The Official Zack Snyder Thread

[Kurosawa]

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?

That Clark was already a god before he even got his powers. It would be like Donald Trump winning the lottery. There is nothing, NOTHING there that is sympathetic or vulnerable. I don't feel Clark needs to be a klutz (there you are projecting ignorant assumptions on a character you know next to nothing about), but he does need to be meek and he does need to be nerdy. Clark Kent is Woody Allen. When they eliminated his character (the Post-Crisis version is basically the same person in and out of costume), they destroyed Superman's dual identity and they also took Jerry Siegel out of the character.

Oh, and I love this part:



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.

Well, you've made your decision and are pretty much opposed to anything else, and that is your right. To me it's a wrongheaded division, but suit yourself. All I can say is when Superman was written in a way that he was originally meant to be written, he was hugely popular. Since they stopped letting him be himself, he has become irrelevant.

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?

People dislike Superman because he is now portrayed as incredibly naive and ignorant, the "Big Blue Boy Scout" depiction that mocks Superman's decency and compassion as ignorance. Leaving the Kents alive was another of Byrne's mistakes as it took away from Superman's vulnerability, plus it effectively kept Superman Superboy forever. It was another well-meant but wrongheaded idea. Byrne meant well and tried hard, but he had bought too much into Stan's anti-DC, anti-Superman stances and since he neither knew or cared to understand the Jewish-American experience of the 20th Century, he failed to feel any of the themes that made Superman so great.

I hate to say this, but it seems that there's no reason to even discuss this even further-you come off as a hopeless case as far as learning and understanding Superman is concerned. Anyone who thinks Silver Age Superman was nothing but Turtle Boy and Beppo is totally ignorant about Superman and comics history in general. I'll take the opinions and tastes of people like Neil Gaiman, Jules Feiffer, Alan Moore and Grant Morrison over the era which saw Superman move from being the greatest superhero of all time to being Batman's *****. I feel sorry for people who grew up with Superman in the time that he's been portrayed as a loser.

 

[KyleDW2]

That Clark was already a god before he even got his powers. It would be like Donald Trump winning the lottery. There is nothing, NOTHING there that is sympathetic or vulnerable. I don't feel Clark needs to be a klutz (there you are projecting ignorant assumptions on a character you know next to nothing about), but he does need to be meek and he does need to be nerdy. Clark Kent is Woody Allen. When they eliminated his character (the Post-Crisis version is basically the same person in and out of costume), they destroyed Superman's dual identity and they also took Jerry Siegel out of the character.

How? If you think about it, it just makes Clark Kent a person. A normal person, if they grew up with extraordinary powers, would use them. That is the difference between pre and post Crisis. Pre-Crisis Clark was just a mask for the God being of Superman. He barely existed. Hell, the Kents even groomed him from an early age to be Superman. Even as a child Clark was a disguise. That's just...lame. And unrealistic. Post-Crisis Clark is a human being, with human faults. That's what I want to read about. When Pa Kent lays it down that Clark has been misusing his powers, he gets it. And then he goes off to do good. But he doesn't sacrifice his humanity, his identity as Clark Kent to do that. Is that so wrong?

Well, you've made your decision and are pretty much opposed to anything else, and that is your right. To me it's a wrongheaded division, but suit yourself. All I can say is when Superman was written in a way that he was originally meant to be written, he was hugely popular. Since they stopped letting him be himself, he has become irrelevant.

Speaking of being, "written in a way that he was originally meant to be written," what about Batman? I've read the Golden Age stories by Kane and Finger. They were never, never as dark as they are right now. Nor were they as bizarre and out there with Batman Inc. and the Club of Heroes and Doctor Hurt and Professor Pyg and Damien Wayne. Yet Batman is consistently the number one seller month after month. So explain that.

Now, to bring this thread back on track, what I like about post-Crisis is exactly what needs to be brought into the new movies. The characters need to be made into fully fleshed out people. Clark Kent especially. I think what Marvel really nailed in the 60's, and what DC got into after that, is that we read these stories for the people behind the masks just as much, if not more so than, the masks themselves. And with Zack Snyder, I feel he can do this. He is the guy who added all the scenes back in Sparta in 300 after all. I can definitely see him wanting to get behind Clark's glasses a bit.

