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

[The Guard]

I'll say this about Snyder: he tries. He aims for a thoughtful exploration of theme and character and to challenge them, which is a goal not without merit. The problem is that he just isn't capable of saying anything much of actual depth. It's surface level and comes across like a pretentious teenager trying to be profound. There are some lines in BVS, particularly Bruce's opening voice over, that are laughably overwrought and "I am very deep".

I mean is it executed in an overwrought manner? Kind of, in that its drawn out, but I wouldn't say it's excessive. We're watching the death of the Waynes. It's supposed to be melodrama.

This is Bruce's opening voiceover:

"There was a time above...a time before...there were perfect things...diamond absolutes. But things fall...things on earth. And what falls...is fallen. In the dream, they took me to the light. A beautiful lie."

This doesn't seem especially overdone. These are pretty simple, straightforward sentences. And it's actually fairly short for an opening voiceover.

It's not like the movie doesn't say anything about this idea. He doesn't rely on this opening speech.

 

[Redd5]

I'll say this about Snyder: he tries. He aims for a thoughtful exploration of theme and character and to challenge them, which is a goal not without merit. The problem is that he just isn't capable of saying anything much of actual depth. It's surface level and comes across like a pretentious teenager trying to be profound. There are some lines in BVS, particularly Bruce's opening voice over, that are laughably overwrought and "I am very deep".

Movie has deep lines complains about it being “overwrought” but movie tries to be fun they complain about it being mindless and dumb

Batman’s opening speech was symbolic of 2 things. His childhood before his parents death and himself as Batman before he became so grizzled and broken. He mentions there were diamond absolutes but now he is much more gray than just black and white

 

[Binker]

I really didn't want to get involved, but I guess I'm gonna have to.

To answer this question: Zack respects comics because he's a fan like all of us. But in comparing DC fans and Marvel's; DC is more critical, Marvel is more accepting.

Zack is a big fan like us. Big fan of Superman, Batman, DC, Marvel, etc. There is no question on if we'll see goodies, that we WILL see some goodies. Zack gave us a great Superman; Reeve was the image, Cavill was the character. A great Batman, gave us Wonder Woman, and showed us or was about to show us stuff we'd never thought we'd see in film! So why would people say otherwise? The thing is that those people are hypocrites, egocentric: they belittle people like me or you when we see something meaningful, logical, in the film itself as its right there, and they say it isn't because that's what they are.

For example, that line Bruce says in the beginning of BvS. All I heard was pretentious, laughable, all that nonsense, and yet no one asked what it meant. Let me tell you: the death of innocence, the rise of cynicism, and the idea of Batman, especially BvS' Batman who fought for two decades with nothing to show for it, was indeed "a beautiful lie."

Let me talk about BvS a little further. That film, I'm not kidding you, is one of those rare science fiction films, not just superhero films, that has a social message, as well as a personal thematic message. Its up there, for me, with Robocop, Blade Runner, Day the Earth Stood Still, even Winter Soldier, and Watchmen even. And those kinds of movies can be mixed sometimes because it challenges you. Its also a film that was ahead of its time, and underrated. People see that now like they do with how good Man of Steel actually was. Nothing about that film I could change with the exception of better editing. Superman in the Senate was important: Pa Kent's cameo was important, Batman's arc was important and relatable, as well as, the Death of Superman being an example of not knowing how important someone is in your life until its gone. Something I experienced a year after it came out. All this, that's what makes BvS a great film. A flawed masterpiece as they're calling it. And its not in anyone's imagination, its IN THE FILM! And yet...

You see, these people: they wanted Zack to make THEIR film, like they were in charge. And have themes THEY wanted him to tell. But thats not possible, especially since they're a vocal minority that doesn't speak for everyone. And their ego is so high, why would you listen to them? Its like they demand to be catered which isn't a good thing.

So yeah, its like this because DC is more critical, Marvel is more accepting.

 

[Redd5]

I don't want to get into this only for a reply of, so you want the Animated Luthor. If I want to subtract the neurotic nature, the jolly rancher feeding, the ahoy hoy, the ding ding. More of a straight man's Luthor but again, it sounds like I'm asking for an Animated Luthor. Further, ditch the ridiculous plan. If Batman doesn't kill Superman, I'll unleash this unstoppable creature who I have no control over to kill Superman. What happens to the World if the creature kills Superman?

What? I said how would you rewrite Luthor but not just make him a copy of the animated Luthor.

