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

[manwhohaseverything]

Nah! Superman being that down because people are being hostile is different. It's just snyder took inspiration from for tomorrow, earth one.. Etc many other postcrisis superman stories where the guy is pretty down. Batman has to call him out on being a wet towel.

Superman is supposed to be stoic. The guy would have gotten over it very easily.why?cause its(people's reactions) to be expected And He is a champion. He doesn't do it for appluads, glory, vengeance or people 's acceptance. He does it, because its the right thing to do. Sure, he might feel disillusioned sometimes. But, 60% of the screen time being about him as this dude who is unsure is very different . And Stop trivialising the smile. It's part of the character's very essence right from the beginning. He would smile through anything like The fear, the pain... Etc.Everything else i can agree with you. People might fear what they don't understand.but, A man's genuine smile can reach anyone with a heart that can sympathise or empathise. It can break apart any fear. That's what superman is about.
"you need'nt be afraid of me. I won't harm you"

[Agent Z]

Nah! Superman being that down because people are being hostile is different. It's just snyder took inspiration from for tomorrow, earth one.. Etc many other postcrisis superman stories where the guy is pretty down. Batman has to call him out on being a wet towel.

Batman was being an idiot.

Superman is supposed to be stoic. The guy would have gotten over it very easily.why?cause its(people's reactions) to be expected And He is a champion. He doesn't do it for appluads, glory, vengeance or people 's acceptance. He does it, because its the right thing to do. Sure, he might feel disillusioned sometimes. But, 60% of the screen time being about him as this dude who is unsure is very different . And Stop trivialising the smile. It's part of the character's very essence right from the beginning. He would smile through anything like The fear, the pain... Etc.Everything else i can agree with you. People might fear what they don't understand.but, A man's genuine smile can reach anyone with a heart that can sympathise or empathise. It can break apart any fear. That's what superman is about.
"you need'nt be afraid of me. I won't harm you"

Yeah, can't imagine why she'd be afraid of him in that picture.

With all due respect, your views on Superman often come across as one-dimensional and your comparisons to shonen heroes all too often come across like you view all characters like that as indistinguishable. Snyder wasn't making a My Hero Academia adaptation. Or Dragon Ball. Or Naruto. Or One Piece. Or whatever manga you're thinking of.

[manwhohaseverything]

Batman was being an idiot.



Yeah, can't imagine why she'd be afraid of him in that picture.

With all due respect, your views on Superman often come across as one-dimensional and your comparisons to shonen heroes all too often come across like you view all characters like that as indistinguishable. Snyder wasn't making a My Hero Academia adaptation. Or Dragon Ball. Or Naruto. Or One Piece. Or whatever manga you're thinking of.

You can call him an idiot.yet,people were making memes out of the moment. So many agree with him.

You would be scared too, if a guy lifts up and smashes a car infront you. He also hooked one of the dudes on a pole. If i remember it correctly gave a wedgy to one as well. Ofcourse, these guys were trying to have their way with lois forcibly .

It doesn't matter whether snyder made a movie out of any manga. You want me to post a scan from darwyn cooke's kryptonite. All might and superman share the same philosophy, working pattern in this regard. He is the champion of his verse.Champion's job is to take a beating and still smile. You know what superman is supposed to be? The champion of the oppressed. Yeah! This is straight from the original source aka siegel and shuster's superman .It doesn't take a genius to get what the characterisation is supposed to be. It's a glorified cliche that's found in every sphere. A superman who doesn't value humour and smile in society isn't much of a superman .it doesn't matter whether it's goldenage, silverage or even postcrisis. a superman values a smile and a helping hand of altruism.

I compare characters that are similar or send the same message. I can post an image of one punch man and superman saying the same thing in different fashion. Superman is an archetype with a base formed by siegel and shuster. My indistinguishablity of characters isn't much of an issue. When i have to focus on one dimension of a character, i do. We are talking one dimension.The smile and optimistic charisma a charcter provides. For many this guy is the same wet towel postcrisis superman has been charcterised as many a times. And I can compare characters that are similar to get a point across . It's not like i compare him to guts from berserk or L from death note or shinji from evangalion or something. Why? The characterisations or philosophy doesn't fit the palimpsest that is superman . The smile is part of that base, siegel and shuster created. Why do you think donner's superman smiles? Cause goldenage superman smiles.i can compare him to hercules or theseus or odysseus or spartacus , john carter or tarzan or doc savage, phantom or zorro as well. For instance, i would say as a man of two worlds kal el and clark kent duality should be equal in importance. I could provide an example focusing on tarzan. finally, You didn't say anything to counter why superman's smile isn't important .

