Why do people say Zack Snyder doesn’t respect comics?

[Redd5]

Even if you dislike his movies he obviously has a passion for these characters. Just because he makes changes doesn’t mean he doesn’t respect the source material. No one says that the MCU doesn’t respect the source material despite making major changes. Hugh Jackman is 6’2” whereas Wolverine is suppose to be short yet no one said she doesn’t do the character justice

So why is it any change Snyder makes os proof that he doesn’t like or respect the source material?

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

I like Snyder and most of his movies, but he often gets accused of just taking what looks cool in comics, and ignoring the original context whilst placing it in his films, just for the sake of spectacular visuals and fan-service.

Although I generally like him I think sometimes there's something to that criticism. Placing the death of Superman, Superman facing off with Batman (and blowing the chance of that TDKReturns imagery being used in a later film to the impact that it deserves) in only the second film of the DCEU seemed to me (and many others) pretty dumb. That said, I like BvS, and I love Watchmen. Heck, I even like Sucker Punch! And I do believe he's a real DC fan. He is also by all accounts a really nice guy.

 

[Schlosser85]

Because he shows disregard for core values of Batman and Superman in favor of Michael Bay levels of orgiastic destruction?

 

[Redd5]

Because he shows disregard for core values of Batman and Superman in favor of Michael Bay levels of orgiastic destruction?

I mean all action movies have huge amounts of destruction not even just superheroes. That’s just part of the course

 

[Schlosser85]

I mean all action movies have huge amounts of destruction not even just superheroes. That’s just part of the course

I'm talking about the way he has Batman branding criminals like cattle and breaking necks and dropping cars on bad guys or running them over with the Batmobile and generally killing willy nilly left and right, and Superman basically doing half the leveling of Metropolis himself and showing no concern for rescuing civilians.

 

[Redd5]

I like Snyder and most of his movies, but he often gets accused of just taking what looks cool in comics, and ignoring the original context whilst placing it in his films, just for the sake of spectacular visuals and fan-service.

Although I generally like him I think sometimes there's something to that criticism. Placing the death of Superman, Superman facing off with Batman (and blowing the chance of that TDKReturns imagery being used in a later film to the impact that it deserves) in only the second film of the DCEU seemed to me (and many others) pretty dumb. That said, I like BvS, and I love Watchmen. Heck, I even like Sucker Punch! And I do believe he's a real DC fan. He is also by all accounts a really nice guy.

I mean compositing stories together isn’t anything new. The Nolan trilogy pulled from a ton of Batman stories including The Dark Knight Returns. I really don’t think TDKR can really be adapted. It presupposes most of the DC mythos while turning it on it’s head. BvS borrows some elements from it but so did Dark Knight Rises. In fact TDKRi is arguably closer than BvS to TDKRe. The only things BvS has in common outside of the superficial is a veteran Batman fighting Superman and dealing with the lose of a Robin. Unlike TDKRe Bruce is still active after Robin’s death, he obviously hasn’t known Superman for years and even the reasons for the infamous fight are vastly different. In fact Batman is borderline the villain of BvS compared to TDKRe where he is clearly the hero whereas TDKRi Gotham views him as a criminal just like TDKRe after the police believe Batman killed Joker

 

[Redd5]

I'm talking about the way he has Batman branding criminals like cattle and breaking necks and dropping cars on bad guys or running them over with the Batmobile and generally killing willy nilly left and right, and Superman basically doing half the leveling of Metropolis himself and showing no concern for rescuing civilians.

yeah and BvS treats it like a strange thing. Alfred mentions several times how things have changed with Bruce. They make it clear this is a hardened Batman who’s lost his way. Even then what your saying is exaggerated. He didn’t brand people as a way to mark them for death. He also didn’t break necks and the chase was at best self defense

Superman didn’t do half the leveling. He even threw Zod into space. Regardless like the Avengers don’t level half of NY every time. Hell in literally every Superman vs Doomsday fight does Superman ever try to take Doomsday out of Metropolis? No in fact he usually slams Doomsday right in the middle of metropolis from orbit leveling half the city

 

[Nardz937]

I'm sure he respects and loves the comics, but he's just not good at adapting and translating it to film.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

I mean compositing stories together isn’t anything new. The Nolan trilogy pulled from a ton of Batman stories including The Dark Knight Returns. I really don’t think TDKR can really be adapted. It presupposes most of the DC mythos while turning it on it’s head. BvS borrows some elements from it but so did Dark Knight Rises. In fact TDKRi is arguably closer than BvS to TDKRe. The only things BvS has in common outside of the superficial is a veteran Batman fighting Superman and dealing with the lose of a Robin. Unlike TDKRe Bruce is still active after Robin’s death, he obviously hasn’t known Superman for years and even the reasons for the infamous fight are vastly different. In fact Batman is borderline the villain of BvS compared to TDKRe where he is clearly the hero whereas TDKRi Gotham views him as a criminal just like TDKRe after the police believe Batman killed Joker

