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

[Steel Inquisitor]

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

Acclaimed by professional critics and audiences alike and got the money Snyder never could. DC wouldn't get a movie to hit a billion until Snyder left, and he made a movie with Batman Superman and Wonder Woman in it.

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

You'd be wrong, the MCU changed them into super stars. Spider-man joining the MCU has been a massive hit, that's why Sony and Marvel are continuing the relationship. Fox is mixed with X-men, but overall they had great success. It was a franchise that lasted 20 years! Right, there's more to having big names and who the characters are except that's not why the MCU is a success, they've managed to do it all.

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

Nope, people love brands. James Gunn knows his limits, unlike Snyder. And there's far more going on than simply people being upset about how Snyder wrote the characters.

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

They liked Affleck's performance, his Batman was controversial which is why they rebooted him into traditional Batman right after B vs S. The problem with Snyder's batman is that he has an interesting backstory and it never goes into because he didn't get a solo film first and we're supposed to know something happened and something didn't and the movies never explore or confirm anything after B vs S. B vs S may as well be out of continuity after it ended, in its theatrical form. The audience won't care how Batman feels about Dick's death if they don't know who Dick is. WB announces lots of movies, not all of them are guaranteed to happen they're not consistent like Marvel is.

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

That's what they've been doing since day one. They anted the Avengers cash so they decided to not fo the set up and expect everyone to show up and applaud them and they add on controversial takes on characters. That's what all studios do and what they are doing with Snyder at the helm. B vs S was DCEU Civil War.

[Dboi2001]

Acclaimed by professional critics and audiences alike and got the money Snyder never could. DC wouldn't get a movie to hit a billion until Snyder left, and he made a movie with Batman Superman and Wonder Woman in it.

This again? Ok let's go over Marvel's first 6 movies

Iron Man - $585,366,247

The Incredible Hulk - $264,770,996

Iron Man 2 - $623,933,331

Captain America The First Avenger - $$370,569,774

Thor - $449,326,618

Avengers - $1,518,812,988

Total - 3.7 billion

Now let's look at DCEU

Man of Steel - $668,045,518

Batman vs Superman Dawn of Justice - $873,634,919

Suicide Squad - $746,846,894

Wonder Woman - $821,847,012

Justice League - $657,924,295

Shazam! - $365,971,656

Total - 4.2 billion

Funny how the movie WB tried to un-Snyderize made less than MoS despite being the magnum opus. And you realize Snyder was a producer for Aquaman and worked with Wan in pre production right? In fact Wan based Aquaman off the Snyder cut hence why Aquaman and Mera are not familiar with each other and also wrote the story for Wonder Woman

You'd be wrong, the MCU changed them into super stars. Spider-man joining the MCU has been a massive hit, that's why Sony and Marvel are continuing the relationship. Fox is mixed with X-men, but overall they had great success. It was a franchise that lasted 20 years! Right, there's more to having big names and who the characters are except that's not why the MCU is a success, they've managed to do it all.

Really? You think general audiences cared about Aquaman or the Flash or even Green Lantern? Remember the Avengers were once Marvel's All Star team like the JL. I had friends who asked why green lantern was white in the Ryan Reynolds movie and they were superhero fans but since their only exposure was the animated Justice League with John Stewart they assumed he was the main Green Lantern. I wouldn't call Aquaman or Flash or really even Wonder Woman super stars. honestly Wonder Woman is more of a feminist icon than a superhero one (which is ironic since her original weakness was being tied by men causes her to lose her powers)

To general audiences who eat up anything MCU and the investors in Sony and marvel sure Spider-Man has been a success but to people who actually care about Spider-Man it has been a disgrace. I don't care if Homecoming or FFH made a billion dollars Transformers also made a billion dollars too their take on Spider-man has been atrocious which I explained in another thread

