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

[charliehustle415]

This is why.

https://bleedingcool.com/movies/just...ins-loose-end/

Why kill off a potential film franchise of a super popular character?

Just like poor Jimmy.

[manwhohaseverything]

This is why.

https://bleedingcool.com/movies/just...ins-loose-end/

Why kill off a potential film franchise of a super popular character?

Just like poor Jimmy.

Why not? It's story telling, Not popularity contest. Moreover, corporate focusing/changing story because of marketing benefits rather than story itself . Fantastic way to make these characters into nothing but products.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Why not? It's story telling, Not popularity contest. Moreover, corporate focusing/changing story because of marketing benefits rather than story itself . Fantastic way to make these characters into nothing but products.

It's respectful of any future directors who might want to use the characters and allows others to use them, instead Snyder took Jimmy off the board completely. He didn't have to kill him, he could have simply put him as a cameo, or not put him in there or made up a new character to be killed. That takes away world building for future movies.

Snyder's job was embedded in marketing, which is part of what doing licensed movies is about. He was making films about iconic super-heroes he wasn't doing an indy film in his basement. Snyder's been in corporate since he took jobs for corporations, like WB. He's built his career working with corporations.

[manwhohaseverything]

It's respectful of any future directors who might want to use the characters and allows others to use them, instead Snyder took Jimmy off the board completely. He didn't have to kill him, he could have simply put him as a cameo, or not put him in there or made up a new character to be killed. That takes away world building for future movies.

Snyder's job was embedded in marketing, which is part of what doing licensed movies is about. He was making films about iconic super-heroes he wasn't doing an indy film in his basement. Snyder's been in corporate since he took jobs for corporations, like WB. He's built his career working with corporations.

Riiiight, this kind of soap opera storytelling without stakes is what moore was against. No wonder the guy says comics industry doesn't produce stories of worth. They just launch products and brands. Snyder is director, Not a product manager. He tells stories.

[godisawesome]

This is why.

https://bleedingcool.com/movies/just...ins-loose-end/

Why kill off a potential film franchise of a super popular character?

Just like poor Jimmy.

Why not? It's story telling, Not popularity contest. Moreover, corporate focusing/changing story because of marketing benefits rather than story itself . Fantastic way to make these characters into nothing but products.

I think the thing is that there’s not really *any* benefit to having only one Robin, killing him off in the backstory, and then only referencing that in an Easter-egg way rather than trying to make it an explicit part of the story... unless you’re someone operating under the delusion that Robin is a liability, which is sadly what I think this really is.

Creatively *and* marketing wise, you’d want to go all-in on any Robin reference you have for future stories, whether in spin-offs down the line, possible antagonists to use later, or as harrowing personal background that the film can make incredibly important to Batman’s characterization.

Instead, Snyder has a wordless, contextless scene showing a darkened-to-the-point of near anonymity Robin suit with graffiti on it that Bruce looks at once, then gets mentioned in a blink and you miss it trivia factoid in Suicide Squad for Harley... and that’s it.

I don’t think this was about making a decision about Dick Grayson; this was probably more about trying to deny anything major involving the Robin IP, period, in the DCEU, likely out of some combination of Snyder thinking Robin as a concept is hokey and WB possibly applying the wrong lesson from the Schumacher films about the character. And I think they treated it largely as a concept out of fear it was a liability; at minimum, if they thought about him as an asset even in death, he’d be worth at least one monologue or exposition dump by someone in the film to tie directly into Batman going bad by emphasizing how Bruce has lost a son.

And what makes this seem exceptionally foolish from a corporate perspective is the value that the Robin IP has in all the other products, and in comparison to DC’s rival, Marvel. The cartoons, video games, live action series, and comics have kept that IP in publication every decade since Batmna has appeared... because that IP, at least initially, was more well-known and valuable than well over half the IP’s that DC and Marvel have then made movies about.

Hell, Swamp Thing has two movies, two TV shows, and an Injusice appearance... and Robin’s still easily much more recognizable to the lay-person.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Riiiight, this kind of soap opera storytelling without stakes is what moore was against. No wonder the guy says comics industry doesn't produce stories of worth. They just launch products and brands. Snyder is director, Not a product manager. He tells stories.

They can have stakes without killing characters Snyder hates, Moore has nothing to do with what Snyder does. Snyder is as corporate as any director for WB or the writers in the comics, which is very. The stories and the characters in it are not only art they are brands and Snyder was the product manager for the DCEU. He set the tone and direction for everything for years. Snyder's far deeper into the corporate machine than Moore ever was.

[Robanker]

Riiiight, this kind of soap opera storytelling without stakes is what moore was against. No wonder the guy says comics industry doesn't produce stories of worth. They just launch products and brands. Snyder is director, Not a product manager. He tells stories.