If The Dark Knight Returns was adapted at some point general audiences would look at the Batman/Superman fight in that and think (quite rightly) 'We've already seen this in Batman v Superman'. It's so distinctive, especially with the armour. Likewise with Superman's death fighting Doomsday, if they were ever to make a full live-action adaptation of The Death of Superman. As for Nolan using elements of various stories, yes absolutely. But they weren't quite so 'on the nose'. I don't think that general audiences watching a live-action adaptation of The Long Halloween, The Killing Joke, or No Man's land would get that same feeling that they would with TDKReturns or TDoS.

Having said that, I'm not a Snyder hater by any means. I think he gets way too much stick. But these are some of the reasons fans don't like his stuff.

 

[Redd5]

If The Dark Knight Returns was adapted at some point general audiences would look at the Batman/Superman fight in that and think (quite rightly) 'We've already seen this in Batman v Superman'. It's so distinctive, especially with the armour. Likewise with Superman's death fighting Doomsday, if they were ever to make a full live-action adaptation of The Death of Superman. As for Nolan using elements of various stories, yes absolutely. But they weren't quite so 'on the nose'. I don't think that general audiences watching a live-action adaptation of The Long Halloween, The Killing Joke, or No Man's land would get that same feeling that they would with TDKReturns or TDoS.

Having said that, I'm not a Snyder hater by any means. I think he gets way too much stick. But these are some of the reasons fans don't like his stuff.

but that’s the thing. You really can’t adapt TDKR or TDoS. They just aren’t made for film. TDoS would be too short and kinda contrived while TDKR is quite long and very much a product of its time being a deconstruction of comics at that time. Marvel has done the same as well. For example Ragnarok adapted Ragnarok and Planet Hulk and given the conclusion we aren’t gonna get a WWHulk either. Even civil war is very different from the comics. The real point is to use different elements to fit thematically. Resurrections are generally frowned in film compared to comics where it’s fairly common. TDoS really wouldn’t work as a solo movie and it’s obvious the Dceu really isn’t going to make a “true” adaptation of it. Likewise making a “true” adaptation of TDKR really wouldn’t work either because it’s a deconstruction on superhero tropes in comics

I understand what you’re saying but I disagree.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

but that’s the thing. You really can’t adapt TDKR or TDoS. They just aren’t made for film. TDoS would be too short and kinda contrived while TDKR is quite long and very much a product of its time being a deconstruction of comics at that time. Marvel has done the same as well. For example Ragnarok adapted Ragnarok and Planet Hulk and given the conclusion we aren’t gonna get a WWHulk either. Even civil war is very different from the comics. The real point is to use different elements to fit thematically. Resurrections are generally frowned in film compared to comics where it’s fairly common. TDoS really wouldn’t work as a solo movie and it’s obvious the Dceu really isn’t going to make a “true” adaptation of it. Likewise making a “true” adaptation of TDKR really wouldn’t work either because it’s a deconstruction on superhero tropes in comics

I understand what you’re saying but I disagree.

And that's fine. My point in posting wasn't to try to convince anyone of any particular view. It was to answer at least in part your question 'Why do people say Zack Snyder doesn't respect comics?'. The reasons that I gave are reasons that some fans feel that Snyder doesn't respect comics.

 

[Babillygunn]

Why do people think Snyder doesn’t respect comics? Here’s why:

“Someone says to me: ‘[Ben Affleck’s] Batman killed a guy, I’m like, ‘F*** really? Wake the f*** up.’...Once you’ve lost your virginity to this f***ing movie and then you come and say to me something about, like, ‘My superhero wouldn’t do that,’ I’m like, ‘Are you serious?’ I’m, like, down the f***ing road on that...It’s a cool point of view to be like, ‘My heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t f***ing lie to America. My heroes didn’t embezzle money from their corporations. My heroes didn’t commit any atrocities.’ That’s cool. But you’re living in a f***ing dream world.”
-Zack Snyder


He’s a foul mouthed immature child who likes killing ants with a magnifying glass. every interview I hear with him makes me think of this:

 

[TheVileOne]

Because he doesn't truly respect and understand them.