That is why I said Fox butchered their cash cow. They peaked with DoFP and followed up with a disappointing Apocalypse and the absolute cinematic bomb of Dark Phoenix and New Mutants has been delayed since forever. Oh and btw despite the X Men being the flagship marvel team for years none of the xmen movies made over a billion dollars even the good ones like DoFP and Logan. So please explain why the XMen franchise never made a billion dollars despite being Marvel's flag ship team and having superstars like Wolverine or Cyclops? Problem is China never clicked with them unlike the MCU hence why marvel has done everything to appease China like making the Ancient One white instead of Tibetan or hiding the fact Black Panther is african in all their promotional material and would you look at that we are getting a movie based on Shang Chi you know the iconic legend of marvel? Moon Knight? Ghost Rider? Blade? Nah everyone is clamoring for Shang Chi a character born in the People's Republic of China (seriously 20 dollars says if Shang Chi does well WB announces a "New Super-Man" movie). The highest grossing movie with any relation to the XMen was Deadpool and now we may not even get Deadpool 3 since Disney wants it PG13 and Reynolds refuses to do it (which would be hilarious if he does come back to Green Lantern if the rumors are true)

And again Fox has completely flopped on fantastic four 3 times despite being marvel’s first family and icons

Nope, people love brands. James Gunn knows his limits, unlike Snyder. And there's far more going on than simply people being upset about how Snyder wrote the characters.

Yeah and if it doesn't meet their expectations they will lose it. People were upset that Superman didn't "smile enough" in MoS and were upset that Batman was psycho in BvS. I hate the "you hate it because it didn't meet your specific expectations" but here is definitely applies. because Snyder didn't meant general audiences very limited expectations of these characters ie a quippy Superman and a morally sound Batman they hated it despite the fact they are the most accurate depictions. batman is suppose to be scary and superman often does deal with moral dilemmas like when he relinquished his american citizenship so he could intervene in foreign affairs but since these characters have been shoved into virtually everything they take a more kiddy image often

But again if James Gunn directed batman and made him like Star Lord you think people would like it?

They liked Affleck's performance, his Batman was controversial which is why they rebooted him into traditional Batman right after B vs S. The problem with Snyder's batman is that he has an interesting backstory and it never goes into because he didn't get a solo film first and we're supposed to know something happened and something didn't and the movies never explore or confirm anything after B vs S. B vs S may as well be out of continuity after it ended, in its theatrical form. The audience won't care how Batman feels about Dick's death if they don't know who Dick is. WB announces lots of movies, not all of them are guaranteed to happen they're not consistent like Marvel is.

What do you mean rebooted as a traditional Batman? Whedon completely butchered Batman and made him look like a complete tool with lines like "yup somethings bleeding alright." And did you not catch the ending of BvS when Bruce says men are good? Batman was always meant to come back in Justice League as a more hopeful character. No people liked the character and his quotes how this was a war torn Batman and slowly and subtly throughout the movie we get more indications of what happened to him

If you need an extra movie to explain your story then you have written a bad story. BvS gives more than enough context as to why this batman has fallen so far. General audience know Robin and it being Dick Grayson is irrelevant. We aren't meant to feel bad for Robin but for Batman and obviously batman is going to be upset about his kid sidekick dying. Alfred mentions the whole new rules and Bruce bringing up 20 years in Gotham are all good indicators of what he has gone through.

Regardless you realize WB rebooted Batman just 4 years after TDKR right? Like people thought it was excessive for Sony to reboot Spider-Man after 5 years

That's what they've been doing since day one. They anted the Avengers cash so they decided to not fo the set up and expect everyone to show up and applaud them and they add on controversial takes on characters. That's what all studios do and what they are doing with Snyder at the helm. B vs S was DCEU Civil War.

BvS came out before Civil War and a Batman vs Superman movie had been in development since the 90s. And you really think MoS was a blatant beginning to a shared universe? If anything they were trying to imitate the Nolan trilogy before the course correction. Outside of the Wayne satellite we get no references to other heroes in that universe. The biggest world building is the LexCorps trucks that look nothing like the LexCorps brand in BvS. Regardless Zack should be able to finish his 5 movie project since he clearly has a vision for it

[Steel Inquisitor]

SS did incredibly well, despite being a bunch of nobodies and bad reviews. He was a producer, he didn't direct it. Wan was basing his interpretation on Snyder's since Sander's did it first, he's not going to make an entirely new version which has no continuity with the DCEU. All he did was reuse what Sndyer gave him in his own movie, Snyder didn't get credit for that since he didn't direct Wan's movie. Snyder deserves credit for what he did and his influences, but not the lion's share - which goes to the directors. And he had far less to do with Aquaman than Wonder Woman.


