The Official Zack Snyder Thread

[Micah12345]

and what do sales have to do with quality?

 

[JAK®]

and what do sales have to do with quality?

Not much. But sales do measure appeal. Pre-Crisis Superman sold like hotcakes. Post-Crisis Superman does not. Post-Crisis is said to be a more interesting character. Well, apparently not.

 

[KyleDW2]

But he should still be a bestseller in comparison to current sales trends.

Just from personal experience, the actual quality of the current stories has no bearing on attracting new readers. I try to get friends into Superman. But they are, ironically considering your point, stuck with the assumption that Superman is still the same boring, hokey character as he was in the Silver Age.

That's actually what the movie needs to do. Break that perception that Superman is old hat. As in letting go of the Silver Age version of the character.

 

[JAK®]

It's not my fault people have never read a Pre-Crisis Superman comic in their lives and have some warped perception of what that era was like.

 

[KyleDW2]

Not much. But sales do measure appeal. Pre-Crisis Superman sold like hotcakes. Post-Crisis Superman does not. Post-Crisis is said to be a more interesting character. Well, apparently not.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that pre-Crisis everything sold a ton better than now. Comics don't sell that well as compared to the past. Not only that, but didn't Marvel start to overtake sales of DC Comics in the 60's and 70's, when, according to you, Superman was still good?

 

[JAK®]

Again, you are ignoring the fact that pre-Crisis everything sold a ton better than now. Comics don't sell that well as compared to the past. Not only that, but didn't Marvel start to overtake sales of DC Comics in the 60's and 70's, when, according to you, Superman was still good?

If everything sold better back then, then Superman should still be a bestseller proportionate to modern sales trends, but that is not the case.

 

[craigdbfan]

I mean while agreeing that sales doesn't measure quality and that comics have been losing popularity whereas their film, tv series, and video game counterparts have been doing much better in terms of supporting the smaller superhero stories alive in the comic realm along with the big guys/girls.

I do agree with JAKr overall point which is that the Silver Age should be incorporated, along with the Superman Animated t.v series. IMO

Including to much of certain post-crisis might lead us into the same predicament we landed on previously. Clark Kent is to tame and boring because of the stupid sub plot about the kid. Although there are good pre and post that he can use.

Instead we need something along the lines of Fleischer Superman and TAS by Dini & Timm.

The character was handled magnificently in both. They are stories that all revolve around the character instead of playing him down and pandering to "blank" audience for money.

WB has learned it's lesson and Snyder will pick the appropriate inspiration from the right iterations I hope.

Everybody has theirs honestly but I like those two interpretations the most.

 

[Majik1387]

Honestly, TAS was my true introduction to Superman and I loved it, so any inspiration drawn from it can only be a positive in my eyes.

 

[KyleDW2]

If everything sold better back then, then Superman should still be a bestseller proportionate to modern sales trends, but that is not the case.

If you'll also notice, titles like Aquaman and Green Arrow and Wonder Woman aren't selling as well as they used to as well. But DC titles like Batman and Green Lantern are. Why is that? They got major overhauls post-Crisis as well. It might just be that they are currently the ones with the best writers, as well as the ones with the major influences in the crossover events DC has been doing.

Let's put it this way. If Grant Morrison or Geoff Johns were writing the ongoing Superman stories, I bet it would be where Batman and Green Lantern are right now.

 

[JAK®]

Let's put it this way. If Grant Morrison or Geoff Johns were writing the ongoing Superman stories, I bet it would be where Batman and Green Lantern are right now.

The two writers that are bringing Pre-Crisis elements back to the character? Why yes, I agree.

 

[craigdbfan]

Honestly, TAS was my true introduction to Superman and I loved it, so any inspiration drawn from it can only be a positive in my eyes.

A wonderful series. Might have to go buy it at Best Buy when I go to work on Saturday.

Here's hoping Snyder liked it too.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

And yet, Superman is more boring than ever. In the Silver Age, he was a bestseller. Not anymore.

In the Silver Age there were not the hundreds of books on the market, no new X-Men. They were simpler times when you can easily accept a simple hero. And there were no playstations, no cable tv, no internet. So it's easy figuring why the Superman books sold more then.
And anyway the Byrne and the Death of Superman issues sold lots of copies.