[Alan2099]

You can call him an idiot.yet,people were making memes out of the moment. So many agree with him.

People makes memes out of everything. The fact that people made a meme out of it proves nothing.

[manwhohaseverything]

People makes memes out of everything. The fact that people made a meme out of it proves nothing.

This meme was seen by people who weren't even into comics.So, i reckon it means something. And Okay then, so you like superman from for tomorrow and late postcrisis? Cause, the character was deliberately made to act like a downer for pushing drama.i do believe its very much out of character . Unfortunately, the books were insufferable for me.

[H-E-D]

Snyder doesn't seem to be interested in the tone and themes of the source material. Whether you think using panels as storyboards is more important than that is a matter of personal taste.

[Dboi2001]

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

Of course he had fully control over his own movies. I'm sure most MCU directors have mostly complete control over their movies. But 3 movies a universe it does not make.

I don't remember Tony or anyone making fun of Spider Man. Yeah and Suicide Squad did try to inject some humor that worked real well. The closest thing I can think of for JL is when Batman asked Arthur if he could talk to fish sarcastically after Arthur slammed him against the wall. The point was Bruce undermining Arthur after showing his strength. It's like people think movies can only be serious or dark and it can't have both

Yeah there was no agenda behind this

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...feminist#img-1

https://i.imgur.com/f3DnHKS.png

Remember when Absorbing Man didn't give a **** about a woman challenging his "masculinity?" Apparently Marvel doesn't

http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/...ekvids/SW1.jpg

The whole arc of Thor up until Raganrok was Thor learning how to be a worthy king and protector of Asgard and the realms. Now he feels it doesn't fit him so he can have free time to hang with the Guardians. What did Valkyrie do to earn it? Also why does Marvel hate feminine nouns like Queen and Goddess?

Getting back on topic though all I will conclude is if Snyder turned Superman into an obese dope playing Fortnite for whatever reason people would put his head on a pike

[Cyberstrike]

Edit...oops...nevermind.

[Dboi2001]

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

That is the single worst argument i’ve seen. How about Justice League just open up with the JL fighting Darksied because who needs the ‘boring set up’? Honestly Thor was way better than Thor Ragnarok and this is another example of how people praise marvel for things Zack does. people criticize Zack for using comic imagery yet when Taika does he does praised

Also if your argument is i dislike FemThor because i’m a guy no that isn’t the reason. I dislike FemThor because Jane Foster isn’t interesting and the stories are mediocre all lathered with a pretentious preachy message brought to you by a white guy. I’d be incredibly impressed if Marvel somehow makes Jane Foster mildly interesting or finds a way to make Natalie Portman look like an actual superhero and not like somebody’s mom dressing like Thor for halloween

[Aahz]

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

But him and his rogues allready beeing around for 20 years, even if Superheros are supposed a new thing in this world is kind of wired.
And that Superman has apparently never heard of him before makes also not much sense.

The problem also when you try to make solo Batman movies since you also had to age up all his support characters and villains, and that doesn't really work with all of them. And they allready completly ignored this premise when they casted margot Robbie as Harley Quinn.

[Vampire Savior]

Yeah, can't imagine why she'd be afraid of him in that picture.

Heh. Some old man used to tell me to make sure I was at least arm's distance of a woman (unless the circumstance welcomed otherwise for whatever reason), otherwise I would be invading her personal space.

[Jack The Tripper]

Of course he had fully control over his own movies. I'm sure most MCU directors have mostly complete control over their movies. But 3 movies a universe it does not make.

I don't remember Tony or anyone making fun of Spider Man. Yeah and Suicide Squad did try to inject some humor that worked real well. The closest thing I can think of for JL is when Batman asked Arthur if he could talk to fish sarcastically after Arthur slammed him against the wall. The point was Bruce undermining Arthur after showing his strength. It's like people think movies can only be serious or dark and it can't have both

Yeah there was no agenda behind this

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...feminist#img-1

https://i.imgur.com/f3DnHKS.png

Remember when Absorbing Man didn't give a **** about a woman challenging his "masculinity?" Apparently Marvel doesn't

http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/...ekvids/SW1.jpg

The whole arc of Thor up until Raganrok was Thor learning how to be a worthy king and protector of Asgard and the realms. Now he feels it doesn't fit him so he can have free time to hang with the Guardians. What did Valkyrie do to earn it? Also why does Marvel hate feminine nouns like Queen and Goddess?

