Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 315
  1. #16
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Nobody knew or cared about the Guardians and Ant Man specifically before their films, and the films did a good job of making the general audience care about them.
    I hate to break it to you but the same can be said for most superheroes. I mean movies and television influenced a lot of things about the characters. Superman originally couldnt fly but the cartoon wanted to save money so they made him fly, Superman 78 introduce the S being the family crest of El, the 50s Batman serial introduced the Bat's Cave and of course probably the most recent and famous example Harley Quinn being introduced in the Batman animated series. I am fine with change and I am glad Guardians and Ant Man are getting some attention but I don't see the benefit in making them so goofy and ridiculous and even mocking the properties. It is fine to have humor but do we need everyone reminding us how noone knows who these guys are? And tbh I don't get how Guardians is even 'too ridiculous to adapt' mentality when Star Wars exists. Remove the Marvel logo and pitch this to an average movie fan they'd probably say it sounds really cool. And no I don't think a talking raccoon or tree is too strange when Chewie is one of the most famous movie characters and is literally space Sasquatch. Admittedly I don't know much about Lang Ant Man but in a world with Captain America being a serious hero despite being a literal bygone WW2 propaganda character who uses the world's deadliest Frisbee why is Ant Man such a strange and silly name and why is controlling billions of insects seen as silly?

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    They don't care about faithfulness to the comics in that case. I'm not fond of MCU Spider-Man (though I like Holland) but it captures what makes the already beloved character appealing and throws "teenage Avengers fanboys the kids can automatically relate to" onto it.
    You can have room for creative liberty but the Guardians are completely opposites to their comic counterparts for example. But even then there are dozens of versions of a character and you just cant please everyone. For example in TASM people complained Andrew Garfield wasn't nerdy enough to be Peter Parker or that someone as attractive as him wouldn't be a loner but ironically enough the early Lee-Ditko Amazing Spiderman was more like that. First off with all due respect to Ditko, Peter never looked like a teen. On top of that Peter was more aloof. He was actually invited by Flash for a party but Peter rejected it because he didn't like Flash's arrogance. And if Peter having a skateboard is too cool or hipster early Peter gets a motorcycle. Now obvious the character of Peter Parker eventually was changed and modernized to be more of a stereotypical nerd especially in the 1610 earth continuity but there will be someone who thinks that isnt their Spider-Man. My biggest issue with the MCU Spider-Man is how weak he comes off, the whole "I'm nothing without my suit" theme and how he doesn't get serious consequence in Homecoming and in FFH the consequence comes from something out of his control or perception. If they made Mysterio more gray and not so perfect before the twist it'd have been interesting for Peter to decide whether or not to give Beck the glasses but given how perfect Beck acted what reason is there not to give him Edith?

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    That's not the case with Superman, he's the grandaddy of superheroes. We literally do not have the genre as we know it today without him, and he's been a pop culture juggernaut since the 40s. It's kind of unreasonable to think that people wouldn't bring pre-conceived notions into the theater for him and Batman, especially as the movie is banking on that recognition for its success. Some of Snyder's decisions do have precedent in the source material, but that doesn't mean as much to the GA: most of them don't read comics and don't care about any of that stuff. A dark deconstruction of Superman right out of the gate when people haven't had much time to learn to care about this version, along with jamming in a feud with a murderous Batman, working in his death at the hands of Doomsday, establishing a key antagonist in Lex, setting up Fourth World stuff, introducing Wonder Woman and setting up the JL all in just the second movie in a franchise is too goddamn much.
    That still doesn't explain what exactly Snyder missed with the character in at least Man of Steel. And I also don't see how MoS or even BvS are deconstructions of Superman. Regardless you can't please everyone, some people thought Superman Returns was boring and banked too much on copying the Reeves movies. And again there is a difference between changing certain things and completely throwing the baby with the bathwater while mocking said baby. Like if in the Matt Reeves Batman movie do you think it would go over well if Gordon asked Batman who he was and after answering him Gordon just goes "Who?" And mind you it isn't impossible to have a character mention the absurdities of characters but the context needs to fit. Like in Batman Begins I feel there was at least one scene where Gordon or someone mentions how ridiculous a bat vigilante is but given the context is a realistic world where heroes don't exist it makes sense. In Guardians the guy who questioned who star lord was was called Korath the Pursuer and his boss was Ronin the Accuser why is the name Star Lord strange to him? And again to Scott Lang who idolizes Captain America why is Ant Man a silly name and power? This would work if Ant Man was the second or third movie in the MCU but at this point Lang has witnessed killer robots and norse gods. Plus it just feels way too on the nose