Not really, no. In the comics, and for years they were runner up to the X-men. The Avengers were nobodies to the X-men and Spider-man, until the MCU. And you friends were more connected to Green Lantern than most people, since most people don't watch cartoons. I didn't, I said the MCU made their own obscure characters into super stars. She's an icon that people knew about, which is more than most comic book characters.
This is a double standard, the DCEU's success is seen as good while Marvel's aren't. I, and others, do care about Spider-man, disagreeing with you is not a bar for that. This is about how you feel about something and money is one single measure of success, not all of it.

But it was still a valued franchise. It's very rare for movie franchises to go on for that long, they only do that because of success. All movie studios want to win over China. Marvel's made more with less, at least Shang-Chi is known to Marvel readers nobody knew who the Guardians were before the movie, include Marvel comic readers. That's how obscure they were. Cyclops isn't a cash cow, only Wolverine is and movies don't need to make a billion to be a success and they had far less expectations than Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman in their movies. Fox had its ups and down with the X-men but that's what the DCEU has done anyway.



No, people didn't dislike Snyder's Superman because he didn't "smile enough." No, they weren't accurate depictions at all, that's been the crux of the complaints and it wasn't only Batman and Superman. They liked Wonder Woman and Alfred. Batman's not the Punisher, that's not the type of "scary" people want - that's Jean Paul Valley Batman, not Bruce Wayne. People didn't like this Superman because of his personality, not because of the positions he was put in. JMS's run on Superman was mixed to say the least, and Snyder didn't get into the same ideas. Snyder;s Superman didn't renounce his citizenship to America.

I don't think Gun would do that, we know Snyder would turn Batman into the Punisher.


Whedon picked up where Suicide Squad left off, that's ordinary Batman. This isn't character development, he's completely forgotten how he was in B v S. It will never be referenced again. A few words don't qualify as shifting into the other movies.



Vintage Batman. Absolutely no connection to B vs S.

He says things about his relationship with Superman which is completely retconned, like how Superman was more human than him - the only reason it isn't as jarring in JL is because Whedon shot Superman acting like an ordinary person in the intro. Batman after B vs S is a completely new character, more like the one people expected, than the one in B vs S. B vs S Batman died and come back.



Which is a big criticism about Snyder's DCEU movies. That's debatable. They have no depth about Robin and it's barely in there, it may as well be as relevant as the Flash coming back in time bit - which is nothing. They don't inform the character, it's not bought up again. This about the audience feeling about them, not Batman. Which is extremely vague. We don't him enough of a status quo for this Batman to know how far he's slipped, this is his first impression. It's really not commented that much by people. The only people who knew of him before now is Alfred and Dick and Dick's dead. The problem is Snyder forgot that he isn't entitled to fulfilling his whole vision, it could be stopped at any time and it did.

[
Except they didn't do it to the same actor, like with Affleck. Affleck may as well have played two Batmen in the DCEU, before and after Snyder.


B vs S was announced in 2013, all other movie development has nothing to do with the movie Snyder made. Cap: Civil War was announced in March 2014. They tried to Nolan realism, they got Snyder's edge. Things change over movie series.
Man of Steel was meant to be their Iron Man.

That's an opinion, in Hollywood they're not that lenient.

[Dboi2001]

SS did incredibly well, despite being a bunch of nobodies and bad reviews. He was a producer, he didn't direct it. Wan was basing his interpretation on Snyder's since Sander's did it first, he's not going to make an entirely new version which has no continuity with the DCEU. All he did was reuse what Sndyer gave him in his own movie, Snyder didn't get credit for that since he didn't direct Wan's movie. Snyder deserves credit for what he did and his influences, but not the lion's share - which goes to the directors. And he had far less to do with Aquaman than Wonder Woman.