He was hired to launch a cinematic universe, not just tell a story and peace out. The terms were different. He took Nightwing and the extended Bat family (all of which track with younger fans) off the board for a minor but of context that proved entirely unnecessary. It's not the clear, central motivation for Bruce breaking bad. He doesn't deal with it at all. It's just something that happened. He doesn't confide in Alfred. Or Diana. Or anyone. He doesn't bring it up, it because has any consequences except "oh maybe that's why he's a dick."

Except they also push the idea that after doing this for so long, the catch-release nature of Batman made him give up.

Dick dying adds nothing substantial because Snyder chose not to develop it at all. Like Jimmy, it's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it snuff job. If they actually did something with it, sure. It's a story. But it means nothing. Clark doesn't deal with his pal dying at all, hell they don't even seem to know each other, so what's even the point? There's no stakes to it. No consequences. This is another reason Snyder isn't a very intelligent director. He throws shit in there and hopes real hard that you can get something from it despite him refusing to actually tell a story.

And no, it's not about needing to spell shit out for the plebs. He doesn't actually tell those stories or set up those payoffs. He's a child on the playground telling a story poorly, quickly and throwing in "oh and then Robin died but like then this happens..." "Oh and that one guy was like Jimmy Olsen which is totes a big deal but like let's keep moving"

It's like he filmed an outline and rolled with it.


That's just bad business and worse directing.

[The Darknight Detective]

Sounds like people here have more of a problem with WB than Snyder himself. It's not like the management at the studio couldn't have said "You can do this, but not that!" (as has been the case with other directors for a hundred years).

[Last Son of Krypton]

WB had a Nightwing movie in development back then. It's not like Snyder's headcanon was always meant going somewhere. Like Commissioner Gordon supposed being dead (BvS script).

[Steel Inquisitor]

Sounds like people here have more of a problem with WB than Snyder himself. It's not like the management at the studio couldn't have said "You can do this, but not that!" (as has been the case with other directors for a hundred years).

WB's executives share the blame, but Snyder's not a bystander behind the scenes. He came up with bad decisions, like killing Jimmy and Robin, they just approved them. Snyder himself is part of management.

[The Darknight Detective]

WB's executives share the blame, but Snyder's not a bystander behind the scenes. He came up with bad decisions, like killing Jimmy and Robin, they just approved them. Snyder himself is part of management.

WB was at the top of the management chain, not Snyder. They could have said no to anything they didn't like. Even if Snyder had it down contractually that he had the last word on everything, it still would have been WB's fault for signing it in the first place. I mean, box office-wise, he's not a DeMille or Spielberg.

[manwhohaseverything]

Snyder wasn't about launching a cinematic universe. He was about, making a superman story.

[SiegePerilous02]

It sounds like the right hand had no idea what the left was doing.

Snyder seemed to want a more self contained five film arc, WB wanted to launch a shared universe. No wonder it was a mess.

Though like Robanker laid out, it's not as if the Robin and Jimmy Olsen bits had any depth in the final product anyway.

[manwhohaseverything]

It sounds like the right hand had no idea what the left was doing.

Snyder seemed to want a more self contained five film arc, WB wanted to launch a shared universe. No wonder it was a mess.

Though like Robanker laid out, it's not as if the Robin and Jimmy Olsen bits had any depth in the final product anyway.

Jimmy bit might not. Robin bit does have serious impact on bruce's psyche. It made his hunt for superman that much personal. I heard its going to be a plot point in jl as well. There was also a rumours of bruce being killed in the end of the story.So, its not like snyder had trouble kill "head liners".

[Cyberstrike]

It was. Regardless of who made it. After having seen four Snyder films (five if we count the ultimate edition), which is roughly ten hours of his work, I can say with some confidence that he's not a very intelligent director. He makes a lot of statements that are deep on the surface and very shallow when examined. He's a popcorn director with greater aspirations but without the ability to pull it off. He can do good work with the right people reigning him in, but DC was not a good fit for his take.

You can disagree and defend your points, but once we start accusing others of being drones and guilty of petty bias, this leaves discussion and becomes an immature case of white knighting.

Let's be adults. Please.

Disagreeing with your opinion doesn't make anyone a "mindless hater."

There is a Youtube film critic named Bob Chipman who opens admits that he's huge Zack Snyder fan and defended some of his earlier work, but felt BvS was one the worst films of a generation and did a lot of harm to Superman and Batman not only as characters, but as pop culture icons. He did a 3 part video essay that runs about 3.5 hours combined pretty much taking Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (both the theatrical and the ultimate cuts) apart.

So pretty much if you want to understand why some people, like me, feel that BvS and Zack Snyder ruined the DCEU, then I would recommend watching it.