Getting back on topic though all I will conclude is if Snyder turned Superman into an obese dope playing Fortnite for whatever reason people would put his head on a pike

Gotta say, I'm done with the Snyder discussion, I've said all I need to say on the subject! His DC movies are like marmite, you either love em or you don't. I don't think there's an inbetween unfortunately. Glad you find satisfaction in them where I don't.

I mean... it's a genuine critique of society? Don't you want that in comics? Can't really push things forward if you're refusing to say anything on the subject. Especially in a fandom as vile as comics!

Sorry to say this mate, but C-List villains like Absorbing Man are often changed slightly to fit a certain story. It happens all throughout comics. I personally don't think it damages the character all that much because he doesn't have much of one anyway. He's like The Wrecking Crew. Don't worry, he's pretty much a good guy in Immortal Hulk now, which is also quite different from his first appearance.

That's a boring character arc imo - one we've seen hundreds of times before. It isn't often we see something like this come along. Yeah the reason that arc was dropped was because it just wasn't working; it's old, it's boring, and no one cared about Thor. I liked the first Thor movie, but it wasn't a touch on Ragnarok. Valkyrie looked after New Asgard whilst Thor was drinking himself away? She was pretty much ruler in all but name. They called Hela a Goddess, I can't remember if Frigga/Freya was called Queen at any point, but I don't know if they would call her that anyway, similar to how Prince Philip isn't called King Philip even though he's married to the King. I don't know why Valkyrie is called a King, but i think it was just supposed to be a mildly humorous/charming exchange.

Yeah, you're right - because his films aren't in that tone, like at all. Disregarding the first 2 Thor films, by the time of Endgame we had had Thor's arc from Ragnarok through Infinity War. There's no denying that MCU and DCEU have different tones - this stuff works in one and not the other. On the other hand, it would completely work in Shazam.

[Jack The Tripper]

That is the single worst argument i’ve seen. How about Justice League just open up with the JL fighting Darksied because who needs the ‘boring set up’? Honestly Thor was way better than Thor Ragnarok and this is another example of how people praise marvel for things Zack does. people criticize Zack for using comic imagery yet when Taika does he does praised

Also if your argument is i dislike FemThor because i’m a guy no that isn’t the reason. I dislike FemThor because Jane Foster isn’t interesting and the stories are mediocre all lathered with a pretentious preachy message brought to you by a white guy. I’d be incredibly impressed if Marvel somehow makes Jane Foster mildly interesting or finds a way to make Natalie Portman look like an actual superhero and not like somebody’s mom dressing like Thor for halloween

They probably did shoot stuff or plan stuff like that, but it probably got reduced due to pacing/timing issues. And no, that's not the same at all lol. Loki being Odin, and Sif being off planet are not main plot points of this story. What your suggesting is skipping everything and going to the final battle with Hela and Surtur. No one minds Snyder's use of comic imagery (Watchmen has some great pieces), it just tends to be a crutch of his to lean on. Also Waititi's use was more consistent from what i remember - The visual theme tending to be wide shots from side/profile view, which lend themselves to a cinematic visual - they aren't images lifted straight off the page (apart from Skurge's death I think).

I didn't say that. I disagree completely, there is a lot of intricacy in Jason Aaron's Thor run, and that "agenda" is a very small part of it. Like every good piece of art, there are many, many themes and threads woven through. If it's the fact that a white guy is writing from someone else's point of view that angers you, well then you're gonna get angered by a lot of comics lol. The stories and the art were pretty great overall I thought - I worry you might be reacting with a bias against it without ACTUALLY reading any of it, just reading the occasional internet post about it. And for as good as that book does Jane, it does Odinson incredibly well too. Donny Cate's new run has not proven to be up to par so far.

[Dboi2001]

Gotta say, I'm done with the Snyder discussion, I've said all I need to say on the subject! His DC movies are like marmite, you either love em or you don't. I don't think there's an inbetween unfortunately. Glad you find satisfaction in them where I don't.

I mean... it's a genuine critique of society? Don't you want that in comics? Can't really push things forward if you're refusing to say anything on the subject. Especially in a fandom as vile as comics!

Sorry to say this mate, but C-List villains like Absorbing Man are often changed slightly to fit a certain story. It happens all throughout comics. I personally don't think it damages the character all that much because he doesn't have much of one anyway. He's like The Wrecking Crew. Don't worry, he's pretty much a good guy in Immortal Hulk now, which is also quite different from his first appearance.