Wow, this might be the most ignorant and brainwashed by DC statement that I have ever read. There's no reason to even discuss this even further-you are a hopeless case as far as learning and understanding Superman is concerned. Anyone who thinks Silver Age Superman was nothing but Turtle Boy and Beppo is totally ignorant about Superman and comics history in general. I'll take the opinions and tastes of people like Neil Gaiman, Jules Feiffer, Alan Moore and Grant Morrison over the era which saw Superman move from being the greatest superhero of all time to being Batman's *****. I feel sorry for people who grew up with Superman in the time that he's been portrayed as a loser.

And I feel sorry for people who don't see that Silver Age Superman is to Super Friends as post-Crisis Superman is to Dini and Timm's Justice League. But hey, whatever keeps you bitter and shaking your fist at those young kids with their post-Crisis hoola hoops and their rap music who won't get off your Silver Age lawn.

 

[JAK®]

People don't understand Pre-Crisis Superman, it's a shame.

 

[Kurosawa]

How? If you think about it, it just makes Clark Kent a person. A normal person, if they grew up with extraordinary powers, would use them. That is the difference between pre and post Crisis. Pre-Crisis Clark was just a mask for the God being of Superman. He barely existed. Hell, the Kents even groomed him from an early age to be Superman. Even as a child Clark was a disguise. That's just...lame. And unrealistic. Post-Crisis Clark is a human being, with human faults. That's what I want to read about. When Pa Kent lays it down that Clark has been misusing his powers, he gets it. And then he goes off to do good. But he doesn't sacrifice his humanity, his identity as Clark Kent to do that. Is that so wrong?

Pre-Crisis Clark did use hs powers growing up-he was Superboy, a hero. What he wasn't was a cheater who used his powers to dominate (and perhaps injure) others playing football. Clark is not an act, not totally. There's things about Clark that are an act and things that aren't an act. His love of journalism, his belief in the power of the press to make peoples lives better, his caring for his friends are all real. And all of these changes you herald as so great and so realistic coincide with the characters fall from grace and popularity. So they obviously were not so great and took away what made Superman compelling and unique. Every other hero is the same person in and out of costume. Superman is not. Why should Superman be the same as everyone else? Why should I read a soap-opera Superman when I can read the same thing done better in Spider-Man, where it actually fits the character? How about they retcon Spider-Man to where Peter Parker is already a popular student and an athlete, maybe the top wideout on the football team, dating MJ and best friends with Flash Thompson before he gets bitten by the spider?

Speaking of being, "written in a way that he was originally meant to be written," what about Batman? I've read the Golden Age stories by Kane and Finger. They were never, never as dark as they are right now. Nor were they as bizarre and out there with Batman Inc. and the Club of Heroes and Doctor Hurt and Professor Pyg and Damien Wayne. Yet Batman is consistently the number one seller month after month. So explain that.

Ever read Batman VS the Monk? The original Hugo Strange stories? Joker's first appearances? Today's Batman is a complete and total evolution from Finger and Kane's character. Batman flourishes BECAUSE they keep him true to his original vision, and the character faltered in the late 50's and again in the late 60's because they took him away from the Finger/Kane model.

Now, to bring this thread back on track, what I like about post-Crisis is exactly what needs to be brought into the new movies. The characters need to be made into fully fleshed out people. Clark Kent especially. I think what Marvel really nailed in the 60's, and what DC got into after that, is that we read these stories for the people behind the masks just as much, if not more so than, the masks themselves. And with Zack Snyder, I feel he can do this. He is the guy who added all the scenes back in Sparta in 300 after all. I can definitely see him wanting to get behind Clark's glasses a bit.

When they Marvelized Superman, he lost popularity and relevance. That's just the way it is. If I want a Marvel character, I'll read or watch a Marvel character. Superman needs to be himself-powerful, grand, moral and inspirational, and Clark needs to be himself-vulnerable, kind, identifiable. Spider-Man works for people because he is who we are. Superman is what we should aspire to be.

"Do good to others and every man can be a Superman."-that is Superman's mission statement. Humanity can transcend by adopting Superman's morals and ethics. That's what Superman is all about.

And I feel sorry for people who don't see that Silver Age Superman is to Super Friends as post-Crisis Superman is to Dini and Timm's Justice League. But hey, whatever keeps you bitter and shaking your fist at those young kids with their post-Crisis hoola hoops and their rap music who won't get off your Silver Age lawn.

I always considered Dini and Timm's Superman to be unimpressive. "Kindapowerfulman" is what I call him. I never trust Batman guys with Supes.