Ok and? It still had a lot of star power with Margot Robbie and Will Smith. Not to mention how much WB re edited the movie to make it more like GotG. I’m not giving Snyder all the credit but he still deserves some credit for Wonder Woman and Aquaman

Not really, no. In the comics, and for years they were runner up to the X-men. The Avengers were nobodies to the X-men and Spider-man, until the MCU. And you friends were more connected to Green Lantern than most people, since most people don't watch cartoons. I didn't, I said the MCU made their own obscure characters into super stars. She's an icon that people knew about, which is more than most comic book characters.
This is a double standard, the DCEU's success is seen as good while Marvel's aren't. I, and others, do care about Spider-man, disagreeing with you is not a bar for that. This is about how you feel about something and money is one single measure of success, not all of it.

That isn’t true. For a while the avengers were fairly popular. The Ultimates reinvigorated the Avengers and sold fairly well and many aspects are taken from the Ultimates. I’m not saying money equates success I’m saying by your own metric the comparison falls short for marvel. I enjoy most mcu movies my only real beef is with GotG, Ultron, Captain Marvel and Spider-Man. My point is you said marvel was doing better because they made more money but that was wrong

Regardless until I buy stocks in marvel and dc I’m not going to care about the money. Plenty of bad movies make lots of money and plenty of great movies were commercial flops like Blade Runner 2049

If X Men is the premier marvel team why didn’t any x men movie make over a billion dollars? Why did the first avengers movie about these c listers make more money than all the x men movies?

But it was still a valued franchise. It's very rare for movie franchises to go on for that long, they only do that because of success. All movie studios want to win over China. Marvel's made more with less, at least Shang-Chi is known to Marvel readers nobody knew who the Guardians were before the movie, include Marvel comic readers. That's how obscure they were. Cyclops isn't a cash cow, only Wolverine is and movies don't need to make a billion to be a success and they had far less expectations than Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman in their movies. Fox had its ups and down with the X-men but that's what the DCEU has done anyway.

Which makes it even more of a shame how fox managed to kill it and yet again ruin the Phoenix saga. But again why didn’t any fox movie make a billion dollar like the c list avengers? And yes Cyclops is an incredibly popular and beloved character so much that people were disappointed by his portrayal in the original trilogy. I’ve read marvel for a while and I’ve never heard of Shang Chi. Granted I stuck mainly with events, X Men and Daredevil so I may be limited bias. I even knew the GotG before the movie and Shang chi which is why I don’t care for Gunn’s version

No, people didn't dislike Snyder's Superman because he didn't "smile enough." No, they weren't accurate depictions at all, that's been the crux of the complaints and it wasn't only Batman and Superman. They liked Wonder Woman and Alfred. Batman's not the Punisher, that's not the type of "scary" people want - that's Jean Paul Valley Batman, not Bruce Wayne. People didn't like this Superman because of his personality, not because of the positions he was put in. JMS's run on Superman was mixed to say the least, and Snyder didn't get into the same ideas. Snyder;s Superman didn't renounce his citizenship to America.

You really said Bruce Wayne isn’t scary? His whole point is he uses the fear he felt when he was a boy to stop crime. He literally says I am Vengeance I am the night. Why do you think he’s called the dark knight? Jean Paul Valley wasn’t scary he was mental deranged. He was essentially what if Batman thought murder was ok. In Batman Begins Bruce literally tells Ra’s directly to his face he wants to learn the way of fear and make people fear him. Fear is a huge part of the Batman character why else do you think he dresses like a bat?

The point is Superman throughout MoS and BvS is put into moral dilemmas and has to make choices. His birth represented to Jor El freedom to choose and is a heavy message through both movies. And most people say Cavill is the best Superman. And Superman has always been about making the tough decisions

I don't think Gun would do that, we know Snyder would turn Batman into the Punisher.

Batman was nothing like the punisher. The only people he killed were Luthor’s militia who were shooting rockets at him. Why would he leave the human trafficker alive? Punished would’ve just shot him. Instead Batman leaves him for the courts. And Star lord was nothing like the movie in the comics

Whedon picked up where Suicide Squad left off, that's ordinary Batman. This isn't character development, he's completely forgotten how he was in B v S. It will never be referenced again. A few words don't qualify as shifting into the other movies.



Vintage Batman. Absolutely no connection to B vs S.