 

[Herofan]

Even if you dislike his movies he obviously has a passion for these characters. Just because he makes changes doesn’t mean he doesn’t respect the source material. No one says that the MCU doesn’t respect the source material despite making major changes. Hugh Jackman is 6’2” whereas Wolverine is suppose to be short yet no one said she doesn’t do the character justice

So why is it any change Snyder makes os proof that he doesn’t like or respect the source material?

He definitely isn't reverential to the source material but he doesn't have to be, that he isn't reverential shouldn't lead to assuming he doesn't like the source material. But I think the accusation is not that he doesn't like the source material as much as that he doesn't understand it or, to be a little more confrontational, undervalues it.

A good example is Watchmen where, though I loved that film, two of his significant changes were puzzling, that the violence was oddly reveled in if not glorified (though that was arguably true of the comics the comics could be interpreted as at least emphasizing the disturbing aspects also) and that Ozymandias was less charismatic, less likeable, more likely villain or clearly/definitely villain throughout which was unfortunate.

With Man of Steel he made some big changes and seemed to have an overall different outlook from a lot of the comics, I think the outrage to that was overblown but understandable. Mostly showing Jonathan and Clark as much more concerned about protecting Clark's secret, though that had obviously long been a part of the comics and previous adaptations, but taking it to the point of being reluctant for him to help others in some circumstances, a lot of fans prefer or insist that the characters be much more moralistic altruistic and feel that them caring more about Clark personally than general altruism is an attack on the previous version. Lois knowing Clark's powers/identity from early on, and also choosing to not reveal it, is a big change but I don't see how it, though different, expresses dislike from previous versions.

 

[Herofan]

Because he shows disregard for core values of Batman and Superman in favor of Michael Bay levels of orgiastic destruction?

In the comics Superman has been willing to kill, Batman definitely been tempted to.

Why do people think Snyder doesn’t respect comics? Here’s why:

“Someone says to me: ‘[Ben Affleck’s] Batman killed a guy, I’m like, ‘F*** really? Wake the f*** up.’...Once you’ve lost your virginity to this f***ing movie and then you come and say to me something about, like, ‘My superhero wouldn’t do that,’ I’m like, ‘Are you serious?’ I’m, like, down the f***ing road on that...It’s a cool point of view to be like, ‘My heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t f***ing lie to America. My heroes didn’t embezzle money from their corporations. My heroes didn’t commit any atrocities.’ That’s cool. But you’re living in a f***ing dream world.”
-Zack Snyder

Crudely put but an understandable overreaction to that some fans do have overly high moral demands, including adamantly insisting that Batman would never kill over more than a decade of fighting crime and psychopaths and even if his adopted son was killed or even that, yes, a hero *lying* is morally unacceptable.

 

[TheVileOne]

'Watchmen': A chat with director Zack Snyder

Everyone says that about "Batman Begins." "Batman's dark." I'm like, "Okay, no, Batman's cool." He gets to go to a Tibetan monastery and be trained by ninjas. Okay? I want to do that. But he doesn't, like, get raped in prison. That could happen in my movie. If you want to talk about dark, that's how that would go.

It goes beyond being tempted or driven to kill.

It's about showing they are better than the ones they fight. It's about showing mercy and compassion. Otherwise they are fascists and they can become unchecked monsters.

If Batman is willing to kill, then there's no reason, NO REASON, that Joker or Harley Quinn for that matter should still be walking around the DCEU. Joker killed his adopted son, and Harley Quinn was his accomplice. It's stupid, illogical and makes no sense if they are going that route.

Even in Dark Knight Returns, Batman got cold feet and couldn't bring himself to finally do the deed and actually kill the Joker. Joker ultimately killed himself. His intent in his fight with Superman wasn't to kill Superman. It was to send a message and put on a show.

Once again, Zack Snyder only takes surface level details and what he thinks look cool. He doesn't truly understand them.

 

[Flash525]

Because everyone has an opinion about what is right, what is wrong, what is needed and what isn't.

As a director, I can imagine it's extremely difficult working with something as large and complicated as these characters. It's not just a single comic to draw inspiration from, there's a multitude of them; with a forever changing context.

Superman is just one example of a character that has had his origin story and powers tweaked time and time again. When dealing with these characters, especially if and when world building, a director is going to need to pick what he or she believes the working aspects of those foundations are, and expand upon them. Not all fans are going to agree with that direction, and so cry they do.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

If Batman is willing to kill, then there's no reason, NO REASON, that Joker or Harley Quinn for that matter should still be walking around the DCEU. Joker killed his adopted son, and Harley Quinn was his accomplice. It's stupid, illogical and makes no sense if they are going that route.

