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

[Jack The Tripper]

This is the first post lol

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

It's to do with how well they're done - first of all, comics and movies are different mediums, so there's no use comparing the two so candidly. You're also forgetting that that issue of Thor (and many of the "sjw" themed ones thereafter) was made in response to the sexism found online when Jane Foster's Thor was announced. No one takes sexists/macho men on the internet seriously either - just like a strawman. I don't see what the problem with that is? I mean even ya boi Snyder did the same with Jimmy Olsen - made an infinitely more pivotal character a red shirt. At the end of the day, in comics you're gonna always find lesser known villains being used in a way that counteracts their previous appearances (The Orb, Kite Man etc etc), it's not that any given publisher or creator forgot that, it's just what those characters evolved into years ago.

The problem is it wouldn't be interesting because that would be similar to the Superman we had since MoS - he'd been grappling with who he was and didn't know whether he was humanity's hero or not, so him deciding that would just be a decision to his original conundrum. Thor, however was often told he would be king, he was Asgard's hero, it's in his blood etc, so for him to complete that journey and then instantly have Asgard decimated, half his people die, and a further half of the universe die because of his choices and (in his mind) failures, he's realised that perhaps the road that was set out for him, is not the road he has to take - that is infinitely more interesting and tense than his first 2 movies which just had him sure of what he has to do, and hitting the bad guy til they fall. In regards to his hammer - he couldn't go get it because he was trapped on Sakaar with Hulk, and they needed to save Asgard immediately. I absolutely agree he shouldn't have gotten a new eye, but I've learned to live with it. It's easier to cut off a head with an axe than to cut it off with lightning yknow. If his lightning wasn't enough to defeat Hela, it definitely isn't enough to defeat the strongest threat yet seen in the MCU - an axe forged via the heart of a dying star would definitely help. And IW and Endgame were pretty much JUST fan service, because they had built the franchise into the most popular franchise in the world over a decade, everyone was a fan by that point - this is what's different between that and let's say BvS. To you, me, and other comic fans, it's a pretty cool thing to see Batman in that power armour holding a kryptonite spear, but to the general audience they don't care because they haven't been given ample time to get to know both these characters. I'll reply more in depth to your Ragnarok claims in a sec.

Movies don't just have one tone, there are multiple tones - generally Marvel has the humorous side, and the more character building, heartfelt side - another example is Civil War, which, like Endgame merges the two very well. They chose Thor to react that way for a very real reason though - seeing what is supposed to be a GOD eating and drinking himself to death, becoming an absolute shadow of himself, hits it home more and offers up more dynamic within the movie. And it's not treated as a joke by the film - by certain characters yes (Tony, Rocket, and Rhodey because that's how their characters would act) but the film treats him as a grief stricken God who is so hurt by grief and guilt that he damages himself in the process. In the end it doesn't matter, he is still the same great warrior that is worthy enough to lift Mjolnir and is even pleased when one of his best friends can also lift it. His guilt, his grief, his weight, his failures haven't made him unworthy, he is still a hero at the centre of it all and that's what matters. That's what's absolutely beautiful about his arc imo.

I know that, as someone who has put on weight due to grief and guilt, Thor's reaction is very realistic - especially for someone who's been built up to be a King and a leader. The idea was to make him relatable and they succeeded. I would argue that it wasn't played for laughs either, the initial laughs come from the SURPRISE of seeing this Godly, Herculean man that we've known for nearly a decade, look so different - it would be the same reaction if he was wearing the same clothes and no big ol' belly. I'll also say that as a fatass myself, I didn't find it even the mildest bit offensive.

[Dboi2001]

you really think the Russos weren’t trying to make Thor funny by having him and Korg yelling at kids over Fortnite? It absolutely was played for laughs from the fortnite to him dressing like Labowski. If you can’t see the difference then i guess that’s just you. They literally do nothing but make fat jokes about Thor

All I will say over the issue of FemThor is having the character rant at the “haters” isn’t going to win them over. You know what will win nay sayers like myself over? An interesting and fun character. I don’t find ham fisted rants about sexism entertaining especially when it lacks any self awareness