Luthor did have control or at least he thought he had control over Doomsday hence him saying blood of my blood (maybe Zack should’ve kept the line of him saying only he can control Doomsday). And at this point you really think he cared about the world anymore?

 

[Sithborg]

I really didn't want to get involved, but I guess I'm gonna have to.

To answer this question: Zack respects comics because he's a fan like all of us. But in comparing DC fans and Marvel's; DC is more critical, Marvel is more accepting.

Zack is a big fan like us. Big fan of Superman, Batman, DC, Marvel, etc. There is no question on if we'll see goodies, that we WILL see some goodies. Zack gave us a great Superman; Reeve was the image, Cavill was the character. A great Batman, gave us Wonder Woman, and showed us or was about to show us stuff we'd never thought we'd see in film! So why would people say otherwise? The thing is that those people are hypocrites, egocentric: they belittle people like me or you when we see something meaningful, logical, in the film itself as its right there, and they say it isn't because that's what they are.

For example, that line Bruce says in the beginning of BvS. All I heard was pretentious, laughable, all that nonsense, and yet no one asked what it meant. Let me tell you: the death of innocence, the rise of cynicism, and the idea of Batman, especially BvS' Batman who fought for two decades with nothing to show for it, was indeed "a beautiful lie."

Let me talk about BvS a little further. That film, I'm not kidding you, is one of those rare science fiction films, not just superhero films, that has a social message, as well as a personal thematic message. Its up there, for me, with Robocop, Blade Runner, Day the Earth Stood Still, even Winter Soldier, and Watchmen even. And those kinds of movies can be mixed sometimes because it challenges you. Its also a film that was ahead of its time, and underrated. People see that now like they do with how good Man of Steel actually was. Nothing about that film I could change with the exception of better editing. Superman in the Senate was important: Pa Kent's cameo was important, Batman's arc was important and relatable, as well as, the Death of Superman being an example of not knowing how important someone is in your life until its gone. Something I experienced a year after it came out. All this, that's what makes BvS a great film. A flawed masterpiece as they're calling it. And its not in anyone's imagination, its IN THE FILM! And yet...

You see, these people: they wanted Zack to make THEIR film, like they were in charge. And have themes THEY wanted him to tell. But thats not possible, especially since they're a vocal minority that doesn't speak for everyone. And their ego is so high, why would you listen to them? Its like they demand to be catered which isn't a good thing.

So yeah, its like this because DC is more critical, Marvel is more accepting.

Sucker Punch has more themes to it than BvS. And let me tell you, the themes of Sucker Punch are not good. As someone who enjoyed it when I first saw it. It has some real ****ty messaging. And Snyder is a Rand fan. So take any themes you take from him with a grain of salt. This is someone who believes you have to get your hands dirty in order to know what it means to be good. And I am fairly certain that he does not understand what a deconstruction of a comic book is, only thinks that the deconstruction is what comics should be.

Go ahead, enjoy his movies. Nothing wrong with that. I will always watch Ghost Rider 2 over any of the Avengers movies. But please, don't insult my intelligence by trying to paint Snyder's 7th grade emo philosophy as anything to compare with great cinema.

 

[Erzengel]

Superman saved Luthor from "Doomsday's" punch. And I never thought Luthor was suicidal. It just seemed like his plan had no thorough thought.

 

[Binker]

But please, don't insult my intelligence by trying to paint Snyder's 7th grade emo philosophy as anything to compare with great cinema.

See what I mean?

 

[fan4stic]

There is no question on if we'll see goodies, that we WILL see some goodies. Zack gave us a great Superman; Reeve was the image, Cavill was the character. A great Batman, gave us Wonder Woman, and showed us or was about to show us stuff we'd never thought we'd see in film! So why would people say otherwise? The thing is that those people are hypocrites, egocentric: they belittle people like me or you when we see something meaningful, logical, in the film itself as its right there, and they say it isn't because that's what they are.

I think it's a double standard, to take issue with someone belittling you, after belittling them by calling them egocentric.

I don't agree with a lot of this. To me, Reeve's was the character I engaged more with, while Cavill more is the visual for the character. To me, I think Cavill doesn't have a lot of characterization as Superman, in movies.

I don't think the Batman was great. I think it was a not strongly adapted version.

Giving me WW doesn't add much, character and story wise, for that movie, to me.

Why should I care about being shown things if I don't like the way they're shown or don't think it's well written?

For example, that line Bruce says in the beginning of BvS. All I heard was pretentious, laughable, all that nonsense, and yet no one asked what it meant. Let me tell you: the death of innocence, the rise of cynicism, and the idea of Batman, especially BvS' Batman who fought for two decades with nothing to show for it, was indeed "a beautiful lie."

