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

[The Guard]

Getting back to the original question: Why do people think Snyder doesn’t respect comic characters? Just look at what he says about these characters:

And if that's ALL that he said about these characters, if that's all his movies contained about the characters, you might have a point. But it isn't. You're cherrypicking the same few quotes that every fan who has been personally offended by Zack Snyder's style of communication and comments about fans and virginity and morality pulls up to try to make a point about the man's entire body of superhero work.

Superman is the dream of a farmer from Kansas. Righting wrongs for a ghost. It's sort of the Kansas morality, that black and white, unrealistic morality of fighting crime."

It's ok for him to think morality isn't just black and white. Even comic book Superman does not display black and white morality.

“I wanted a hero in Superman that was a real hero and sort of reflected the world we live in now."

Nothing inherently wrong with this, either.

“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$!&ng dream world,”

He clearly isn't talking about superheroes here. He's pointing out that heroes, like all people, are flawed.

Snyder doesn’t respect these characters. He’s embarrassed by them. He’s embarrassed at the fact that they represent the best of us. They represent what we are incapable of being. He sees their morality as a weak joke. He despises who they are, so he feels the need to dirty them up.

With the exception of Batman, he's not dirtying them up any more than the source material has. Superman has killed. Superman has used violence. Superman has been seen as a threat, fought other heroes, etc.

But Snyder does not despise who they are. He respects that they can be who they are despite being flawed. His films make that pretty clear.

It’s a very juvenile position to look at Superman’s love of humanity and the value he places on human life and to say “that’s all kid stuff. Let’s make him real. Let’s make him like us.”

It would be pretty juvenile. But it's also something he's never said, to my knowledge.

He has not presented a Superman who "is like us". He's gone in the opposite direction. And Batman isn't like us in the movies, either. He's clearly highly trained, and on a level beyond the average person, in multiple respects.

And he has never remotely even implied that the value Superman places on human life is kid stuff.

In fact he has SHOWN that Superman has a love of humanity and places value of human life. Several times, including the lives of his villains.

You say he's embarassed by the heroes representing "the best of us", and yet, like the comics, his Superman's "final" actions are what most of "us" consider the best a person can be; laying down their life and sacrificing their future for someone else.

He had one of them make a speech about how "men fail, but we can be better".

I appreciated Dan Jurgens’ statement about Superman he made on a recent podcast. He was talking about the belief that Superman isn’t relevant in today’s world because his morality is outdated. I cannot remember the exact quote, but he essentially pointed out that when you view the state of the world today, Superman’s morality has never been more relevant or more needed. Jurgens gets it. These characters’ morality isn’t something to be ashamed of. It’s what makes them something to be emulated.

Yes, that's a nice take on the character. And the moral actions in MOS and BVS also arguably feature several things to be emulated, with the exception of Batman's crusade against Superman, though he is proven to be wrong when he persecutes Superman, and therefore a cautionary tale, and clearly not what Snyder thinks heroes should be, or what should be celebrated about them.

Watchmen is a deconstruction of the superhero genre. It’s not really part of the superhero genre. I don’t know that Snyder gets that distinction.

Of course it's part of the superhero genre. It's a story about superheroes.

Snyder sees the ills of the world and says that Batman and Superman need to be as or more ill to combat it. And that just isn’t what those characters are about.

A pretty good argument can be made that Batman has to do some pretty dark things to combat evil. Have already discussed Batman being portrayed as a cautionary tale in BVS in particular.

How exactly is Superman as or more "ill" as the world in his movies?

 

[SiegePerilous]

But you didn't say that at first, and that's not what our conversation was about. You've moved the goalposts, because your original point, that somehow they couldn't have continued on, specifically with solo Superman movies, based on their original plans, was refuted.
You made assumptions about what could have happened and where characters would have been. Once it was pointed out to you that this might not be where Superman's story had to end and probably isn't where he was going to end up as a character, you then seem to have moved the goalposts so this could remain yet another "But...but it wasn't gooooood" thread.

I didn't really. And you didn't really refute anything, just said you think it could have worked. Or at most, said "we don't know it couldn't have worked going fortward."

Based on the broad strokes of what we know of Snyder's five film arc, and what we'd already gotten, it's a fair assumption to make. We know what Superman was already like and how he was received, and we know at least the broad endgame of how his arc would end. Concluding that it's likely not going to be good and not a solid foundation to the character for more films going forward may be subjective, but considering the pattern we have, it's a fair one.