WTF does Jimmy Olsen have to do with this? As someone else has said Jimmy is redundant and unnecessary within the story. In the early comics Jimmy was the wide eyed fanboy of Superman who’d always put in a good word. Here Lois already fills that role more or less. And at least Jimmy went out like a man unlike the warriors 3 in Thor. Even then considering he was a CIA agent he may even be the real Jimmy Olsen

Again dude he accepts being King of Asgard in Ragnarok. Why didn’t he make Valk king of asgard at the end of Ragnarok? If you watch the Thor Trilogy the arc is completed. on the surface Ragnarok is vastly different but Thor’s arc is still the same. and no it isn’t boring what is boring in Fat Thor in Endgame

Storm breaker wouldn’t have killed Hela only Ragnarok would kill her but it wouldn’t hurt to make a new hammer. And no Infinity and Endgame isn’t all just fan service and neither is armored Batman.

[SiegePerilous02]

WTF does Jimmy Olsen have to do with this? As someone else has said Jimmy is redundant and unnecessary within the story. In the early comics Jimmy was the wide eyed fanboy of Superman who’d always put in a good word. Here Lois already fills that role more or less. And at least Jimmy went out like a man unlike the warriors 3 in Thor. Even then considering he was a CIA agent he may even be the real Jimmy Olsen

Jimmy being unnecessary is a good reason not to include him period, why bother including him just to kill him off to be "funny"?. I can at least understand the logic behind making Dick Grayson the dead Robin since that has more impact among the casuals, even if it seems self defeating if the goal is to launch a cinematic universe. Because you just cut the legs out of the possibility of using the Titans and properly utilizing the Bat-Family.

But Jimmy getting killed (in an especially realistic and shocking manner) is just stupid as all get out. Yeah Lois fills that function, but...is Clark just not allowed to have any meaningful relationships beyond Lois and his parents? Screw that noise. Killing off Jimmy isn't any less stupid just because the MCU killed off the Warriors 3, they can both be questionable decisions.

[Will Evans]

I’d say that Snyder respects certain comics: Dark Knight Returns, Watchman, 300, anything else by Frank Miller independent like Sin City.

And....those are the only comics he respects. That’s it.

[Dboi2001]

Jimmy being unnecessary is a good reason not to include him period, why bother including him just to kill him off to be "funny"?. I can at least understand the logic behind making Dick Grayson the dead Robin since that has more impact among the casuals, even if it seems self defeating if the goal is to launch a cinematic universe. Because you just cut the legs out of the possibility of using the Titans and properly utilizing the Bat-Family.

But Jimmy getting killed (in an especially realistic and shocking manner) is just stupid as all get out. Yeah Lois fills that function, but...is Clark just not allowed to have any meaningful relationships beyond Lois and his parents? Screw that noise. Killing off Jimmy isn't any less stupid just because the MCU killed off the Warriors 3, they can both be questionable decisions.

Same reason for Dick Grayson to be dead. It had some more impact. Hell besides the Director’s Cut he isn’t even named. Regardless like I said he could’ve just used Jimmy Olsen as a cover. Besides people wouldn’t shut up about where Jimmy was in MoS

Also Yes giving Superman a friend would undermine the story. Superman’s ideals are constantly being tested throughout BvS with the only people calling him a hero pretty much being his mother and Lois. Not to mention giving him a best friend kinda undermines the main person keeping Superman sane

[Jack The Tripper]

you really think the Russos weren’t trying to make Thor funny by having him and Korg yelling at kids over Fortnite? It absolutely was played for laughs from the fortnite to him dressing like Labowski. If you can’t see the difference then i guess that’s just you. They literally do nothing but make fat jokes about Thor

All I will say over the issue of FemThor is having the character rant at the “haters” isn’t going to win them over. You know what will win nay sayers like myself over? An interesting and fun character. I don’t find ham fisted rants about sexism entertaining especially when it lacks any self awareness

WTF does Jimmy Olsen have to do with this? As someone else has said Jimmy is redundant and unnecessary within the story. In the early comics Jimmy was the wide eyed fanboy of Superman who’d always put in a good word. Here Lois already fills that role more or less. And at least Jimmy went out like a man unlike the warriors 3 in Thor. Even then considering he was a CIA agent he may even be the real Jimmy Olsen

Again dude he accepts being King of Asgard in Ragnarok. Why didn’t he make Valk king of asgard at the end of Ragnarok? If you watch the Thor Trilogy the arc is completed. on the surface Ragnarok is vastly different but Thor’s arc is still the same. and no it isn’t boring what is boring in Fat Thor in Endgame

Storm breaker wouldn’t have killed Hela only Ragnarok would kill her but it wouldn’t hurt to make a new hammer. And no Infinity and Endgame isn’t all just fan service and neither is armored Batman.