Exactly because Batman was redeemed after BvS. And no dude Whedon didn’t pick up after Suicide Squad. Batman acted nothing like those scenes from JL. He wasn’t intimidating or stone cold and made out of character snarky jokes like again “yup something’s bleeding.” If Whedon did those scene he’d probably say something like “go ahead Deadshot shoot me in from of your daughter” or “Sorry Miss Quinn I’m not interested.” It is beyond obvious which scenes were Whedon shot and Batman got the shortest end. Like you’re going to tell me he’d let Diana push him around or look like a total idiot?

He says things about his relationship with Superman which is completely retconned, like how Superman was more human than him - the only reason it isn't as jarring in JL is because Whedon shot Superman acting like an ordinary person in the intro. Batman after B vs S is a completely new character, more like the one people expected, than the one in B vs S. B vs S Batman died and come back.

Again did you not see the end of BvS? You’re acting like Batman went through no change from the beginning of BvS to the end. Superman instilled hope in him hence why he said men are good. He realized the error of his way and understands now that Superman truly was a hero

Which is a big criticism about Snyder's DCEU movies. That's debatable. They have no depth about Robin and it's barely in there, it may as well be as relevant as the Flash coming back in time bit - which is nothing. They don't inform the character, it's not bought up again. This about the audience feeling about them, not Batman. Which is extremely vague. We don't him enough of a status quo for this Batman to know how far he's slipped, this is his first impression. It's really not commented that much by people. The only people who knew of him before now is Alfred and Dick and Dick's dead. The problem is Snyder forgot that he isn't entitled to fulfilling his whole vision, it could be stopped at any time and it did.

That is just totally wrong. It’s clear robin being dead greatly hurt Bruce’s psyche. Alfred mentioned several times how Bruce has changed and has new rules. That is a pretty good hint of the status quo of this Batman. We have gotten like a million versions of Batman why do we need another origin for Batman? Hell Batman’s opening speech lays out what has happened to him.

Also contractually he kinda was

“There was a time before. There were perfect things. Diamond absolutes.”

“But things fall. Things on earth. And what falls is fallen.”

“In my dream they took me to the light. A beautiful lie.”

I’m sure you can see the symbolism

Except they didn't do it to the same actor, like with Affleck. Affleck may as well have played two Batmen in the DCEU, before and after Snyder.

Yes they did. When you watch the snydercut next year why don’t you tell me if Batman was retconned

B vs S was announced in 2013, all other movie development has nothing to do with the movie Snyder made. Cap: Civil War was announced in March 2014. They tried to Nolan realism, they got Snyder's edge. Things change over movie series.
Man of Steel was meant to be their Iron Man.

That's an opinion, in Hollywood they're not that lenient.

Ok and? WB’s course correction has done them no favors and now it looks like att want Snyder and affleck back

[Steel Inquisitor]

Star power is dead these days. Except how you phrased it was as if Snyder deserved all the credit, nobody is saying he shouldn't get the credit he deserves but the films dint live or die on him being there.

This isn't about comics, comics have nothing in sales and exposure to other media. The Ultimates influenced the movie Avengers but it was that, an influence, it was just as much an adaption of the 616 Avengers. How does it fail by my metrics? Except that's not the whole story with either the DCEU or MCU and we're not talking about the DCEU as a whole but Snyder's part in it and it got bigger results when he left - like Aquaman.

But you've analysed money in your previous posts, you compared the profits of the DCEU to Marvel. That they do, which is why I said money is partially how to measure sucess in movies, not the only thing.

That's a question Hollywood hans figured out, there are numerous theories for movies doing the success but it's very hard to prove X was responsible for it otherwise Hollywood would be making every movie a billion dollar movie. However, after Avengers expectations soared and B vs S had higher expectations because of that and it had high ones before it began. WB would have wanted a billion form B vs S and didn't get it so it's viewed as a failure. That's the risk directors take on movies like B vs S, some can do this (like the Russos), most fail.

Yep. They just weren't able to, numerous studios have tried and failed. He's not as popular as Superman, Wolverine is the only X-man in history to reach any of that and he's done it in multiple media. I'm not saying he's equal to Superman, either, but he's only one who stands out that everyone wants to see. Movies, tv shows, comics, he's the star. People were disappointed by his portrayal but most of those who did know are a minute amount compared to the millions who saw the movies. This is about comic books as a media, not everyone knows everything, I've read comics for years and there are still characters I don't know much about. So did I but that means you're an exception, not the rule even among comic fans.

