Why do people say Zack Snyder doesn't respect comics?

[Agent Z]

Yes, but there are often sub-genres for each type of character and the story that best suits them. You can't always swap out one character for another and expect the same results. That's why they are characters, not action figures to be moved around willy nilly.

I've seen criticisms that Superman isn't a good character because he isn't suited to darker stories (at least not always) and isn't as versatile enough to be made to fit them without being fundamentally changed. And yet, characters like the Punisher, Constantine and the Boys can't be twisted into more straight laced superhero figures to be made to star in more family friendly (if not downright kiddy) fare. And nobody claims they are not worth much as characters because there are limits to how much they can be altered. There seems to be a double standard among certain fans who want things to be "adult" (whatever that means).

Snyder's Superman isn't anything like the Punisher, Constantine or the Boys. Asking for a but more leeway in how Superman is portrayed doesn't mean just anything goes. It isn't like I'm defending a movie where Superman rapes Lois to death.

The White House petition was derided as dumb even by most detractors when the films were coming out. Nobody takes that kind of behavior seriously, because why would the White House give a crap about our dumb superhero movies? Everyone on all sides just laughed at how stupid they were. How do you determine that the anti-Snyder fandom toxicity isn't condemned by even some of his critics? Did you keep tabs of what everyone everywhere has said?

I've seen article after article, comment after comment, condemning the release the Snyder cut movement. I've seen numerous takes on how this movie's mere existence is rewarding toxic fandom. Yet I can count on on two hands the number of articles that condemned the White House petition, the people who mocked the death of Snyder's daughter, the frequent use of other DC movies to bash Snyder and all the other ugliness the anti-Snyder/anti-DCEU crowd engaged in. And that's just what was done to Snyder. I haven't even mentioned how people raged against Cavill's appearance on Sesame Street because he was in MoS, the sexist and ageist comments directed at Amy Addams and the fan edits to the movies that lessened her role (remember when Star Wars fans did this with the anti-feminist cut of TLJ?) and the bodyshaming Gal Gadot is still subjected to.

But because Snyder and the DCEU are considered acceptable targets, none of this gets anywhere near the push back it deserves.

[NaVi]

the death of superman (and everything that comes later) is one of the most important comics in history, and of course, of superman, snyder turned it into the presentation of ww, but the worst thing is that by doing it, he eliminated all possibility to see her in the future in that universe, yes, it is clear that snyder respects comics. Batman v Superman, but superman almost does not appear and when he does it is to fail and receive beatings (batman, doomsday) and of course he does not speak, if it were not enough, in the final fight against one of his enemies (like zod only exists by superman) is another who fights, he is saved by lois to finally fly in a straight line, as you can see, it is impressive, a role worthy of a protagonist.

[SiegePerilous02]

Snyder's Superman isn't anything like the Punisher, Constantine or the Boys. Asking for a but more leeway in how Superman is portrayed doesn't mean just anything goes. It isn't like I'm defending a movie where Superman rapes Lois to death.

And it's not like I'm saying that Snyder's Superman is so dark as to rape Lois to death, or that he is a direct comparison to those characters.

But in general Snyder fans and fans of material like that downplay any value the lighter/more traditional versions have. And I've seen it stated in the Superman boards by some that Superman and Batman don't have much value as characters if they can't be used in the way that Snyder used them. But all characters have some limits on how you can use them before you're better off just using a different character for the purpose of the story you want to tell. And it's turning their nose up at the more kid friendly characters as being a "fantasy," but you don't often see a turn around where the more "real" characters should be made more escapist. Because apparently Superman should have more leeway, but other characters (regardless of genre) should not because they are already for "adults."

I've seen article after article, comment after comment, condemning the release the Snyder cut movement. I've seen numerous takes on how this movie's mere existence is rewarding toxic fandom. Yet I can count on on two hands the number of articles that condemned the White House petition, the people who mocked the death of Snyder's daughter, the frequent use of other DC movies to bash Snyder and all the other ugliness the anti-Snyder/anti-DCEU crowd engaged in. And that's just what was done to Snyder. I haven't even mentioned how people raged against Cavill's appearance on Sesame Street because he was in MoS, the sexist and ageist comments directed at Amy Addams and the fan edits to the movies that lessened her role (remember when Star Wars fans did this with the anti-feminist cut of TLJ?) and the bodyshaming Gal Gadot is still subjected to.

But because Snyder and the DCEU are considered acceptable targets, none of this gets anywhere near the push back it deserves.

Ok, but none of that behavior (either pro-Snyder cut or anti-Snyder) is ok.

Whenever this is brought up, you bring up those incidents, all of which did deserve push back. But I don't think I've ever seen you condemn some of the toxic behavior of the extreme members of the Snyder cut crowd. Not even the whole movement, but the ones who send out death threats to James Gunn or a film critic who just gave MoS a 6/10.