I get it. I still think that scene is dumb and pointless, to me.

Its also a film that was ahead of its time, and underrated. People see that now like they do with how good Man of Steel actually was. Nothing about that film I could change with the exception of better editing. Superman in the Senate was important: Pa Kent's cameo was important, Batman's arc was important and relatable, as well as, the Death of Superman being an example of not knowing how important someone is in your life until its gone.

I don't think MOS is really very good.

I don't care about Pa Kent's scene being important to the story or Clark's character, as far as what I think the movie may have intended. The same way I thought a similar version of that scene didn't make sense in Smallville, I think it doesn't make sense here.

I think Batman's arc being important to this version doesn't mean I think it was well written and/or developed.

I don't buy that humanity would do that for Superman.

You see, these people: they wanted Zack to make THEIR film, like they were in charge. And have themes THEY wanted him to tell. But thats not possible, especially since they're a vocal minority that doesn't speak for everyone. And their ego is so high, why would you listen to them? Its like they demand to be catered which isn't a good thing.

I didn't have a film or themes in my head. But I didn't like it.

Luthor did have control or at least he thought he had control over Doomsday hence him saying blood of my blood (maybe Zack should’ve kept the line of him saying only he can control Doomsday). And at this point you really think he cared about the world anymore?

Why would he think that would mean he could control Doomsday?

 

[Erzengel]

I definitely don't think it's because Marvel is more accepting and DC is more critical. Even if you take the past 20 years of CBM, TDKT, WW, Joker, Aquaman have all done very well critically and financially. And even movies like Shazam and BOP have at least have been received critically well.

I think what Marvel did is/was hard and it takes certain Studio oversight to make an extended universe work. True, there are more parameters a director has to work under but you can't argue the continued success it has had. DC's venture was/is more director centric but they also deal with the most popular of comic book characters. WB thought Snyder's plan of a 5-6 part series would bring them that same success. It started off slow with MOS and didn't exactly step up with BvS which led to panic by WB to mess with SS and JL.

I'm not telling anyone that they are wrong for liking Snyder's movies, but to blame the audience for not getting it is pretty presumptuous. Snyder made movies that appealed to a niche audience. I've seen responses that well, Snyder's movies were never supposed to be this popcorn/box office/traditional tent pole movies. Okay. But, you don't spend Avengers/Star Wars type of money on something that's doesn't also appeal to the general audience. WB gave Snyder more than 1 shot which is why I'm surprised I see some people getting ahead of themselves with fan dream additions to Snyder's universe when you have to get past Step 1 of the actual Snyder Cut on a streaming service that hasn't exactly imo set home viewership on fire since last month.

 

[STARMAN]

Some search for ulterior motives to explain the response when no ulterior motives exist.

 

[Flint Marko]

Haven't seen one of those "it's actually the fans fault" posts in a while. Throwback!

 

[Gothamsknight]

See what I mean?

But it's true though. Snyders films have a big following, so it's not like he isn't popular, but the game tries way too hard to be *ahem* better storyteller than he actually is. He appeals to the idea that the only important parts of a character are superficial, such as his Afflecks Batman. There are those satisfied by that, but not me. It's why I couldn't stand the way he wrote Batman and why a grey suit had no effect on me. If the character isn't written well, I don't give a damn what his outfit looks like.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

While I agree people paint Snyder fans with too broad a brush the ‘Haters just didn’t get it/rejected it because it wasn’t the movie in their heads’ is just silly. Pretty much the whole broad concept and story beats of BvS sound great to me, I think Snyder was really onto something but he’s just ultimately a poor storyteller and Terrio is terrible at writing genre epics.

Logan was almost universally beloved and it’s just as dark as BvS, not everyone loved Joker but it was embraced far more than Snyder’s work and it is an outright misanthropic screed. If the storytelling is good and not a badly stitched together mess the tone might be controversial but it ain’t gonna get crucified like BvS.

 

[Redd5]

I think it's a double standard, to take issue with someone belittling you, after belittling them by calling them egocentric.

I don't agree with a lot of this. To me, Reeve's was the character I engaged more with, while Cavill more is the visual for the character. To me, I think Cavill doesn't have a lot of characterization as Superman, in movies.

I don't think the Batman was great. I think it was a not strongly adapted version.

Giving me WW doesn't add much, character and story wise, for that movie, to me.

Why should I care about being shown things if I don't like the way they're shown or don't think it's well written?I get it. I still think that scene is dumb and pointless, to me.I don't think MOS is really very good.