We already know Superman was on shaky ground with the general audience in the DCEU based on what we had. Logically, why would people keep turning up for three more films that didn't sound like they were going to end with him being the fully formed recognizable superhero we love and then come back a sixth time (or whatever) on the off chance the new direction would work? And also has to share space with more and more characters in a film series that was supposedly his?

By that logic, Superman was recognizably Superman by the end of MAN OF STEEL. There were people who liked Cavill in the role as well.

He was on his way to being at least a rookie Superman at the end. The issue is less with MoS by itself (despite its issues) and how it was followed up on. MoS Superman was divisive, but it could have been salvaged and he had potential. The misfortune was his second appearance being BvS.

Even so, he was not as readily embraced as RDJ was as Iron-Man or Gadot was after her first two appearances. He maybe could have been, but more care was needed. He didn't get it. We really needed a MoS2 before diving right into BvS. Or a BvS that was way less busy and jumping into heavy territory right out of the gate before most people really gave a crap about anyone involved.

And in BVS, Bruce and Clark were just meeting and starting their relationship before they shared more adventures.

That's an oversimplification, and doesn't really illustrate why people went for one over the other and why one was better for longform storytelling with characters people care about, but okay.

It seems like you've defaulted to "DCEU didn't do it well" talking points in response to...pretty much everything I've said. And that's fine, but it's not an interesting conversation, nor is it a conversation I'm interested in having. It's just not fertile ground for discussion at this point.

What is the conversation you are actually interested in having, exactly?

He...he saved the world, and then at least Metropolis, and was then instrumental in saving the world again. His sacrifice inspired Batman to put together the Justice League, which then saved the world, and possibly the universe had things continued on. He's apparently going to help Shazam take on Black Adam, and possibly be a mentor figure to him.

He was the thing that alerted two alien invasions, albeit unwittingly. His being Darkseid's puppet was sort of going to somewhat prove Batman right that he was dangerous/a liability, even if it wasn't in the way Bruce thought he was in bvS.

 

[Babillygunn]

As I was looking back over this thread I had forgotten that Snyder intended the dead Robin to have been Dick Grayson.

that reminded me of the Dan Jurgens interview I referenced earlier. Jurgens opined that he believes that Grayson is THE central figure of DC in many ways. He is the most grounded character in comics and in many ways is the one character who ties all other characters together.
I would say that that is a reasonable assessment. Grayson is portrayed as a natural leader, having led Titans, Teen Titans, Outsiders, Bat Family, and the Justice League. He has 80 years of history and is one of the most important characters in comics history. Snyder not just killed him off, but did it off screen.

That shows how little Snyder cares about the characters. He hammers the identities of the characters into his story without regard for the consistency of the characterization to their history or basic tenants.

But that’s all there is to say about this. You can disagree and that’s fine. I’m glad you liked BvS. I find Snyder and his tone infuriating. But I guess it’s different strokes for different folks.

 

[The Guard]

I didn't really. And you didn't really refute anything, just said you think it could have worked. Or at most, said "we don't know it couldn't have worked going forward."

Based on the broad strokes of what we know of Snyder's five film arc, and what we'd already gotten, it's a fair assumption to make. We know what Superman was already like and how he was received, and we know at least the broad endgame of how his arc would end. Concluding that it's likely not going to be good and not a solid foundation to the character for more films going forward may be subjective, but considering the pattern we have, it's a fair one.

Here's the thing. Our original conversation began from this:

If the intent was for it to continue on, it does seem like the legs were cut out from some of the corners before they could make it far. Batman's career is already winding down, Dick Grayson was killed and we didn't even get any time to see him as Robin, him being dead means we're not getting an accurate take on the Teen Titans or Nightwing, and if it was never going to be Jason they are leaving the chance to push Red Hood merchandise on the table, etc. Clark's secret ID would be blown if he was killed in his second movie and resurrected in his third. It also doesn't seem we were ever going to get more solo Superman movies (which were needed), and instead rely on the JL films as his arc. Which screws over both him and the other characters.[/quote]

I'd have thought that you were referring to issues with continuing on AFTER BVS but for the very next thing you wrote, which was this:

Once that storyline is over, is a foundation that includes a dour Superman having already experienced his death and resurrection, been mind controlled by Darkseid and being so poorly defined as a character with not much of a life really a solid foundation to continue stories out of?

Because there you are talking about a five film plan that was abandoned shortly after BVS was received.

We already know Superman was on shaky ground with the general audience in the DCEU based on what we had.