That's a boring character arc imo - one we've seen hundreds of times before. It isn't often we see something like this come along. Yeah the reason that arc was dropped was because it just wasn't working; it's old, it's boring, and no one cared about Thor. I liked the first Thor movie, but it wasn't a touch on Ragnarok. Valkyrie looked after New Asgard whilst Thor was drinking himself away? She was pretty much ruler in all but name. They called Hela a Goddess, I can't remember if Frigga/Freya was called Queen at any point, but I don't know if they would call her that anyway, similar to how Prince Philip isn't called King Philip even though he's married to the King. I don't know why Valkyrie is called a King, but i think it was just supposed to be a mildly humorous/charming exchange.

Yeah, you're right - because his films aren't in that tone, like at all. Disregarding the first 2 Thor films, by the time of Endgame we had had Thor's arc from Ragnarok through Infinity War. There's no denying that MCU and DCEU have different tones - this stuff works in one and not the other. On the other hand, it would completely work in Shazam.

So when Snyder critiques society it is bad but when Marvel Comics does it it's great? First off Thor is the last place you'd expect to find societal critique it is like expecting Batman to be a high school drama. But I will bite FemThor wants to critique society well it failed there as well because Absorbing Man is essentially a ridiculous strawman that no one will take seriously. My issue is that Marvel took a boring character but made him the go to strawman while keeping him boring

Here is the problem though, even if it is boring it is completed and there is no going back. Imagine if at the end of JL Superman who is the smiley hopeful Superman that has been built up for 2 whole movies just goes "You know what I think I'm bored of this gig you guys can handle these threats right?" And flies off in space. Ragnarok actually COMPLETED the arc not Infinity Wars which undone a lot of what Watiti did in Ragnarok. Thor losing his eye as a permanent reminder of his duel with Hela and showing he had learned from his father's mistakes? Nah just give him a robot eye pulled from Rocket's ass. Thor learned to use lightning without his hammer? Screw that we need fanservice have Giant Peter Dinklage make him the Ultimates hammer that honestly kinda undermines Ragnarok because if he knew about this place why not go there and make Stormbreaker instead of dicking around with Hulk?

And Infinity Wars and Endgame matched that tone? The first time we see Thor in the movie he brutally decapitates Thanos and walks off next time we see him he is a fatass doofus playing fortnite. It is literally more jarring than the Whedon Batman reshoots in Justice League. Just compare Thor in Endgames to Thor in Infinity War. And again you act like Watiti created a new arc for Ragnarok but he did the exact opposite and completed it from the first 2 movies. The Russos were the ones who undid Thor's arc

You act like all marvel movies are light hearted while ignoring that Fat Thor is in what is arguably the darkest movie in the MCU. Sure Endgames takes jabs at the mcu throughout the years but it's one thing to take a jab and another to complete **** on something. Endgame was fairly serious throughout the movie and it makes Fat Thor stick out like a sore thumb. Everyone is grieving in incredibly realistic and understandable ways and you could argue it is no different for Thor but the problem is it is played for laughs when no one else (Besides maybe Banner Hulk) is played for laughs. Imagine if after Ant Man returns from the quantum realm they just start cracking jokes about him being out of touch. But they don't and they treat him seeing this radically different new world with dread and ominous tone

It is obvious the original plan for Thor 3 was for Loki to be the villain and Thor to confront him. My issue is how it makes Loki into an idiot. He is the master of deception yet all but puts a giant blinking sign that say "I AM SECRETLY LOKI IN DISGUISE". I get he is arrogant but never once has he failed to mimic a person even strangers he just met but you're telling me he can't disguise himself as the man who raised him for centuries? And as for Sif it's just apart of the bigger issue of the old Thor characters being tossed away like garbage. Like I said the least Watiti could've done is have the Warriors Three go out with a bang instead of a whimper even if they weren't that well developed

As for FemThor admittedly I never was fond of Jane Foster becoming Thor because there are so many more interesting characters who could've taken. I read the first 2 issues and they just didn't do it for me or apparently many other people hence why Marvel decided to give Thor Odinson his 1610 hammer. Maybe the MCU will make Jane Thor better considering it made Captain Marvel passable.