You also said the anti-Snyder crowd turns everyone who disagrees with them into villains, and then reposted it after some people gave their responses in this thread as if your point was proven. Most of the arguments early in the thread didn't seem that outlandish, meanwhile we had some accusations of people essentially being "mindless MCU fanbots" for daring to criticize Snyder. I think this is a case where either side isn't going to view the toxic elements of their side as being equally bad as the opposition, since it's their side. But in truth, both are bad and this is why Twitter is a dumpster fire and we'd be better off without it.

[Triple J]

I have not been here a long time, but hearing Dick Grayson is already killed in the DCEU only gives me despair. He was the first of the next generation of superheroes. He carries the hope of that generation as the first sidekick. By killing him, you are removing the legacy he did and inspired as a result. I can not see any reason to remove him than add another shadow in an already dark world.

I want to ask Snyder fans how could you say you love DC and superheroes as a whole when you approve Snyder removing the optimism, hope and love inherent to its core. If I want to watch moral ambiguity, I would watch Watchmen or The Boys. The strength of superheroes have always been in the belief of what is good and that no matter what happens, in the end, good will always vanquish evil. Call me naive or a child; that I should grow up and put on my big boy pants. But is it greater to close one's heart and survive or go on fighting for what is right even if you know it is impossible to win?

Dick Grayson was the embodiment of this. He fought for what is right in every stage of his life. Whether he was Robin, Nightwing, Batman or Agent 37. He never gave up on people even when he was betrayed numerous times. He lead and taught the people around him to be the best of themselves. He taught them the best lessons Batman taught him, the lessons that mattered. He showed everyone what the Batman symbol represent better than Bruce Wayne himself. You know that Ace scene in DCAU, one of the best moments of Batman. That is Dick Grayson everyday since he was Robin until now. Why throw such greatness for a vandalized Robin costume we only saw for a few seconds that casual audience won't even understand the impact of?

I mean, DCEU isn't the end all be all. The way I see it, someone else could always bring him back if needed be.

Or just do it in another universe (I would prefer WB be open to the idea of multiverse and just allow different universes..and it seems that they are more open to it now). We already have a Titans TV show; HBO Max could easily do a Nightwing show based on his escapades throughout the world. Or maybe another standalone movie.

Many of my favorite comics are else worlds stuff - where writers have a bit more creative freedom..and that's how I see DCEU as well (or any other of the myriad interpretations). Take for instance: DCAU - I love it; among the best, however I am not a fan of how Timm treated Bats (too much of Bat god even there, but whatever) or Superman (came off as a muscle head lot of the times). But I still enjoy it since I see it as their version/interpretation of the character (My version will always exist in my own head canon ).

As for the moral ambiguity - I like it. It's different. Sure, I could read Watchmen or Boys...but I want to see some of my favorite characters in morally grey areas as well.

[Blind Wedjat]

The biggest issue I have with Snyder is that with regards to his takes on Superman and Batman, it seems to me that he spent more time thinking about how to make his Superman and Batman not the characters people would be familiar with, instead of spending the time to flesh his versions out as fully fledged characters of their own that can be at least a little more separated from the source material or other adaptations.

A great example of this is when Superman kills Zod. Whether or not Superman should use his powers to kill someone so long as he is protecting innocent people is not something either Jonathan Kent or Jor-El ever discuss with Superman. That theme is never brought up in the Man of Steel (a film that floats around many ideas). Yet, the film's climax tries to build tension with this with the moment just before Zod is killed, as if it was meant to be the emotional climax or resolution of that theme or idea. And when Superman does kill Zod, the moment is framed to be powerful with Superman's guttural scream expression the complex emotions of killing someone for the greater good. But given that killing someone is not something Man of Steel ever tried to discuss, what purpose does that scene and that moment serve other than to show the viewer that this version of Superman is willing to kill (especially in a brutal fashion)? Snyder's Superman has no consistent psychological makeup, no coherent ideology and no recognisable grounding through which the audience can see his perspective or his innate personality and that's because he's defined by what he isn't, instead of coming up with a new idea of what he is or could be in a modern context.

Batman has the exact same problem. Before he turns around as a character, Batman is shown to be incredibly violent and using excessive force, directly or indirectly killing many criminals. He's also disillusioned about his role as a just vigilante, which seems to be due to the death of Dick Grayson and the deaths caused by the Battle of Metropolis. The film frames this as shocking because it expects the audience to know that Batman isn't meant to be doing those things, but it doesn't spend enough time explaining and justifying why this version of Batman is at this point. We are never shown who this version of Batman was before he became disillusioned and violent and why his current mental state is a bad thing. Instead the film is relying on what you know Batman to be from the comics and other adaptations, and is then trying to shock you by showing this version of Batman is not those things.

I think that's why people say Zack Snyder doesn't like the comics. Obviously he likes comics since he adapts them a lot. But I think he does not see much value in the traditional role of what comics stand for and prefers the ones that sought out to deconstruct the traditional superhero narrative while still having a shallow understanding of those ones in the first place.