 

[Kurosawa]

People don't understand Pre-Crisis Superman, it's a shame.

They've been taught not to and it's very hard to revise one's beliefs.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

They've been taught not to and it's very hard to revise one's beliefs.

Well, I started reading Superman in the mid 70s and I also had the possibility of reading many stories from the previous decades thanks to some Italian reprints. There were not many memorable stories, some were fun, many were childish, some good ones too.
So I was not taught to like the post-crisis stories and characterization more. But I do. But I can't see why you're complaining as in the books they're reverting to the bumbling Clark of the movies and the pre-crisis stories with a tv Smallville-like past (which I hate).

 

[JAK®]

Bumbling Clark isn't a pre-crisis thing. Mild-mannered, yes, but never bumbling.

 

[Kurosawa]

Yeah, the current comics are more classic in many details, although Superman himself is still full of self-doubt and fails more than he succeeds.

 

[KyleDW2]

Bumbling Clark isn't a pre-crisis thing. Mild-mannered, yes, but never bumbling.

Pick a random issue of Action Comics, say, 1 to 100. I'll find an example of him bumbling.

Back in the day, all Clark was good for was providing an excuse for Superman to be where news was. He didn't care what the world thought of Clark. It was all about Superman. That's just so...boring. And one dimensional. All the man was in the early days was a mask. He was a hat and glasses that made Superman inconspicuous. Its just so very, very bland.

 

[JAK®]

Pre-Crisis was pure science fiction, which suits Superman better as a character. He was created to explore the concept of a man with great power. He was meant to overcome impossible struggles. Some people say that lacks depth. But I say those people can't recognise depth unless it is explained to them, like Post-Crisis Superman's Peter Parker-esque thought balloons.

 

[KyleDW2]

Yeah, the current comics are more classic in many details, although Superman himself is still full of self-doubt and fails more than he succeeds.

Oh no! A hero full of self doubt?! Why, that makes them...characters!

Seriously, what is wrong with heroes being filled with human emotions? I want to know that. What is wrong with Superman feeling things? And he fails more often than he succeeds? What comics do you read? He just faces...and I know, as a Silver Age fan this is hard for you to understand...obstacles. Things aren't easy for him. But he does win. He just has to actually struggle for it now, which is a plus in my book because a perfect hero who can do no wrong and is completely invulnerable is entirely boring.

 

[JAK®]

Pick a random issue of Action Comics, say, 1 to 100. I'll find an example of him bumbling.

Back in the day, all Clark was good for was providing an excuse for Superman to be where news was. He didn't care what the world thought of Clark. It was all about Superman. That's just so...boring. And one dimensional. All the man was in the early days was a mask. He was a hat and glasses that made Superman inconspicuous. Its just so very, very bland.

You're making the common logical fallacy that the civilian identity is the only one capable of depth, and that by focusing on the superhero identity, there is no depth. Superman being the main identity simply shifts the depth onto him.

And again, Clark being a disguise is far more interesting, firstly because it's unique, and secondly because there is some sadness there, in that he has to be less exceptional in order to feel close to people.

 

[JAK®]

Oh no! A hero full of self doubt?! Why, that makes them...characters!

Seriously, what is wrong with heroes being filled with human emotions? I want to know that. What is wrong with Superman feeling things? And he fails more often than he succeeds? What comics do you read? He just faces...and I know, as a Silver Age fan this is hard for you to understand...obstacles. Things aren't easy for him. But he does win. He just has to actually struggle for it now, which is a plus in my book because a perfect hero who can do no wrong and is completely invulnerable is entirely boring.

You aren't prepared to consider our arguments because you have already made your mind up on what the Pre-Crisis Superman was like, not to mention your assessment of the character is incorrect and your perception of what counts as depth is severely limited.

 

[Kurosawa]

Oh no! A hero full of self doubt?! Why, that makes them...characters!

Seriously, what is wrong with heroes being filled with human emotions? I want to know that. What is wrong with Superman feeling things? And he fails more often than he succeeds? What comics do you read? He just faces...and I know, as a Silver Age fan this is hard for you to understand...obstacles. Things aren't easy for him. But he does win. He just has to actually struggle for it now, which is a plus in my book because a perfect hero who can do no wrong and is completely invulnerable is entirely boring.

