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

[Aahz]

As for Snyder, he clearly respects comics more than your average film maker, but what he likes may not necessarily be the most popular version of a particular character or story in regard to the mainstream audience.

Millers The Dark Knight Returns is one of the most popular Batman stories, but the big problem is that it is imo a pretty bad foundation for a cinematic universe.

[The Darknight Detective]

Millers The Dark Knight Returns is one of the most popular Batman stories, but the big problem is that it is imo a pretty bad foundation for a cinematic universe.

I can't disagree, though I did like what Snyder did with it. As for Miller's story, it's extremely popular within the comic world, but less so out of it.

[Pinsir]

Pretty much any film that reboots an endearing film franchise receives a lot of criticism for not being authentic to the original version. The MCU Spider-man films receive tons of flak for this reason despite generally being better MCU films.

[Frontier]

Millers The Dark Knight Returns is one of the most popular Batman stories, but the big problem is that it is imo a pretty bad foundation for a cinematic universe.

I think they could have made an older and more experienced Batman work but there was some shaky foundation in there.

[Agent Z]

I'm not saying that anything he did wasn't precedented, I'm just saying that he went with a take on the character that doesn't really suit the fundamentals of the character - his take on Superman would have perhaps worked better if the MoS/BvS/JL character arc came later on in the DCEU. I think Superman should have been introduced as the Superman we all know and love in order to get better footing for this universe and his arc. Introducing him as this "grim 'n' gritty" version and having him stay that way until the end of a third movie doesn't really service anyone, and if I'm honest I think (apart from the die hard fans) people kind of forgot about MoS until BvS came out, because that Superman was bland. To have him be this weird loner type character for 3 movies just feels strange and not like the Superman people recognise and in my opinion makes his character more like Batman - a character that Snyder clearly feels more comfortable writing.

Except MoS's story (an alien trying to fit in) is not something that could have been done with Batman. Just because it's darker doesn't mean it's automatically like Batman or even antithecal to Superman. Clark isn't a loner in BvS either.

I never said he hates the silliness, I just think he prefers darker stories - stories which maybe don't fit certain characters as well as others - especially for those characters' introductions. I don't know him, so maybe he actually loves the lighter stuff. And of course he fought for the trunks... Superman wears them in Dark Knight Returns...

If Snyder wanted to adapt Dark Knight Returns wholesale, Superman would be a government stooge and Batman would have been the hero. The former is far from the case and Batman is far more of an *********t in BvS.

[Jack The Tripper]

Except MoS's story (an alien trying to fit in) is not something that could have been done with Batman. Just because it's darker doesn't mean it's automatically like Batman or even antithecal to Superman. Clark isn't a loner in BvS either.



If Snyder wanted to adapt Dark Knight Returns wholesale, Superman would be a government stooge and Batman would have been the hero. The former is far from the case and Batman is far more of an *********t in BvS.

I'm talking more character vibe and dynamic as opposed to actual story beats. The stories Snyder made are not what I have issue with, as, though they are definitely flawed, they are fine. But in terms of character I feel as though Superman was seen as the brooding orphan who felt he had a duty to protect and even had hesitations in regards to whether what he was doing was right. If I'm honest, I think my fault with Snyder's vision of Superman stems mainly from Pa Kent. Introducing him as someone who doesn't approve of his son going out saving people despite the fact that he can makes him seem almost like Alfred. I just wish we got to see more of Clark being happy, hopeful, and inspiring hope, and I'll just reiterate the point that it shouldn't take a trilogy (or 4 or 5 movies in Snyder's original JL plans) to get us to the Superman we all want on screen.

I'm not saying that those comics are the only things in the world he likes, and I'm sure as a film maker he wanted to put his own stamp on the characters, and that's cool, but I still feel that he takes creative liberties on certain characters if they aren't typically "cool". Genuinely when I watch BvS, Superman seems like an afterthought even though he is an essential part of the plot - I don't even know how to describe it. It just feels like he hasn't moved on from MoS at any point - he's just stayed the same.