[manwhohaseverything]

A great example of this is when Superman kills Zod. Whether or not Superman should use his powers to kill someone so long as he is protecting innocent people is not something either Jonathan Kent or Jor-El ever discuss with Superman. That theme is never brought up in the Man of Steel (a film that floats around many ideas). Yet, the film's climax tries to build tension with this with the moment just before Zod is killed, as if it was meant to be the emotional climax or resolution of that theme or idea. And when Superman does kill Zod, the moment is framed to be powerful with Superman's guttural scream expression the complex emotions of killing someone for the greater good. But given that killing someone is not something Man of Steel ever tried to discuss, what purpose does that scene and that moment serve other than to show the viewer that this version of Superman is willing to kill (especially in a brutal fashion)? Snyder's Superman has no consistent psychological makeup, no coherent ideology and no recognisable grounding through which the audience can see his perspective or his innate personality and that's because he's defined by what he isn't, instead of coming up with a new idea of what he is or could be in a modern context.

Here we go again,Throughout the movie Jonathan kent has been espousing to take the outcome of an action into consideration,which is different from kantian "thou shall not kill". He let's his dad die. Zod is last of superman's people. Kal values life. That's why the scream is present. Also, superman has killed zod and many other guys in comics.

[Blind Wedjat]

Here we go again,Throughout the movie Jonathan kent has been espousing to take the outcome of an action into consideration,which is different from kantian "thou shall not kill". He let's his dad die. Zod is last of superman's people. Kal values life. That's why the scream is present. Also, superman has killed zod and many other guys in comics.

I was expecting this kind of response.

First of all, there is a whole big area between "you should be careful to not display your powers because the world may not react positively to your presence. even possibly if it is to save people in harm's way " and "should you use your powers to kill someone if they are going to hurt and kill everyone else?". They sound the same, but they are not. They both have the broad idea of personal responsibility, but they are completely different questions and topics that would take different actions.

For instance, I might learn how to fire a gun or learn self defence in order to be able to protect myself or others from harm. But it is a completely different topic if I should use those skills to kill someone who might be trying to harm other people. Thinking these two questions are the same of have the same kind of answers is why we have so many problems with America's police system. I'm sorry if that's too political for you but Man of Steel is a movie that tries to discuss morality and personal responsibility on a deep level and therefore I will treat it as such.

Jonathan Kent did not want Clark to show the world what he was capable of because he feared how the world would react to it, and thought the world would take his son away from him. He died believing in this and chose to die on that very hill in the first place. Not only was that not Clark's choice (the very first 20 mins of the film even show that Clark rejected his father's thinking), but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Clark should use his abilities to purposely end a life for the greater good.

To contrast, Jor-El believed and pushed Clark to embrace his true nature and reveal himself to the world as the Superman because he believed he could be a symbol of hope to the rest of the world. "An ideal to strive towards" as he put it. Again, not only was this not necessarily something Superman discovered by himself but it has nothing to do with whether it is his duty to end someone's life for a great good.

I find it funny that you say Clark values life. Didn't he destroy Krypton's unborn babies without hesitation in front of Zod? Does 'life' only mean human life? Does he ever try to reach a compromise with Zod or the other humans or does he just try to outpunch them instead? Clark saving people in a superhero movie doesn't make him special. It's about the 'why'. Why does he save people? Why does he want to save people? Man of Steel never answers those questions.

Lastly, I don't care if Superman has killed in the comics or other adaptations before. An adaptation should be able to stand on its own with its own narrative even if it borrows from source material or even other films. If you answer to Superman killing Zod is simply because he's done it in other media and not because Man of Steel gave you an answer to that question...well you see the problem. I don't have a problem with Superman killing Zod. I don't care. What I have a problem with is that scene having no set up and payoff because it comes out of nowhere, and I have a problem with it's obvious intention to show that this Superman can snap a guy's neck.

It's even more ridiculous when you consider that Zod being brought back as Doomsday has no thematic resonance or importance. Lex Luthor doesn't mention it and Superman doesn't react to it differently other than seeing a big giant monster that he has to outpunch again. If he has such a visceral reaction to killing Zod the first time, why doesn't he try approaching Doomsday in a different way? Why does it barely matter to him when he has to kill him for a second time. Why does it not matter? Because it never did in the first place.

[manwhohaseverything]

First of all, there is a whole big area between "you should be careful to not display your powers because the world may not react positively to your presence. even possibly if it is to save people in harm's way " and "should you use your powers to kill someone if they are going to hurt and kill everyone else?". They sound the same, but they are not. They both have the broad idea of personal responsibility, but they are completely different questions and topics that would take different actions.

