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

[Babillygunn]

Snyder’s recent comments about wanting to burn everything that Whedon did in JL spotlights his arrogance and immaturity. Wouldn’t it have been preferable for him to have taken the high road, thanked Joss for taking over in the midst of an unspeakable personal tragedy, but then say he was excited to have his original vision realized? In a sense, his statement is an admission of what we all already knew: that he was actually fired from JL and the family tragedy was a way out for the studios. But regardless, the statement was classless and arrogant, whereby he assumes that his work is astronomically better and that audiences are waiting with great anticipation for his version because everyone just loves his work. That is delusional.
This arrogance and immaturity spills over into his work as well. He believes that his hollow story is infinitely deeper than it actually is. He is a child who thinks that if you add superficial themes of religion or Greek tragedy, mixed with violence and cussing and make characters act like jerks because their world is difficult, that is a recipe for a “grown up” movie.
It just dawned on me the parallels between Snyder and Trump. Both delusionally think their work is so much superior to everyone else’s. Both are highly divisive. Both have cult-like apologists who will defend him to their grave. Both feel at the same time that they are simultaneously beloved by everyone and unfairly victimized by everyone. And both of them put forth crappy work product and say “I do it better than everyone else. Everyone is saying it. Believe me.”

 

[obredaan]

An interesting look at Snyder's work.

 

[Predator jp]

Snyder’s recent comments about wanting to burn everything that Whedon did in JL spotlights his arrogance and immaturity. Wouldn’t it have been preferable for him to have taken the high road, thanked Joss for taking over in the midst of an unspeakable personal tragedy, but then say he was excited to have his original vision realized? In a sense, his statement is an admission of what we all already knew: that he was actually fired from JL and the family tragedy was a way out for the studios. But regardless, the statement was classless and arrogant, whereby he assumes that his work is astronomically better and that audiences are waiting with great anticipation for his version because everyone just loves his work. That is delusional.
This arrogance and immaturity spills over into his work as well. He believes that his hollow story is infinitely deeper than it actually is. He is a child who thinks that if you add superficial themes of religion or Greek tragedy, mixed with violence and cussing and make characters act like jerks because their world is difficult, that is a recipe for a “grown up” movie.
It just dawned on me the parallels between Snyder and Trump. Both delusionally think their work is so much superior to everyone else’s. Both are highly divisive. Both have cult-like apologists who will defend him to their grave. Both feel at the same time that they are simultaneously beloved by everyone and unfairly victimized by everyone. And both of them put forth crappy work product and say “I do it better than everyone else. Everyone is saying it. Believe me.”

apparently Whedon and his crew constantly talked sh!t about Snyder's work during the reshoots in front of casts and crew who worked with Snyder until then so that's what set him off i guess.

 

[Drunken Rider]

What Zack Snyder did to Jimmy Olsen is unforgivable.

And Dick Grayson as well, don't forget it.

 

[Mani-Man]

apparently Whedon and his crew constantly talked sh!t about Snyder's work during the reshoots in front of casts and crew who worked with Snyder until then so that's what set him off i guess.

Two times wrong doesnt make it right.
And its not like Snyder never talked **** about other directors or even the fans.
Either way its immature behaviour no matter what.

I get not liking Whedon...but many people have worked hard on the movie...he disrespects those people too and that is just bad.

 

[OutOfBoose]

An interesting look at Snyder's work.

Really insightful. But I think I overdozed on crucifix symbolism... There was actually more than I remembered.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I don't have any attachment to Jimmy Olsen, but his fate in BvS is a good example of general immature edgelordism of Snyder's work. And probably one of answers to the title of this thread.

Yup. that was deliberate attempt on Snyders part to appear "cool" and "different". it's stupid is what it is.

 

[obredaan]

Really insightful. But I think I overdozed on crucifix symbolism... There was actually more than I remembered.

Snyder injects his political views into all of his films, which is fine, but I have an issue with that when his political world view is injected into the characters in his films. Superman and Rorschach are perfect examples of how radically different they are portrayed in comparison to the comics.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

This arrogance and immaturity spills over into his work as well. He believes that his hollow story is infinitely deeper than it actually is. He is a child who thinks that if you add superficial themes of religion or Greek tragedy, mixed with violence and cussing and make characters act like jerks because their world is difficult, that is a recipe for a “grown up” movie.