Not "scary" like Batman's supposed to be, no. It's about how he used the fear, not the fear itself. In B vs S he did this by being Punisher on steroids, being scared he's going to shoot you is not the same as being scared like he's a boogeyman. Nolan's Batman achieved this, he didn't.

Jean Paul Valley wasn’t scary he was mental deranged. He was essentially what if Batman thought murder was ok.

Which sums up B vs S Batman. Again, Nolan and Batman are not the same takes on the character. They used differing methods in how to achieve it.

The choices thing is what every movie director does, that's not the problem - someone could have made a good movie out of those dilemmas but Snydr was unable to accomplish to please everyone, instead he made very controversial choices rather than ones the public agreed with that suited those characters. "Most people" according to who, though? Superman isn't about blasting someone's head off with laser vision, that's a choice Snyder's Superman had trouble with it's the choice Snyder makes them choose which matters.

He was the Punisher incarnate. Castle would loved to do what Batman did to those Lex criminals. It doesn't matter what the criminals did, they're criminals they're not expected to be anything less - it's who Batman is that shapes how the audience see him. Because he's Batman, not the Punisher. Batman kills lots of people though the movie, he doesn't do it because he has no choice like Nolans did, he did it because he enjoys the carnage. Something Burton's had a problem with, too, but Burton isn't a comic reader Snyder's supposed to be. Star Lord is closer in the movies to the comics than Snyder's Batman is to comic Batman.

Redeemed implies that Batman has shown growth, not completely ignoring everything from the previous movie. Robin's not bought up again, even in Suicide Squad. There is no arc for batman from B vs S to SS Batman. Sure he does, I agree Whedon made him snarkier but they're more recognisable together then either is to B vs S Batman. Batman's known to be gentler with Diana, it's not like he wasn't being nice to her in B v S. Which scenes did she make Batman look like an idiot?

The ending in B vs S in no way provided the massive changes he made in the other appearances. It was brief, not a character study.

I'm not saying it didn't hurt Bruce but the movies don't go into it very much. Robin doesn't go anywhere in B vs S, it's not a plot point, or a story arc, once a scenes over it's never bought up again in the DCEU. Except we don't have a clear picture of what rules he broke, we know more about the current Batman than the past one and the past Batman is super vague. Hints don't cut it, especially ones which aren't mentioned again. This isn't about Batman's origin, it's about Robin's death. That's never been done in live action before not even in Snyder's movies. Batman's speech is pretentious garbage which goes nowhere.

Contarcts only work if the person is still in demand, Snyder failed to do the demand part correctly for WB. They're not obligated to make movies with him.

Symbolism only works if it's used for something, not hint in a couple scenes then dropped entirely for every movie he's in. That's why he's stuck with the Snyder Cut and not JL: Part 2.

Snyder Cut's not canon and a one-off. It's cable, they're not letting him remake Justice League for the big screen, that's over.

They got a billion dollar Aquaman movie and are finally starting to win the public back with more obscure characters. They don't need Snyder. They're coming back for a cable mini-series, not a new movie.

[Dboi2001]

I’d argue that the mcu is more inspired by the Ultimates than 616 in most ways despite being an alternate universe

So what the x men animated series made them incredibly popular in the late 90s hence why fox bought the rights and by DoFP the X Men series was like 10 years old and was smack dab in the middle of the superhero wave. There is no reason why at least one of the x men movies should’ve made a billion dollars but instead gets outdone by Deadpool

What are you talking about? It’s about he used the fear not the fear itself? Batman did this by hospitalizing criminals, fighting in the dark and becoming a myth. And again Batman was nothing like the punisher. Punisher only kills murderers and rapists Batman in BvS only killed militia. The reason Batman killed was because he has fallen. The dialogue makes it more than clear as day that Batman has fallen. Not to mention Nolan Batman killed just as much as Snyder Batman. Need I remind you of I won’t kill you but I won’t save you? Not to mention the Tumbler and the Bat had guns on them and he killed Talia in TDKR. It’s that mentality in BvS on display. He wasn’t trying to kill those mercenaries he was aiming for their guns and they happened to be in the cross fire. Snyder doesn’t portray this Batman as heroic but as scary like dark knight returns