You are able to make a character funny, but that doesn't mean you are only playing them for laughs - this is part of what makes characters three dimensional, I'll also add that this is something Snyder seems to have difficulty doing. You are remembering only one part of Thor's characterisation in that movie, man. He realises he's still worthy, he has an excellent emotional beat with his mother, he suits up as Thor in an epic way at the beginning of the final battle, he battles with two hammers, and he reaches the beginning of his new journey at the end of the movie. I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, they do not literally just make fat jokes about Thor. Also, whether he's fat or not, a lot of the characters have made jokes at Thor's expense ("Dost thou mother know you weareth her drapes?" etc etc).

I don't think they want that particular brand of hater honestly. Those people will never change their minds because they're too focussed on Thor being a woman than actually checking out the comic and the character. And again, that issue came quite a few issues into the run, you and the other "haters" made up your minds long ago based on pre conceived biases. You haven't read it, so really you have no say on it, just like I don't have a say on Scott Snyder's Justice League comic because I haven't read it.

I was actually likening Jimmy Olsen to the problems you have with Absorbing man in those couple of pages of Thor. So are you insinuating that a comic character has to be adapted completely faithfully to the screen, with no changes from what he's most known for being? Because if so, you might have a problem with Zack Snyder's Superman... And from what I remember, Jimmy Olsen went out on his knees. But again, I'm sure they were sacrificed for pacing issues. As SiegePerilous02 says above - both deaths are questionable, but I don't think either should take time away from the movie and what the film maker wants to tell - It's up to the actual meat of said movie to be of any real merit. Ragnarok had a lot of ground to cover and its main aim was bringing something new to the story of Thor, so for me, Volstagg and Fandral's deaths weren't a major problem. I don't think many people apart from yourself were too sad to see them go as they weren't really done justice in the previous films either. Let me just say as well, Ragnarok isn't perfect, but I think the things you point out aren't the problems you think they are.

If he did that in Ragnarok, he'd have no room for the great character development in Endgame. The trilogy format doesn't work as much in shared universes much because, like comics, each new movie (issue) featuring them requires some form of character growth in order to keep characters evolving and staying relevant. Thor's arc (home) is completed (destroyed) in order to make way for a new (more interesting) one. Ragnarok was made, as marketed at the time in interviews, to show off a new take on Thor, one that is vastly more interesting than the one before. Man, I think you have a little crush on Fat Thor, you're way too obsessed with him.

He didn't have time. As I said, they had to get to Asgard quickly, as we know from Infinity War, it takes a while to make a new hammer seeing as he has to restart a star lol. Had he done that, all the Asgardians would be dead. I mean, it's quite fan servicey. They're great movies with great themes and Thor's character arc is absolutely ASTONISHING, but they were made for fans of the movies, they were made to have fan favourites interact with fan favourites, and they were made for "I am Iron Man", Captain America lifting up Mjolnir, and "Avengers Assemble". Everybody in every cinema laughed with pure unbridled joy for every one of those moments because the film makers gave us all the **** we'd begun craving over a whole decade's worth of movies. It's the best kind of fan service, and I don't mean it as an insult at all because it felt earned.

[Jack The Tripper]

Same reason for Dick Grayson to be dead. It had some more impact. Hell besides the Director’s Cut he isn’t even named. Regardless like I said he could’ve just used Jimmy Olsen as a cover. Besides people wouldn’t shut up about where Jimmy was in MoS

Also Yes giving Superman a friend would undermine the story. Superman’s ideals are constantly being tested throughout BvS with the only people calling him a hero pretty much being his mother and Lois. Not to mention giving him a best friend kinda undermines the main person keeping Superman sane