[SiegePerilous02]

I'm talking more character vibe and dynamic as opposed to actual story beats. The stories Snyder made are not what I have issue with, as, though they are definitely flawed, they are fine. But in terms of character I feel as though Superman was seen as the brooding orphan who felt he had a duty to protect and even had hesitations in regards to whether what he was doing was right. If I'm honest, I think my fault with Snyder's vision of Superman stems mainly from Pa Kent. Introducing him as someone who doesn't approve of his son going out saving people despite the fact that he can makes him seem almost like Alfred. I just wish we got to see more of Clark being happy, hopeful, and inspiring hope, and I'll just reiterate the point that it shouldn't take a trilogy (or 4 or 5 movies in Snyder's original JL plans) to get us to the Superman we all want on screen.

I'm not saying that those comics are the only things in the world he likes, and I'm sure as a film maker he wanted to put his own stamp on the characters, and that's cool, but I still feel that he takes creative liberties on certain characters if they aren't typically "cool". Genuinely when I watch BvS, Superman seems like an afterthought even though he is an essential part of the plot - I don't even know how to describe it. It just feels like he hasn't moved on from MoS at any point - he's just stayed the same.

I don't think Pa Kent disapproves of Clark rescuing people, just that he's primarily concerned with his child's safety and doesn't have all the answers in a frustrating situation. There is a mixed bag of reactions to Jonathan, some people demonized him while others thing he's fine. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, and the film is flawed in its execution of getting its point across. I think if Clark had been played by the teenaged actor instead of Cavill in the tornado scene it would have landed better. I also don't think Pa coming back from beyond the grave to give more "life sucks a lot of the time kid" advice in BvS did much to help endear him to audiences despite being a good opportunity to do so. In general, there was an opportunity to smooth out the edges in MOS in BvS, but instead Snyder doubled down on them

I do agree that needing a 5 film arc that includes the formation of the JL and his own death and resurrection before we get a fully formed Superman is absolutely ridiculous. Wonder Woman, Aquaman and even Shazam had that **** wrapped up in one film each and were more readily embraced because of it.

[Jack The Tripper]

I don't think Pa Kent disapproves of Clark rescuing people, just that he's primarily concerned with his child's safety and doesn't have all the answers in a frustrating situation. There is a mixed bag of reactions to Jonathan, some people demonized him while others thing he's fine. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, and the film is flawed in its execution of getting its point across. I think if Clark had been played by the teenaged actor instead of Cavill in the tornado scene it would have landed better. I also don't think Pa coming back from beyond the grave to give more "life sucks a lot of the time kid" advice in BvS did much to help endear him to audiences despite being a good opportunity to do so. In general, there was an opportunity to smooth out the edges in MOS in BvS, but instead Snyder doubled down on them

I do agree that needing a 5 film arc that includes the formation of the JL and his own death and resurrection before we get a fully formed Superman is absolutely ridiculous. Wonder Woman, Aquaman and even Shazam had that **** wrapped up in one film each and were more readily embraced because of it.

Thanks mate, that's exactly what I meant! You said it a lot better than I did!

[Agent Z]

I'm talking more character vibe and dynamic as opposed to actual story beats. The stories Snyder made are not what I have issue with, as, though they are definitely flawed, they are fine. But in terms of character I feel as though Superman was seen as the brooding orphan who felt he had a duty to protect and even had hesitations in regards to whether what he was doing was right.

This is not a take limited to Batman contrary to what some people believe. Even then, the extent to which it applies to Clark in Snyder's movies is massively exaggerated. Feeling he has a duty to help people is classic Superman anyway so I don't see why that part is an issue.

I just wish we got to see more of Clark being happy, hopeful, and inspiring hope, and I'll just reiterate the point that it shouldn't take a trilogy (or 4 or 5 movies in Snyder's original JL plans) to get us to the Superman we all want on screen.

