Synder is underrated

[dropkickjake]

There is a higher density of people who don't like him here than elsewhere. I like him overall. Not all his story arcs are great all the way through, but most of them are.

[Eto]

Still infinitely better than hack King.

[jb681131]

Still infinitely better than hack King.

This is debatable. And surely not "infinitely better".

[failo.legendkiller]

Still infinitely better than hack King.

I prefer King infinetely

[Eto]

This is debatable. And surely not "infinitely better".

eeh, not really.

[Eto]

I prefer King infinetely

good for you.

[Lirica]

I think King's tweet today is amusing and pretty relevant to this thread:

https://twitter.com/TomKingTK/status...34168221315073

In Uber
-You write BATMAN?!
Yeah.
-Like Court of Owls? Loved that!
No. That’s @Ssnyder1835.
-What about Metal! That’s SO good.
Also Scott.
-Grim Knight?! That’s badass.
It is, but no.
-Oh. What do you do?
You hear about the wedding?

(Long pause)

-Dude, why’d you **** that up?!?

[Slim Shady]

I have to agree with the posters saying Snyder over King.

[Noodle]

eeh, not really.

eeh, actually it is.

Quality is subjective. All art is.

[jb681131]

I have to agree with the posters saying Snyder over King.

I'm not so sure.

I agree that Snyder started intense with the Owls arc. (with an ending quite debatable).
I also agree that Kink started really poorly with his "I am" trilogy.

But Snyder never got any better, he even declined in quality.
While King is getting better with every arc. It is a good thing to improve. It shows real quality.

[jb681131]

eeh, actually it is.

Quality is subjective. All art is.

Quality is never subjective.
Quality is judged with impartial proofs.

But liking something, I agree is always subjective.

[Pohzee]

Snyder is "underrated" like the president is underrated.

[Noodle]

Quality is never subjective.
Quality is judged with impartial proofs.

But liking something, I agree is always subjective.

With things like food or building foundations, yeah, it's not. But with any artistic form it mostly is. There are things that are more well received or considered "classics" but that's entirely up to the greater masses. The work itself is based on the tastes of those who consume it.

[jb681131]

With things like food or building foundations, yeah, it's not. But with any artistic form it mostly is. There are things that are more well received or considered "classics" but that's entirely up to the greater masses. The work itself is based on the tastes of those who consume it.

I think you misunderstand things.
The quality of something, and the taste somebody has for that something are 2 different things.
The quality of something, like I sayd, is based on non-subjective elements and facts.
While taste varies for everyone.

But the problem is not only you, it's masses. They confuse those 2 things that is Quality and Taste.
With art people mix quality of that art piece with the taste they have for it.

For exemple writting a comics is somewhat an art form.
If you study how Snyder's stories are constructed, you'll see that there is an intense starting point.
Then not much that wasn't predictable happens and in the end their is no big finale. It just falls flat.
These are proofs of bad quality. And there are many others on his writting (characters with no personality, unprobable plots, ...).
No matter if people like his stories or not, his writting qualities are not of hight quality.

Then as another exemple take Greg Capullo's art.
Look at how he draws faces and expressions.
Well the outer shapes of the faces are a bit different but all the rest are pretty similar.
And he doesn't show any expression on their faces, they always look the same.
These are facts. And facts that show poor drawing qualities.

So in the end, Scott Snyder and Greg Capullo's run is full of "facts" that prooves they are both mediocre artists.
I don't say the current Tom King run is better.
I only say quality is something that by definition is based on facts and not tastes.

Now to come back to the title of this post, that Snyder is underrated.
I would say, not at all, he is on the contrary overrated.
Study his writting in deep and you'll see that he doesn't know how to manage his stories.
That he doesn't know how to give his characters consistency.
And has his run goes, his stories are less and less plosible, rendering his stories soulless.
But if you look at the sales you'll see that they are somewhat high.
Thus, high sales + poor writing qualities = overrated writter.

Why ?? Well I have a hard time finding a reason for this.
I will only concede that the "Court of Owls" was a nice finding.
But sadly he misshandled that story.

Those are not my opinions, they are analysis from his work.

For my opinion, I was hype by the Owls arc. A bit disapointed with the ending.
And then, his Joker arc was so badly written that I stopped reading his run.
I only read it latter to be up to date but it was sadly disapointing.

[C_Miller]

To me, Snyder's problem has always been that he seems to mostly be interested in telling the Biggest Story Ever. Batman hasn't survived for 80 years as a character because every writer who took him on set out to write the biggest story ever. Even in Morrison's epic there were some smaller, quieter moments. It didn't help that he seemed to have a lot of trouble sticking the landing on most of his epic stories.