Accurate summation of Snyder's style.

It just dawned on me the parallels between Snyder and Trump. Both delusionally think their work is so much superior to everyone else’s. Both are highly divisive. Both have cult-like apologists who will defend him to their grave. Both feel at the same time that they are simultaneously beloved by everyone and unfairly victimized by everyone. And both of them put forth crappy work product and say “I do it better than everyone else. Everyone is saying it. Believe me.”

Man, I have defended Snyder's films a lot over the years as a guilty pleasure, but this stops me in my tracks. Now that you mention it, I do see the parallels with Trump, and that is never a good sign.

If you wanted to be even more uncharitable to Snyder, you could draw one additional parallel: both of these men have precisely one talent. Trump is good at attracting attention from the media. Snyder is good at making things look cool.

 

[LvtLeeTDK]

He’s just not a very good filmmaker.
He values visual way above actual storytelling and character, but he’s not good enough to pull off great movies.
He’s in the same category with Guillermo del Toro, it’s just that del Toro is much more talented that he can make it work.

 

[flickchick85]

Man, I have defended Snyder's films a lot over the years as a guilty pleasure, but this stops me in my tracks. Now that you mention it, I do see the parallels with Trump, and that is never a good sign.

My friend who's a big movie fan but not into comics at all, and only has a vague affection for a few CBM's (namely Superman: The Movie, Nolan's Batflicks, and a select few MCU movies), took one look at that first Justice League trailer and immediately dubbed it Avengers: 'Trump's America' Style. It definitely felt somewhat accurate to me at the time, so I can see where the comparison comes from.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

The question is, does being good at visuals alone qualify one as a good filmmaker? Despite all the flaws of Snyder's films, I'm still glad they exist. But I wonder if that's merely because they look so cool that they appease my inner fanboy/10-year-old boy.

When I look at Watchmen, it's easy enough to make me think "Whoa, that looks straight out of the comics!" When I see MOS or BvS, I'm tempted to overlook all the problems with character, writing, motivation, etc. just because everything looks so cool.

"Dude, the warehouse scene is so awesome! That's the Batman fight scene I always wanted to see!" It's like a constant tug-of-war between my cinephile id and superego.

 

[flickchick85]

The question is, does being good at visuals alone qualify one as a good filmmaker? Despite all the flaws of Snyder's films, I'm still glad they exist. But I wonder if that's merely because they look so cool that they appease my inner fanboy/10-year-old boy.

When I look at Watchmen, it's easy enough to make me think "Whoa, that looks straight out of the comics!" When I see MOS or BvS, I'm tempted to overlook all the problems with character, writing, motivation, etc. just because everything looks so cool.

"Dude, the warehouse scene is so awesome! That's the Batman fight scene I always wanted to see!" It's like a constant tug-of-war between my cinephile id and superego.

I don't have this problem, so I can't help ya there. The warehouse scene never dazzled me, and his visuals have never appealed to me, tbh. I generally prefer things that look like they were shot in actual locations instead of sound stages. Most of his films have this sheen of artifice that really turns me off from a visual standpoint. The only film of his I've seen that I liked visually was MoS. But even then, that was only SOME of the visuals. There were still some ugly (imo) ones in there, too.

 

[Babillygunn]

I’ve never felt like his movies are “comics come to life.” Instead, the over reliance on filters and odd fixation with muscularity and eroticism have always made me feel like his movies are more “romance novel covers come to life.”

 

[SVSuperman]

And Dick Grayson as well, don't forget it.

That too.

 

[SVSuperman]

apparently Whedon and his crew constantly talked sh!t about Snyder's work during the reshoots in front of casts and crew who worked with Snyder until then so that's what set him off i guess.

But isn't what Zack is doing that to Whedon now?

 

[STARMAN]

One of Zack's so-called strengths is action and visuals and yet I haven't been impressed with them in MOS or BvS.

I like the cinematography of Smallville but little else. The action in either film doesn't blow me away. I like the Smallville fight but I got nothing out of the final battle except a headache. The BvS action sequences don't excite me either. Even the flying sequences disappoint me. The only flying sequence that stands out is first flight. Everything else is dull and forgettable.