The idea it was taking 4 to 5 movies to get the Superman we expect isn't accurate. In MoS alone, we have him saving a bunch of oil workers that almost got missed by a rescue party missed, using his powers to aid people since he was a kid, defending a woman who was being sexually harassed and trying to negotiate with Zod before the latter revealed he would accept nothing less than the absolute annihilation of the human race. We saw characters trusting Clark after he proved himself to them and the movie even has humans helping each other even when Superman isn't there which is a far more hopeful message than people only doing good because Superman exists. Hell, the only reason Lois was able to track Clark down is because he was using his powers to help people.

I'm not saying that those comics are the only things in the world he likes,

Your very first post in this thread was that he doesn't like any character other than Batman.

It just feels like he hasn't moved on from MoS at any point - he's just stayed the same.

He is reacting to the new challenges that come with being an open figure to the world. That doesn't mean he is staying the same.

[godisawesome]

This is not a take limited to Batman contrary to what some people believe. Even then, the extent to which it applies to Clark in Snyder's movies is massively exaggerated. Feeling he has a duty to help people is classic Superman anyway so I don't see why that part is an issue.




The idea it was taking 4 to 5 movies to get the Superman we expect isn't accurate. In MoS alone, we have him saving a bunch of oil workers that almost got missed by a rescue party missed, using his powers to aid people since he was a kid, defending a woman who was being sexually harassed and trying to negotiate with Zod before the latter revealed he would accept nothing less than the absolute annihilation of the human race. We saw characters trusting Clark after he proved himself to them and the movie even has humans helping each other even when Superman isn't there which is a far more hopeful message than people only doing good because Superman exists. Hell, the only reason Lois was able to track Clark down is because he was using his powers to help people.



Your very first post in this thread was that he doesn't like any character other than Batman.




He is reacting to the new challenges that come with being an open figure to the world. That doesn't mean he is staying the same.

I agree that MOS manages to get Superman at least 90% right; really, the only thing missing is integrating the more traditional reporting persona of Clark Kent, and I think in general MOS nailed his self-less altruism perfectly. Pa Kent is really the only major deconstructive element to the story. As an origin film, I think it’s pretty dang good

But again, MOS was the result of a David Goyer script Snyder was directing under a still somewhat involved Christopher Nolan.

With Batman V Superman, the film kind of hurries into deconstructing him instead of using a more conventional evolution of him and his story, and maybe a bit too soon and from a somewhat less able standpoint. I think that with Zack Snyder being the main force behind BvS’s story, we saw his view of Superman impacted more by material similar to the purposefully twisted-a-bit version from Dark Knight Returns.

I do think it’s comparable to Rian Johnson’s ideas for Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi, albeit with the message being focused more on trying to just reconstruct Superman as a hero against criticism and cynicism, instead of trying to belabor a “failure is the greatest teacher” message.

The real difference in execution is that I don’t think Snyder was quite as overly invested in the deconstruction phase as Johnson was... but BvS’s Superman is also giving a bit more focus to Batman, while Luke is getting more focus than Rey in The Last Jedi (Superman and Luke both have less screentime than their partners, but Batman genuinely seems to have his POV weighted more, while Rey’s is basically ignored.

I really do think there’s a reflection of the deflated response to BvS’s Superman story and the anger at Luke’s portrayal in The Last Jedi; both have fans, and neither are really bad, but both are perhaps misguided.

[manwhohaseverything]

I think they could have made an older and more experienced Batman work but there was some shaky foundation in there.

Well, batman is the villain of bvs. You know what? Snyder took darkknight returns, it's nietzschisms and made batman into the monster he fights.

[Dboi2001]

I think Snyder THINKS he has a grasp on characters like Superman, or perhaps thought he had to change them to what he thinks is cool in order to make them popular. The only reason Superman is the main part of the trilogy is because his movie came first, then the rest of it was rushed, so obviously he kinda has to be at the center of it. but even in BvS I think it's evident that Superman scenes were pushed to the side in order for Batman to have more screen time, which I think was a Snyder decision because he loved Miller's Dark Knight. I could be wrong but that's the way i see it. I think it's so weird and off putting for it to take a whole trilogy to get Superman to be the bastion of hope that he's known as in the comics and the general public. Just a strange choice imo.