  2. #17
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Yeah! I don't see much deconstruction either.

  3. #18
    Black Belt in Bad Ideas Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    7,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Evans View Post
    This explains it about Snyder and DC Comics:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IIfxrpWEDLc
    Pretty fair assessment, to be honest.

    Snyder is pretty much the exact thing Moore lamented as his legacy. All grit and surface-level glitz that is trumpeted up like The Bard, but no actual substance.

  4. #19
    Astonishing Member mathew101281's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,177

    Default

    He respects a very narrow type of comic. Which is a terrible thing to build you hopefully globally popular cinematic universe on. He would work on certain types of characters (Lobo, some versions of Batman. etc). But putting him as the primary archetype of the DCU was a mistake.

  5. #20
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robanker View Post
    Pretty fair assessment, to be honest.

    Snyder is pretty much the exact thing Moore lamented as his legacy. All grit and surface-level glitz that is trumpeted up like The Bard, but no actual substance.
    Yet, comics can have things with no substance and atleast surface-level glitz.if anything snyder just put whats on paper, onscreen.

  6. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,005

    Default

    To the OP, as someone who has had this conversation too many times to count, you're better off just not asking at all. People will stick to their opinions and nothing will change that. If comic book fans are good at one thing, it's making anyone who doesn't agree with their take a villain in their eyes.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 06-05-2020 at 10:06 PM.

  7. #22
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robanker View Post
    Pretty fair assessment, to be honest.

    Snyder is pretty much the exact thing Moore lamented as his legacy. All grit and surface-level glitz that is trumpeted up like The Bard, but no actual substance.
    This guy gets virtually everything wrong about MoS AND Superman at the same time. I’ve seen his what went wrong for both MoS and the DCEU

    First off Clark is not a reluctant hero and is quite the opposite. He can’t stop helping people despite wanting to hide his identity and who is really is. I seriously don’t get how anyone can misunderstand that from MoS. And again with the bitching about destruction and killing Zod? Sure like the avengers and other marvel heroes don’t cause huge amounts of destruction. Even in comics there is huge destruction. Like WTF. Superman only killed Zod because he had no choice. He gave Zod several chances to surrender. And seriously why do people think killing a genocidal maniac is wrong? Do people think it was wrong to execute Adolf Eichmann for his involvement in the Holocaust? And Superman isn’t just about being a big blue Boy Scout but overcoming personal struggles to achieve your destiny

    Yet these types of guys have no issue when marvel does a 180 with their characters

  8. #23
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    826

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    Even if you think he is a bad director or writer he clearly does respect comics and uses a ton of imagery in his movies. If the MCU can be praised for respecting comics when they mock the characters idk how Zack doesn't respect comics
    No.

    Snyder certainly does not respect comics at all. So what if he "uses a ton of imagery in his movies?" Poses and costume homages are completely irrelevant compared to the characters and storylines, and Snyder doesn't respect those at all.

    Superman is an aspirational hero. He is not plagued by self-doubt and uncertainty, he does not view being a hero as some great burden and he certainly wouldn't question whether or not humanity deserves to be saved. To say nothing of Snyder's depiction of Jonathan Kent. "Maybe you should have let him die" indeed. That right there shows his total lack or respect for the comics.

    As much as I dislike Batman even I realise he's meant to be the world's greatest detective. Snyder depicted him as a moronic thug who let himself be completely fooled by Luther.

