Synder is underrated

[ChaosIncarnate]

LOL I don’t know how anyone can call Snyder under rated when plenty of people praise him as THE definitive Batman writer of the past decade. The only stories he did that I ever cared for were Black Mirror and court of owls, but even Court of Owls has its issues. I don’t find him to be all that special as a Batman writer, to be honest. I’ll take Rucka, Dini, Morrison, King, or even 90s era Loeb over Snyder any day of the week.

I don’t hate Scott Snyder, and I do enjoy his books, but they aren’t amazing. Metal was fun, but super dumb. Ditto for his justice league, which I enjoyed to a certain degree but ended up dropping.

[dancj]

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.

That's a load of nonsense right there.

For any attempt you make at defining objective criteria for what makes good writing or good art, there'll be a load of great writers and artists who don't meet those criteria.

No matter how hard you try, the rules you make will be subjective, and in most cases, whether they've succeeded in each of those will also be subjective - unless you get into really silly criteria like "x number of words = good" or "photorealistic = good".

[MyriVerse]

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

But liking something, I agree is always subjective.

All proofs are partial, and they all come down to what a person likes.

[jb681131]

That's a load of nonsense right there.

For any attempt you make at defining objective criteria for what makes good writing or good art, there'll be a load of great writers and artists who don't meet those criteria.

No matter how hard you try, the rules you make will be subjective, and in most cases, whether they've succeeded in each of those will also be subjective - unless you get into really silly criteria like "x number of words = good" or "photorealistic = good".

That's not true. Being non-subjective is always possible. It is just that finding the non-objective criterias is not always simple.
And it happens that you cannot find any as you're reading my post. I doesn't mean there aren't any.

And technically, if it's a "great writers or artists" he/she should meet those criterias, otherwise they aren't "great writers or artists".

[Mia]

I wouldn’t call him underrated. The critics love him, he moves big numbers, writes the major titles, he’s rated high for the most part from what I see.

I like him but don’t love him. Seems like he tries too hard a lot of times. And his endings can miss. I liked his Batman for the most part but don’t think it’s close to one of the top runs, sssssssis what I’ve seen it called a few times. Capullo helps a lot, he was on fire that whole run.

Between the praise and numbers, and the complaints, he’s probably rated about right.

Does he really move numbers or did he move books due Capullo? I bought the COO in trade form mostly due to the art.

The funny thing is I picked up the latest COO trade to look at and read Snyder's preface where he explains he 'knew nothing about Batman'. Which I guess explained why his Batman mostly came across like a an angry thug.( Or The Midnighter with toys as I like to call it). As a opposed to a cool, calm, genius and a strategist he's supposed to be. There is no way on earth Batman as he was set up would have allowed the Court of Owls to operate that long in Gotham City much less without his knowledge.

[dancj]

That's not true. Being non-subjective is always possible. It is just that finding the non-objective criterias is not always simple.
And it happens that you cannot find any as you're reading my post. I doesn't mean there aren't any.

And technically, if it's a "great writers or artists" he/she should meet those criterias, otherwise they aren't "great writers or artists".

I really don't know how you can believe that.

Art is inherently subjective. There are objective measurements you can make, but none of those can even begin to separate good from bad. You can probably measure an artists's perspective or anatomy or whether they colour within the lines. you can measure how many of what types of words are used or whether the sentences are grammatically correct.

None of this - and no other criteria - will ever actually be able to say whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. That's still subjective.

[Batman Begins 2005]

I've liked most of Snyder's Bat books. The Black Mirror is clearly the best. Rated End Game and Twenty Seven as well. Court of Owls is overrated and I didn't like All-Star Batman. Metal was a Return to form.

[Batman Begins 2005]

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

Add me to that.