I agree he wasn't a Feige style creative force, but I do think most of the decisions were his, with Justice League being the only heavily interfered with movie. BvS is the most Zack Snyder movie he's done for DC and it ended up being what damaged his relationship with the studio because of its poor reception. I think he had most control over the first 2 dceu films, which ended up setting the course of the franchise, and tarnishing it from the get go. I do admit, that he was probably told they wanted a more realistic take on Superman for Man of Steel, but I think it would have been his intention anyway.

But it's realistic no? If someone came up to me and told me to call myself Ant Man, I'd think they're joking too! Captain America is jingoistic propaganda, you could just link it to someone's patriotism and pride in defeating the Nazis - you can't do that with Ant Man. I'm pretty sure it's been mocked in the comics too. If you're talking about Star Lord I imagine that's only a name he took up after leaving The Ravagers, as Yondu just calls him Quill. Thor Ragnarok was clearly a soft reboot though, at least in terms of character, because Thor wasn't doing as well as Captain America or Iron Man in the numbers. Thor is one of my favourite comic characters and I personally love what they did; the first 2 movies do not stand up well, so they went in a different direction, which may be jarring, but it's not a mockery, Ragnarok through to Endgame has made Thor one of the most interesting MCU characters, and Love and Thunder is my most anticipated upcoming MCU movie. And to be fair, Thor's change in character has been said to be because of him spending more time with Humans/Avengers where he became a bit less god like (I like that idea a lot, it's a pity they couldn't explain it in the movies to make it canon). Star Lord kind of ... is ... a nobody. It's a pretty smart way to introduce the GOTG because nobody knew who they were before the film. It's smart, and it really works in context of the films - I don't think it's a mockery. And yeah, I can actually see something like that in The Batman, but if I'm honest, I don't think he'll even call himself Batman lol. He might be referred to it by someone else, or possibly just The Bat or something. It looks like they're going for a very realistic movie. All I want to see is a good rendition of Mr Freeze or Clayface and I want it to be balls to the wall. I think I'm gonna have to wait a few years

Others have already gone into depth about BvS. All I will say is I really don’t think Snyder was a huge driving force in what direction the DCEU has especially when you look at the movies he wasn’t involved in like Suicide Squad (I know it was originally darker and had more Joker) and Wonder Woman or even Aquaman which I think he and Wan did work together in pre production for a bit and i read somewhere the Wan used the Snyder cut as the “canon” version for the movie which is why Mera and Arthur aren’t as familiar with each other because originally Vulko explained the Motherboxes instead of her

First off the MCU left realism long ago. And if Ant Man is a goofy name why isn’t Spider Man? Why do kids at Peter’s school not go “Spider-Man is dumb and sounds dumb”? And if i’m asked to get a suit that lets me shrink and control insects i wouldn’t give a crap what i’m called. They’re essentially the same thing. I get Captain America became a WW2 legend in the MCU but he was literally created as a propaganda mascot. But again Scott idolizes him yet Ant Man is goofy? And btw the killer robot name was Ultron totally grounded and not the least bit cheesy sounding.

Sure Star Lord is a nobody irl but will they treat Shang Chi the same way? Maybe they will or won’t. But no i don’t think the best way to introduce an obscure character to the audience is to turn them on their head and constantly take jabs at how no one knows them. Star Lord in the comics (At Least Annihilation since it was the most recent story to prominently feature Starlord before the movie) was an intergalactic peacekeeper, had no romance with Gamora and was fairly serious about his job. Star Lord in the films is literally James Gunn’s self insert character. And the excuse that it’s too wacky to cinema is ridiculous when space Sasquatch is one of the most iconic characters in cinema.

