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

[WebLurker]

No, I never said anything like that, the like I have for Snyder is at least I know he is doing his own movies.

Could've fooled me.

Raimi movies don't need to touch Holland's stories since Raimi movies have grown beyond that. Tobey was already in college by the second act of the first movie dealing with man problems, filling the fatherly and even husband role that Uncle Ben left. Holland is still in kindergarten class worshiping Iron Man. And its going to get worse because Dr Strange is now going to fill in Iron Man shoes.

By your logic, Spider-Verse grew beyond the Raimi series, since it shows an adult Peter dealing with mid-life issues. However, type of content is irrelevant to new content. Barring Maguire returning for the new SM3 or something, the Raimi series is over and done. The Holland series is not. That's where the future of the franchise lies, both in terms of its new content and how it will affect new incarnations after it.

Ironic that Holland's spiderman movies are never going to stand the test of time. it's like the more we see of holland, the more Maguire movies earn more relevance.

It's way too early to tell.

Directors don't matter greatly with MCU. Whoever directs the first xmen movie will still end up with an MCU looking kind of movie. It is MCU fans that think Feige has a track record of making good movies, but like i said, this is only judged between feige own movies. and it is not as if I am saying Feige movies are flat out bad, I am saying they mean nothing compared to other things and are easily deposable compared to other movies.

Like I said, your only point is "I hate the MCU," actual facts be damned to prove it.

X-Men cannot fit in the MCU because MCU contradicts a lot of things about the x-universe, for xmen to work in the mcu, you will have to recton the X-Universe to a damaging extent. far more damaging than Spiderman. I think a lot of people including a cbr moderator (Frointer) has already told you this when you tried to hype up Black Panther and Storm, a couple most don't gives a **** about apart from MCU fans.

You're mixing me up with someone else; I was never in favor of Black Panther/Storm (both due to it being one of those weird publicity stunts in the comics and the MCU movies giving him a different love interest already). Also, I was talking about tone, narrative theme, etc. (basically that the X-Men were a reasonable fit for the MCU in terms of filmmaking, unlike how Zack Snyder was a bad choice for Superman, because his style of storytelling is the exact opposite of the character).

I think Patty made things pretty clear.

Like I said, changing the subject does not answer the question.

[green_garnish]

No, I never said anything like that, the like I have for Snyder is at least I know he is doing his own movies.

Raimi movies don't need to touch Holland's stories since Raimi movies have grown beyond that. Tobey was already in college by the second act of the first movie dealing with man problems, filling the fatherly and even husband role that Uncle Ben left. Holland is still in kindergarten class worshiping Iron Man. And its going to get worse because Dr Strange is now going to fill in Iron Man shoes.

Ironic that Holland's spiderman movies are never going to stand the test of time. it's like the more we see of holland, the more Maguire movies earn more relevance.

Directors don't matter greatly with MCU. Whoever directs the first xmen movie will still end up with an MCU looking kind of movie. It is MCU fans that think Feige has a track record of making good movies, but like i said, this is only judged between feige own movies. and it is not as if I am saying Feige movies are flat out bad, I am saying they mean nothing compared to other things and are easily deposable compared to other movies.

X-Men cannot fit in the MCU because MCU contradicts a lot of things about the x-universe, for xmen to work in the mcu, you will have to recton the X-Universe to a damaging extent. far more damaging than Spiderman. I think a lot of people including a cbr moderator (Frointer) has already told you this when you tried to hype up Black Panther and Storm, a couple most don't gives a **** about apart from MCU fans.

I think Patty made things pretty clear.

Doing your own movies is an awesome thing and I very much appreciate it, but as with everything, context is important. If you're going to do a movie about an established character, you need to be conscious of faithfulness to the character and not just go tell any story you want to tell with whatever name you have available at the moment like Superman. Also if you're going to immerse yourself in a shared universe, you have to be cognizant of that universe that you want others to share.

Raimi movies not only do not need to touch on Holland movies, but are absolutely incapable of doing so because they are done. Holland is learning to grow up in a superhero world, where he is a superhero himself. It's an entirely new and welcome take on "Great power/Great Responsibility."

I sometimes wish you would phrase things differently, like "it would be ironic if Holland's Spider-man movies do not stand the test of time..." since time hasn't passed yet. All we know for sure is that the second Raimi movie has passed the test of time, the others are still waiting for a verdict, and the Garfield movies are unlikely to, but also stil waiting on a verdict

Also there's "...they mean nothing compared to other things and are easily disposable compared to other movies." it would be really nice to have a qualifying "in my opinion" on a statement like that, since clearly a lot of people don't consider them disposable as shown by sales of Blu-Ray and online purchases, far higher on average than other superhero franchises. People want to watch these over and over, not see it and forget it

The MCU has not contradicted anything about the XMen because the XMen don't exist in the MCU yet. You can't retcon something that hasn't even happened yet.