The Joker conundrum (I'm sure there's a better term for it) is the stumbling block, isn't it. If Batman is willing to kill intentionally then Joker should be dead. If Joker's not dead, then Batman can't be willing to kill intentionally. It always comes back to that. (Btw, I'm agreeing with you, in case I wasn't clear)

 

[Flash525]

If Batman is willing to kill, then there's no reason, NO REASON, that Joker or Harley Quinn for that matter should still be walking around the DCEU. Joker killed his adopted son, and Harley Quinn was his accomplice. It's stupid, illogical and makes no sense if they are going that route.

Whilst I agree that there's no reason for those two to still be living and breathing in this Snyder Universe, the Directors Cut of Suicide Squad is going to ensure that Harley Quinn isn't an accomplice to Robin's murder.

 

[TheVileOne]

Whilst I agree that there's no reason for those two to still be living and breathing in this Snyder Universe, the Directors Cut of Suicide Squad is going to ensure that Harley Quinn isn't an accomplice to Robin's murder.

As of now there's no director's cut.

 

[TheVileOne]

The Joker conundrum (I'm sure there's a better term for it) is the stumbling block, isn't it. If Batman is willing to kill intentionally then Joker should be dead. If Joker's not dead, then Batman can't be willing to kill intentionally. It always comes back to that. (Btw, I'm agreeing with you, in case I wasn't clear)

Well I mean look, for better or worse, the Burton Batman films had Batman kill people. Joker was his parents' killer, and after he realized that, he ended him. But he didn't stop being Batman after that either. He still believed it was his job to protect Gotham City.

So if you have a Batman that's willing to cross that line, there's no reason why he should allow due process to take its course when all people like Joker and Harley Quinn do is keep getting back out and causing mayhem again.

 

[Redd5]

'Watchmen': A chat with director Zack Snyder



It goes beyond being tempted or driven to kill.

It's about showing they are better than the ones they fight. It's about showing mercy and compassion. Otherwise they are fascists and they can become unchecked monsters.

If Batman is willing to kill, then there's no reason, NO REASON, that Joker or Harley Quinn for that matter should still be walking around the DCEU. Joker killed his adopted son, and Harley Quinn was his accomplice. It's stupid, illogical and makes no sense if they are going that route.

Even in Dark Knight Returns, Batman got cold feet and couldn't bring himself to finally do the deed and actually kill the Joker. Joker ultimately killed himself. His intent in his fight with Superman wasn't to kill Superman. It was to send a message and put on a show.

Once again, Zack Snyder only takes surface level details and what he thinks look cool. He doesn't truly understand them.

First off it is important understand the context. People were saying Batman Begins was dark. Zack was speaking about Watchmen specifically which deals with rape

Next is Batman killing. Throughout BvS Batman doesn't go out of his way to kill. Essentially Joker has never been in a position where he'd be killed. What would be a contradiction is if the trafficker at the start of the movie was killed by Batman but he wasn't. The only times Batman killed was in his vehicles only AFTER the they opened fire at him. Batman has always had weapons in his vehicles it isn't anything new. The closest time I can think of is in Suicide Squad when Batman is chasing Joker. Assuming the chase and arrest of Harley takes place before BvS (which I kinda doubt because Joker still seems broken up about it) Joker was driving a Lamborghini without machine guns on the back meaning Batman didn't have to use deadly force. He also didn't kill Deadshot because he knew he wouldn't hurt him

Comparing BvS to TDKR is fallacious. Snyder obviously took inspiration from it but so did Nolan for Dark Knight Rises. BvS is not an adaptation of TDKR. If you want that watch the animated movie starring Peter Welling as Batman. There are massive differences between Miller's Batman in TDKR and Snyder's Batman in BvS. Yes they are older and more grizzled but that is about it. Miller's story is about Batman coming out of retirement to prove he is still the Batman. Snyder's is about a Batman who is broken and slowly losing his way after years of crimefighting. In TDKR Batman and Superman knew each other while in BvS Batman didn't know who Superman was. If your point is why does Batman hunt down to kill Superman but not Joker there are some monumental differences. Joker is a regular guy while Superman is a godlike alien. Batman has been shown to not mind killing aliens (or at least animalistic aliens like parademons) so it makes sense that he doesn't value Superman as a life compared to Joker who is still human. On top of that Joker can't burn the world, Superman could. But even then he realized he had gone too far

 

[The Guard]

'
It goes beyond being tempted or driven to kill.

It's about showing they are better than the ones they fight. It's about showing mercy and compassion. Otherwise they are fascists and they can become unchecked monsters.

