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

[Dboi2001]

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

[Mider2009]

Never heard many people down Snyder or say he doesn’t respect comics.

[Noodle]

Some don't like his interpretation of the characters he uses. But other than that I've never seen anyone say he dislikes comics as a medium or on the whole.

[K. Jones]

I definitely think dude respects comics.

I just think he really respects the Frank Miller ouvre and that's not what I want to see get translated to film as the "main DCCU series". Like, what he's translated so far is from the 80s. And pretty much only from the 80s. Unless you count Shaggy Aquaman which is from the early 90s.

I'd be more than happy with the Frank Miller style stuff being made into movies that aren't the main thing.

[godisawesome]

Yeah, I think his respect for comics is known, it’s just that his taste is somewhat off-putting to people.

I think MOS was a genuinely good Superman movie in part because he lucked into having David Goyer have a good day when writing the script made plot for the story; Goyer’s more inconsistent than I’d like, and he’s definitely got a few weaknesses, but I think he added a more solid and straightforward framework to Snyder’s own vision, which I think seems more likely to wander and meander non-commitally. BvS can’t quite figure out exactly what it wants to do with its two main characters, and it and JL were pretty bloated and sprawling when they arguably required more focus to best exploit a larger cast in both cases.

[Dboi2001]

well i have and even made a reddit post. some people were saying he respects comics while others were saying he didn’t and when i presses them on other issues like how marvel mocks superheroes like antman and the guardians he said they were jsut jokes

[SiegePerilous02]

I think he has a clear love for comics and is making the movies he wants to make. It's just that the comics he prefers and the interpretations he puts out there don't land with everyone and are not suited to broad mass market appeal. They'd be better suited for smaller experimental projects.

[Will Evans]

This explains it about Snyder and DC Comics:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IIfxrpWEDLc

[Ilan Preskovsky]

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.

[Robanker]

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.

[hareluyafan1]

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

[SiegePerilous02]

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.

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.

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.

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

[Will Evans]

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.