But why can't Clark have a best friend? Even if Jimmy was against Superman at first but friends with Clark, it would make for an interesting dynamic. A friend of his actually disliking his "real" self. The movies tend to write Superman into a corner as opposed to giving the character options. Seeing as his whole quest in the first movie was to find out who he is and what it means to have his powers, that should have been settled in MoS. Carrying that question over into BvS makes for a rather one note character whose motivations for doing what he's doing aren't all that clear. Captain America's a good, clear example - in the First Avenger you had a guy willing to what it takes to protect the country and people he loves, Winter Soldier has him questioning the country he holds dear in a new age, Civil War has him opposing the government he willingly put his life on the line for many, many times whilst still fighting for the morals and values that he holds. Iron Man was a playboy, profiteering off of war and throughout the course of the mcu he becomes a hero who tries to protect the world from any danger, even though he may blur the lines a little and use immoral methods, and in the end he gives his life to save everyone. At the start of MoS, he questions whether he should be a hero, it's the same through to BvS and I'd argue even at the end of BvS (despite sacrificing himself) we still don't know whether he wants to be a hero or not, he just doesn't want his mother or Lois to die.

[SiegePerilous02]

Same reason for Dick Grayson to be dead. It had some more impact. Hell besides the Director’s Cut he isn’t even named. Regardless like I said he could’ve just used Jimmy Olsen as a cover. Besides people wouldn’t shut up about where Jimmy was in MoS

Also Yes giving Superman a friend would undermine the story. Superman’s ideals are constantly being tested throughout BvS with the only people calling him a hero pretty much being his mother and Lois. Not to mention giving him a best friend kinda undermines the main person keeping Superman sane

It has no impact. You can lift him and his death out of the story and it changes nothing.

Superman should not have one person keeping him sane. That's how you get bad Superman stories. It's not good to make him depend on one person to keep him grounded (because he should be able to keep himself grounded), and it shouldn't take Jimmy or Perry or Kara to undermine Lois. She's an iconic character in her own right with plenty of stuff going on, relying on her to keep Superman sane isn't fair to either one of them (or anyone else in the supporting cast- this shouldn't be the Clois show 24/7).

[Dboi2001]

congrats on missing Ragnarok’s message and Thor outright saying Asgard isn’t just a place it’s the people. The thing about the solo movies and the team movies is the solo movies focus on the individual arcs while the movies focus on the team as a whole. Iron Man is about becoming Iron Man, Iron Man 2 about facing the consequences of his life’s work selling deadly weapons and Iron Man 3 about realizing Tony Stark is Iron Man not the suit. Avengers and AoU didn’t focus on that hence why Stark suddenly had an entire lot of suits and drones after blowing them all up. Ragnarok and Infinity war is the same thing. When Ragnarok ended Thor accepted being King and that is the completion of his arc just like how Iron Man 3 completed Iron Man’s arc. You cannot change that fact. Waititi never had Thor question if he was worthy to become king and again him losing his eye is symbolic that he has succeeded his father instead of just being a really cool look for Thor that the Russos were too lazy to keep. Captain America’s arc also completed in CW as well. The Avengers movies are about the Avengers as a whole instead of just the individual characters and their arc. Ragnarok fits far FAR better with Thor and Dark World than IW and Endgame. Again Thor was way more quiet and witty in Ragnarok than in IW and they even brought back his doesn’t understand people thing with the Guardians. Sure the guardians aren’t all humans or from earth but he was way more similar to Thor in Avengers than Thor in Ragnarok and Fat Thor felt like a totally different character and his arc is laughable. As cool as it way for him to power up it was utterly undeserving

You are using false equivalence. My issue with Absorbing Man is they took a boring character, made him even more boring while being a ridiculous strawman and if they ‘don’t want those type of people’ aka loyal fans who are rightfully upset when marvel drastically changes characters for the sake of political correctness instead of good story telling then congrats you’re preaching to the choir. You know part of the point of addressing social issue is to open eyes of people who are either unaware or against it and see the different side

The issue with Jimmy Olsen in your case is taking a vital character and killing him off unceremoniously which i can understand. However the differences is for one Jimmy hasn’t been very important to superman in years and people would still keep asking ‘where is Jimmy?’ The issue with Absorbing Man is they take a random ass character and turn him into a strawman. And no they aren’t evolving the character because that would imply he got better which he didn’t

[Dboi2001]

It has no impact. You can lift him and his death out of the story and it changes nothing.

Superman should not have one person keeping him sane. That's how you get bad Superman stories. It's not good to make him depend on one person to keep him grounded (because he should be able to keep himself grounded), and it shouldn't take Jimmy or Perry or Kara to undermine Lois. She's an iconic character in her own right with plenty of stuff going on, relying on her to keep Superman sane isn't fair to either one of them (or anyone else in the supporting cast- this shouldn't be the Clois show 24/7).

Dude literally EVERY EVIL SUPERMAN STORY IS ABOUT HIM LOSING LOIS. This isn’t anything new

[Dboi2001]

It has no impact. You can lift him and his death out of the story and it changes nothing.

Superman should not have one person keeping him sane. That's how you get bad Superman stories. It's not good to make him depend on one person to keep him grounded (because he should be able to keep himself grounded), and it shouldn't take Jimmy or Perry or Kara to undermine Lois. She's an iconic character in her own right with plenty of stuff going on, relying on her to keep Superman sane isn't fair to either one of them (or anyone else in the supporting cast- this shouldn't be the Clois show 24/7).

Dude literally EVERY EVIL SUPERMAN STORY IS ABOUT HIM LOSING LOIS. This isn’t anything new

[SiegePerilous02]

Dude literally EVERY EVIL SUPERMAN STORY IS ABOUT HIM LOSING LOIS. This isn’t anything new

Yes...and? All those stories are fucking terrible. The last thing we need is more of them. You're mistaken if you think it being done before is a defense I would agree with for this one.

[Dboi2001]

But why can't Clark have a best friend? Even if Jimmy was against Superman at first but friends with Clark, it would make for an interesting dynamic. A friend of his actually disliking his "real" self. The movies tend to write Superman into a corner as opposed to giving the character options. Seeing as his whole quest in the first movie was to find out who he is and what it means to have his powers, that should have been settled in MoS. Carrying that question over into BvS makes for a rather one note character whose motivations for doing what he's doing aren't all that clear. Captain America's a good, clear example - in the First Avenger you had a guy willing to what it takes to protect the country and people he loves, Winter Soldier has him questioning the country he holds dear in a new age, Civil War has him opposing the government he willingly put his life on the line for many, many times whilst still fighting for the morals and values that he holds. Iron Man was a playboy, profiteering off of war and throughout the course of the mcu he becomes a hero who tries to protect the world from any danger, even though he may blur the lines a little and use immoral methods, and in the end he gives his life to save everyone. At the start of MoS, he questions whether he should be a hero, it's the same through to BvS and I'd argue even at the end of BvS (despite sacrificing himself) we still don't know whether he wants to be a hero or not, he just doesn't want his mother or Lois to die.

Because Clark and Superman are essentially the same character. There’d be virtually no purpose to it other than to hammer in the fact people dislike Superman. Unlike in most version Clark Kent doesn’t act like a cluts or bafoon. And if they did do that you’d just say it’s a cliche and Spider-man did that too. The point is that Jimmy Olsen didn’t fit into the narrative and ironically your idea makes Jimmy into the opposite of the comics despite you complaining about all the changes the dceu makes

You really don’t understand MoS do you? He doesn’t question if he should save humanity but if he can save humanity and Krypton as Jor El had envisioned. Clark doesn’t want to be an outsider but doesn’t want to give up his home which the Kryptonians put him in. In BvS the question is if Superman is truly saving people or causing more harm. He doesn’t kill Doomsday to just save Lois but the entire Earth. On top of that Clark always felt like an outsider but in BvS he accepted Earth as his world

[Jack The Tripper]

congrats on missing Ragnarok’s message and Thor outright saying Asgard isn’t just a place it’s the people. The thing about the solo movies and the team movies is the solo movies focus on the individual arcs while the movies focus on the team as a whole. Iron Man is about becoming Iron Man, Iron Man 2 about facing the consequences of his life’s work selling deadly weapons and Iron Man 3 about realizing Tony Stark is Iron Man not the suit. Avengers and AoU didn’t focus on that hence why Stark suddenly had an entire lot of suits and drones after blowing them all up. Ragnarok and Infinity war is the same thing. When Ragnarok ended Thor accepted being King and that is the completion of his arc just like how Iron Man 3 completed Iron Man’s arc. You cannot change that fact. Waititi never had Thor question if he was worthy to become king and again him losing his eye is symbolic that he has succeeded his father instead of just being a really cool look for Thor that the Russos were too lazy to keep. Captain America’s arc also completed in CW as well. The Avengers movies are about the Avengers as a whole instead of just the individual characters and their arc. Ragnarok fits far FAR better with Thor and Dark World than IW and Endgame. Again Thor was way more quiet and witty in Ragnarok than in IW and they even brought back his doesn’t understand people thing with the Guardians. Sure the guardians aren’t all humans or from earth but he was way more similar to Thor in Avengers than Thor in Ragnarok and Fat Thor felt like a totally different character and his arc is laughable. As cool as it way for him to power up it was utterly undeserving

You are using false equivalence. My issue with Absorbing Man is they took a boring character, made him even more boring while being a ridiculous strawman and if they ‘don’t want those type of people’ aka loyal fans who are rightfully upset when marvel drastically changes characters for the sake of political correctness instead of good story telling then congrats you’re preaching to the choir. You know part of the point of addressing social issue is to open eyes of people who are either unaware or against it and see the different side

The issue with Jimmy Olsen in your case is taking a vital character and killing him off unceremoniously which i can understand. However the differences is for one Jimmy hasn’t been very important to superman in years and people would still keep asking ‘where is Jimmy?’ The issue with Absorbing Man is they take a random ass character and turn him into a strawman. And no they aren’t evolving the character because that would imply he got better which he didn’t

Congrats on wilfully ignoring the fact that Asgard being a people breaks down what we know of Asgard, and by extension, what Thor knows about his motivations and ruling a kingdom in general. Ragnarok sets up new stories as well as ending old ones - Just because one arc ends doesn't mean a new one can't birth from it; this is what Ragnarok means in the comics; the cycle begins anew.Throughout the film and the trilogy he has trepidation in regards to being King of Asgard, and the reason he has those visions of Odin are because of his lack of confidence. As much as it ends an arc it sets up a completely new one. If we didn't have character motivations actively changing every character in comics would become redundant - this is why characters run out of popularity and then when there's a great new run that changes things, it sticks. This is the same with Thor - his movies were getting low box office and weren't critically as sound as other MCU offerings, he had the least buzz in Avengers movies, so they went with a new take on him in order to give him new appeal - the reason why this is more of a beginning of an arc as opposed to an ending is because it was actively made this way so they had new places to go with Thor. The Avengers movies continued Iron Man's arc though? It wasn't the Avengers that created Ultron, it was Stark and (less so) Banner, Stark championed the Sokovia Accords as a method to keep the world safe, whilst also taking a mentor role for Peter Parker to make sure something like Sokovia doesn't happen again. You can't say that the team movies have no bearing on an individual character's growth. The reason we like these movies is because the characters have depth, not because they make jokes and punch things. Ragnarok fits with Thor 1 and 2 as much as Logan fits with X-Men Origins: Wolverine and The Wolverine. There are echos of similarity/familiarity, but overall they're entirely different, vastly improved takes on characters that have struggled to find their feet outside of team movies. Thor still didn't understand situations in Ragnarok, his first moments on Sakaar were him thinking he had any power over himself being there, when in actuality he was a prisoner. Fat Thor was five years of grief, guilt, and what he felt was undeserved responsibility, so of course he felt like a different character. I honestly don't think you realise how important these kinds of angles to these characters is what makes them interesting and different to what's come before. How was it undeserving though? His arc was relatable, which is more than can be said for either Batman or Superman in Snyder's films. In the end he was able to realise that his grief and his guilt doesn't define who he is, he's still worthy of being a hero and a God. It's a fantastic arc, but you're only seeing what he looks like as the defining feature of it. From what I understand, you wanted him to just be a king forever and having no internal struggles? Just going about hitting people and ruling a kingdom after 2 meh films? Kinda boring no? The intent of the third film was to revitalise him - why do that if the intent was just to keep him the same forever/retire him? I want to iterate that the themes of Ragnarok essentially amount to identity, family, worth, tradition and heritage - these themes are continued and expanded upon in Infinity War and Endgame, therefore making these iterations of this character tie together cohesively. You are ignoring the fact that there is a story there for this character. The majority of people loved Thor in these last few movies because of these choices, you are in the minority. I promise you, people would have forgotten Thor if he ended happily in Asgard as King.

Odinson still existed though? They didn't wipe him from existence, he still had a large chunk of those stories focussed on him, so if you were a loyal fan and not just a butt hurt boy full of machismo you'd at least follow to see what was going on? Not drop it after 2 issues (which isn't even a full arc)? You've missed out on good storytelling because you can't get passed this pre conceived idea that anytime a woman gets a new place in a comic it can only be bad news. I really feel sorry for you if you think that diversifying a cast waters down the quality of comics and storytelling because you're missing out on good stuff. Can I just ask; would your response to a new Thor been different if he was a guy? Because again, The Jane Foster Thor stories dealt with so much more than feminism and the inherent sexism in our society. If you can't see the point he's getting at, then you're part of the problem matey. That Thor story didn't turn into an "sjw agenda" until you man-babies started throwing your toys out of the pram because "Arghhhh oh nooooo my big boy Thor is now a yucky girl". Pretty snowflakey if you ask me.

Doesn't matter; jimmy, like Absorbing Man was deemed as disposable and used for a reason specifically set up by the creators - in fact Jimmy is worse because he was important to Superman's cast at one point for a large chunk of time, meaning more people would likely have an attachment to him, and therefore be upset at his representation. If Jimmy said he was a feminist, only then would you get upset at his characterisation. From what i can gather, you're upset because a boring character remained boring. So what? Why is this your crowning criticism of a story featuring a powerful female taking the mantle from a powerful male (who remains powerful by the way)? Because it paints a picture of someone's misogynistic views being absolutely non essential and weak in today's climate. Also it's not a random ass character - he's someone who's dealt with Odinson before, something that is important to the encounter. This is a moot point anyway because you dropped the book after 2 issues, meaning that this issue was not where your problems started with the comic. Grow up and realise that there is room for different takes on characters without getting butt hurt about it. One day you'll hopefully go back, read it, and realise you took random pages out of context to an overall story.

[Jack The Tripper]

Because Clark and Superman are essentially the same character. There’d be virtually no purpose to it other than to hammer in the fact people dislike Superman. Unlike in most version Clark Kent doesn’t act like a cluts or bafoon. And if they did do that you’d just say it’s a cliche and Spider-man did that too. The point is that Jimmy Olsen didn’t fit into the narrative and ironically your idea makes Jimmy into the opposite of the comics despite you complaining about all the changes the dceu makes

You really don’t understand MoS do you? He doesn’t question if he should save humanity but if he can save humanity and Krypton as Jor El had envisioned. Clark doesn’t want to be an outsider but doesn’t want to give up his home which the Kryptonians put him in. In BvS the question is if Superman is truly saving people or causing more harm. He doesn’t kill Doomsday to just save Lois but the entire Earth. On top of that Clark always felt like an outsider but in BvS he accepted Earth as his world

Of course they don't like Superman if they can't like Clark lol, why's he that unlikeable that he only has a girlfriend and his mother? Are you telling me that Clark has a personal life and a full time job but hasn't made any friends? Fine then, have Jimmy like Superman and Clark, I don't care - adding anything, even a smidge, to Superman's human life would have made him that bit more interesting than just what he was in MoS. I'm saying anything would have been better than making him a CIA operative who gets killed without us even knowing who he is. Zack Snyder's misguided attempt at cool and edgy.

But he's still grappling with his hesitation of saving humanity in BvS, he's the exact same as he was but the writers are just throwing new things at him, and he reacts the exact same. It would have made more sense and been more interesting to have Clark be the hopeful symbol we know and love by the end of MoS, then possibly in BvS have Batman and Luthor trying to take him down (with better motivations ideally), slowly wittling away at the hope and positive demeanour he has until he breaks a bit. Instead we have mopey Superman being mopey for two films along with the other, famously mopey hero. Thank God Wonder Woman was available to breathe a bit of life into that film. Sorry if it sounds like I'm pushing an sjw agenda by saying a woman was more enjoyable than two muscly men xo