 

[OutOfBoose]

“romance novel covers come to life.”

This is too good. b

 

[The Guard]

Snyder’s recent comments about wanting to burn everything that Whedon did in JL spotlights his arrogance and immaturity.

That's not what he said. He said he would rather burn his version of Justice League than include a single frame he didn't shoot. He chose his words very carefully, and didn't mention Whedon. The way he phrased it, you could easily assume he means he wouldn't want something ANYONE else shot in his film.

Would it have been preferable that he took another route to answer the question? Maybe, but he knows his audience. Was he playing to the cheap seats? Yes. Was he saying he hates Joss Whedon? Not really. He's saying he's proud of what he did, and he'd rather no one see it than release it in a compromised version.

And he's been saying that it won't be compromised for a while now.

That's what The Snyder Cut movement has always been about. It's not about dunking on Joss Whedon for Zack, or at least he's never said as much. It's about Snyder's vision getting realized, uncompromised.

Wouldn’t it have been preferable for him to have taken the high road, thanked Joss for taking over in the midst of an unspeakable personal tragedy, but then say he was excited to have his original vision realized? In a sense, his statement is an admission of what we all already knew: that he was actually fired from JL and the family tragedy was a way out for the studios. But regardless, the statement was classless and arrogant, whereby he assumes that his work is astronomically better and that audiences are waiting with great anticipation for his version because everyone just loves his work. That is delusional.

Except that there is nothing inherent in the statement that he thinks his work is better. There's no value judgement about his work at all in the statement, compared to anyone else's.

This arrogance and immaturity spills over into his work as well. He believes that his hollow story is infinitely deeper than it actually is. He is a child who thinks that if you add superficial themes of religion or Greek tragedy, mixed with violence and cussing and make characters act like jerks because their world is difficult, that is a recipe for a “grown up” movie.

Pretty sure he's never said that his story is deep. He's interested by Greek mythology and religious themes. Greek and religious themes aren't especially deep, in themselves. They're often pretty simple, straightforward stories.

Also fairly certain that he has never said that violence and cussing makes a grown up movie, that I can recall. Nevermind that violence and cussing ARE things that are found in movies for adults...

It just dawned on me the parallels between Snyder and Trump. Both delusionally think their work is so much superior to everyone else’s. Both are highly divisive. Both have cult-like apologists who will defend him to their grave. Both feel at the same time that they are simultaneously beloved by everyone and unfairly victimized by everyone.

This is honestly a bit much. Can you show us where Snyder has said that his work is superior to "everyone else's", that he is beloved by "everyone" and "unfairly victimized by everyone"? I don't see Zack Snyder as someone with a victim complex. These are pretty broad blanket statements to make, and I don't think he's said anything along these lines, about any of his films.

Come on, now. You're putting words in the man's mouth.

 

[The Guard]

What Zack Snyder did to Jimmy Olsen is unforgivable.

He's just taking the pi**. He gave a character Jimmy Olson's name. Or do you really think spies use their real names in the field?

I don't have any attachment to Jimmy Olsen, but his fate in BvS is a good example of general immature edgelordism of Snyder's work. And probably one of answers to the title of this thread.

He's just having a laugh at your expense instead of using a generic "spy" tertiary character for the sequence. I think its hilarious how stirred up everyone is by this.

And even if it WAS Jimmy Olsen...obviously they weren't going to use the typical version, so why does a character using his name as "cover" matter?

And what does Jimmy's portrayal amount to?

-He's a field spy for the CIA, which is fairly badass.
-He dies in service to his country, whatever that might be.
-He takes the time to tell them Lois wasn't involved and shows some compassion.

So is the issue that Snyder made a joke using the character of Jimmy Olsen, that a character named Jimmy Olson didn't strongly resemble the character people know and died, or that they didn't use Jimmy to his full potential? Because the latter is a valid concern, but obviously wasn't going to happen, at least in this film. It's just a gag. Snyder knows lots of people don't like Jimmy in his classic form, and he put a little gag in the film to that end. And it didn't even make it into the theatrical cut.