Dude, there is an entire conversation in bvs with clark and Jonathan. There was no-foreshadowing because it wasn't meant to be. If protagonist had a semblance of idea he was going to kill someone and had any kind of conversation about it. The act would become predetermined,ergo a murder(something lex wanted clark to do) . Here, it isn't a murder. It's pure self defense where a man is put in a situation where he took a life protecting others. Did Jonathan kill the horses? No, but the horses died.All the deaths in Smallville, metropolis and kryptonIan(zod included) that happened because superman existed. Was it intended or his fault? No,superman exist. He has every right to. He is a person like you and me. It's not his fault that his nature is stronger than the structures that are meant to keep him and even chain him. You(like batman) could go ahead and say "slay the beast" seeing just the destruction . Would that be the right thing? Especially, if the beast at the end is a person with relationships a lover, a mother.. Etc. Bruce realises Clark's personhood. So he let's go and realises he had almost become the monster he fought. He will begin to realise the death of "beast" has unintended consequences as well. He might also see the good superman's existence brought.

Jor el's talk with superman has nothing to do with zod's death. It had everything to do with clark needing more reassurance and understanding of what he is, who he is and finally, why he is the way he is? Yeah! And god didn't do that to him. Jor-el gave him an ideal to focus his altruistic instinct on. He gave him conviction and a symbol. So, that he can make it his choice to help not just mere instinct. So, that he has something to strive towards. Rest of humanity will see him falling flat on his face and join him when he reaches the sky.

Yeah! Clark values life. He had to choose between a possibility and something real. He choose what's real. A possibility of life snd a life are two different thing. One is a person and the other is a thing. He couldn't let people die because zod wanted his krypton on earth. Again, this has been answered before. Why does superman save any life? Its altruistic instinct.it's a given Because, altruistic instinct is pretty much a given. Nobody needs a special motivation to give a person a helping hand. The movie itself says so with clark/lois convo. It wasn't a choice for clark,it was involuntary. What you need is a reason for not doing so and how to do so. Which is what Jonathan provides with his talk regarding hiding himself. Ma asks him to save people infront him, by aking his world smaller keeping the size of it in mind. Clark is naturally drawn to help people. He isn't a narcissistic jerk like tony nor a irresponsible kid with power like peter to need that motivation developed. Why does steve rogers want to enlist and jump on top of a grenade?was that explained? No, it wasn't. It doesn't need to be.

Why does this guy at the beginning save clark? Does an it need explanation? Saying you need it to be explained is saying there are no good men in this world. Clark nor steve need a reason to help.That's why these guys are special.They don't need advice from elders or a tragedy to knock themselves proper.

Finally, zod is brought back as doomsday. Why? Because in mos, zod had almost become the monster doomsday by the end of man of steel. It wasn't in outward appearance, that's it. He wasn't killing because he was having fun.he had become a purposeless nihilistic shell that wants to end humanity. Because of that he had a semblance of morality or "humanity" still left.Which is also signified by the his outward appearance. Such destructive nature doesn't die. So the shell of zod still remained and with lex's own blood. It gained a new grotesque form leaving any "personhood" behind. Clark didn't kill doomsday. To kill something it needs to be alive. Doomsday is destructive nature incarnate. It's like saying superman should mourn stopping a tornado.Doomsday though taken from hulk, Isn't hulk. Hulk is a person.

[Blind Wedjat]

Dude, there is an entire conversation in bvs with clark and Jonathan. There was no-foreshadowing because it wasn't meant to be. If protagonist had a semblance of idea he was going to kill someone and had any kind of conversation about it. The act would become predetermined,ergo a murder(something lex wanted clark to do) . Here, it isn't a murder. It's pure self defense where a man is put in a situation where he took a life protecting others. Did Jonathan kill the horses? No, but the horses died.All the deaths in Smallville, metropolis and kryptonIan(zod included) that happened because superman existed. Was it intended or his fault? No,superman exist. He has every right to. He is a person like you and me. It's not his fault that his nature is stronger than the structures that are meant to keep him and even chain him. You(like batman) could go ahead and say "slay the beast" seeing just the destruction . Would that be the right thing? Especially, if the beast at the end is a person with relationships a lover, a mother.. Etc. Bruce realises Clark's personhood. So he let's go and realises he had almost become the monster he fought. He will begin to realise the death of "beast" has unintended consequences as well. He might also see the good superman's existence brought.

I'm...not even sure what your point is here?

Whatever conversation Clark and Jonathan had in BvS does not retroactively change whatever conversation they didn't have in MoS. That's not how good storytelling works. If a sequel was needed to justify what happened in a previous movie, then said previous movie failed in communicating this message. At least that's what I think you're getting at, right? That the conversation about the horses that died because of what Jonathan did one time is somehow a justification for why he killed Zod (which, again, I do not have a problem with in theory). Except that's not what that scene was even about? It was referencing the bomb killing those people at the Senate hearing, which is why Superman goes to the mountains in the first place.