Actually, my favorite Superman is the Golden Age. Still, Superman has emotions and has things that trouble him, but they are not and should not be self-doubt. Superman knows he is doing the right thing, knows what he is doing, is confident and is a WINNER. Superman's issues all stem from his compassion and his sense of duty, not because he is some unsure dope who fumbles along questioning himself and getting owned.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Kurosawa, I always thought you were a huge fan of Silver Age Superman.

 

[Kurosawa]

Kurosawa, I always thought you were a huge fan of Silver Age Superman.

No, my tastes are more Golden > Bronze > Silver. But the Silver Age is by far the most important, creative, and successful period of Superman's existence. There's a lot of pretty silly and stupid Silver Age stories, but there were also a ton of brilliant ones and all the great Kryptonian history came from it.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Oh no! A hero full of self doubt?! Why, that makes them...characters!

Seriously, what is wrong with heroes being filled with human emotions? I want to know that. What is wrong with Superman feeling things? And he fails more often than he succeeds? What comics do you read? He just faces...and I know, as a Silver Age fan this is hard for you to understand...obstacles. Things aren't easy for him. But he does win. He just has to actually struggle for it now, which is a plus in my book because a perfect hero who can do no wrong and is completely invulnerable is entirely boring.

Why do you want all the characters to be the same? Isn't that boring? Superman should be something else than Spider-Man & his friends. You don't have to explore the same things with different characters all the time. The old Superman stories often had deeper meanings, they had a point, not overly deep, but similar to episodes of Star Trek. They just didn't spell everything out.

I tend to keep it like Walt Disney, I'd rather entertain people and hope they'll learn something and not the other way 'round.

 

[KyleDW2]

Why do you want all the characters to be the same? Isn't that boring? Superman should be something else than Spider-Man & his friends. You don't have to explore the same things with different characters all the time. The old Superman stories often had deeper meanings, they had a point, not overly deep, but similar to episodes of Star Trek. They just didn't spell everything out.

I tend to keep it like Walt Disney, I'd rather entertain people and hope they'll learn something and not the other way 'round.

I don't understand this. Giving character to someone is making them just like everyone else? How is Clark Kent like Peter Parker? What about when DC gave their other heroes normal problems? Was this a bad thing as well? You guys must have flipped out when Speedy had a drug problem.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Oh no! A hero full of self doubt?! Why, that makes them...characters!

Seriously, what is wrong with heroes being filled with human emotions? I want to know that. What is wrong with Superman feeling things? And he fails more often than he succeeds? What comics do you read? He just faces...and I know, as a Silver Age fan this is hard for you to understand...obstacles. Things aren't easy for him. But he does win. He just has to actually struggle for it now, which is a plus in my book because a perfect hero who can do no wrong and is completely invulnerable is entirely boring.

self doubt doesnt equal characterization. rather its the cheapest way to tug on an audiences emotions in an attempt to get them to connect with characters. and for some characters, like spider-man, thats fantastic, it really works best for them. and obviously, it will pop up for any and every character from time to time, even superman. and even thats totally cool when done properly and in doses.

but lately, in the comics, superman seems to be defined by these qualities, and thats not right for his character. if anything, superman should be defined by his confidence, his decisiveness, his ability to recognize right and wrong, and his ability to utilize these traits to inspire others. these qualities of superman's character should not be over shadowed by self conscious doubt....which as of late, they have been.

 

[KyleDW2]

self doubt doesnt equal characterization. rather its the cheapest way to tug on an audiences emotions in an attempt to get them to connect with characters. and for some characters, like spider-man, thats fantastic, it really works best for them. and obviously, it will pop up for any and every character from time to time, even superman. and even thats totally cool when done properly and in doses.

but lately, in the comics, superman seems to be defined by these qualities, and thats not right for his character. if anything, superman should be defined by his confidence, his decisiveness, his ability to recognize right and wrong, and his ability to utilize these traits to inspire others. these qualities of superman's character should not be over shadowed by self conscious doubt....which as of late, they have been.

Well Superman has been through a lot lately that should cause him to have self doubt. Like the whole New Krypton thing. Back in the Golden and Silver Age if Superman had the New Krypton scenario happen to him at the end of it he probably would have just chuckled heartily and gone, "Well, looks like that's over with!" while Lois Lane gloats to useless Clark Kent about how she scooped him on the whole thing. Then Clark winks and the camera and we all have a good laugh. Oh that Superman!