For all we know he was going to ressurrected as Turtle Man, and he's already said if things continued the character would have probably been brought back.

 

[OutOfBoose]

He's just having a laugh at your expense instead of using a generic "spy" tertiary character for the sequence. I think its hilarious how stirred up everyone is by this.

And even if it WAS Jimmy Olsen...obviously they weren't going to use the typical version, so why does a character using his name as "cover" matter?

And what does Jimmy's portrayal amount to?

-He's a field spy for the CIA, which is fairly badass.
-He dies in service to his country, whatever that might be.
-He takes the time to tell them Lois wasn't involved and shows some compassion.

So is the issue that Snyder made a joke using the character of Jimmy Olsen, that a character named Jimmy Olson didn't strongly resemble the character people know and died, or that they didn't use Jimmy to his full potential? Because the latter is a valid concern, but obviously wasn't going to happen, at least in this film. It's just a gag. Snyder knows lots of people don't like Jimmy in his classic form, and he put a little gag in the film to that end. And it didn't even make it into the theatrical cut.

For all we know he was going to ressurrected as Turtle Man, and he's already said if things continued the character would have probably been brought back.

It was a very funny joke. Everyone is laughing. So clever.

Not only it doesn't even remotely look like an attempt to honor someone or treat fairly... At best it looks like immature trolling. At worst - tone deaf, disrespectful and out of touch with audiences.

 

[The Guard]

I'm not saying it's Jimmy Olson at his full potential.

I'm saying the character as depicted onscreen, is not portrayed in any way that should make people offended by it's inclusion. Even if you actually think that's Jimmy, it's clearly not meant to be the Jimmy we all know and love, and that's the joke, because when you hear the name you think "Oh wow, it's Jimmy! Cool!" and the further joke is that it's probably not even actually Jimmy Olson.

Everyone doesn't have to like the joke for it to work. There are plenty of jokes that offend people.

Eventually people are going to have to start to get over being trolled. It's a thing now.

How is it inherently tone deaf? The guy may not even be Jimmy Olson. Like, that's pretty much the whole bit. He's probably using the name as "cover", just like they used Lois' press credentials as cover.

I'm pretty sure that Snyder has said several times now that's not the real Jimmy Olson.

 

[Babillygunn]

Everyone doesn't have to like the joke for it to work. There are plenty of jokes that offend people.

Eventually people are going to have to start to get over being trolled. It's a thing now.

“Trolling” the fans who pay to see your movies is not a good way to ensure longevity in the filmmaking business.

 

[SiegePerilous]

For all we know he was going to ressurrected as Turtle Man, and he's already said if things continued the character would have probably been brought back.

Is there an actual quote that that wasn't the real Jimmy, or that he'd later resurrect him? From all I've seen, that was his having "fun" with the Jimmy character, which sort of indicates that he intended that to be the real Jimmy. And that was all we were getting from him because he didn't have space for him anywhere else.

Anyway, it's not that funny. It just reinforces that this version of Superman can't have anyone in his life of significance besides Lois and his parents, which just contributes to making him ill defined and boring.

Unlike Jimmy, I can at least kind of see the logic in killing Dick Grayson off as the Robin who died at the hands of the Joker, since he is the main Robin and it would carry the most weight. But hardly seems like a worthy depiction of the fourth most published character at DC comics if all we're going to get is one context-less shot of Bruce looking at a burned costume and then never bringing it up again to allow us to give a crap.

 

[Superchan]

“Trolling” the fans who pay to see your movies is not a good way to ensure longevity in the filmmaking business.

Indeed, which explains why he hasn't had a legit box office hit in 13 years.

The Jimmy Olsen thing in BvS was hilarious.....as in a hilarious attempt to look clever. Zack was trying to do a Hitcock's psycho/ gotch'a with it and it ended up pissing off alot of fans who normally wouldn't have given 2 s***s about the character, even if that guy was unlikely to be the real Jimmy since he was a CIA operative who was most likely using a fake civilian identity.
But honestly though at the end of the day, not Jimmy Olsen's death was the very least of the film's infinite problems and to this day the best gotch'a ever was Steven Seagal's untimely death in Executive decision, Boy I tell ya, I was one happy camper when I left that movie theater.