And Geoff Johns wrote a monthly Superman book, Action Comics, not so long ago and with good artists too.

 

[KyleDW2]

In the Silver Age there were not the hundreds of books on the market, no new X-Men. They were simpler times when you can easily accept a simple hero. And there were no playstations, no cable tv, no internet. So it's easy figuring why the Superman books sold more then.
And anyway the Byrne and the Death of Superman issues sold lots of copies.

And Geoff Johns wrote a monthly Superman book, Action Comics, not so long ago and with good artists too.

And all that stuff too. If Superman were such a failure post-Crisis, then Death of Superman wouldn't be the highest selling TPB ever. Superman isn't selling as well as it used to because people just fell out of love with comics in general. Add to that that the grim and gritty hero is more popular nowadays (see: Batman) and you can see why its harder to get Superman back to where he was. Also, he has had a string of boring or poorly told stories. That always hurts. Look at Spider-Man sales post-OMD.

It really has nothing to do with post-Crisis or anything. Its just the state of the comics industry in general. But personally, I find a Clark Kent who has a character, who isn't just the fedora and glasses for the all mighty God being of Superman to be a much better story, a much better character than the old Silver Age Superman. And I must state before, I did try to go back and read those stories with an open mind. They're just not that good in retrospect. Its like when I went and watched the old Transformers cartoons I loved as a child. Upon retrospect, they were nowhere near as deep and action packed as I remembered.

 

[BH/HHH]

A wonderful series. Might have to go buy it at Best Buy when I go to work on Saturday.

Here's hoping Snyder liked it too.

Hope so its my favourite incarnation of Superman

 

[craigdbfan]

And all that stuff too. If Superman were such a failure post-Crisis, then Death of Superman wouldn't be the highest selling TPB ever. Superman isn't selling as well as it used to because people just fell out of love with comics in general. Add to that that the grim and gritty hero is more popular nowadays (see: Batman) and you can see why its harder to get Superman back to where he was. Also, he has had a string of boring or poorly told stories. That always hurts. Look at Spider-Man sales post-OMD.

It really has nothing to do with post-Crisis or anything. Its just the state of the comics industry in general. But personally, I find a Clark Kent who has a character, who isn't just the fedora and glasses for the all mighty God being of Superman to be a much better story, a much better character than the old Silver Age Superman. And I must state before, I did try to go back and read those stories with an open mind. They're just not that good in retrospect. Its like when I went and watched the old Transformers cartoons I loved as a child. Upon retrospect, they were nowhere near as deep and action packed as I remembered.

Please don't compare the Transformers cartoon to the Fleischer cartoons.

They were made in 1942 but the level of attention to detail to the physical animation and movements in the characters was beyond anything that came before or after.

It's in its own league so to speak.

No Superman fan can go without seeing this. The animation is beautiful and really quite inspiring.

Superman (1941-43)

[YT]ysg5KMCJzQ8[/YT]

 

[KyleDW2]

Please don't compare the Transformers cartoon to the Fleischer cartoons.

They were made in 1942 but the level of attention to detail to the physical animation and movements in the characters was beyond anything that came before or after.

It's in its own league so to speak.

No Superman fan can go without seeing this. The animation is beautiful and really quite inspiring.

Superman (1941-43)

[YT]ysg5KMCJzQ8[/YT]

Agree, those cartoons are good. But I wouldn't base a movie off of their plots.

 

[BH/HHH]

Please don't compare the Transformers cartoon to the Fleischer cartoons.

They were made in 1942 but the level of attention to detail to the physical animation and movements in the characters was beyond anything that came before or after.

It's in its own league so to speak.

No Superman fan can go without seeing this. The animation is beautiful and really quite inspiring.

Superman (1941-43)

[YT]ysg5KMCJzQ8[/YT]

I absolutely love the Fleischer/Famous Studio cartoons, they are incredible.

 

[craigdbfan]

Hope so its my favourite incarnation of Superman

Likewise.

I absolutely love the Fleischer/Famous Studio cartoons, they are incredible.