What I want is a Superman who acts like a person. That means that he will behave just as anyone else would. In the movie this will be especially important to break through the stuff image Superman has. It'd be nice to see Clark/Superman acting like a human being, not like an invulnerable God or a complete moron. There is a middle ground he can inhabit. That has never been seen on film. And since it looks like we're getting some type of origin film, Clark should be very unsure of what he is doing. It would take him time to become the Superman we know.

 

[Motown Marvel]

despite your mis-characterization of golden age superman, these character problems with superman were going on long before the new krypton stuff. and obviously, superman should be expected to having an emotional reaction to the new krypton stuff and other events. but what they've been doing with him over the past few years feels so not superman. more like super-powered-emotionally-conflicted-self-doubting-man.

 

[Kurosawa]

The New Krypton thing wouldn't have happened to classic Superman, because he was not capable of that level of fail.

 

[KyleDW2]

despite your mis-characterization of golden age superman, these character problems with superman were going on long before the new krypton stuff. and obviously, superman should be expected to having an emotional reaction to the new krypton stuff and other events. but what they've been doing with him over the past few years feels so not superman. more like super-powered-emotionally-conflicted-self-doubting-man.

You mean Super...man.

See, what they did here is put the man into Superman. And yeah, he has doubts and fears and failures. But look at things like Final Crisis. He helped raise an army of alternate universe Supermen to defeat Darkseid. He single handedly delivered the final blow...I think. And in Infinite Crisis he was the one that smashed Superboy-Prime through the red sun and beat the holy hell out of him. Superman still wins out in the end, its just harder for him. Thus, more entertaining. I want to see Superman get beaten every once in a while. It makes the struggle towards victory so much more entertaining.

 

[KyleDW2]

The New Krypton thing wouldn't have happened to classic Superman, because he was not capable of that level of fail.

You may chose one of two answers to this ridiculous statement of yours.

A) Yes, because every single one of pre-Crisis Krypton's inhabitants would be a perfect citizen and, upon release from Brainiac's bottle, would become well productive members of society like our perfect God hero Superman! Yay! Yawn!

2) How exactly was it Superman's failure? He did everything humanly possible to make things work but even the world's greatest hero (unless you want a perfect as the wind driven snow unbeatable and invincible hero, a.k.a. a boring hero) wasn't able to stop Zod and the thousands of other Kryptonians from going into a massive hissy fit against the Earth. No man could. Tell me, how could Superman have stopped that? Even your precious Golden Age Superman would be powerless against thousands of po'ed Kryptonians just as strong as he is.

And again, to bring this all back on track, I'm pretty sure you're going to be very disappointed in the new Superman movie. I'm fairly sure Zack Snyder wouldn't want the perfect, completely and 100% confident Superman to be the focus of the new movie. And I'm also fairly sure that Chris Nolan wouldn't see that concept as the one which would get Superman off the ground again, nor would David Goyer write such a character.

 

[Kurosawa]

You may chose one of two answers to this ridiculous statement of yours.

A) Yes, because every single one of pre-Crisis Krypton's inhabitants would be a perfect citizen and, upon release from Brainiac's bottle, would become well productive members of society like our perfect God hero Superman! Yay! Yawn!

2) How exactly was it Superman's failure? He did everything humanly possible to make things work but even the world's greatest hero (unless you want a perfect as the wind driven snow unbeatable and invincible hero, a.k.a. a boring hero) wasn't able to stop Zod and the thousands of other Kryptonians from going into a massive hissy fit against the Earth. No man could. Tell me, how could Superman have stopped that? Even your precious Golden Age Superman would be powerless against thousands of po'ed Kryptonians just as strong as he is.

And again, to bring this all back on track, I'm pretty sure you're going to be very disappointed in the new Superman movie. I'm fairly sure Zack Snyder wouldn't want the perfect, completely and 100% confident Superman to be the focus of the new movie. And I'm also fairly sure that Chris Nolan wouldn't see that concept as the one which would get Superman off the ground again, nor would David Goyer write such a character.

Superman would lead, inspire, and show that he was morally right...like he always did when he mattered. It's not the power, it's the ethics. Anyone who understands Superman knows this. He would have correctly pointed out to them the folly of wars in Krypton's past, he absolutely would have prevented the massacre, and he would have exposed Luthor and General Ross (er, Lane) as the would-be butchers that they were. Superman should not be a loser.