Look Blade wasn’t exactly the most well known character and yet the films didn’t treat him like a nobody. So I just don’t buy the argument. Imagine if JL decided to just embrace the Aquaman is lame memes and had everyone going “why is fish boy here he is useless outside of water”. There is a pretty big difference between embracing silly and campy elements of a character like Captain America or Aquaman and just having characters talk about how stupid they are

My issue with Thor is not only how different he is from Dark World to Ragnarok but literally the very next movie Infinity War. I get Thor sawed most of his people and brother get massacred by Thanos at the beginning but he is borderline a new character not to mention how Valkyrie and Korg just escaped with no explanation and how Thor literally gets a new eye pulled out of Rocket’s ass. And don’t get me started on fat thor and how he decides to make Valkrie king of New Asgard after literally just taking over all because he wants to hang with some a-hole strangers he just met because screw asgard and screw thor we got to have FemThor now while pushing the same sjw garbage that has been killing the comic industry for the last 8 years

I just think it was a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I love Taika Watiti and what he did in Ragnarok but it’s obvious he didn’t give a **** about the previous Thor movies hence why Thor just knows Loki is Odin just because or literally having the warrior three go out like chumps without even explaining what happened to the chick. I get Dark World was bad but Thor was a solid movie and had a good foundation. It just felt like Marvel thought people didn’t like Dark World because it was too dark and people didn’t like the shakespearean theme and saw GotG success and thought let’s just copy that. I won’t say Thor is ruined but Fat Thor did almost kill him for me

[Jack The Tripper]

This is not a take limited to Batman contrary to what some people believe. Even then, the extent to which it applies to Clark in Snyder's movies is massively exaggerated. Feeling he has a duty to help people is classic Superman anyway so I don't see why that part is an issue.

i know it isn't limited to batman, but I still haven't seen evidence of him caring about other characters really. Superman feels he has a duty to help people, but it's not often you see him brooding about it.


The idea it was taking 4 to 5 movies to get the Superman we expect isn't accurate. In MoS alone, we have him saving a bunch of oil workers that almost got missed by a rescue party missed, using his powers to aid people since he was a kid, defending a woman who was being sexually harassed and trying to negotiate with Zod before the latter revealed he would accept nothing less than the absolute annihilation of the human race. We saw characters trusting Clark after he proved himself to them and the movie even has humans helping each other even when Superman isn't there which is a far more hopeful message than people only doing good because Superman exists. Hell, the only reason Lois was able to track Clark down is because he was using his powers to help people.

I know we see him saving people, but again, his brooding is what makes him not feel like Superman to me - This hesitation with the fact that he's pretty much a god that can survive most things humans can throw at him. Don't even get me started on the destruction of Metropolis!


Your very first post in this thread was that he doesn't like any character other than Batman.

Clearly it was an exaggeration, I don't know the guy lol


He is reacting to the new challenges that come with being an open figure to the world. That doesn't mean he is staying the same.

Even so, it's on the writers and director to make a situation in which we see evolution of the character, not stagnation

[Jack The Tripper]

Others have already gone into depth about BvS. All I will say is I really don’t think Snyder was a huge driving force in what direction the DCEU has especially when you look at the movies he wasn’t involved in like Suicide Squad (I know it was originally darker and had more Joker) and Wonder Woman or even Aquaman which I think he and Wan did work together in pre production for a bit and i read somewhere the Wan used the Snyder cut as the “canon” version for the movie which is why Mera and Arthur aren’t as familiar with each other because originally Vulko explained the Motherboxes instead of her

First off the MCU left realism long ago. And if Ant Man is a goofy name why isn’t Spider Man? Why do kids at Peter’s school not go “Spider-Man is dumb and sounds dumb”? And if i’m asked to get a suit that lets me shrink and control insects i wouldn’t give a crap what i’m called. They’re essentially the same thing. I get Captain America became a WW2 legend in the MCU but he was literally created as a propaganda mascot. But again Scott idolizes him yet Ant Man is goofy? And btw the killer robot name was Ultron totally grounded and not the least bit cheesy sounding.

Sure Star Lord is a nobody irl but will they treat Shang Chi the same way? Maybe they will or won’t. But no i don’t think the best way to introduce an obscure character to the audience is to turn them on their head and constantly take jabs at how no one knows them. Star Lord in the comics (At Least Annihilation since it was the most recent story to prominently feature Starlord before the movie) was an intergalactic peacekeeper, had no romance with Gamora and was fairly serious about his job. Star Lord in the films is literally James Gunn’s self insert character. And the excuse that it’s too wacky to cinema is ridiculous when space Sasquatch is one of the most iconic characters in cinema.