Also, what? Characters talking about whether or not they should kill to protect people isn't murder. That is such a huge leap for you to take and that's not how premeditation of murder even works. What are you honestly talk about here?

Jor el's talk with superman has nothing to do with zod's death. It had everything to do with clark needing more reassurance and understanding of what he is, who he is and finally, why he is the way he is? Yeah! And god didn't do that to him. Jor-el gave him an ideal to focus his altruistic instinct on. He gave him conviction and a symbol. So, that he can make it his choice to help not just mere instinct. So, that he has something to strive towards. Rest of humanity will see him falling flat on his face and join him when he reaches the sky.

We agree on this so, what exactly are you trying to say here? I don't need a detailed explanation of what Jor-El did. I get it.

Yeah! Clark values life. He had to choose between a possibility and something real. He choose what's real. A possibility of life snd a life are two different thing. One is a person and the other is a thing. He couldn't let people die because zod wanted his krypton on earth. Again, this has been answered before. Why does superman save any life? Its altruistic instinct.it's a given Because, altruistic instinct is pretty much a given. Nobody needs a special motivation to give a person a helping hand. The movie itself says so with clark/lois convo. It wasn't a choice for clark,it was involuntary. What you need is a reason for not doing so and how to do so. Which is what Jonathan provides with his talk regarding hiding himself. Ma asks him to save people infront him, by aking his world smaller keeping the size of it in mind. Clark is naturally drawn to help people. He isn't a narcissistic jerk like tony nor a irresponsible kid with power like peter to need that motivation developed. Why does steve rogers want to enlist and jump on top of a grenade?was that explained? No, it wasn't. It doesn't need to be.

Why does this guy at the beginning save clark? Does an it need explanation? Saying you need it to be explained is saying there are no good men in this world. Clark nor steve need a reason to help.That's why these guys are special.They don't need advice from elders or a tragedy to knock themselves proper.

As you have admitted yourself, Superman does not have a reason why he does what he does. As you have admitted yourself, it is Jor-El that convinces him to become Superman. You know what that makes Superman? An extremely passive character, and I have a right to criticise just how passive he is. Passive characters aren't inherently bad and it doesn't mean passive characters don't ever do things. What it means is that passive characters are driven along by the plot and are forced to act because of how the story changes. To contrast, active characters make choices that affect the plot. Superman's passivity is to a point that he is unrelatable to me.

Take Iron Man for example. Tony Stark is a great active character because his decisions to build his own armour and escape captivity, end his weapons selling division and become Iron Man affect the plot of the film. By contrast, Superman only reveals himself because Zod already told the world he existed. Even though it's at the end of the film, Tony revealing himself to be Iron Man isn't something he's forced to do, it's something he chooses to do even when told otherwise. By contrast again, whatever narrative tension Man of Steel was going to have with Superman "answering the call" is because we already know within the first 20 minutes that he will save people. That's my point.

His passivity is even worse in BvS, not only because he falls victim to Lex's machinations but he does not even try to sway the public's opinion one bit. He himself admits he does not even care about what is said about him (even though he constantly looks upset about it). Him trying to investigate Batman's brutal streak doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things because he's forced to confront Batman for a completely different reason. There's a reason why Superman having such little lines of dialogue is a problem in that movie.

If Superman only saves people because it's what Jor-El believed he was capable of, and its simply because he can do it, then it comes across more as a burden than a choice (and he acts like it is). That's completely different from Captain America, who went out of his way to do everything possible to get enlisted because he wanted to serve his country, even though he was physically incapable of doing so. It's by constantly trying to get enlisted that Dr Erskine was able to notice him and gave him a chance because he thought he possessed the innate qualities that will allow the SSS experiment to be a success. Steve may have had Captain America thrust upon him, but he actively sought out to do the things Captain America would do, he was worthy of the mantle. Superman on the other hand, only sought out to discover who he was, and then Jor-El convinces him to be a hero afterwards.

Finally, zod is brought back as doomsday. Why? Because in mos, zod had almost become the monster doomsday by the end of man of steel. It wasn't in outward appearance, that's it. He wasn't killing because he was having fun.he had become a purposeless nihilistic shell that wants to end humanity. Because of that he had a semblance of morality or "humanity" still left.Which is also signified by the his outward appearance. Such destructive nature doesn't die. So the shell of zod still remained and with lex's own blood. It gained a new grotesque form leaving any "personhood" behind. Clark didn't kill doomsday. To kill something it needs to be alive. Doomsday is destructive nature incarnate. It's like saying superman should mourn stopping a tornado.Doomsday though taken from hulk, Isn't hulk. Hulk is a person.