I don't care about Pa Kent's scene being important to the story or Clark's character, as far as what I think the movie may have intended. The same way I thought a similar version of that scene didn't make sense in Smallville, I think it doesn't make sense here.

I think Batman's arc being important to this version doesn't mean I think it was well written and/or developed.

I don't buy that humanity would do that for Superman.I didn't have a film or themes in my head. But I didn't like it.Why would he think that would mean he could control Doomsday?

How was Superman not characterized in MoS? All there was on the first half was character development

Luthor thought he could control doomsday because he created him same reason why Cadmus thought they could control Doomsday in the DCAU or the alien scientist in the comics

Again how was Batman’s speech pretentious and pointless? It set the tone for the movie

 

[Zarex]

Again how was Batman’s speech pretentious and pointless? It set the tone for the movie

Oh it absolutely did set the tone. But not in a good way.

The speech was an attempt at a weightiness that both the director and film were in no way capable of meeting. Zack attempted to position Bruce as a thoughtful philosophical type by means of this opening word salad. But movie Bruce was a hyper-violent thug who poisoned, taunted, tortured and was poised to butcher a fellow who could potentially become a pain in the A at some point down the road. The speech and the man don't match up well at all.

And the speech itself was both poorly constructed and badly worded. Diamond absolutes? And what falls.....is fallen? That kind of stuff on a High School English essay is coming back with a whole lot of red notations. It wasn't clear, concise or pleasant to listen to. In retrospect it was an audience warning I wished I had listened to.

 

[The Guard]

You say "word salad", but they're not random words or phrases, which is what I understand a word salad to be. They are very simple, straightforward statements, and they are clear and concise statements, and are clearly related to Batman's compromised ethics and morality, which is what the lion's share of Batman's story in the film is about.

High school essay aside, since Bruce is literally talking about his own fall, I think said "speech" (it's like four and a half sentences) does actually match up pretty to where his character is in the film. It isn't supposed to be pleasant to listen to. Does the music there sound happy to you?

I don't think it's an attempt to be especially weighty or deep, either, conceptually. It's more about the emotion of the moment with the score and his emotions and the juxtaposed origin sequence. It's just a concept they were interested in exploring. They broadcast what it was going to be about, and most of the movie deals with it. And it doesn't explore it in an especially pretentious way (except Alfred, but that's Alfred), it does it in a fairly straightforward manner.

 

[Frodo]

While I agree people paint Snyder fans with too broad a brush the ‘Haters just didn’t get it/rejected it because it wasn’t the movie in their heads’ is just silly. Pretty much the whole broad concept and story beats of BvS sound great to me, I think Snyder was really onto something but he’s just ultimately a poor storyteller and Terrio is terrible at writing genre epics.

Logan was almost universally beloved and it’s just as dark as BvS, not everyone loved Joker but it was embraced far more than Snyder’s work and it is an outright misanthropic screed. If the storytelling is good and not a badly stitched together mess the tone might be controversial but it ain’t gonna get crucified like BvS.

I agree. I was very supportive of a BvS film when it was announced and the idea of it intrigued me.

For me ,the film didn't work on several levels.

Now to be fair, there were some fanboys who were rooting for the film to fail since the film was announced, and who continued to say " Its gonna suck" through every casting announcement, every trailer, and all the way up to release.

There were some fanboys who were against the idea of there being a sequel to MOS on general principle, and who didn't like the idea of BvS to start with.

So in that sense, Snyder was facing some headwinds if we're talking about some factions in fandom. Then again, there were also fans who liked MOS and were excited about a BvS film as well.

It was polarized going into the film because there was still all this baggage and resentment over MOS.

All that said, that doesn't change the fact that the film didn't sit well with alot of fans who wanted to like it and members of the general audience who came in with an open mind.

I don't blame the fans for BvS's reception.

 

[Redd5]

Oh it absolutely did set the tone. But not in a good way.

The speech was an attempt at a weightiness that both the director and film were in no way capable of meeting. Zack attempted to position Bruce as a thoughtful philosophical type by means of this opening word salad. But movie Bruce was a hyper-violent thug who poisoned, taunted, tortured and was poised to butcher a fellow who could potentially become a pain in the A at some point down the road. The speech and the man don't match up well at all.

