Every property and adaptation have many changes, this isn't just a "MARVEL thing" if that's what you're implying. Just look at how many changes were Nolan's Batman and the changes we already know about Snyder's Superman.
For crying out loud:
Superman's birth was even changed in that film to make him even more of an outsider. And that's just one change. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad but it is going in blindly to say that DC stays true to the characters while MARVEL doesn't.
Read what he wrote. He didn't write what you accused him of writing. Here's the quote again:
I think all comic characters whether they be Marvel or DC properties should be celebrated and that they shouldn't feel the need to be apologetic to general audiences about them. I think if these companies had more faith in their characters people would love the characters just the way they are.
Notice he includes both comic book companies in the first statement and says "these companies" in the second statement. "These companies" would refer to anyone dealing with comic book properties, including DC's parent company WB.
Before that it was commending Snyder for "celebrating" without "apologizing" then it went on to state that MARVEL and DC should "celebrate without apologizing" for their characters just like Snyder is.
When the irony of it is Snyder is making just as many, if not more changes, to the overall mythology. Snyder's no more "celebrating" without "apologizing" as every single adaptation out there.
Before that it was commending Snyder for "celebrating" without "apologizing" then it went on to state that MARVEL and DC should "celebrate without apologizing" for their characters just like Snyder is.
When the irony of it is Snyder is making just as many, if not more changes, to the overall mythology. Snyder's no more "celebrating" without "apologizing" as every single adaptation out there.
Right, that makes Snyder a hypocrite. It doesn't mean the other guy was implying what you accused him of implying. Snyder's message is right even if his actions don't back it up.
The thing is - it seems to be high-fiving Snyder rather than saying that he is a hypocrite. I might be wrong, but I didn't see anything saying or implying that Snyder was a hypocrite. Did you read the whole thing or just what I quoted? Because the post seemed very pro Snyder which did come off as odd considering.
The thing is - it seems to be high-fiving Snyder rather than saying that he is a hypocrite. I might be wrong, but I didn't see anything saying or implying that Snyder was a hypocrite. Did you read the whole thing or just what I quoted? Because the post seemed very post Snyder which did come off as odd considering.
Sorry, just had to say one more thing. I came across this article elsewhere where Zack Snyder is talking about Man of Steel and he states.
We weren't apologizing for Superman, which I feel happened in the past. It's Superman, for God's sake. He's a thing to be celebrated."
Now I realize Superman is a huge title character for DC and the characters being discussed here related to Marvel are not nearly as huge, but I think all comic characters whether they be Marvel or DC properties should be celebrated and that they shouldn't feel the need to be apologetic to general audiences about them. I think if these companies had more faith in their characters people would love the characters just the way they are.
Sorry, just had to say that one last thing and I promise I'm done until after I have seen the movie. Hoping I love it.
Where is he cheerleading Snyder? He goes out of his way to say that all of the companies that deal with comic book adaptations need to show more faith in the characters. That would include WB/DC. I don't see how anything he said in that post makes him a blind DC follower like you accused him of being.
A - Crimson Dynamo and Whiplash weren't celebrated and they were apologized for which made that a poor villain
B - Mandarin was treated the same way as those villains in Iron Man 2 which made him a poor villain
C - Snyder believes these characters should be celebrated and not apologized for
D - Marvel and DC need to apply this same level of thinking even to characters that aren't a huge title character (B level characters (Crimson Dynamo, Whiplash, Mandarin) need to be treated just like Snyder is treating an A level character (Superman)).
And shouldn't of said "marvel thing" just - Snyder isn't exactly a figurehead.
Agree to disagree, this whole thing has gone on way longer than it needs to go on.
The basic points still stand:
- Snyder is a hypocrite for saying that since he didn't follow through with that.
- All adaptations have changes in them and without these changes these characters would never evolve.
Before that it was commending Snyder for "celebrating" without "apologizing" then it went on to state that MARVEL and DC should "celebrate without apologizing" for their characters just like Snyder is.
When the irony of it is Snyder is making just as many, if not more changes, to the overall mythology. Snyder's no more "celebrating" without "apologizing" as every single adaptation out there.
That turned out to just be a lark right? Or I think I'm using that word correctly... anyway, count me as really angry if Jimmy is never introduced and they're just saying his name as Jenny's brother to satisfy the fans lol.
More like:
1) Lois knowing who Clark is before he comes to the Daily Planet, possibly.
2) Clark's birth being against Kryptonian way.
3) Kryptonian people living underground.
4) The Fortress of Solitude being a spaceship.
5) No kryptonite (probably/hopefully introduced at a later point).