None of this address my point though. If Superman had such a visceral reaction to killing Zod, an act he was forced into and seemingly immediately regretted it, then why does he not try to avoid doing it again? What narrative purpose does Doomsday serve other than to kill Superman because it's an iconic thing that happened? What themes does Doomsday reflect in BvS? BvS is about whether or not Superman should be allowed to act unilaterally. Both Lex and Batman hate Superman because he's too powerful and they think he's too dangerous. Lex Luthor especially hates him because he likens him to God, and God didn't stop his father from abusing him, which means Superman despite all his power does not protect the weak. And Batman hated him because he felt he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds/thousands including his own employees. The presence or use of Doomsday do not reinforce those ideas. If the world needs to be convinced that Superman is too dangerous, then why is Doomsday needed to kill him? Wouldn't a raging monster that Superman is trying to protect the world from prove that he's a necessary force of good? If Lex believes Superman cannot protect those who are weak, then wouldn't Superman fighting off Doomsday prove that he's trying to?

[Pinsir]

I have not been here a long time, but hearing Dick Grayson is already killed in the DCEU only gives me despair. He was the first of the next generation of superheroes. He carries the hope of that generation as the first sidekick. By killing him, you are removing the legacy he did and inspired as a result. I can not see any reason to remove him than add another shadow in an already dark world.

I want to ask Snyder fans how could you say you love DC and superheroes as a whole when you approve Snyder removing the optimism, hope and love inherent to its core. If I want to watch moral ambiguity, I would watch Watchmen or The Boys. The strength of superheroes have always been in the belief of what is good and that no matter what happens, in the end, good will always vanquish evil. Call me naive or a child; that I should grow up and put on my big boy pants. But is it greater to close one's heart and survive or go on fighting for what is right even if you know it is impossible to win?

Dick Grayson was the embodiment of this. He fought for what is right in every stage of his life. Whether he was Robin, Nightwing, Batman or Agent 37. He never gave up on people even when he was betrayed numerous times. He lead and taught the people around him to be the best of themselves. He taught them the best lessons Batman taught him, the lessons that mattered. He showed everyone what the Batman symbol represent better than Bruce Wayne himself. You know that Ace scene in DCAU, one of the best moments of Batman. That is Dick Grayson everyday since he was Robin until now. Why throw such greatness for a vandalized Robin costume we only saw for a few seconds that casual audience won't even understand the impact of?

This is a pretty toxic statement. Why do anti-Snyder people often claim Snyder folk aren't true DC fans? Not only that, but you have to strawmen them too. The idea that these films are morally ambiguous is silly nor are these hopeless films.

[Agent Z]

I'm...not even sure what your point is here?

Whatever conversation Clark and Jonathan had in BvS does not retroactively change whatever conversation they didn't have in MoS. That's not how good storytelling works. If a sequel was needed to justify what happened in a previous movie, then said previous movie failed in communicating this message. At least that's what I think you're getting at, right? That the conversation about the horses that died because of what Jonathan did one time is somehow a justification for why he killed Zod (which, again, I do not have a problem with in theory). Except that's not what that scene was even about? It was referencing the bomb killing those people at the Senate hearing, which is why Superman goes to the mountains in the first place.

Also, what? Characters talking about whether or not they should kill to protect people isn't murder. That is such a huge leap for you to take and that's not how premeditation of murder even works. What are you honestly talk about here?



We agree on this so, what exactly are you trying to say here? I don't need a detailed explanation of what Jor-El did. I get it.



As you have admitted yourself, Superman does not have a reason why he does what he does. As you have admitted yourself, it is Jor-El that convinces him to become Superman. You know what that makes Superman? An extremely passive character, and I have a right to criticise just how passive he is. Passive characters aren't inherently bad and it doesn't mean passive characters don't ever do things. What it means is that passive characters are driven along by the plot and are forced to act because of how the story changes. To contrast, active characters make choices that affect the plot. Superman's passivity is to a point that he is unrelatable to me.

Take Iron Man for example. Tony Stark is a great active character because his decisions to build his own armour and escape captivity, end his weapons selling division and become Iron Man affect the plot of the film. By contrast, Superman only reveals himself because Zod already told the world he existed. Even though it's at the end of the film, Tony revealing himself to be Iron Man isn't something he's forced to do, it's something he chooses to do even when told otherwise. By contrast again, whatever narrative tension Man of Steel was going to have with Superman "answering the call" is because we already know within the first 20 minutes that he will save people. That's my point.

His passivity is even worse in BvS, not only because he falls victim to Lex's machinations but he does not even try to sway the public's opinion one bit. He himself admits he does not even care about what is said about him (even though he constantly looks upset about it). Him trying to investigate Batman's brutal streak doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things because he's forced to confront Batman for a completely different reason. There's a reason why Superman having such little lines of dialogue is a problem in that movie.

If Superman only saves people because it's what Jor-El believed he was capable of, and its simply because he can do it, then it comes across more as a burden than a choice (and he acts like it is). That's completely different from Captain America, who went out of his way to do everything possible to get enlisted because he wanted to serve his country, even though he was physically incapable of doing so. It's by constantly trying to get enlisted that Dr Erskine was able to notice him and gave him a chance because he thought he possessed the innate qualities that will allow the SSS experiment to be a success. Steve may have had Captain America thrust upon him, but he actively sought out to do the things Captain America would do, he was worthy of the mantle. Superman on the other hand, only sought out to discover who he was, and then Jor-El convinces him to be a hero afterwards.