And the speech itself was both poorly constructed and badly worded. Diamond absolutes? And what falls.....is fallen? That kind of stuff on a High School English essay is coming back with a whole lot of red notations. It wasn't clear, concise or pleasant to listen to. In retrospect it was an audience warning I wished I had listened to.

it absolutely does match up. Bruce is talking about himself and how he has fallen. At one point he was a real hero and thought he would bring justice and stop crime but has since fallen from that ideal. "There was a time above, a time before."(A time before now) "There were perfect things."(when he was in his prime and could be a perfect hero) "Diamond absolutes"(Clear right and wrong) "How things fall... Things on earth.. and what falls... is fallen"(referencing how he has "fallen" from grace because he is only human. The part of what falls is fallen means it is irredeemable and meant to be poetic)

 

[Erzengel]

It’s not. I just didn’t think it was some deep, poignant, thought provoking speech. Years later, when I pass that scene on tv it’s just cringey.

 

[Batmannerism]

I think he respects the comics, because he beautifully recreates iconic images from them.

His problem is that he doesn't UNDERSTAND them, or what makes the characters compelling.

Snyder adapted ideas, lines and the look of Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, which is arguably the GOAT Batman story. But he totally failed to build in the substance of the character, which makes him relatable and human, and a key element of that substance is his heroic nature and commitment to the preservation of life

Anyone who has read Dark Knight Returns knows that the one thing that Batman won't do is kill an opponent in cold blood. He won't kill the Mutant leader:

Or the Joker

and certainly not Superman.

However in B v S Batman's entire plan revolves around murdering ( a premeditated homicide) Superman. Miller's whole point in that scene is for Superman to live with the memory of his defeat.

This fundamental failure to recognize the character's most essential nature means that he cannot effectively capture that nature on the big screen.

The same is true for Supwrman. The absolutely worst scene in Man of Steel was Pa Kent's death - it stands out like a bleeding partially amputated thumb because it's just so wrong. There is no way Superman would stand by and watch his father die - there must have been a million different ways to play that out to the same result ( Pa Kent dies) that would have been better than what we got. Give any real Superman fan five minutes, and they could have fixed that scene ( @KRYPTON INC. could probably fix the entire film in five minutes)

So that Snyder thought that scene was okay shows that he really doesn't get Superman and he Carrie's that sort of thinking forward into B v S
Which shows that he doesn't get Batman at all either. Luckily he didn't direct the Wonder Woman , Aquaman or Shazam films !

The reason his Watchmen film is pretty good is that it sticks closely to the source material ( except for the giant squid, which honestly wasn't a great idea anyway).

I feel for the guy, because he has real talent but needs guidance, otherwise he's just a slightly more capable version of Michael Bay.

 

[The Guard]

It’s not. I just didn’t think it was some deep, poignant, thought provoking speech. Years later, when I pass that scene on tv it’s just cringey.

Right, but it's not supposed to be. It's not supposed to be some deep, thought provoking thing, and it's not presented as such in the film at any point. It's emotional, especially between Bruce and Alfred, but it's not deep. It's essentially the antagonist/villain's conflict and a lead in to the visual storytelling of the origin. The stuff regarding Superman's role in the world, the various meditations on power, all that was far deeper and more relevant stuff than Bruce's speech, though Bruce's speech does foreshadow Superman's fall from grace.

 

[Redd5]

It’s not. I just didn’t think it was some deep, poignant, thought provoking speech. Years later, when I pass that scene on tv it’s just cringey.

if it was from marvel you'd be fine with it

 

[Redd5]

I think he respects the comics, because he beautifully recreates iconic images from them.

His problem is that he doesn't UNDERSTAND them, or what makes the characters compelling.

Snyder adapted ideas, lines and the look of Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, which is arguably the GOAT Batman story. But he totally failed to build in the substance of the character, which makes him relatable and human, and a key element of that substance is his heroic nature and commitment to the preservation of life

I think you are missing a major theme of TDKR which is prevalent in BvS and that is just how far Batman is willing to push the envelop and bend his rules. Frank Miller wanted to bring batman back to his roots after a decade of campy and goofy adventures. Batman is defined by not killing and in TDKR he finds himself in more and more difficult situations to not kill. He is fine with brutalizing and beating opponents half to death as long as they live in the end. The point of BvS is showing how far Batman has fallen and how much he is willing to bend his rules to bring what he believes is justice. That is what the opening narration showed us

Anyone who has read Dark Knight Returns knows that the one thing that Batman won't do is kill an opponent in cold blood. He won't kill the Mutant leader:

Or the Joker

and certainly not Superman.

However in B v S Batman's entire plan revolves around murdering ( a premeditated homicide) Superman. Miller's whole point in that scene is for Superman to live with the memory of his defeat.