    Go on YouTube and watch Professor Geek's videos for more detail. He's a genius when it comes to comics and storytelling- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb1...DrUoEYW1yiO-tQ

  9. #24
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    I hate to break it to you but the same can be said for most superheroes. I mean movies and television influenced a lot of things about the characters. Superman originally couldnt fly but the cartoon wanted to save money so they made him fly, Superman 78 introduce the S being the family crest of El, the 50s Batman serial introduced the Bat's Cave and of course probably the most recent and famous example Harley Quinn being introduced in the Batman animated series. I am fine with change and I am glad Guardians and Ant Man are getting some attention but I don't see the benefit in making them so goofy and ridiculous and even mocking the properties. It is fine to have humor but do we need everyone reminding us how noone knows who these guys are? And tbh I don't get how Guardians is even 'too ridiculous to adapt' mentality when Star Wars exists. Remove the Marvel logo and pitch this to an average movie fan they'd probably say it sounds really cool. And no I don't think a talking raccoon or tree is too strange when Chewie is one of the most famous movie characters and is literally space Sasquatch. Admittedly I don't know much about Lang Ant Man but in a world with Captain America being a serious hero despite being a literal bygone WW2 propaganda character who uses the world's deadliest Frisbee why is Ant Man such a strange and silly name and why is controlling billions of insects seen as silly?
    None of this exactly contradicts what I said? Nobody had pre-conceived notions of the Guardians or Ant-Man going in, so therefore they let the media influence how they see them even more readily than characters they have previous exposure to. Especially if that media is generally regarded as good.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    You can have room for creative liberty but the Guardians are completely opposites to their comic counterparts for example. But even then there are dozens of versions of a character and you just cant please everyone. For example in TASM people complained Andrew Garfield wasn't nerdy enough to be Peter Parker or that someone as attractive as him wouldn't be a loner but ironically enough the early Lee-Ditko Amazing Spiderman was more like that. First off with all due respect to Ditko, Peter never looked like a teen. On top of that Peter was more aloof. He was actually invited by Flash for a party but Peter rejected it because he didn't like Flash's arrogance. And if Peter having a skateboard is too cool or hipster early Peter gets a motorcycle. Now obvious the character of Peter Parker eventually was changed and modernized to be more of a stereotypical nerd especially in the 1610 earth continuity but there will be someone who thinks that isnt their Spider-Man. My biggest issue with the MCU Spider-Man is how weak he comes off, the whole "I'm nothing without my suit" theme and how he doesn't get serious consequence in Homecoming and in FFH the consequence comes from something out of his control or perception. If they made Mysterio more gray and not so perfect before the twist it'd have been interesting for Peter to decide whether or not to give Beck the glasses but given how perfect Beck acted what reason is there not to give him Edith?
    But again, nobody except extreme fanboys care about the changes from the comics if the media is executed well. Especially the case of the Guardians.

    You can never please 100% everyone, but nobody can claim that the MCU didn't please the biggest number of people they could. I'm not even a big MCU fan, but you can't argue with their results. They made the general audience care about a bunch of small names. The cast was MASSIVE in Endgame and the work was put in to make the audience care at least about a big chunk of them, if not everyone. That's why I said they did much more with much less, and adaptation changes can be embraced if the product is good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    That still doesn't explain what exactly Snyder missed with the character in at least Man of Steel. And I also don't see how MoS or even BvS are deconstructions of Superman. Regardless you can't please everyone, some people thought Superman Returns was boring and banked too much on copying the Reeves movies. And again there is a difference between changing certain things and completely throwing the baby with the bathwater while mocking said baby. Like if in the Matt Reeves Batman movie do you think it would go over well if Gordon asked Batman who he was and after answering him Gordon just goes "Who?" And mind you it isn't impossible to have a character mention the absurdities of characters but the context needs to fit. Like in Batman Begins I feel there was at least one scene where Gordon or someone mentions how ridiculous a bat vigilante is but given the context is a realistic world where heroes don't exist it makes sense. In Guardians the guy who questioned who star lord was was called Korath the Pursuer and his boss was Ronin the Accuser why is the name Star Lord strange to him? And again to Scott Lang who idolizes Captain America why is Ant Man a silly name and power? This would work if Ant Man was the second or third movie in the MCU but at this point Lang has witnessed killer robots and norse gods. Plus it just feels way too on the nose
    Our two options shouldn't have to be only a Reeves rehash or Snyder's take. And even Snyder was a bit of a rehash of the Donner movies, just with a gritty gloss thrown over it. It's not that general audiences or comic fans alike are THAT difficult to please. Perhaps more so with Superman, but not to the point where it's impossible, and it's easy to see where both Singer and Snyder went wrong.