None of this address my point though. If Superman had such a visceral reaction to killing Zod, an act he was forced into and seemingly immediately regretted it, then why does he not try to avoid doing it again? What narrative purpose does Doomsday serve other than to kill Superman because it's an iconic thing that happened? What themes does Doomsday reflect in BvS? BvS is about whether or not Superman should be allowed to act unilaterally. Both Lex and Batman hate Superman because he's too powerful and they think he's too dangerous. Lex Luthor especially hates him because he likens him to God, and God didn't stop his father from abusing him, which means Superman despite all his power does not protect the weak. And Batman hated him because he felt he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds/thousands including his own employees. The presence or use of Doomsday do not reinforce those ideas. If the world needs to be convinced that Superman is too dangerous, then why is Doomsday needed to kill him? Wouldn't a raging monster that Superman is trying to protect the world from prove that he's a necessary force of good? If Lex believes Superman cannot protect those who are weak, then wouldn't Superman fighting off Doomsday prove that he's trying to?

Clark was saving people before he even met Jor El and that had nothing to do with his heroism. The Superman has only a few lines thing is also hyperbolic. Same with claiming that he is passive when we see him actively seek out answers to his life, confront Zod, oppose Luthor etc. A character not being able to read the script is not the same thing as being passive. Clark isn't aware anyone is trying to frame him at first in bvs and he does care about what people think despite telling Lois otherwise (which he only said to make her feel better after the incident with the war lord).

Lex is a hypocritical nut case who is projecting his problems onto Superman. As is often the case with that character.

Quite frankly, the demonising this Superman gets is why it's so difficult to have anything remotely resembling an honest conversation about him.

[Blind Wedjat]

Clark was saving people before he even met Jor El and that had nothing to do with his heroism. The Superman has only a few lines thing is also hyperbolic.

The fact that Clark was already saving people before he met Jor-El or before Man of Steel reached the "answering the call" part in its 'Hero's Journey' is exactly why the film has no narrative tension. We never see how and why Superman made the personal choice to become a hero, despite the film obviously trying to use that story arc.

I'm not sure why you're calling what I said about Superman's few lines in BvS hyperbolic when it is in fact the truth. He had much fewer lines than Bruce Wayne and I think even Lex, despite his name being in the title and being a main character in the film. Plus, I bring it up because its an example of his passiveness in the film. Superman is criticised or defamed in the media multiple times in BvS. Whenever that happens, he just looks at the TV screen upset. Why couldn't scenes be written where he goes and talks to journalists on the streets or just about anyone about who he is, what he wants, what his goals are and why he's a good person? That's what active characters do, and while I'm not even a fan of the character, isn't that a very classic Superman thing to do? Instead we get a montage of him saving people in slow motion without him talking. All trying to show I'm supposed to be in awe of him instead of like him. The film goes on and on about who Superman is but none of that comes from the Superman himself. That isn't great writing in my opinion.

The one opportunity he was given to speak, he doesn't because the script decided the bomb should go off before he does. Before he can say anything to all of those who have just witnessed a terrorist attack, he doesn't say anything either and flies off. When he sees his father in the mountains, he doesn't say anything to him. When he goes to fight Batman, he spends more time shoving him around and issuing threats to end his life, than trying to tell him his mother has been kidnapped and they're being manipulated. He doesn't talk. At all.

Same with claiming that he is passive when we see him actively seek out answers to his life, confront Zod, oppose Luthor etc. A character not being able to read the script is not the same thing as being passive. Clark isn't aware anyone is trying to frame him at first in bvs and he does care about what people think despite telling Lois otherwise (which he only said to make her feel better after the incident with the war lord).

Please re-read:

Passive characters aren't inherently bad and it doesn't mean passive characters don't ever do things. What it means is that passive characters are driven along by the plot and are forced to act because of how the story changes. To contrast, active characters make choices that affect the plot.

Clark doing all of those things doesn't move the plot forward. He only responds to revealing himself as Superman because Zod revealed he was on Earth. He only becomes Superman not because it was a choice he made and believed the world needed him, but because Zor-El told him he could be that (with a ready-made suit to finish). He only confronts Batman because he was manipulated by Lex into doing it. The most active thing he does is investigate Batman, yet that doesn't matter because it's not why they have a major confrontation in the first place. His actions don't have consequences that move the plot forward. Hence, he's a passive character, and needlessly so at that.