Logically, why would people keep turning up for three more films that didn't sound like they were going to end with him being the fully formed recognizable superhero we love and then come back a sixth time (or whatever) on the off chance the new direction would work? And also has to share space with more and more characters in a film series that was supposedly his?

Well, in theory, people would turn up for the three more films, because they don't only feature Superman, but Batman, and multiple other heroes. They were slated to be Justice League films, weren't they?

I thought you were talking about the original plans, not where they were after BVS. If I've misunderstood, I apologize.

But my general point stands. There were ways for Superman's story to continue either way, and there STILL may be ways for Superman's story to continue, and plans for it to do so.

He was on his way to being at least a rookie Superman at the end. The issue is less with MoS by itself (despite its issues) and how it was followed up on. MoS Superman was divisive, but it could have been salvaged and he had potential. The misfortune was his second appearance being BvS.

All I said was that he was recognizable as Superman.

Even so, he was not as readily embraced as RDJ was as Iron-Man or Gadot was after her first two appearances. He maybe could have been, but more care was needed. He didn't get it. We really needed a MoS2 before diving right into BvS. Or a BvS that was way less busy and jumping into heavy territory right out of the gate before most people really gave a crap about anyone involved.

Which, as I've pointed out, I really don't care about.

That's an oversimplification, and doesn't really illustrate why people went for one over the other and why one was better for longform storytelling with characters people care about, but okay.

I have no interest in illustrating why people went for one over the other (blanket statement as that is). That seems to be your thing.

What is the conversation you are actually interested in having, exactly?

Generally one that doesn't cycle endlessly back to the uber-boring "But this is more popular" territory.

He was the thing that alerted two alien invasions, albeit unwittingly. His being Darkseid's puppet was sort of going to somewhat prove Batman right that he was dangerous/a liability, even if it wasn't in the way Bruce thought he was in bvS.

In no way is either scenario his fault, though. And Superman IS a potential liability. Comics have shown this multiple times, dating back to the 40's or so. It's a legitimate concern to have. ALL the leaguers can be liabilities in the right scenario.

As I was looking back over this thread I had forgotten that Snyder intended the dead Robin to have been Dick Grayson.

that reminded me of the Dan Jurgens interview I referenced earlier. Jurgens opined that he believes that Grayson is THE central figure of DC in many ways. He is the most grounded character in comics and in many ways is the one character who ties all other characters together.
I would say that that is a reasonable assessment. Grayson is portrayed as a natural leader, having led Titans, Teen Titans, Outsiders, Bat Family, and the Justice League. He has 80 years of history and is one of the most important characters in comics history. Snyder not just killed him off, but did it off screen.

But...he did not do that.

That didn't actually happen.

In either version of BVS.

It's an idea he had...he may have filmed it...but its not in any film, ergo it has not occurred (so far).

It's no more canon or continuity than the time Chris Nolan supposedly asked "Does Batman have to have a cape?" or when, say, Marvel considered killing off The Hulk in THE AVENGERS.

That shows how little Snyder cares about the characters. He hammers the identities of the characters into his story without regard for the consistency of the characterization to their history or basic tenants.

And again...it didn't actually happen. He could have decided on that possible course of events because when the universe was planned, WB didn't want Batman to have Robin, or for any number of reasons. But it doesn't matter, because...didn't take place.

 

[Herofan]

And then there is the aforementioned profane response to his decision to make Superman and Batman to be murderers:

“Once you’ve lost your virginity to this f$&!ng movie and then you come and say to me something about, like, ‘My superhero wouldn’t do that,’ I’m like, ‘Are you serious?’ I’m, like, down the f&$)?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$!&ng dream world,”

A demand that a hero would never lie, and if he did isn't a hero, is pretty insistent and some fans do have that level of demanding moral standard.

Snyder doesn’t respect these characters. He’s embarrassed by them. He’s embarrassed at the fact that they represent the best of us. They represent what we are incapable of being.

So he wants them to be closer to us, more approachable to us, that is different but I don't think it's necessarily embarrassment, let alone disdain, for them.

He sees their morality as a weak joke. He despises who they are, so he feels the need to dirty them up. It’s a very juvenile position to look at Superman’s love of humanity and the value he places on human life and to say “that’s all kid stuff. Let’s make him real. Let’s make him like us.”

Well previous versions of Superman, SR aside, were only PG, and had to be, that's not to say they were lesser but that is a constraint and it doesn't always need to be present.

His being Darkseid's puppet was sort of going to somewhat prove Batman right that he was dangerous/a liability, even if it wasn't in the way Bruce thought he was in bvS.