[Castle]

Doing your own movies is an awesome thing and I very much appreciate it, but as with everything, context is important. If you're going to do a movie about an established character, you need to be conscious of faithfulness to the character and not just go tell any story you want to tell with whatever name you have available at the moment like Superman. Also if you're going to immerse yourself in a shared universe, you have to be cognizant of that universe that you want others to share.

.

I very much agree that content is everything which is why I never stop trying to make people understand that there is line between a still picture and a moving picture in other words films vs books. Wonder Woman 84 is a fine example of when a director ignores that line, marvel has been ignoring that line for years but they get away it.Maybe Snyder went overboard with trying to separate the lines but it was for good reasons. Snyder's Superman is one of the best superman incarnation in a 21st century content, the flaw is people are still stuck with the 20th century Reeves superman

Raimi movies not only do not need to touch on Holland movies, but are absolutely incapable of doing so because they are done. Holland is learning to grow up in a superhero world, where he is a superhero himself. It's an entirely new and welcome take on "Great power/Great Responsibility."

Great power/great responsibility is not a theme with holland spiderman. Uncle Ben does not exist. I think Holland main issue is the character is just too Mickey Mousy for many spiderman fans to accept, especially spiderman fans now in their 40s

I sometimes wish you would phrase things differently, like "it would be ironic if Holland's Spider-man movies do not stand the test of time..." since time hasn't passed yet. All we know for sure is that the second Raimi movie has passed the test of time, the others are still waiting for a verdict, and the Garfield movies are unlikely to, but also stil waiting on a verdict

I can see the writings on the wall for comic films,especially after WW 1984, it's over. even on many other forums I use like film boards, people are just bashing every comic book movie that is MCU and DCU related. I think comic book movies are on their last legs. there was something Snyder said about Marvel that rung true, he said they were flavour of the week movies and he was right. It's very interesting whenever Snyder gives an opinion about movies, he is most right. this is because he is talking as a film maker not as a fan, one of the core reasons sam raimi stood the test of time was because it was not part of a larger universe of films. it was stand alone

The MCU has not contradicted anything about the XMen because the XMen don't exist in the MCU yet. You can't retcon something that hasn't even happened yet.

MCU exists and X-men exist, if you try and combine both on films. they clash like oil and water. I don't see Disney agreeing that their X-Men would look like the 2000's film or Logan.I think their xmen would look very cartoony like their MCU movies.

You cannot put any xmen live action stuff in the mcu, it look ridiculous and it destroys any attempt that xmen takes itself way more seriously. their styles are just too different. additionally mcu cannot adapt to many of the xmen stories. xmen is better on its own, even in the comics and as we have seen, it is already hard to adapt many comics stuff to films. the first two Snyder DCU movies (Man of Steel and BvS) would have been easier to adapt to the X-Universe than any MCU movie.

[green_garnish]

I very much agree that content is everything which is why I never stop trying to make people understand that there is line between a still picture and a moving picture in other words films vs books.

It's interesting you say that, because you've misquoted me and re-interpreted what I meant. I said context is everything, not content. Content is important, but within the scope of this thread, context is key.

Wonder Woman 84 is a fine example of when a director ignores that line, marvel has been ignoring that line for years but they get away it.Maybe Snyder went overboard with trying to separate the lines but it was for good reasons. Snyder's Superman is one of the best superman incarnation in a 21st century content, the flaw is people are still stuck with the 20th century Reeves superman

I see no evidence that Snyder's motives were altruistic, any more than Frank Miller's were when he completely sacrified comic characters for the story he wanted to tell (and The Spirit movie is another good example of that).

Great power/great responsibility is not a theme with holland spiderman. Uncle Ben does not exist. I think Holland main issue is the character is just too Mickey Mousy for many spiderman fans to accept, especially spiderman fans now in their 40s

I don't know what Spider-man fans in their 40s think, but I'm significantly older and I would challenge you to identify a single theme in Holland Spider-man that does not come down to Great Power/Great Responsibillity, Uncle Ben be damned.

I can see the writings on the wall for comic films,especially after WW 1984, it's over. even on many other forums I use like film boards, people are just bashing every comic book movie that is MCU and DCU related.