6) Possible elimination of the phantom zone (unsure).
And there's more that I'm forgetting at the time being.
As said, I'd argue that Snyder has changed the most about the hero and the hero's world while adapting. Celebrating his alien roots, but not celebrating the comic book character himself. And out of the more recent adaptations - the least faithful to the hero. But, with that said - without changes we would still have a Superman that could only leap tall buildings in a single bound, no kryptonite, and Lex would be a crazy scheming scientist. These changes need to be there in order to evolve. Plus, I trust Jonah Nolan - he was one of the few who ever got being an orphan right without disneyfying it. So even if it's not Superman exactly as in the comic books - at least I'll have a more grounded orphaned hero.
That turned out to just be a lark right? Or I think I'm using that word correctly... anyway, count me as really angry if Jimmy is never introduced and they're just saying his name as Jenny's brother to satisfy the fans lol.
More like:
1) Lois knowing who Clark is before he comes to the Daily Planet, possibly.
2) Clark's birth being against Kryptonian way.
3) Kryptonian people living underground.
4) The Fortress of Solitude being a spaceship.
5) No kryptonite (probably/hopefully introduced at a later point).
6) Possible elimination of the phantom zone (unsure).
And there's more that I'm forgetting at the time being.
As said, I'd argue that Snyder has changed the most about the hero and the hero's world while adapting. Celebrating his alien roots, but not celebrating the comic book character himself. And out of the more recent adaptations - the least faithful to the hero. But, with that said - without changes we would still have a Superman that could only leap tall buildings in a single bound, no kryptonite, and Lex would be a crazy scheming scientist. These changes need to be there in order to evolve. Plus, I trust Jonah Nolan - he was one of the few who ever got being an orphan right without disneyfying it. So even if it's not Superman exactly as in the comic books - at least I'll have a more grounded orphaned hero.
Jenny Olsen they've said is Jimmy's sister in an official report somewhere. And Jimmy's name is mentioned. So my only fear really is that Jimmy doesn't come into play other than just being a mention. Best scenario, he's mentioned in MOS and then appears in MOS 2 as an intern.
It's very possible that my post might have come across in a way that made it seem like Zack Snyder could do no wrong, or like maybe I was a DC fan boy wanting to talk trash about Marvel. However, the reality is (while I do love both Universes) I would have to say I am quite a bit more of a Marvel fan and have been all of my life. redfirebird2008 got what I was trying to say right (in the earlier post), and was able to clarify it in a much more eloquent way then I ever could. "Snyder's message is right even if his actions don't back it up." For me it was all about the message, and I feel like if more director's and studio's used a statement like his as a guideline for how they treated comic characters being brought into these movies, then we would be getting better versions of some of these characters. Now this is of course my opinion, because just as I am sure there are people out there that hated the amalgrimation of Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo (as I did), there are probably some others out there (maybe unfamiliar with the comics) that loved the character as combined in the movie. So, perhaps I am wrong and somewhat selfish to want a character that is similar to the comics. Afterall what is that saying again, oh yes! You can't please everyone all of the time. So, my point is by pleasing me perhaps they would be displeasing someone else and maybe that is not the right answer either. So, who knows maybe I should just be grateful the movies are as good as they are.
Well anyways, just wanted to clear up a few things and yes I am still looking forward to seeing Iron Man 3 on 05/04/13 despite my little gripes.
Also, I wanted to say thanks to everyone that came to my aid and defended me during my absensce, it was very kind and really appreciated.
I get the feeling that either people don't fully understand what Snyder tried to say, or that Snyder didn't use the proper words to express himself more accurately.
People saying he made changes to the story in MoS - he didn't make those changes. The idea Nolan and Goyer had for a modern retelling of the Superman tale required a director to handle the project, and they chose Snyder - and by the way, isn't he the guy who directed probably the most spot-on, point by point adaptation of a comicbook (Watchmen)?
The thing Snyder was getting to I believe (judging by his words "which I feel happened in the past") is that a character like Superman who had a very disappointing last film and is considered to be "outdated", boring and irrelevant by many people nowadays should not be handled with the mentality like "Oh well, if the movie sucks, it's because of Superman, because he's a boring character and whatnot" - but instead be handled with the proper care he deserves, and the awareness that this is a character they shouldn't be ashamed of when adapting to the big screen. No matter the changes made to make him more appealing to the newer generations (which I think are necessary), the core character is still there.
I get the feeling that either people don't fully understand what Snyder tried to say, or that Snyder didn't use the proper words to express himself more accurately.