First off no Batman is only gentler with Diana in the animated series and even that is contentious. He is just as tough on her as the others considering she is the second strongest member. When does Whedon make him look like a fool? How about when he’s getting messaged by Diana or when Diana says they can’t bring Superman back and Bruce just gets silenced by her? It’s almost like they reversed their characters Diana should be the hopeful and optimistic one considering she is from a world with Greek gods and magic with Batman being the pragmatic one. Or when he stutters asking Arthur if he talks to fish in the bat cave. Basically Batman is a clueless idiot in Justice League who gets his ass kicked every time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp3mUWcu26k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpbm0t8kOi4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqcT-_HBHSo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwRePaYsuzc

Ok hints don’t cut it how about Alfred outright saying Batman has changed?

It’s obvious we aren’t going to agree so how about agree to disagree?

[superduperman]

He wanted to ditch the Clark Kent identity and he killed off Jimmy Olsen. He also turned Pa into a nihilist. There are probably other examples but those kind of speak for themselves at this point.

[manwhohaseverything]

He wanted to ditch the Clark Kent identity and he killed off Jimmy Olsen. He also turned Pa into a nihilist. There are probably other examples but those kind of speak for themselves at this point.

Huh? Nihilism? Where? When did he ditch clark kent identity? jimmy has been just butt of jokes since years.even if clark kent identity is ditched. How does it matter? Byrne pretty much removed kal l identity and reduced superman identity into something he does.Getting rid of clark kent wouldn't be end of the world.

[superduperman]

Huh? Nihilism? Where? When did he ditch clark kent identity? jimmy has been just butt of jokes since years.

Pa was willing to let those kids on the bus drown. I don't know any other version of the character that would be okay with that. And killing off a major character like Jimmy isn't exactly showing respect for the source material. In terms of the SI, most of that is just speculation from what I've read. Obviously WB would never let him do it but it wouldn't surprise me if that's what Snyder wanted. Clark all but told the military his real name in MOS.

[Pinsir]

Pa was willing to let those kids on the bus drown.

No he wasn't. This is the problem with anti-Snyder people; everything is interpreted in bad faith. Instead of seeing that statement as a genuine, human response of a father concerned for their son's future, people like you go, "NOT MUH PA KENT!" I'm sorry Pa Kent was an actual character and not this Moses figure who dispenses sagely advice at every opportunity.

[manwhohaseverything]

Pa was willing to let those kids on the bus drown. I don't know any other version of the character that would be okay with that. And killing off a major character like Jimmy isn't exactly showing respect for the source material. In terms of the SI, most of that is just speculation from what I've read. Obviously WB would never let him do it but it wouldn't surprise me if that's what Snyder wanted. Clark all but told the military his real name in MOS.

That's not nihilism. He said "maybe" considering a broader implication and the kid being not ready.jonathan kent had asked clark to hide himself back in the goldenage. His kid is an alien that is seen as "providence" . It's about time pa is written to have paranoia and distrust in mankind's darkness. Nihilism is the beilef that life is inherently meaningless. Jonathan kent says to his son in man of steel.

"you are here for a reason. You owe it to yourself wether it takes the rest of your life to find it".

It's the exact opposite of batman's nihilism. Batman had let go of his existentialist doctrine. He had become the monster he fought .

“I bet your parents taught you that you mean something, that you're here for a reason. My parents taught me a different lesson, dying in the gutter for no reason at all... They taught me the world only makes sense if you force it to.”

Jonathan kent wants his son to be ready to bare the burden of the choices and the consequences of the choices he will need to make. That's it. Yes! Superman is about making choice. The man of action makes choices. Choices define morality. This is'nt the usual nonsense of clark being mere puppet to his parents, all four of them. Choice isn't obligation. He can choose not to help. He is given that option.He chooses to help because of his instinct and that's just how he is brought up.

"Your mother and I believed Krypton lost something precious, the element of choice, of chance. What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended? What if a child aspired to something greater? You were the embodiment of that belief Kal. Krypton's first natural birth in centuries. That's why we risked so much to save you."