No offense but it seems like you missed the message of Ragnarok. It was Thor finally reaching his potential and becoming king of Asgard why do you think Waititi had him lose an eye just because? As different as Ragnarok was it still fits the greater arc of the Thor trilogy unlike Infinity War and Endgame which undoes everything done in the Thor trilogy including Ragnarok. I mean Waititi literally had Thor realize he doesn’t need his hammer but in Infinity War screw that time to get a new hammer

Let’s just agree to disagree on these topics. Maybe you saw Ragnarok as completely getting rid of the Thor trilogy arc and making a new one I disagree. I think despite being tonelly different it completed Thor’s arc and it was the Russos who backtracked it which honestly kinda sucks because it would be a fair way to “retire” Thor from being a super hero but hey guess you need to capitalize off Hemsworth for Guardians 3

[Jack The Tripper]

Please read the post below this one first, I accidentally posted this one first because i had to split my post into two parts lol fml

Why do we NEED another movie of Thor being deceived by Loki though? Also, Surtur is the one that alerted Thor to Odin not being on Asgard, which led to him finding loki on the throne. Heimdall also realised, leading to his exile. I think it's quite clear that Loki had banished most that he deemed a threat, making his deception quite well executed. You're right, that probably was the plan, but Dark world was so bad that they decided to just wipe the slate clean completely! Also, Loki did do his share of deceiving in Ragnarok, he became buddies with The Grand Master, and when he tried to deceive Thor, Thor was wise to it, even declaring that they shouldn't see each other any more because it's the same old, same old. I personally don't need to see loki again, his character has been bled dry imo. Again, I'm sure plans involving Warrior's Three were discussed but likely nixxed due to time constraints/pacing issues - and in all fairness Hogun had a pretty good stand off with Hela. Jaime Alexander who played Sif also couldn't come back because of schedule conflicts, and they explain her absence in film.

But then you're having a biased, pre-formed opinion on the comic. The point of revealing Jane Foster to be Thor was to push her into a new direction as a character and make her interesting - which Jason Aaron and co did astonishingly well. And you're incorrect, Mighty Thor's sales and critical praise were very positive (I know where I work we sold loads of those comics, and the GNs are selling well too). Odinson didn't get the Ultimate hammer, it was a focal point in the series "Unworthy Thor" but he didn't lift it. The hammer was actually lifted by Volstagg, turning him into the awesome character, The War Thor. Again, I can't recommend this run of comics enough. It gets absolutely mental in a way that only comics can.

Believe me I take no offence in that man, because i feel that way about your opinions on this. I'd absolutely agree if Ragnarok ended with Asgard not being decimated and Thor and the new Asgardians searching for a new place to call home (Earth, which he succeeds in doing). I mean "Ragnarok" in the comics is always followed by a rebirth for the Gods. I think it's clear that Taika was going into it with an "out with the old, in with the new" type of approach. It's even apparent when Hela reveals about how Odin "got soft" and basically rebooted himself into a kinder, less war-inclined God.

It should also be noted that every Thor decision from IW and Endgame was made via consultation with Waititi during the filming/post production of Ragnarok, so it was most certainly setting everything up to have it fall. Again, with the demise of Odin, the destruction of Asgard, and the focus on character over spectacle (Asgard is its people, not its foundations), it very clearly sets up a new status quo for Thor. He's still a God (in MCU terms), he can still be a hero, he can still serve Asgard, he's still worthy, he could even be King again if he wanted to, but he doesn't have those weights on his shoulders - tradition and heritage - anymore. He's free to be what he wants to be, there are no limitations. Ragnarok, Infinity War, and Endgame revitalised Thor and made him a household name. Thor Love and Thunder was the most talked about of the new MCU announcements. It's funny really - Thor is one of my all time favourite comic characters (Top 3 at the very least) and I used to force myself to like him in the older movies, but in these last 3 movies I've actually been able to look back and say that those films were bad at their worst, and average at best. The new Thor is a stronger character that has infinite possibilities, as opposed to the one introduced in 2011 who was given the most overdone and dull path to travel down. I really do think that in a few years when we finally get a great Superman/Justice League movie, fans will look back and say "Yeah we definitely deserved better than those movies". I could be wrong, but I think that will happen.

I don't think of it as capitalising off of Hemsworth, it's more giving a character the enjoyable, great, blockbuster movies he deserves in the future of the franchise after his first few movies were (Especially in retrospect) unjustifiably underwhelming. I don't think he will be in GOTG 3 by the way! I think GOTG will be in the first part of Thor 4.

I know for sure we haven't changed each others' minds on the topics at hand, but I just wanna say that in my opinion, the MCU has embraced the fun of superhero comics more than Snyder's DC movies have - that's not to say that MCU could and should go darker with certain characters, but I think they've found a good middle ground. In my opinion, Snyder fails to see what makes these characters dynamic and enjoyable. He'd perhaps make a great Batman movie, or a Hellblazer movie, but I don't think he has the handle on Superman or the Justice League. I guess the Snyder Cut will confirm or change my opinion - either way I'll be watching out of morbid curiosity.

Sorry if I missed anything out here, i was in quite a rush!