People saying he made changes to the story in MoS - he didn't make those changes. The idea Nolan and Goyer had for a modern retelling of the Superman tale required a director to handle the project, and they chose Snyder - and by the way, isn't he the guy who directed probably the most spot-on, point by point adaptation of a comicbook (Watchmen)?
The thing Snyder was getting to I believe (judging by his words "which I feel happened in the past") is that a character like Superman who had a very disappointing last film and is considered to be "outdated", boring and irrelevant by many people nowadays should not be handled with the mentality like "Oh well, if the movie sucks, it's because of Superman, because he's a boring character and whatnot" - but instead be handled with the proper care he deserves, and the awareness that this is a character they shouldn't be ashamed of when adapting to the big screen. No matter the changes made to make him more appealing to the newer generations (which I think are necessary), the core character is still there.
That turned out to just be a lark right? Or I think I'm using that word correctly... anyway, count me as really angry if Jimmy is never introduced and they're just saying his name as Jenny's brother to satisfy the fans lol.
More like:
1) Lois knowing who Clark is before he comes to the Daily Planet, possibly.
2) Clark's birth being against Kryptonian way.
3) Kryptonian people living underground.
4) The Fortress of Solitude being a spaceship.
5) No kryptonite (probably/hopefully introduced at a later point).
6) Possible elimination of the phantom zone (unsure).
And there's more that I'm forgetting at the time being.
As said, I'd argue that Snyder has changed the most about the hero and the hero's world while adapting. Celebrating his alien roots, but not celebrating the comic book character himself. And out of the more recent adaptations - the least faithful to the hero. But, with that said - without changes we would still have a Superman that could only leap tall buildings in a single bound, no kryptonite, and Lex would be a crazy scheming scientist. These changes need to be there in order to evolve. Plus, I trust Jonah Nolan - he was one of the few who ever got being an orphan right without disneyfying it. So even if it's not Superman exactly as in the comic books - at least I'll have a more grounded orphaned hero.
I get the feeling that either people don't fully understand what Snyder tried to say, or that Snyder didn't use the proper words to express himself more accurately.
People saying he made changes to the story in MoS - he didn't make those changes. The idea Nolan and Goyer had for a modern retelling of the Superman tale required a director to handle the project, and they chose Snyder - and by the way, isn't he the guy who directed probably the most spot-on, point by point adaptation of a comicbook (Watchmen)?
The thing Snyder was getting to I believe (judging by his words "which I feel happened in the past") is that a character like Superman who had a very disappointing last film and is considered to be "outdated", boring and irrelevant by many people nowadays should not be handled with the mentality like "Oh well, if the movie sucks, it's because of Superman, because he's a boring character and whatnot" - but instead be handled with the proper care he deserves, and the awareness that this is a character they shouldn't be ashamed of when adapting to the big screen. No matter the changes made to make him more appealing to the newer generations (which I think are necessary), the core character is still there.
Watchmen was horrible other than Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach, which was spot on. A lot of the acting was terrible in the film. He tried to make it faithful and didn't hold back on anything, which I can appreciate, but that doesn't make it a good film.
Watchmen was horrible other than Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach, which was spot on. A lot of the acting was terrible in the film. He tried to make it faithful and didn't hold back on anything, which I can appreciate, but that doesn't make it a good film.
Watchmen was horrible other than Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach, which was spot on. A lot of the acting was terrible in the film. He tried to make it faithful and didn't hold back on anything, which I can appreciate, but that doesn't make it a good film.
From what I understand, Watchmen wasn't a huge hit among the GA, but it does have a very dedicated fan following. I wasn't a huge fan, but I didn't think it was horrible.
Besides, whether or not Watchmen is a good film or not wasn't my point, I mentioned it in a different context.
I saw Watchmen maybe like a year ago with my cousin, I didn't know prior that it was based on Comics or anything just thought it looked interesting so we rented it.. And, wow did we HATE it... I don't recall anything specific that I didn't like, it was just really long and drawn out and boring, didn't understand the characters motives, just couldn't get into the movie at all. I remember we didn't say anything during the movie to each other, we just watched it, but when we turned it off we were both like " Wow, that was the worst movie ever!!" (it's no.3 on my most hated list lol)
Not to start an argument or anything, just wanted to give my take on Watchmen.. I don't know what people like about it haha
Personally I loved it. I really loved the characters and the story. There was some nice action too, but it's really the story and characters that make the film what it is.
After seeing the movie twice, and being able to absorb all the details of "The Mandarin", it's safe for me to say definitively that Obadiah Stane is by far the best the villainy in the Iron Man movies has gotten. I can't even say the competition is close.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