Look Blade wasn’t exactly the most well known character and yet the films didn’t treat him like a nobody. So I just don’t buy the argument. Imagine if JL decided to just embrace the Aquaman is lame memes and had everyone going “why is fish boy here he is useless outside of water”. There is a pretty big difference between embracing silly and campy elements of a character like Captain America or Aquaman and just having characters talk about how stupid they are

My issue with Thor is not only how different he is from Dark World to Ragnarok but literally the very next movie Infinity War. I get Thor sawed most of his people and brother get massacred by Thanos at the beginning but he is borderline a new character not to mention how Valkyrie and Korg just escaped with no explanation and how Thor literally gets a new eye pulled out of Rocket’s ass. And don’t get me started on fat thor and how he decides to make Valkrie king of New Asgard after literally just taking over all because he wants to hang with some a-hole strangers he just met because screw asgard and screw thor we got to have FemThor now while pushing the same sjw garbage that has been killing the comic industry for the last 8 years

I just think it was a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I love Taika Watiti and what he did in Ragnarok but it’s obvious he didn’t give a **** about the previous Thor movies hence why Thor just knows Loki is Odin just because or literally having the warrior three go out like chumps without even explaining what happened to the chick. I get Dark World was bad but Thor was a solid movie and had a good foundation. It just felt like Marvel thought people didn’t like Dark World because it was too dark and people didn’t like the shakespearean theme and saw GotG success and thought let’s just copy that. I won’t say Thor is ruined but Fat Thor did almost kill him for me

I think Snyder had pretty much full control of MoS and BvS, and elements of JL til he was booted.

But people do make fun of Spider-Man, his first scene was Tony making fun of him. And kids are kids, man - the guy swings on webs and beats the crap outta people lol. I'm not gonna reply to every example you've listed becauseI'm in a rush, but honestly I think that DC could do with that type of humour a bit more. And they did have a similar Aquaman joke in JL i think.

I know we're never gonna agree on Thor but I'll say my take: Ragnarok through to Endgame is easily the best and most in depth character growth they could have done in 1 solo movie and 2 ensemble movies. I loved fat thor and thought that him powered up as fat thor was the best Thor outfit/look that's been on screen. I love Jason Aaron's run and can't wait for the "sjw garbage". Move past this whole "us vs them" **** and you'll enjoy things a lot more, man. It wasn't pushing some malevolent agenda, it was a story that had many, many, many good thors. You're missing out. Also Thor handed over the kingdom because he thinks his birthright doesn't fit him, and i think there's excellent room for story telling there.

Yeah, because he had a more fun and interesting thing to do in Ragnarok, skip the boring set up. i think Sif was explained to be exiled, probably setting up bETA rAY bILL for the sequel. And I don't think the suggestion that its similar to GOTG really stands

[Agent Z]

i know it isn't limited to batman, but I still haven't seen evidence of him caring about other characters really. Superman feels he has a duty to help people, but it's not often you see him brooding about it.

"Brooding" does not mean not smiling every five seconds like a clown. And it wasn't helping people that was getting to him, it was the mistrust and hostility which any version of Superman would have problems with. As far as evidence that Snyder doesn't care about any character other than Batman (who is a secondary *********t in BvS) this is pretty weak. Snyder once called into a radio show to defend Aquaman and Wan has credited his take on Aquaman to Snyder. Ray Fisher recently credited Snyder for allowing him creative input in regards to shaping Victor's relationship with his father.

I know we see him saving people, but again, his brooding is what makes him not feel like Superman to me - This hesitation with the fact that he's pretty much a god that can survive most things humans can throw at him. Don't even get me started on the destruction of Metropolis!

There is one instance in the movies where he hesitates to help someone and that was his father stopping him from saving him.

Yeah, because we've never seen destruction in a Superman story before.

Even so, it's on the writers and director to make a situation in which we see evolution of the character, not stagnation

And they did.