I would like you to consider even the infinitesimal possibility that what you can see is what you want to see, not what is actually there. There is no statistical evidence whatsoever that the writing is on the wall for superhero movies. COVID represents a far greater threat than audience enlightenment for big budget movies. If the other box office is dead thread comes to pass, there will never be another Endgame, let alone Justice League.

MCU exists and X-men exist, if you try and combine both on films. they clash like oil and water.

X-men does not exist within the MCU, any more than Raimi's Spider-Man does. Nothing exists yet to clash. X-men as we know it today is absolutely incapable of clashing, because they are different beasts on different worlds. They are what they are in their own environments, but those environments are not likely to interact, let alone clash.

[inisideguy]

I think there is a lot more flexibility with the Marvel characters and the fans accept them better. I personally still don't like what they have done with spider-man but many marvel fans do. I am not really sure why. I just think they are happy to have him in the franchise now.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I think there is a lot more flexibility with the Marvel characters and the fans accept them better. I personally still don't like what they have done with spider-man but many marvel fans do. I am not really sure why. I just think they are happy to have him in the franchise now.

Yeah DC has this issue where fans will just go "oh the people that made this didn't get the character". That's where Marvel has leeway because most of their characters don't have the constant pedigree that Supes/Bats/Wonder Woman have. It's also why it was alot easier to do Aquaman and Shazam.

[inisideguy]

Yeah DC has this issue where fans will just go "oh the people that made this didn't get the character". That's where Marvel has leeway because most of their characters don't have the constant pedigree that Supes/Bats/Wonder Woman have. It's also why it was alot easier to do Aquaman and Shazam.

Yea I mean Marvel did Cap pretty much straight on. But they have Thor as a big goofball which people like and heck I don't mind. GOTG basically has barely anything in common with the comics, but barely anyone knew the comics. Iron man is fairly close more jokey and neurotic but somewhat inline, spider-man well like I said he's the one the bugs me the most. I still think the movies are decent but I just don't like they have done him. I guess if Marvel fans were to object to how anyone is being done it would be spidey with his pedigree but they seem cool with it for the most part. I guess if Marvel Fans were ever to protest and get really angry is if they did Cap in a weird way. He seems like the guy you have to cast straight on. Maybe he is the superman of the MCU in many respects.

[LifeIsILL]

Zack Snyder is like Tom King writing Injustice.....except with way worse storytelling and directing skills.

[Castle]

It's interesting you say that, because you've misquoted me and re-interpreted what I meant. I said context is everything, not content. Content is important, but within the scope of this thread, context is key.
.

Context only proves Snyder's point.

I see no evidence that Snyder's motives were altruistic, any more than Frank Miller's were when he completely sacrified comic characters for the story he wanted to tell (and The Spirit movie is another good example of that).

There were evidence Snyder is altruistic, some did not know how to handle it. Snyder loves what he does, you can tell he had a passion for this stuff, it's unfair they tired to wipe him out because he was not conforming to anything.

.

I don't know what Spider-man fans in their 40s think, but I'm significantly older and I would challenge you to identify a single theme in Holland Spider-man that does not come down to Great Power/Great Responsibillity, Uncle Ben be damned.

Because Holland's Spiderman does not have any believable responsibility in the same fashion that many kids don't have any believable responsibility.Holland Spiderman exists to become Iron Man.

Saying uncle ben be dammed is part of the reason Holland's Spiderman has yet to climb to Maguire shoes, the replacement of ben with tony stark is what makes holland's spiderman journey superficial

I would like you to consider even the infinitesimal possibility that what you can see is what you want to see, not what is actually there. There is no statistical evidence whatsoever that the writing is on the wall for superhero movies. COVID represents a far greater threat than audience enlightenment for big budget movies. If the other box office is dead thread comes to pass, there will never be another Endgame, let alone Justice League.

Superhero movies are finished artistically, that is what I meant after seeing WW 84. the only comic book movie that now still has a chance to be looked at as something worth any credibility is The Batman.

X-men does not exist within the MCU, any more than Raimi's Spider-Man does. Nothing exists yet to clash. X-men as we know it today is absolutely incapable of clashing, because they are different beasts on different worlds. They are what they are in their own environments, but those environments are not likely to interact, let alone clash.

I am very bored again with this topic, let Feige makes his X-Men films so everyone can see that a lot of us naysayers were correct.

