to attack Snyder, when they have the power to simply not watch, or generate endless pages ranting about the man and his films. That did not get rid of or "defeat" Snyder at all. His JL film coming because there is a significant number of fans who want to see his proper version.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

A simple "no" would have sufficed.

That would be a lie--much like the lies you post when you claim not to be what was noted here:

Your post is the deflection and hypocrisy I predicted. You attack anyone who likes the Snyder movies, then attempt (and fail) to soft-sell it. You referring to Snyder fans as a "cult" and questioning their psychological health is nothing less than a hate-filled attack, all because someone does not support or praise your favorite version of a comic-book character. This is always followed by your attempt to shift blame/responsibility. That's not only textbook hypocrisy, but disturbing considering the level of hate you routinely spew at people you do not know.

It is who you are, no matter how much you try to tap your way out of it.

 

[theenglish]

No. He was written as a character who knew the true nature of mankind---that they would have nothing short of a hostile reaction to him if he exposed his true alien nature, a prediction that came to pass in the rest of MoS and BvS.

You are correct, but that only happened because it was written that way.

 

[Ovation]

You are correct, but that only happened because it was written that way.

And? It’s fiction. All events are deliberately “written that way”.

 

[JD]

I've never understood that response, of course "he was written that way", it's a movie, it he wasn't written that he wouldn't exist. I know some writers talk about stories writing themselves, but that's not how it actually works.

 

[The Realist]

I think the point, in this context, is that story and character elements -- particularly controversial ones -- are chosen by the writers, and don't arise spontaneously. So for example, if a viewer objects to Snyderman killing Zod, saying "he had no choice" is a questionable defense -- he had no choice only because the writers contrived the situation and elected not to provide (or acknowledge) any alternative course of action. People's objections in that sense are less to what the character did, and more to what the writers made him do.

If you're creating a Superman story, there's no reason at all he has to snap any necks unless you want him to. Or, to theenglish's original point, if your Superman is burdened with suspicion and distrust of mankind, it's only because you (the writer) made him that way -- not because that's the way he "has" to be.

So the implication of "only because it was written that way" is really, "I don't like that it was written that way" -- which is certainly well within a viewer's rights.

 

[Ovation]

So the implication of "only because it was written that way" is really, "I don't like that it was written that way" -- which is certainly well within a viewer's rights.

Sure. But then...so what? The whole point of trying a different approach is to explore other possibilities and NOT be stuck with "the way 'he' has to be". Moreover, it's a repudiation of the very idea of "the way 'he' has to be"--which is among the very best things about Man of Steel. There should never be a required "way things ought to be" about any character--Superman or otherwise. Of course the audience doesn't have to like the result--but they're NEVER entitled to a result they will like.

 

[The Realist]

^ Nobody said otherwise. I was just offering an expansion on theenglish's comment, since JD said he didn't understand its intent.

Anyway, not every criticism implies, "I'm entitled to a result I like." It can simply mean, "I personally thought that sucked." And if a viewer's basis for that reaction is that he/she has different expectations or desires for a character, I see no reason that isn't legitimate.

 

[Ovation]

Then people should say "I don't like" rather than making declarations that can easily be interpreted as "this ought to be..." The former is entirely legit. The latter, when it comes to art (commercial, fine, or other), not so much.

 

[The Realist]

Even "this ought to be," in the context of art, is inherently subjective. Implicitly, there's always an "IMO" attached. And given that, I don't see why there's anything wrong with saying, "this character ought to be portrayed differently." It's still just an assertion of personal perception and preference.

 

[DigificWriter]

I don't see why there's anything wrong with saying, "this character ought to be portrayed differently."

Because statements like that attempt to impose an absolute "line in the sand" viewpoint that doesn't exist and cannot exist, which in turn attempts to falsely de-legitimize anything that doesn't fit said viewpoint.

 

[The Realist]

Because statements like that attempt to impose an absolute "line in the sand" viewpoint that doesn't exist and cannot exist, which in turn attempts to falsely de-legitimize anything that doesn't fit said viewpoint.

I guess I can see that, from a certain point of view. Again, I always hear "IMO," whether or not it's stated (or even intended). People can say all day long that Superman "ought to be" an eternally burdened mope and occasional neck-snapper. I'm not offended or threatened by it. They're just wrong.

 

[JD]

I think the point, in this context, is that story and character elements -- particularly controversial ones -- are chosen by the writers, and don't arise spontaneously. So for example, if a viewer objects to Snyderman killing Zod, saying "he had no choice" is a questionable defense -- he had no choice only because the writers contrived the situation and elected not to provide (or acknowledge) any alternative course of action. People's objections in that sense are less to what the character did, and more to what the writers made him do.

If you're creating a Superman story, there's no reason at all he has to snap any necks unless you want him to. Or, to theenglish's original point, if your Superman is burdened with suspicion and distrust of mankind, it's only because you (the writer) made him that way -- not because that's the way he "has" to be.

So the implication of "only because it was written that way" is really, "I don't like that it was written that way" -- which is certainly well within a viewer's rights.

I can see what you mean now.

Even "this ought to be," in the context of art, is inherently subjective. Implicitly, there's always an "IMO" attached. And given that, I don't see why there's anything wrong with saying, "this character ought to be portrayed differently." It's still just an assertion of personal perception and preference.

I think the best way to put it would be, "I would rather see it this way" instead of "it should be done this way".

 

[Ovation]

Again, I always hear "IMO," whether or not it's stated

Perhaps it's an occupational hazard for me. I can never make that assumption anymore--causes far too many issues in the classroom or lecture hall. I never used to have to explain the difference between explanation and endorsement when discussing controversial topics but in the past 8-10 years (especially in the past 5), if I don't make it explicit, I get "how can you support fascism" or "what do you mean European colonists weren't racist"--no one assumes the least offensive position is the default anymore. So an implied "IMO" has faded from my routine.

 

[theenglish]

I've never understood that response, of course "he was written that way", it's a movie, it he wasn't written that he wouldn't exist. I know some writers talk about stories writing themselves, but that's not how it actually works.

The Realist expressed the point that I was making. Trek God seemed to be arguing that the prediction mankind would be hostile and suspicious was some kind of proof that Jonathan Kent was correct. I was saying Jonathan was only correct because Snyder wrote the movie showing humanity as suspicious of his intentions -- or at least humanity has being very divided in their opinion about Superman.

 

[DigificWriter]

People can say all day long that Superman "ought to be" an eternally burdened mope and occasional neck-snapper. I'm not offended or threatened by it. They're just wrong.

And here you go proving my point by doing exactly what I was talking about.

 

[The Realist]

And here you go proving my point by doing exactly what I was talking about.

No, there I go making a little joke. Lighten up.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

I'm due for a Smallville rewatch when I can find the time (it's a huge undertaking). I loved Schneider as Jonathan my first time through, which was a good while back at this point. I didn't have any of the negative vibes you're describing, but I can't really dispute you without a fresh look.

IMHO Schneider is a great actor and had a huge presence in the role, I'm not criticizing him. I'm not even really criticizing the writers, it was a credible take on the story of Kal El. I just don't see the character of Jonathan Kent as being anywhere near a perfect father.

It is worth the rewatch, and I benefitted from binging a number of episodes at a time; it made the story much more coherent, compared to the normal TV breaks over the summer and mid-season, not mention NFL interruptions. And I got chills down my spine every time I heard the words, "And now, the season finale of Smallville."