This fundamental failure to recognize the character's most essential nature means that he cannot effectively capture that nature on the big screen.

First off Batman did kill Joker his mind simply made him believe Joker killed himself. Look at Joker's text bubbles and look at Batman's thought bubbles

And it isn't forgotten. Batman killing is seen as a big deal and shown to be morally wrong. Alfred mentions his "new rules" ie it is ok to brand people leading to their deaths. Alfred does everything to convince Bruce what he is doing is wrong and Batman realizes the error of his way. He realizes killing Superman would make him a murderer and guess what the movie never once justifies it. Batman is the borderline villain

And once again BVS IS NOT AN ADAPTATION OF TDKR!! BvS takes elements from it just like Dark Knight Rises did. The fight with Superman was not a fight of ideology like in TDKR. Batman is fighting Superman out of fear and paranoia. He doesn't know what Superman is compared to TDKR where he and Superman have history

The same is true for Supwrman. The absolutely worst scene in Man of Steel was Pa Kent's death - it stands out like a bleeding partially amputated thumb because it's just so wrong. There is no way Superman would stand by and watch his father die - there must have been a million different ways to play that out to the same result ( Pa Kent dies) that would have been better than what we got. Give any real Superman fan five minutes, and they could have fixed that scene ( @KRYPTON INC. could probably fix the entire film in five minutes)

So that Snyder thought that scene was okay shows that he really doesn't get Superman and he Carrie's that sort of thinking forward into B v S
Which shows that he doesn't get Batman at all either. Luckily he didn't direct the Wonder Woman , Aquaman or Shazam films !

The reason his Watchmen film is pretty good is that it sticks closely to the source material ( except for the giant squid, which honestly wasn't a great idea anyway).

I feel for the guy, because he has real talent but needs guidance, otherwise he's just a slightly more capable version of Michael Bay.

Know something else Superman wouldn't do? Disobey his father.You act like Clark didn't scream in agony when he watched his father die. Hell the first thing he did was begin to walk out to save his father. And you complete misunderstand the scene. The point of it isn't just Pa Kent dies. Hell if that was the case he could be Spider-Man and inadvertently let his father die. The point of John's death in MoS was to show that Clark was not ready. John had shown Clark everything he knew already and there was nothing left for Clark to learn from him. It was his time to go out to the world on his own and find out who he is. John knew that Clark was not ready to reveal his powers and the world was not ready to see a Superman, that until Clark understood where he came from and what his purpose is he can't let his powers out. Jonathan believed his son's safety was more important than his own life
John Kent really isn't different from Pa Kent in the Reeve movie. The biggest difference is the moral dilemma. In Superman the dilemma is expose your powers to become a football star or for something greater whereas MoS is much more challenging and one John isn't entirely sure about

 

[fan4stic]

if it was from marvel you'd be fine with it

I don't necesarily think I would. There's things I don't like from Marvel movies.

I think you are missing a major theme of TDKR which is prevalent in BvS and that is just how far Batman is willing to push the envelop and bend his rules. Frank Miller wanted to bring batman back to his roots after a decade of campy and goofy adventures. Batman is defined by not killing and in TDKR he finds himself in more and more difficult situations to not kill. He is fine with brutalizing and beating opponents half to death as long as they live in the end. The point of BvS is showing how far Batman has fallen and how much he is willing to bend his rules to bring what he believes is justice. That is what the opening narration showed us

Batman being in harder situations not to kill isn't in the movie. I think the movie itself, the theatrical, doesn't present a Batman where the fall matters, as far as killing.

First off Batman did kill Joker his mind simply made him believe Joker killed himself. Look at Joker's text bubbles and look at Batman's thought bubbles

And it isn't forgotten. Batman killing is seen as a big deal and shown to be morally wrong. Alfred mentions his "new rules" ie it is ok to brand people leading to their deaths. Alfred does everything to convince Bruce what he is doing is wrong and Batman realizes the error of his way. He realizes killing Superman would make him a murderer and guess what the movie never once justifies it. Batman is the borderline villain

And once again BVS IS NOT AN ADAPTATION OF TDKR!! BvS takes elements from it just like Dark Knight Rises did. The fight with Superman was not a fight of ideology like in TDKR. Batman is fighting Superman out of fear and paranoia. He doesn't know what Superman is compared to TDKR where he and Superman have history

I don't think that's confirmed in the comic.

I don't think it is. As far as I understand, no one cares that Batman kills in the movie. The branding is brought up. But I don't think the killing of anyone, outside of Superman, is. Even Batman doesn't care after the Martha moment, where he continues killing.