It's comparisons that is hurting Holland's Spiderman because people know about other better spiderman adaptions, Feige's x-men is in a far worse situation, Disney could not get Spiderman or star wars right, that should tell anyone they are even less likely to get x-men right. I have noticed that a lot of his fans can barely give any un-superficial details of how the x-universe and mcu is a good idea, their reasons are tend to be shallow, example, black panther and storm are a couple. x-men will finally wear comic book accurate costumes. we will see this team up. Once you ask them how feige can handle most of the storyline that matter or ask them if Fiege and the MCU will finally embrace a different type of film making that will be more believable for the X-Universe, they just make it about you personally. like you are the problem.

[Castle]

Yea I mean Marvel did Cap pretty much straight on. But they have Thor as a big goofball which people like and heck I don't mind. GOTG basically has barely anything in common with the comics, but barely anyone knew the comics. Iron man is fairly close more jokey and neurotic but somewhat inline, spider-man well like I said he's the one the bugs me the most. I still think the movies are decent but I just don't like they have done him. I guess if Marvel fans were to object to how anyone is being done it would be spidey with his pedigree but they seem cool with it for the most part. I guess if Marvel Fans were ever to protest and get really angry is if they did Cap in a weird way. He seems like the guy you have to cast straight on. Maybe he is the superman of the MCU in many respects.

Thor as a goofball did bug a lot of people, critics and MCU fans just ignored it.

GOTG is a double edge sword, maybe noone knew anything about them but the movies made people curious . some started reading the comics only to realise it is different which change their opinions of the movies.GOTG movies are the perfect example that ignorance is bliss.

Tony Stark never had it good again apart from the first film. I find it very telling that although Tony Stark has more movies that are supposedly more critically liked, Hugh Jackman is seen as a far more iconic actor playing wolverine than RDJ playing Iron Man.

. I guess if Marvel fans were to object to how anyone is being done it would be spidey with his pedigree but they seem cool with it for the most part. I guess if Marvel Fans were ever to protest and get really angry is if they did Cap in a weird way. He seems like the guy you have to cast straight on. Maybe he is the superman of the MCU in many respects.

Because on many terms Marvel fans are different from MCU fans, I don't think MCU fans mind how spiderman is done, marvel fans is a different topic. A lot of marvel fans object to many things, it's never just talked about in mainstream

[Steel Inquisitor]

Zack Snyder is like Tom King writing Injustice.....except with way worse storytelling and directing skills.

Tom King has excuses, like what happened with Wally was mandate from above. Snyder had interference but he claims the full credit for B vs S and Man of Steel. Nobody forced him to put in the neck snap.

[Killerbee911]

Tony Stark never had it good again apart from the first film. I find it very telling that although Tony Stark has more movies that are supposedly more critically liked, Hugh Jackman is seen as a far more iconic actor playing wolverine than RDJ playing Iron Man.

I love when people throw out unquantifiable stuff as fact. RDJ is iconic, Hugh Jackman is iconic. They represent two characters in recent history where actor is so much a part of characters that most fans can't imagine actor playing them. Both them spent about 20 years anchoring a franchise.

Some people like to throw out their opinions as if it speaks for larger group of people. It is cool to say I THINK ,if you started most of your statements with I THINK most of people on the forums wouldn't say anything you. When you approach something for example like "Hugh Jackman IS SEEN"- which is implies general consensus or large group of people think that way that is where the issue starts. We are all guilty of speaking for other people so it is not just a you issue but it is clear often that you are speaking about yourself and your personal views and the views of a group THAT IS NOT THE MAJORITY. Being the majority doesn't make the view right or better but does speaking to pleasing an audience or what more people want.

Anyways just go I THINK Hugh Jackman is iconic actor playing wolverine than RDJ playing Iron Man. Someone might disagree but you have the right to your opinion. Lastly no Hugh Jackman Wolverine has nothing close to this



It is a culture moment and gigantic meme. And a large group of people all around the world can tell you what happens next and the line that he says. There is nothing impactful like that for Wolverine in any movie. It is one of defining moments in recent modern films/movie history.I mean trying to argue or quantify what is more Iconic is silly but saying Hugh Jackman is far MORE iconic RDJ Ironman feels so way offbase you have point it out.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Tom King has excuses, like what happened with Wally was mandate from above. Snyder had interference but he claims the full credit for B vs S and Man of Steel. Nobody forced him to put in the neck snap.

Agreed. And no mandate or 'fan expectations' require his fight scenes to be so underwhelming

[Castle]

I love when people throw out unquantifiable stuff as fact. RDJ is iconic, Hugh Jackman is iconic. They represent two characters in recent history where actor is so much a part of characters that most fans can't imagine actor playing them. Both them spent about 20 years anchoring a franchise.