This is Jonathan kent. He knew that his son was great.He knew his son's instinct to help. For a man of such calibre, every choice could have unseen consequences. Like the horses that died in the lang farm.
I have edited my above comment. Don't bring in jimmy. It's pointless. The guy gets no respect regardless.i say that with a heavy heart. Most of the time the character is a joke.

[Dboi2001]

I think he meant at the end of BvS when the newspaper showed that Clark Kent died and had an open casket funeral. I get why people think it’s Zack wanting to get rid of Superman having a secret identity but let’s be real there is no real solution to Clark Kent’s disappearance with Superman’s death. I know in reign of the supermen they say Clark Kent was just stuck under rumble but let’s be real every conspiracy buff and their mother would connect the dots that Clark Kent happens to return when Superman returns. I think it was meant to be symbolic that Clark Kent/Kal El may have died but he returns as the Superman. Regardless I feel most of Smallville would know Superman is Clark and Perry probably guessed when Lois asked him for a chopper. I people can say that Perry could pull some strings and say Clark was in witness protection but there really is no going back. It doesn’t matter how much Perry lies or covers up people will still have conspiracies. It’s like when people complained at the end of Arkham Knight asking why Bruce couldn’t use Hush as an alibi there just is no putting the genie back

Plus Clark can still go by Jordan Elliot and become a farmer like what happened to the man of tomorrow and other versions. It would also tie in with Pa Kent’s line about how his family had been farmers for generations

[The Darknight Detective]

I think he meant at the end of BvS when the newspaper showed that Clark Kent died and had an open casket funeral. I get why people think it’s Zack wanting to get rid of Superman having a secret identity but let’s be real there is no real solution to Clark Kent’s disappearance with Superman’s death. I know in reign of the supermen they say Clark Kent was just stuck under rumble but let’s be real every conspiracy buff and their mother would connect the dots that Clark Kent happens to return when Superman returns.

... and with that crappy mullet, no less. Seriously, say what you want about the Silver Age, but the creators of that time would have had a robot Clark working at the Daily Planet to make things more believable.

[Restingvoice]

Idk if he respects comic or not since I haven't watched them and I don't know the Millerverse that much... all I know is there's no way Joker should be alive if Batman starts shooting criminals and there's no way Diana should retire from superheroism just because Steve Trevor died. That's where I don't buy the concept.

I mean okay, Joker is slippery so maybe he hasn't been able to catch him yet. That's acceptable. The Wonder Woman part not so much. So glad they changed it.

I did get annoyed when I heard Jimmy Olsen died and when they cast Barry Allen too young because I was thinking of long-term worldbuilding but when I found out that he's supposed to only made 5 movies instead of a franchise it's acceptable.

[manwhohaseverything]

Idk if he respects comic or not since I haven't watched them and I don't know the Millerverse that much... all I know is there's no way Joker should be alive if Batman starts shooting criminals and there's no way Diana should retire from superheroism just because Steve Trevor died. That's where I don't buy the concept.

I mean okay, Joker is slippery so maybe he hasn't been able to catch him yet. That's acceptable. The Wonder Woman part not so much. So glad they changed it.

I did get annoyed when I heard Jimmy Olsen died and when they cast Barry Allen too young because I was thinking of long-term worldbuilding but when I found out that he's supposed to only made 5 movies instead of a franchise it's acceptable.

Ofcourse, ww stopped heroics the minute she realised humanity was the reason for war,Not some cosmic being. She was living in a dream world built of legends of her ancestors "heroic" battles. When the dream broke she had to wake up to smell the coffee with steve's death. As time went on she became more pessimistic about man.That's it. Clark's actions restored her faith in those specific dreams. But, this time with the knowledge of harsh realities.

Batman wasn't hunting clowns. They are yesterdays news and joker is a mere annoyance compared to death and destruction from the sky. He doesn't go out to shoot people. He just will shoot if need be. He doesn't consciously murder people . He view criminals as weeds. He just doesn't mind if some of them get plucked in the process. Besides, bruce has bigger target. He has a "god" to kill. His first fully conscious act of murder was on his mind. Ofcourse, he couldn't go through with it. Because "you are here for a reason, clark".