I think it's a fight with that as well. To me, it not being a fight of ideology, I question why the movie spends time with his 1% talk and I question the point of the fight in the movie.

Know something else Superman wouldn't do? Disobey his father.You act like Clark didn't scream in agony when he watched his father die. Hell the first thing he did was begin to walk out to save his father. And you complete misunderstand the scene. The point of it isn't just Pa Kent dies. Hell if that was the case he could be Spider-Man and inadvertently let his father die. The point of John's death in MoS was to show that Clark was not ready. John had shown Clark everything he knew already and there was nothing left for Clark to learn from him. It was his time to go out to the world on his own and find out who he is. John knew that Clark was not ready to reveal his powers and the world was not ready to see a Superman, that until Clark understood where he came from and what his purpose is he can't let his powers out. Jonathan believed his son's safety was more important than his own life
John Kent really isn't different from Pa Kent in the Reeve movie. The biggest difference is the moral dilemma. In Superman the dilemma is expose your powers to become a football star or for something greater whereas MoS is much more challenging and one John isn't entirely sure about

Him disobeying his dad to the point of not letting him get killed by a tornado, with his powers, is something I'd buy.

Why does the point of the scene matter? I think the content of the scene is more the issue, I have and maybe others may have in a way.

I think, to me, I've seen this concept explored in Smallville, I think in a stronger written way, to me.

How was Superman not characterized in MoS? All there was on the first half was character development

Luthor thought he could control doomsday because he created him same reason why Cadmus thought they could control Doomsday in the DCAU or the alien scientist in the comics

Again how was Batman’s speech pretentious and pointless? It set the tone for the movie

I said characterization, not character development. To me, I think the personality of the character isn't interestingly and/or strongly developed.

I don't think they thought they could. As far as I remember, they shot him into space to get rid of him. But they also brainwashed him, using images of Superman hurting him to do so. BvS doesn't show (or I think say) that.

I didn't say the speech. I said I think the scene is dumb and pointless, to me. The reason being, no matter what the symbolism is going for (Batman thought as a child that when he saw the bats it was his way to heroism, but it was a lie and led him to pain and death etc., if I understand it appropriately), I think the visual of bats making Bruce fly in the opening scene is dumb. I don't think the visual and speech is needed for the movie (I think we don't need to see the death of the waynes, that could be and is done later in a nightmare, intercut with the death of Jason Todd to explore that concept more thoroughly and I think opening on the end of MOS has a more striking approach/I think the speech itself is more or less essentially telling us something the movie will do/the narration, as far as I remember doesn't come back in the movie itself).

 

[Batmannerism]

I think you are missing a major theme of TDKR which is prevalent in BvS and that is just how far Batman is willing to push the envelop and bend his rules. Frank Miller wanted to bring batman back to his roots after a decade of campy and goofy adventures. Batman is defined by not killing and in TDKR he finds himself in more and more difficult situations to not kill. He is fine with brutalizing and beating opponents half to death as long as they live in the end. The point of BvS is showing how far Batman has fallen and how much he is willing to bend his rules to bring what he believes is justice. That is what the opening narration showed us

That may have been Snyder's point - that Batman has fallen so far that he's branding people and planning to murder Superman. Is this a compelling version of the character - given that Batman has gone against his key principle ? Well, the reviews would suggest, "no", and I have to agree.

Maybe that would be a good storyline - Batman has been pushed right to the line before in the comics. If Snyder were a better storyteller maybe he could present this warped version of Batman in a way that we could engage with and enjoy, but
instead, as Kevin Smith so eloquently said:

Batman vs Superman answers the question " what would happen if both Batman and Superman were **** ing ass holes?"

First off Batman did kill Joker his mind simply made him believe Joker killed himself. Look at Joker's text bubbles and look at Batman's thought bubbles

First off? That's your second paragraph...nevermind. Anyway, that's one interpretation, and you're not alone in thinking that. Me, I go with what's actually on the page, which involves the Joker shifting his broken neck so that it kills him - I admit that's a bit odd , but for me it works.

The only person who really knows is Frank Miller. There's an interesting interpretation of Alan Moore's Killing Joke story - Grant Morrison believes that in the last 3 panels the reason that the Joker and Batman stop laughing is because Batman breaks the Joker's neck - which makes sense, and we don't actually see the end so it's ambiguous ( although what we know about Batman strongly suggests otherwise). Still, an interesting interpretation.