Anyways just go I THINK Hugh Jackman is iconic actor playing wolverine than RDJ playing Iron Man. Someone might disagree but you have the right to your opinion. Lastly no Hugh Jackman Wolverine has nothing close to this

Its not offbase, it's just the consequence of an art intriguing character like Wolverine overriding a mass manufacturing character like Iron Man. Hugh Jackman made Wolverine a character study bloke. unfortunately Disney and even some of their fans would admit Iron Man's character getting watered down and his sequels turning to jokes hurt the character.Are you aware that Robert Downey Jnr himself said, it was getting cringey playing the role?


Notice people always bring up Jackman, wheras Iron Man has not even grown beyond the MCU. Something I thought he would after the first film. Jackman or even Patrick Stewart coming back to any xmen movie is a bigger deal than resurrecting RDJ and there is a reason why with the ''general consensus''. Are you also aware Endgame folks said, they were inspired by Logan? watching endgame you don't see that.

Geez, the first movie that kicked off Hugh Jackman's career as Wolverine was talked about in a very positive way, after 20, a thing that many MCU movies have not mostly been able to do. Endgame could not even make it to the end of the year before many turned on it and please noone blames Martin Scorsese, it was always coming with these cgi driven comedy comic movies and it is only going to get worse after Wonder Woman 84.

Endgame's cultural impact is more comparable to what Twilight the series was for vampires.Jackman's wolverine is more of a mix of Anne Rice interview with a vampire and the old classic Marvel stories and yes, it is not close. Disney one month hype with their movies- Endgame, Far from home compared to other movies like Logan and Spiderman 2 or X-men 1 has not stood the test of time.

Snyder's Man of steel was controversial as it is still gets talked about because it started a conservation, There is thinking legacy Endgame left behind that has started a conversation that has helped comic movies beyond humor and fun.

And this is why I hope Hugh Jackman never returns to the role. his legacy should remain intact with the two last films he headlined with the main cast and his solo. Logan and Days of Future Past. the movies that does more helping Marvel's name than Endgame. I have never seen anyone talking about Endgame because there is nothing interesting to talk about. its fun. yeah. everyone moves on and get the toys.

LOL, No offence but when you posted that picture of RDJ in that unflattering CGI suit calling it the most iconic thing ever and nothing come close. I had to remember why this was louded even after 20 years. How old is Endgame that it is already making it to the worst mcu movie list?




Like I always say, most time compare endgame to other avengers movies. its not good for endgame when you compare it to other movies like man of steel or a 20 year movie comic movie that Endgame wished it had the same kind worthy critically acclaim of X1. Something Snyder later achieved after 13 years despite his naysayers.

[Castle]

Yeah DC has this issue where fans will just go "oh the people that made this didn't get the character".

Iron Man did not need to be as iconic as superman and spiderman. I don't know how much people know about iron man movies but things should have turned out very differently.Iron Man 2 could have been classic timeless comic sequels like X-Men 2 or Spiderman 2 but MCU threw that away because they wanted to dumb iron man, this was so upsetting for Mickey Rouke that he went on a tirade against Marvel even saying their movies are brainless entertainment for the masses. this is Mickey Rouke saying it , it was shocking back then in 2010 for a person to be that negatively vocal.

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/mickey...ing-iron-man-2

Then there is Iron Man 3, another movie that had some good ideas that Disney just rejected.
https://www.comicsbeat.com/disney-re...om-iron-man-3/

As we can see for real, it should not have mattered what Supes/Bats/Wonder Woman, its not an excuse. It's funny because i think Snyder under the right partnership would have done a better job with marvel characters than Feige if the MCU concept was introduced 10 years earlier.But somehow, we are now suppose to believe that Iron Man, a character who never truly developed from his first movie is now the most iconic thing in recent movie history? lol.

Please I am not asking Iron Man to be Michael Corleone from the Godfather trilogy but geez? going from the promising Iron Man 1 to CGI Comedy tone Endgame and having Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 in between to superficially playing Spiderman's father? No thanks.

That's where Marvel has leeway because most of their characters don't have the constant pedigree that Supes/Bats/Wonder Woman have. It's also why it was alot easier to do Aquaman and Shazam.

Aquaman and Shazam became easier when DC did a u-turn to be more like marvel. I think this is getting harder though, Wonder Woman 84 is so shockingly kind of bad when compared to Snyder's Man of Steel. I think wonder woman 84 is going to make the reception of her character a little bit more like Captain Marvel.