Amazes me every time I watch them. Toons have really lost their edge. Louis was even shooting at thieves and defending herself pretty well in one episode.

A strong female cartoon character in 1942 already. Superman/Clark and Louis were pretty cool in them.

 

[JAK®]

But personally, I find a Clark Kent who has a character, who isn't just the fedora and glasses for the all mighty God being of Superman to be a much better story, a much better character than the old Silver Age Superman.

Don't agree. The concept of a man who has to disguise himself to be normal is inherently deep. Superman is based on concepts rather than soap-opera style character arcs, which has been the norm since Spider-Man was a success. Superman's depth comes from moral decisions and allegories rather than everyday personal struggles.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Honestly, TAS was my true introduction to Superman and I loved it, so any inspiration drawn from it can only be a positive in my eyes.

I was exposed to Superman of all media when I was younger. TAS, Ruben Fleischer, old serials, and some silver age comics. All of them are more interesting and better characters than modern age comic Superman. He doesn't need to be relatable, he needs to be the man everyone looks up to.

With that said, I'd like Clark Kent to have some personality to him too. I have no problem with fleshing out Clark Kent as long they have Superman have that non-compromising, imposing stature that I think the current comics loses at times.

 

[KyleDW2]

TAS

more interesting and better characters than modern age comic Superman.

Not to bring out the same confused pear again, but:

The Animated Series is the modern Superman. Clark Kent is the real person, the Kents are still alive, LexCorp Lex, that's the modern age.

 

[Kurosawa]

And all that stuff too. If Superman were such a failure post-Crisis, then Death of Superman wouldn't be the highest selling TPB ever. Superman isn't selling as well as it used to because people just fell out of love with comics in general. Add to that that the grim and gritty hero is more popular nowadays (see: Batman) and you can see why its harder to get Superman back to where he was. Also, he has had a string of boring or poorly told stories. That always hurts. Look at Spider-Man sales post-OMD.

It really has nothing to do with post-Crisis or anything. Its just the state of the comics industry in general. But personally, I find a Clark Kent who has a character, who isn't just the fedora and glasses for the all mighty God being of Superman to be a much better story, a much better character than the old Silver Age Superman. And I must state before, I did try to go back and read those stories with an open mind. They're just not that good in retrospect. Its like when I went and watched the old Transformers cartoons I loved as a child. Upon retrospect, they were nowhere near as deep and action packed as I remembered.

Clark Kent as the the reality and Superman the disguise is a completely wrongheaded concept, not contrary to just the Silver Age but the first 50 years of Superman's existence and the intention of his creators. Destroying Clark Kent-that is the nebbish Clark Kent who is actually Jerry Siegel, was a big part of the characters decline. No reader could identify with Superman, but all readers can identify with Clark. That's why he is so vital, and why losing him was such a fatal blow. Superman was BEYOND dominant in the Silver Age, not just the numbers (in the millions each month) but also in the share, and this in a time when series like Disney and Archie were also huge. Superman Family titles usually filled the top ten. You've been brainwashed by the Post-Crisis propaganda that DC has spewed since 1986, as have many others. Only Morrison and Moore have written stories in the past 25 years that are on the level of the best of those stories, or the Superman stories of the 70's, an era in which Superman continued to be #1. Read "Superman's Return To Krypton", "The Last Days of Superman" or several other classics, read them with an open mind, and you'll understand why Superman was so huge-and why he's become so irrelevant.

And the Doomsday "Death of Superman" sold so big because sadistic comics fans of the grimdark 90's liked seeing Superman get killed, although it's okay for what it is and he did go out like a champ. The Reign and Return were both better stories.

Birthright and All-Star are the modern sources they need to draw from, not the best-forgotten late 80's-90's.

 

[Sawyer]

Funeral for a Friend is still my favorite part of the whole Death of Superman thing.

 

[The Guard]

Still wasn't enough...and also, there's the possibility that it just wasn't something that should be translated to film. Doesn't make it any less of a comic in its own right. I'm not trying to dismiss everything he did with it, but overall, it just wasn't a good movie viewing experience. he basically took a similar approach with 300, and that came out better.

I'll be honest, Kal. You saying "Still wasn't enough" means absolutely nothing to me at this point.