    It's a deconstruction by trying to inject some reality into Superman: the world doesn't respond universally positively to him, they project messiah archetypes onto him that he denounces but the narrative also tries to have it both ways by associating a lot of Christ imagery with him, the consequences of the fight between him and the other Kryptonians is very destructive and he DOES cause some damage himself, other options to get rid of Zod are avoided so he can kill him as he realistically might have to, the Kents struggle to be ideal parents with good advice, he doesn't arrive in time to prevent Jimmy from being murdered, Batman is a psycho who has lapsed into killing and only learns he's needs to kill the right people, etc. Basically flipping a lot of standard tropes we associate with Superman in the name of realism, and in the JL cut apparently Wonder Woman was going to fail to save the hostages and they'd die. Because in reality you can't save everyone or whatever (we live in reality- we really don't necessarily need a reminder that it can suck in our escapist entertainment). And it comes right out of the gate with these things, defenders say we shouldn't bring pre-conceived notions of the characters into the films, but it is also banking on their pre-built recognition and popularity to sell itself. It might be a neat idea to do a few films in after audiences had grown to like these versions, but it was too much too soon. MoS going very well despite being divisive shows people craved a Superman movie and there was potential, but his death was met with apathy among the general audience because not enough work was done to get us to love this version of Clark. This would have been helped slightly if the director's cut was released, but not by much and then you'd have an R-rating for a movie that was marketing toys to kids.

    Superman didn't need a deconstruction, he needed a clear hit that reminded people how great he is the way the MCU has done for far lesser known characters. And that isn't to say I think Snyder didn't read or respect Superman comics, he just came away with an idea that didn't have mass appeal or at least wasn't suited for a clear hit needed to launch a film franchise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    To the OP, as someone who has had this conversation too many times to count, you're better off just not asking at all. People will stick to their opinions and nothing will change that. If comic book fans are good at one thing, it's making anyone who doesn't agree with their take a villain in their eyes.
    Plenty of that going on from both sides tbh. Comic book fanboy hive mind isn't unique to one group over the other

  10. #25
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    6,887

    Default

    To be fair to Snyder and the people who hired him, his Man of Steel was a reaction to the lackluster Superman Returns.

    I mean, if Superman Returns never happened, I don’t think Man of Steel would have ended up like it did.


    I just think TPTB took the wrong lessons from Superman Returns failure.




    Doing a deconstruction of a figure, like Superman, who’s already had many interpretations and movies is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it’s a good thing, to keep the IP fresh.

    However, I think MoS came out at the wrong time and definitely the wrong movie to build a superhero franchise universe off of.
    Last edited by Will Evans; 06-04-2020 at 07:05 AM.

  11. #26
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Nobody knew or cared about the Guardians and Ant Man specifically before their films, and the films did a good job of making the general audience care about them. They don't care about faithfulness to the comics in that case. I'm not fond of MCU Spider-Man (though I like Holland) but it captures what makes the already beloved character appealing and throws "teenage Avengers fanboys the kids can automatically relate to" onto it.