In comparison, Spider-Man is usually written as an active character in film. The Raimi and Webb films show that Ben Parker died because of Peter's choices. His death is why he decides to become Spider-Man and it moves the plot forward. Action -> Consequence -> Reaction -> New Plot Point. Homecoming is a recent example of this. Peter's decision to constantly go after the Vulture tests his relationship with Tony Stark and with Liz who he likes. Going after him is why the ferry gets torn in half, why he loses the suit, leaves Liz at Homecoming night (after she admitted she liked him), nearly dies, nearly dies a second time, and why Liz has to move away because he successful captures the Vulture in the end. That's what being an active character is.

Again, passive characters aren't inherently bad. But its another thing when the plot and story of a film has to be bend over backwards and makes no sense because the protagonist is being needlessly passive to make it work.

Quite frankly, the demonising this Superman gets is why it's so difficult to have anything remotely resembling an honest conversation about him.

What makes the discussion difficult are people who assume that anyone with their own criticism doesn't know the source material enough, doesn't get the intentions of the films or has an agenda as to why they're critiquing it.

[phonogram12]

What makes the discussion difficult are people who assume that anyone with their own criticism doesn't know the source material enough, doesn't get the intentions of the films or has an agenda as to why they're critiquing it.

[Amadeus Arkham]

Listening to the Man Of Steel commentary Snyder did before he announced the Snyder Cut, I’m left with the impression he understands Superman well enough but the issue it seems that Snyder tried to make Superman relatable by having him constantly conflicted, but for myself, Superman was already relatable by just being from a small town person with loving parents. There are comics were he’s just connecting with people, and just being a compassionate person and I identify with that far more than the angsty self-pitying outcast Snyder turned him into.

[Dboi2001]

I don't know that I would have liked a Feige Batman-Superman movie, but he got results. You don't have to like the MCU, but this reeks of sour grapes. Who cares that you think Civil War is overrated? I do too, but the vast majority of people don't.

What do you mean by got results? You mean won over critics and brought in a billion dollars for disney? I don't buy your argument based on popularity. Just because people liked it and made a lot of money doesn't make it better. Batman Forever made more money than Batman Returns you know

Yes they did more with less, unless you are seriously thinking that the Avengers were as well known and beloved as Superman and Batman even among people who had never once picked up a comic book before the movies. Because I'd have to call foul on that. Don't pretend that anyone in the casual audience seriously cared about Iron-Man or Captain America before the movies, especially as superheroes as a whole genre weren't as popular then.

And how many people cared about the Flash or Aquaman? I consider most of the Avengers to be in the same tier as Aquaman or Flash or maybe even Green Lantern. And so what if they did more with less. Fox completely butchered their X Men cash cow and Sony dropped the ball twice with Spider-Man and are still dropping it with Marvel in the MCU. Big name heroes don't equal good movies hence why every fantastic four movie has been garbage. Spider-Man joining the MCU was suppose to be a game changer but instead has been a huge waste and no I do not care if it has 90 percent on rotten tomatoes or made a billion dollars

EDIT: I’d say that it’s easier to make a good movie off an unknown property because people don’t have presuppositions about what the character should be. If James Gunn had Batman be a childish outlaw who loves 80s pop he’d be ripped to shreds

When did you ask me about him not understanding Batman because he killed Dick? Though killing off Dick before we even get a chance to meet this version and grow attached is relying on the reputations and iconography of the characters to get people to care instead of doing the work to make us care about these versions. Nobody cared about this Batman beyond liking a flashy fight scene because we didn't know him before he was a psycho: we were told, not shown. And people can say Batman had been similarly ruthless in some comics all they want, it doesn't matter because the comics reading crowd is a niche group and this Batman didn't go over well with the casuals either. Because they had Adam West, BTAS and Nolan, not TDKR.

Im sorry but that is patronizing and outright wrong. Most people did like Ben Affleck as Batman and have been pushing for his return. What made him interesting was how he was a broken man unlike the in his prime Batman we see all the time it was a breath of fresh air especially since there was only a 4 year gap between BvS and TDKR. Like people thought it was excessive for Sony to reboot Spider-Man after 5 years. Why do we need another Batman origin story? And we aren't meant to feel bad for Dick but understand how Batman's mind has deteriorated so much. It really doesn't matter if the dead Robin is Dick, Jason, Tim, Stephanie, Damian or even Carrie. but it doesnt even matter because WB already announced a Nightwing movie

EDIT: I apologize for thinking I asked you about Dick Grayson. Admittedly I get mixed up a lot in this thread.

Please don't say this and then later turn around and say that WB/DC never wanted a shared universe. Because of course they were all over the place, but I don't wanna hear anymore how they never planned a shared universe. Obviously some of them did.

We can't fully trust anything any of them say.

If they did have a plan they did a real garbage job at planning it and instead decided to chase trends. They see Guardians is a hit they re edit Suicide Squad to copy James Gunn then promptly hire him, they see Deadpool make a lot of money they make Harley Quinn the movie featuring the birds of prey and as much as i liked Shazam I doubt it would've happened without Ant-Man