- Jul 27, 2014
Do you have any ACTUAL evidence, or are you just going to keep making stuff up? Everything you've said isn't proof, it's you making assumptions about the filmmakers because they didn't read your mind and make the film you wanted them to make. You can't use your biased interpretation of the film (grimdark, my ass) as evidence to support how you think their mind works.Kyrian007 said:Perhaps you're right, allow me to rephrase. But the film itself does have to be evidence. It's actually the only evidence I need.
Ample evidence suggests Jon was just being portrayed by Snyder and Co. as a paranoid moron because to them the original Superman origin story wasn't "dark" enough. After all, until MoS Jon Kent was just a simple good man whose common sense fairly simplistic look at right and wrong inspires his adopted son to be a symbol of hope and goodness. Snyder's take on the backstory is much darker than that. This is a Jon Kent that suggests that children dying might be a better option than their living. And if that isn't intentional... it was what? Some kind of oversight, just a by-product rebooting. "Wow, that's kind of dark, I never read it in sequence like that. Oh well, gotta deadline to meet. Just shoot it." Somehow it not being intentional grimdarking seems worse now that I have to theorize this alternative. Some kind of "incidental grimdarking." Or completely unintentional. Like...
"What was I supposed to do, let them die?"
"CUT! Kevin, the line was "No."
"Oops, sorry. Take it again?"
"Naa, run with it. We're losing daylight."
So I guess it's at least possible it wasn't intentionally darker.