And it isn't forgotten. Batman killing is seen as a big deal and shown to be morally wrong. Alfred mentions his "new rules" ie it is ok to brand people leading to their deaths. Alfred does everything to convince Bruce what he is doing is wrong and Batman realizes the error of his way. He realizes killing Superman would make him a murderer and guess what the movie never once justifies it. Batman is the borderline villain

Wait a moment, did you say Batman "realizes the error of his way." ? Hmmm.....just what leads him to this conclusion, as he's about to strike the fatal blow ? It wasn't a scolding from Alfred. Do we need to talk about the " Martha" moment ? Do you really want to go there ?

And once again BVS IS NOT AN ADAPTATION OF TDKR!!

THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT !! Believe me, I know it's not an adaptation - because if it had been that would have likely been a better film. Snyder is pretty good adapting source material ( e.g. Watchmen and 300 are okay movies).

BvS takes elements from it just like Dark Knight Rises did. The fight with Superman was not a fight of ideology like in TDKR. Batman is fighting Superman out of fear and paranoia. He doesn't know what Superman is compared to TDKR where he and Superman have history

Snyder does a good job borrowing visuals from TDKR and he borrows a few lines too. What he doesn't do is take the compelling, complicated character that Miller created and instead goes for a homicidal and kind of stupid Batman - which is why I suggest that he doesn't understand what Batman is about, or why people find him such a gripping character.


Dark Knight Rises is based on Knightfall, No Mans Land and Tale of Two Cities. Other than Batman coming out of retirement and faking his death, it doesn't borrow much from TDKR.

Know something else Superman wouldn't do? Disobey his father.

Except when he saves the kids on the school bus , or after Johnathan's death when he saves those guys on the oil rig ( in plain sight of the roughnecks and the helicopter crew) or saves Lois Lane from the Kryptonian robot.

So he just follows his dad's instructions when it comes to his dad, but nobody else ? Does that make sense ?
Putting that aside,there had to be different ways of doing that scene so that it made sense. It's not that I don't understand the point that Snyder and co were trying to make - because Clark himself explains it to Lois. My issue is that it's a ridiculous point, given Clark's other behaviour, and something doesn't sit well with me about a version of Superman who stands by and lets a person he cares about die to protect his secret ( and yes, I understand that there's the bigger concept of him revealing that man isn't alone , blah blah , blah...) but irrespective of that, to me that's not what Superman does. He doesn't stand idly by. Sure, he reacted afterwards, but so what ? That scene could have been done in a way so that Clark couldn't save Jonathan, rather than wouldn't save him, which IMO would have worked much better.

E.g. Pa Kent's death in Superman the movie is done brilliantly - it's very simple, but it works.

You act like Clark didn't scream in agony when he watched his father die. Hell the first thing he did was begin to walk out to save his father. And you complete misunderstand the scene. The point of it isn't just Pa Kent dies. Hell if that was the case he could be Spider-Man and inadvertently let his father die. The point of John's death in MoS was to show that Clark was not ready. John had shown Clark everything he knew already and there was nothing left for Clark to learn from him. It was his time to go out to the world on his own and find out who he is. John knew that Clark was not ready to reveal his powers and the world was not ready to see a Superman, that until Clark understood where he came from and what his purpose is he can't let his powers out. Jonathan believed his son's safety was more important than his own life
John Kent really isn't different from Pa Kent in the Reeve movie. The biggest difference is the moral dilemma. In Superman the dilemma is expose your powers to become a football star or for something greater whereas MoS is much more challenging and one John isn't entirely sure about

You find it challenging, good on you. It didn't work for me and a few other folks - and let's not get into Superman killing Zod, which sort of works and sort of doesn't.

Believe it or not I actually liked Man of Steel, because while I dont agree with everything in it, I think it gets a lot more right than wrong.

BvS I hated because it makes these 2 characters, who I've been invested in for over 40 years, unlikeable to the point that I didn't care what happened to them. When Superman died I was actually glad because it meant the movie was nearly over.

Justice League is interesting because the characters of Batman and Superman are almost totally different to B v S and the tone is also completely different in kind of a jarring way. Somehow the Russos managed to make Infinity War and Civil War ( which was the MCU's answer to B v S) great fun movies, which still had serious stories and serious character moments.

I suspect this is because they are both better storytellers than Snyder and because they understand the characters better than he does.

Anyway, I apologise for some of the sarcasm in this reply, although I do feel some of it was justified. I can see we are not going to agree on these issues, so I suggest we agree to disagree and move on.

Cheers. [/QUOTE]