    That's not the case with Superman, he's the grandaddy of superheroes. We literally do not have the genre as we know it today without him, and he's been a pop culture juggernaut since the 40s. It's kind of unreasonable to think that people wouldn't bring pre-conceived notions into the theater for him and Batman, especially as the movie is banking on that recognition for its success. Some of Snyder's decisions do have precedent in the source material, but that doesn't mean as much to the GA: most of them don't read comics and don't care about any of that stuff. A dark deconstruction of Superman right out of the gate when people haven't had much time to learn to care about this version, along with jamming in a feud with a murderous Batman, working in his death at the hands of Doomsday, establishing a key antagonist in Lex, setting up Fourth World stuff, introducing Wonder Woman and setting up the JL all in just the second movie in a franchise is too goddamn much.
    There's no correlation between the two whatsoever. You can bluntly disrespect the source material and be liked by casuals (Ragnarok), you can make a loyal to the source adaptation that the casuals won't care about (Watchmen), and you can also make it loyal and make people care (Sin City).
    Also, this wasn't really a dark deconstruction of Superman, that would be Homelander or even Dr. Manhattan. This was a really light deconstruction of Superman I'd say.
    Last edited by adamTPTK; 06-04-2020 at 12:49 PM.

  12. #27
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    6,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamTPTK View Post
    There's no correlation between the two whatsoever. You can bluntly disrespect the source material and be liked by casuals (Ragnarok), you can also make a loyal to the source adaptation that the casuals won't care about (Watchmen), and you can also make it loyal and make people care (Sin City).
    Also, this wasn't really a dark deconstruction of Superman, that would be Homelander or even Dr. Manhattan. This was a really light deconstruction of Superman I'd say.
    Don’t forget Brightburn.



    Though I consider Megamind as a lighter deconstruction of the Superman mythos.

  13. #28
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilan Preskovsky View Post
    I despise Man of Steel and BVS (Justice League is just...oy) but I would never argue that Snyder doesn't have loads of love and respect for comics. Too much, perhaps, if Watchmen is any indication, which displayed a real love for the source but, frankly, a lack of understanding what made it great.

    Which is even more true when it comes to Superman. The dude doesn't understand Superman in even the tiniest, smallest, most minuscule amount. Like, seriously. I've never seen someone write such a significant take on Superman who understands the character less than Zack Snyder. Or, alternatively, he does understand Superman and then went out of his way to make his Superman as unlike Superman as possible, which means that he may love and respect comics in general but not Superman.

    Either way, all of this is besides the point. Snyder was an awful choice right from the beginning because he's well, just not a very good filmmaker. No, let me rephrase. He's a "good" director in that his films do tend to look impressive (if you like that whole muted colour palet that he relies on so much, anyway) and he does have a distinctive style but his films tend to be vacuous and/ or badly told almost without fail. I mean, have you seen Sucker Punch? Good lord.

    Sorry Snyder fans, I'm glad to see the back of him and DC's films will be all the better for it.
    Can you please tell me what so wrong with Sucker Punch? People keep using that argument yet I've never seen anyone making a coherent argument why it's supposedly bad.

  14. #29
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Evans View Post
    Don’t forget Brightburn.



    Though I consider Megamind as a lighter deconstruction of the Superman mythos.
    Not really interested in the later, and still haven't seen the former. I should totally find the time to finally check BB out.

  15. #30
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamTPTK View Post
    There's no correlation between the two whatsoever. You can bluntly disrespect the source material and be liked by casuals (Ragnarok), you can also make a loyal to the source adaptation that the casuals won't care about (Watchmen), and you can also make it loyal and make people care (Sin City).
    Also, this wasn't really a dark deconstruction of Superman, that would be Homelander or even Dr. Manhattan. This was a really light deconstruction of Superman I'd say.
    That's...kind of what I'm saying though? General audiences don't care about faithful adaptations if the film is good because they don't read comics, and even fanboys can concede when they like a change. Superman has a bigger hurdle when it comes to changes since he's such a big name with preconceived notions, BUT I also said the film drew from source material that the general audience didn't know about and that previous adaptations had put their own spin on things. This one wasn't fully embraced because it didn't have as much mass appeal.

    It's still a darker take on Superman than people are accustomed to, not necessarily just of himself but of the world he lives in. Saying it's less dark than Homelander (duh) doesn't magically mean it's comparatively darker takes on Superman and Batman than the mainstream are used to.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •