Zack Snyder Explains Why DC Movies Can't Be Like Marvel Movies

[Castle]

Sorry, but this is just completely wrong.
Anyone who knows that this was the case in the comics -

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Gabri...er_(Earth-616)

Sorry but this is mostly right. most stories surrounding Legion in the comics tend to be darker, complicated and usually leading to many tragedies. that is why he is called an antihero. The overall character of Legion is not rosy. Please factually see many main legion story arcs from

Legion Quest that lead to Age of Apocalypse

New Mutants 90s

Age of X

Sins of the Fathers X-MEN Legacy

Also, Marvel once felt Legion was too much of an extreme character and too complicated to be in the comics but the Great Chris Claremont who created the character found a way to work around that.That quote you posted is a one tiny section of Legion history, I am talking the overall character in story. Also here is bonus for tone, both animated adaption that was Legion centered, in X-MEN Anime and X-MEN Evolution got the same darker tone of the FX TV series.

things can be spinned but one this remains the same. Legion has never been a light hearted character where the tone of marvel films or the sitcom thin story style of Wandavision TV series would have been fully justified.

It makes Guardians Of The Galaxy or Thor: Ragnarok look like the "Sin City..." films when it comes to being faithful to the tone of the actual source material.

Neither Thor RAGANORK and the GOTG original concept in the comics have a comedy tone.

[WebLurker]

The reviews were not really mixed. If you were to call it mix, than what are the reviews of films like Iron Man 3, Captain Marvel or Age of Ultron?

56% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to Iron Man 3's 79%, Age of Ultron's 76%, and Captain Marvel's 79%. That would be "generally positive, with some dissent," vs "not well liked" that the former got. (If we have a better way to track pro reviews, let me know.)

...comic films reviews have all become laughable with zero credibility.

How are we figuring that?

Joker has somewhat mixed reviews right? It's still a deserving best picture nominee, to apparently a film like black panther that has ''great reviews'' that got a best picture nomination that made people question why the Oscars will do that?

Joker was 68% on Rotten Tomatoes, so I'd say "mostly well received." Whether it "deserved" to be Oscar-nominated, I have zero opinion on, having never seen it.

Here is the thing with those 90s cartoon. anyone is free not like them or like them because they show the limits of the films. I mean Spiderman was a college guy in the 90s cartoon, while MCU Spiderman is still limited to high school. however what no one should be doing is denying what was done in those cartoons.

I may have issues with many comic films or cartoons or even comic books, but I don't deny what is in the actual adaption or what the writers wrote. what I do is just make my own opinions in what was done. It is true that the X-MEN Adaption told a story of depression, mental illness and bipolar disorders in a way that does not come of as a joke for what was a Saturday morning cartoon, that can be proven with episode like Poetus 1 and 2 and Courage.

You haven't been listening to anything I said have you? The old X-Men cartoon's successes and failures have nothing to do with Marvel Studio's failures and my opinion that that program has aged badly is based on the standards of animated television. I'm not thinking about any of the movies. (Free tip; I'm not interested in what the shows, or any of them tried to do or if it makes them more ambitious then something else. I'm interested if they were the best version of themselves.)

Anyone is free not like those episode because MCU will never go that far that but you should not e doing is claiming the story was never there at all.

The fact that you have lie about what I said to win the argument tells me just how weak your position really is.

I think this now bores down to asking if Marvel have cartoons of Spiderman and Deadpoool that can rival the recent Harley Quinn Show on HBO Max of Batman Year One film that was just released last week.

So, you're argument that X-Men cartoon is great because you think Marvel animation since has been worse, while I'm saying that it's bad because animation has a whole has become so much better. No wonder we're talking past each other.

If I was to do a research, which I am not, I can find about 25 film directors that has been less flattering about Marvel films, I cannot find up 25 directors that has mocked James Cameron Avatar. I don't think anyone honestly think that video clip has any equal power meaning to Martin Scorsese saying Marvel movies are not cinema? it doesn't.

Seeing how the general response to Martin Scorsese was "okay, boomer" (and rightly so; gatekeeping never has a place anywhere), I find Avatar's place in pop culture as a joke more telling, esp. since the MCU is more favorably regarded in that arena. Remember, this idea that the MCU is considered an embarrassment and something people are over exists only in your imagination.

[Conn Seanery]

If I was to do a research, which I am not, I can find about 25 film directors that has been less flattering about Marvel films, I cannot find up 25 directors that has mocked James Cameron Avatar. I don't think anyone honestly think that video clip has any equal power meaning to Martin Scorsese saying Marvel movies are not cinema? it doesn't.

Are you two seriously arguing about which film(s) get mocked the most? One was made 12 years ago, emphasis on ONE. The MCU has been steadily producing 20+ films since a year before that (not to mention all the TV content). One's more prevalent in the public consciousness than the other with more material to draw from, Marvel "wins" purely from a volume standpoint. Which doesn't mean Avatar doesn't get its fair share of it, obviously. Both films (or pool of films) get mocked, it's ridiculous to compare. There's nothing to debate, move on.

[green_garnish]

As I said, and will say it again, this is the MCU vs DC vs FOX pov. In the more of the fair and balanced POV, everyone knows why Aaron Johnson Quicksilver was killed in Age of Ultron. Also does anyone really need to point why Evan Peter appears in Wandavsion?

But I think maybe I will just let this go, because you also once told me you don't read marvel comics And a lot of the time, when anyone tells me they have never read the comics, they tend to have issues with a lot good movies that Sony or Fox did. This though is not part of any real film making process.

If I said that, I think I said I don't read current comics. And yes, those of us living in the real world do know why MCU Quicksilver was killed. Because it moved the broader story of the MCU forward.

And just to be clear, I kinda got a kick out of DoFP. I certainly enjoyed it more than half a dozen at least of the MCU. But the Quicksilver scene was an eye-rolling derivative of The Matrix about a decade before. Didn't make it a bad movie, just an uninspired scene.

[numberthirty]

Sorry but this is mostly right. most stories surrounding Legion in the comics tend to be darker, complicated and usually leading to many tragedies. that is why he is called an antihero. The overall character of Legion is not rosy. Please factually see many main legion story arcs from

Legion Quest that lead to Age of Apocalypse

New Mutants 90s

Age of X

Sins of the Fathers X-MEN Legacy

Also, Marvel once felt Legion was too much of an extreme character and too complicated to be in the comics but the Great Chris Claremont who created the character found a way to work around that.That quote you posted is a one tiny section of Legion history, I am talking the overall character in story. Also here is bonus for tone, both animated adaption that was Legion centered, in X-MEN Anime and X-MEN Evolution got the same darker tone of the FX TV series.

things can be spinned but one this remains the same. Legion has never been a light hearted character where the tone of marvel films or the sitcom thin story style of Wandavision TV series would have been fully justified.

...

Here is where your main problem is...

What is in blue feels like it is your takeaway from the series.

If that is indeed the case, how do you explain it's ending or the motivation of the characters during the final season?

What was actually on the screen was literally the polar opposite of "Dark..."/"Darker..."

[numberthirty]

Past all of that...

You seem pretty intent that the character is not "Rosy..."/"Light-Hearted..."/"However You Are Going To Try To Frame It..."

This literally has right around "Zero..." to do with any discussion of it the series was anything like an actual adaptation or just a series that plugged an existing character into a story that was largely going to be the creator's vision.

In the same way that the Jesse Custer of AMC's Preacher was largely a character that was mostly the brainchild of the shows creators, the David in the FX series is essentially an almost entirely new character with an almost entirely different history who is existing in a universe where almost none of the "Classic Coke..." X-Men touchstones are anywhere to be seen.

Long story short?

It just is not an adaptation. It is a new story that just happens to have a few almost completely different versions of existing character playing central roles.

[Kirby101]

Which was "darker" the character who dies in BvS who we know will be resurected in the next movie, or the two characters who are Uncle Ben Dead in Endgame? Hmmm?

[Metro]

It's funny that people say the MCU has no stakes whereas in the DCEU almost all the deaths that happen just don't matter because they're almost always by forgettable side characters no one really cares about.
And the one big death that happened you still don't care about because it wasn't built up to properly and you knew he was gonna be back.
Even Steve Trevor's death the one death was actually done right loses the sting because it takes place in a prequel over a hundred years before the main continuity so regardless of whether he lived through Wonder Woman or not he'd be dead long by the time she showed up in BvS.

[Holt]

Claiming that Marvel's positive reviews are irrelevant because critics have zero credibility while also claiming Snyder is superior because he makes the kind of superhero movies that the Oscars love (even though though his movies have zero Oscars or nominations thus far) is certainly an interesting argument.

As for the topic of acclaimed directors bashing Marvel movies, that's really not any different from serious creatives making fun of whatever popcorn entertainment was the most popular at the time. Harlan Ellison would tell anyone who would listen to him that Star Wars was ****. There are a bunch of acclaimed New Hollywood directors who hated Stallone and Schwarzenegger flicks in the 80s. Scorsese himself said that he stepped back from producing Joker because while he liked the script, he ultimately couldn't force himself to care about what he viewed as a cartoon character. It's not a Marvel vs. DC thing, it's that there's a segment of creatives that simply dislike genre or popcorn entertainment, and the notion that DC doesn't fall under that same umbrella is largely ridiculous. Perhaps the Nolan trilogy, specifically. But by and large? They're absolutely lumped together with Marvel films in terms of genre. Hell, if they were more popular, Snyder's DC flicks would probably be the go-to example that reporters were asking the Scorseses and Coppolas of the world about, and the responses would most likely be the same.

[Castle]

If I said that, I think I said I don't read current comics.
.

I am pretty sure you told me you never read marvel comics

Also those of us know why MCU Quicksilver was killed. Because it moved the broader story of the MCU forward.

This explanation is mostly subjective, because if you accept the common obvious reason MCU Quicksilver was killed off , that means indirectly admitting DOFP was a superior made film and the MCU had no choice but to bow out with their own QS but fans who only see Marvel vs DC vs Fox vs Sony don't like to come to that conclusion, that conclusion is left mostly for those who are looking at things more of a pure objective critical place, since that means admitting what is obvious.

Also moving the story forward broader? You can not kill off a character that was introduced in that same movie to move his story broader. Here is the thing, and this is truth. it was even Fox that cheated here, because Juggernaut was supposed to be the one who gets Magneto out of prison, but when Singer heard, Avengers 2 would be having Pietro, he changed it in his own movie to have Pietro replace Juggernaut but Singer been the far more experienced and well thoughtful film maker who had more freedom in his reigns than another MCU director can dream off, was smart enough to know the best way to make his own character stand out more was to give him something that he knew MCU would never be able to do. Whedon if I remember talked about this and how sort of frustrated he got with the 2 Quicksilvers..

And just to be clear, I kinda got a kick out of DoFP. I certainly enjoyed it more than half a dozen at least of the MCU.

I dont think you getting kicked personally out is the issue, After all I am talking about the movie more from an critical place, than what some comic fans were doing in cinema. the issue with films like DOFP is that the movie shows and proves, everything MCU says can not be done with comic books, let alone PG 13 comic films can be done. It's a PG 13 film that did what the comic does, which was push more story comics boundaries. If MCU had done this movie they would have made it a light hearted action comedy, stripped out all the political and social side of the film that was driving the main plot and many characters arcs that were given especially to Xavier and Mystique, Disney would never have agreed to that. Not to mention gone with a completely different kind of VFX, Sound, Music Score and cinematography.

But the Quicksilver scene was an eye-rolling derivative of The Matrix about a decade before. Didn't make it a bad movie, just an uninspired scene.

Matrix did not have the same visual style. lol. Calling it derivative has no film making technical evidence, because the VFX was supposed to be quite impossible to do and a lot of thought did go into it. if anything is derivate, it is the standard basic CGI that MCU uses in their films that makes them look extremely animated, because Disney shifted away from what Jon Favreau did with Iron Man 1 in phase 1 where Favreau was opting more for practical effects such as building parts of the suit of iron man, to Disney just now going for full on CGI in the later films, since apparently Disney felt, the need to sell more toys outweighs, modern preferred style of movie making when it concerns VFX. I have already seen this complaints with the recent black widow reviews that the CGI looks really animated. Which has been a reoccurring complaints for a long time now with MCU films.



DOFP is even still very new. it is not up to 10 years. the VFX of Spiderman 2 and X-MEN 2 still hold up supremely than any of the recent Marvel films.

Maybe we should let MCU come to their own conclusion, not the fans, It is MCU that does not care about Aaron Johnson anymore. As I said, the prove is in the pudding. Aaron Johnson not Evan Peters should have been in Wandavsion. that was who inspired them

If they wanted to move the story forward as you said, then it would have logically made more sense to bring back Aaron. especially for a 6 part story like wandavsion, where the character is questioning her sanity. Aaron QS is aftercall the real direct twin of Elizbeth Olsen's Wanda, and what Evan would be is just an alternate version twin.

Are you two seriously arguing about which film(s) get mocked the most? One was made 12 years ago, emphasis on ONE. The MCU has been steadily producing 20+ films since a year before that (not to mention all the TV content). One's more prevalent in the public consciousness than the other with more material to draw from, Marvel "wins" purely from a volume standpoint. Which doesn't mean Avatar doesn't get its fair share of it, obviously. Both films (or pool of films) get mocked, it's ridiculous to compare. There's nothing to debate, move on.

I believe the debate was more from an artful, creative thinking thought process. I don't see how anyone can debate any director from Marvel went as far as James Cameron Avatar's in redefining what you can do with a blockbuster film as an art piece. MCU films have 20 movies sure, but Twilight could have had 20+ movies but there is still always going to be one Christopher Lee Drucula in the vampire genre. I feel this is what the comparison feels more like.

I agree with you that you cannot debate the quantity of MCU 20+ movies compared to Avatar. However the quality debate? MCU movies are no where close to Avatar. I don't even think they are even close to any James Cameron movie in quality. Cameron creates his own laws and breaks his own laws with new laws as a director.

The only marvel films that closes in with the quality of James Cameron films because they are far far lees factory made would be films like Spiderman 2002 or DOFP and this is also because James Cameron himself had some big saying on how those films should be done and directors like Singer did admit they drew huge inspiration from his style.

[Castle]

56% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to Iron Man 3's 79%, Age of Ultron's 76%, and Captain Marvel's 79%. That would be "generally positive, with some dissent," vs "not well liked" that the former got. (If we have a better way to track pro reviews, let me know.)

these are rotten tomatoes scores. these are not serious film criticism where the overall film's content is deeply explored and nit-picked from an academia place. After all this RT scores, will also mean, most of this films are better than Forrest Gump, when in scholastic academia reality. it wont even be close. Even for a popular reason like how Forrest Gump CGI looked far more real than anything MCU has ever done, or just the amazing themes the films so wonderfully explores . Are we comparing that to Age of Ultron or Iron Man 3? because that is what you are implying.

How are we figuring that?

Because all this movies now are disposable even for many Marvel and DC fans. Noone is out here is really calling Shazam or Iron Man 3 or Far from home, a pure comic film classic of the genre as they will do with a Spiderman 2 or a Batman Begins.

Joker was 68% on Rotten Tomatoes, so I'd say "mostly well received." Whether it "deserved" to be Oscar-nominated, I have zero opinion on, having never seen it.

69 does not sound good though. is this not thor 2 score, which is seen as the worst thor film. strange that a 69% rt movie like Joker is still considered a far more critical acclaim movie than anything mcu has done, because the nature of Joker is far stronger and more daring than the light hearted action comedy narrative that are considered more as kids entertainment first vs a film about the serious hazard of mental illness that some real adults may relate to in way that is provoking and scary.

You haven't been listening to anything I said have you? The old X-Men cartoon's successes and failures have nothing to do with Marvel Studio's failures and my opinion that that program has aged badly is based on the standards of animated television. I'm not thinking about any of the movies. (Free tip; I'm not interested in what the shows, or any of them tried to do or if it makes them more ambitious then something else. I'm interested if they were the best version of themselves.)

Not when it comes to best adaption. If MCU X-MEN becomes action comedy on the light side of things, and cannot even address some of the things that the cartoons were able to do , MCU XMEN will be among and if not the worst xmen adaption ever done because you will here the arguments that the cartoon did it better as you already here a lot.

Seeing how the general response to Martin Scorsese was "okay, boomer" (and rightly so; gatekeeping never has a place anywhere), I find Avatar's place in pop culture as a joke more telling, esp. since the MCU is more favorably regarded in that arena. Remember, this idea that the MCU is considered an embarrassment and something people are over exists only in your imagination.

That was not the general response. most of the general response were quite positive. we even hard many comic book directors like James Mangold and Snyder himself, saying Scorsese was not been fair because he has only seen Marvel films, RDJ did not have the courage to say Scorsese is wrong. where did you get the narrative that his comments were dismissed? there is just no evidence to that. Also why would Bob Iger try to meet with him to discuss his comments? Iger was worried obviously.

I find Avatar's place in pop culture as a joke more telling

Personal preferences based on fan love for Disney comic books film is not the measurement of judging any James Cameron film. Cameron ,I hear is not even a likeable person, however no serious film professional judges his movies based on his personality. I am sure Feige does come of as a nicer person than Cameron but that is the only advantage Feige will ever have over him as a film producer. lol.

Also If anything it was the R Rated films like Joker and Deadpool that were having real impact on the genre, because those films were showing, you can make billions with little budget and at the same time, let the director go for a more indie route, which was really rare with comic films, although Bryan Singer sort of was trying it back then. those films were having more impact on the film making process of Hollywood because it was giving them more option on how they can make more money than the really big factory over cooperate films like Endgame and Star Wars that were more part of a status quo but at the same time, not many studios could afford so easily.

This new era of r rated films would have reached a big moment, if the Snyder JL Cut made it to cinema, and there had not been the COVID pandemic.

[numberthirty]

...

This new era of r rated films would have reached a big moment, if the Snyder JL Cut made it to cinema, and there had not been the COVID pandemic.

Since that cut of JL only got made because a pandemic created conditions where a streaming service threw some money at the one thing that they had half-finished?

- It was because of the pandemic.

- That cut of JL was never getting a theatrical run. It was finished in an attempt to prop up a streaming service. Not to be shown in theaters.

[thwhtGuardian]

Since that cut of JL only got made because a pandemic created conditions where a streaming service threw some money at the one thing that they had half-finished?

- It was because of the pandemic.

- That cut of JL was never getting a theatrical run. It was finished in an attempt to prop up a streaming service. Not to be shown in theaters.

Actually, it was originally going to get a limited theatrical run this summer...but because it didn't do as well as expected streaming the theatrical run was quietly canceled. There was also going to be a traveling pop up "Snyder Cut experience" at various comic cons latter this year too...but I think that was shelved as well.

[SiegePerilous02]

Actually, it was originally going to get a limited theatrical run this summer...but because it didn't do as well as expected streaming the theatrical run was quietly canceled. There was also going to be a traveling pop up "Snyder Cut experience" at various comic cons latter this year too...but I think that was shelved as well.

Lol when the extreme fringe of the Snyder cult review bombed Kong vs. Godzilla and it ended up doing higher streaming numbers.

[thwhtGuardian]

Lol when the extreme fringe of the Snyder cult review bombed Kong vs. Godzilla and it ended up doing higher streaming numbers.

Pretty much everything did better numbers, even Tom and Jerry which is a cultural dinosaur almost had the same amount of views as the Snyder Cut.