If Batman is willing to kill, then there's no reason, NO REASON, that Joker or Harley Quinn for that matter should still be walking around the DCEU. Joker killed his adopted son, and Harley Quinn was his accomplice. It's stupid, illogical and makes no sense if they are going that route.

The Joker and Harley, in most versions of the story, are certifiably insane. That's why they're usually in Arkham and not regular prison. The answer to why Batman doesn't kill them is akin to why most murders who are certified as insane don't get the death penalty.

2. There's nothing in BVS or any of the DCEU films that indicates Batman is pre-emptively going around killing every threat, because he clearly does not do so. He only prepares to kill Superman (for a very specific psychological reason that does not apply to your average criminal). Every other kill is presented as self-defense after a fashion. There's nothing to suggest he would kill the insane criminal who is locked up in Arkham or at large just because he killed the hired guns who were blasting at him with heavy munitions in a different and very specific instance. That's not the way human beings work. It being EASIER to kill The Joker after he started killing doesn't mean he neccessarily would, just like having the capability of killing Superman did not mean he did so. Free and choices are a thing.

The old chestnut of "But if Batman kills, then why wouldn''t he kill The Joker" falls apart pretty quickly because for one, whether he kills habitually or not, there is always some logic to killing The Joker in every version. It doesn't matter whether he kills other criminals, he arguably should always kill The Joker from one moral standpoint. And two, there are obvious extra-universe reasons why (recurring arch-villain), as well as in universe reasons why (insanity defense, doesn't want to be an unchecked monster, lose the trust of allies in the law, etc).

Broad generalizations like this are why I don't think the "no kill rule" is particuarly interesting unless it's actually assessed from a psychological standpoint rather than a moral one.

Once again, Zack Snyder only takes surface level details and what he thinks look cool. He doesn't truly understand them.

Him recontexualizing them for his story does not in any way indicate a lack of understanding of the original material.

 

[TheVileOne]

Batman v Superman literally establishes that he's branding criminals now, and a Bat-brand is a virtual death sentence when you go to prison. No brands for Joker or Harley Quinn though.

He killed all of Lex Luthor's thugs to get to the kryptonite as well, and he was willing to kill Superman.

So any defense is flimsy at best. There's no excuse for killing nameless thugs but not killing Joker and Harley Quinn, who both murdered his adopted son, and letting them walk around free when all they do is commit more acts of vicious murder and mayhem.

 

[TheVileOne]

First off it is important understand the context. People were saying Batman Begins was dark. Zack was speaking about Watchmen specifically which deals with rape

Next is Batman killing. Throughout BvS Batman doesn't go out of his way to kill. Essentially Joker has never been in a position where he'd be killed. What would be a contradiction is if the trafficker at the start of the movie was killed by Batman but he wasn't. The only times Batman killed was in his vehicles only AFTER the they opened fire at him. Batman has always had weapons in his vehicles it isn't anything new. The closest time I can think of is in Suicide Squad when Batman is chasing Joker. Assuming the chase and arrest of Harley takes place before BvS (which I kinda doubt because Joker still seems broken up about it) Joker was driving a Lamborghini without machine guns on the back meaning Batman didn't have to use deadly force. He also didn't kill Deadshot because he knew he wouldn't hurt him

Those weren't the only times in the film.

Those are flimsy excuses for the people he murdered in that film. Not to mention the people he murdered at the end to SAVE MARTHA!

So what if they opened fire on him?

Comparing BvS to TDKR is fallacious. Snyder obviously took inspiration from it but so did Nolan for Dark Knight Rises. BvS is not an adaptation of TDKR. If you want that watch the animated movie starring Peter Welling as Batman. There are massive differences between Miller's Batman in TDKR and Snyder's Batman in BvS. Yes they are older and more grizzled but that is about it. Miller's story is about Batman coming out of retirement to prove he is still the Batman. Snyder's is about a Batman who is broken and slowly losing his way after years of crimefighting. In TDKR Batman and Superman knew each other while in BvS Batman didn't know who Superman was. If your point is why does Batman hunt down to kill Superman but not Joker there are some monumental differences. Joker is a regular guy while Superman is a godlike alien. Batman has been shown to not mind killing aliens (or at least animalistic aliens like parademons) so it makes sense that he doesn't value Superman as a life compared to Joker who is still human. On top of that Joker can't burn the world, Superman could. But even then he realized he had gone too far

It's not fallacious at all considering Snyder, Goyer, and Terrio all lifted swaths of that comic and incorporated it throughout the film.

Yes there are massive differences, but that's the point. Snyder and the writers didn't get the nuance of Miller's Dark Knight Returns. The parts they adapted were superficial at best because Miller truly doesn't understand these stories on a fundamental or thematic level.