It's like someone just saying "The movie was subpar" and leaving it at that.

I have no idea what you mean, other than "I wasn't happy enough".

How did the movie fail in adapting WATCHMEN to cause you to say that?

watchmen is different it is like a domino effect you change 1 thing it affects another thing and so on and so on

so many things are connected with each other and if you tried to reinterpret it you would just ruin the themes and message

thus crapping on the material

Yeah...no.

WATCHMEN is complex. But it does not fall apart when tiny pieces of it are removed. It still means what it means. The themes remain. The stories, the arcs, the characters, and yes, the thematic layers of meaning remain. As long as they are respectfully addressed. And most of them were.

WATCHMEN's structure is indeed a paradox. Removing the structure, which Snyder wisely did not do...would have made it less like WATCHMEN. Half the

I'm curious as to how any of you pacing experts would have translated WATCHMEN in order to somehow make it feel less disjointed.

What, would you mash all the extended and cut up scenes together into mammoth, overlong sequences? Yeah, that'd be a great way to handle pacing, wouldn't it?

If it doesn't mirror the comic, than it's not the story of Watchmen, is it?

Once upon a time, WATCHMEN was praised for being different.

It annoys me that now it is suddenly condemned for both being different than most films and stories (in its approach, structure, etc)...and also for remaining much the same as itself.

I laugh at this "Comic meant to be a comic" thing. Well, yeah. Obviously it was meant to be a comic.

The fact that Alan Moore intended for it to be on the pages of a comic book does not mean the story of WATCHMEN could not and cannot be told in movie form.

It's not unfilmable anymore than anything else.

It's just UNLIKELY to ever be filmed in the way it would need to be to reach its full potential. Which...you can say about pretty much every adaption ever made.

WATCHMEN could have been a miniseries. It could have been a five hour movie. It could have been a SERIAL. But be somewhat realistic, people. LORD OF THE RINGS ended up three films, and WATCHMEN ended up being what, in this world, it was allowed to be in a niche market.

Exactly, while some scene's were word-for-word, plenty were not, they were similar to the book, but not exactly the same, personally I dont see how anyone else could have given us a better on screen interpretation of Watchmen.

Yup. I'm sure it is possible for a better version to exist...but you can say that about everything.

 

[KyleDW2]

That's why he is so vital, and why losing him was such a fatal blow.

They didn't lose him. They improved him. Pre-Crisis Clark was a personalityless schmuck who I couldn't care less about. Superman was the perfect God who had super strength and super speed and super intelligence and was the most handsome man on the planet. And you are telling me that a Clark Kent who acts competently at work and played football is more soul crushing than Superman being Mr. Perfect and only using his human connection to Earth as a klutzy disguise?

Oh, and I love this part:

You've been brainwashed by the Post-Crisis propaganda that DC has spewed since 1986, as have many others.

Yes, its not like I haven't actually gone back and read those pre-Crisis Golden and Silver age stories. Its not like I haven't given those stories their fair shake. And to be honest, I do enjoy the Superman who throws wife beaters through the wall. That was some fun stuff. But if you would ask me if I was invested in the characters? Not at all I would say. Superman was dull. Clark Kent was a block of wood. Lois Lane was *****y as all hell. Now things did get better in the Bronze age, but it wasn't until the Modern age that things really took off and these people got actual personalities that weren't one note. And no, DC did not tell me that. That came from my own personal reading and experience.

I think your problem is that you just don't like the new stories and you are looking for some sinister purpose behind them, a reason why an entire generation of Superman fans sees the character differently than you do. I think its very simple. We grew up with post-Crisis Superman. It makes sense to us that Clark is the real person, that Superman is what he does. And I don't find the old stories dull because of the differences to modern Superman. I find them dull because they're just...dull. Its the exact problem I try to overcome when getting new people into Superman. They find him to be the invulnerable God who is the stupid Clark Kent in the glasses that everybody should see through. They think of super knitting and Beppo the Super Monkey and Turtle Boy and all the other numerous silly Superman stories of that era. And I can't make them forget that. But if things were so grand back then, why does that hold them back now? Why is everything you like about Superman what, in my experience, holds new people back from getting into the character?