There ar least would be precedent, Superman serving Darkseid in TAS, in the show's finale, vindicating Lex Luthor's concerns and maybe animosity toward him. TAS and other versions also did suggest he would go bad/wrong, even if redeemable, if Lois did die.

 

[SiegePerilous]

There ar least would be precedent, Superman serving Darkseid in TAS, in the show's finale, vindicating Lex Luthor's concerns and maybe animosity toward him. TAS and other versions also did suggest he would go bad/wrong, even if redeemable, if Lois did die.

Some bad ideas have precedent, and IMO the precedent in this case isn't very good and not the best endorsement for revisiting a similar plot. Superman going off the rails because of something bad happening to Lois (which isn't very fair to her either) ranks up there with "Superman is just a naive farmboy at heart" as far as bad Superman trends go. The character desperately needs to break away from them. It's repetitive and boring.

TAS at least had several episodes before that and the characters were fleshed out. It's far from my favorite version of Superman himself, but he had come into his own well before that. It's possible Snyder could have stuck the landing, but the two films we got and the broad outline of what we might have got don't inspire confidence.

 

[Babillygunn]

I just realized that I’ve been back at this thread engaging in these same crazy discussions!

 

[SiegePerilous]

Because there you are talking about a five film plan that was abandoned shortly after BVS was received.

I thought you were talking about the original plans, not where they were after BVS. If I've misunderstood, I apologize.

The five film plan and the reality of BvS's fallout are closely tied together. Because MoS and BvS are two entries of the five film arc. So they'd have had to deal with the aftermath of BvS either way, weather they abandon the arc (which they did) or had they continued. We have the reality where shelving the arc hasn't proved to be a good foundation for the character. Superman has been shelved cinematically with no immediate end in sight. The brand is damaged, or the studio feels it is and need to build back up confidence.

If we'd gotten the scenario where Snyder's remaining three films played out more or less as he planned, we're still relying on him to stick the landing and having to wait and see if people fully embrace the Superman when his arc is done before we could see if we'd get more. Investing in three expensive films that (considering the track record) would not have been any more well received than BvS and been more of the same doesn't seem very smart.

Well, in theory, people would turn up for the three more films, because they don't only feature Superman, but Batman, and multiple other heroes. They were slated to be Justice League films, weren't they?

Looking at JL being considered a flop, that didn't turn out too well.

And I don't think it's all due to Whedon altering the film. It being a clear continuation of BvS probably had the most to do with it. This is even after Wonder Woman had won people over, and she was at the forefront of the marketing.

But my general point stands. There were ways for Superman's story to continue either way, and there STILL may be ways for Superman's story to continue, and plans for it to do so.

Where are these plans in the present? We've been in a holding pattern as far as Superman in the theaters go since JL came out. What was happening with him seemed to change every other week for a while there. Beyond a general "we'll see him again at some point," there isn't anything.

Yes Snyder had plans in his five film scenario. And there is always a chance it could have played out well. But that's pointing out the obvious, there is always a chance. IMO, it's just kind of naive to think the chance was very big giving the patterns and reception to the first two films.

Which, as I've pointed out, I really don't care about.

I have no interest in illustrating why people went for one over the other (blanket statement as that is).

Ok, if you don't care about stuff like the MCU comparisons and the success of one vs. the other that's fair. But keep in mind you were the first to bring up the MCU comparisons:

Nevermind that his arc could have continued in other movies. Relying on Avengers movies to continue an arc worked out okay for Iron Man.

Once they went the shared universe route, we were never going to get a completely faithful adaption of any character's mythos were all the characters receive their due. It hasn't happened with the MCU, it wasnt going to happen with the DCEU.

I just realized that I’ve been back at this thread engaging in these same crazy discussions!

View attachment 36315

It's like picking a scab lol.

 

[The Guard]

Some bad ideas have precedent, and IMO the precedent in this case isn't very good and not the best endorsement for revisiting a similar plot. Superman going off the rails because of something bad happening to Lois (which isn't very fair to her either) ranks up there with "Superman is just a naive farmboy at heart" as far as bad Superman trends go. The character desperately needs to break away from them. It's repetitive and boring.

What does being upset that someone close to you died have to do with being a naiive farmboy?

Superman wasn't going to go off the rails just because something happened to Lois.

He was going to go off the rails because something happened to Lois, and because the Anti-Life equation was used on him. Essentially brainwashing.

 

[Mani-Man]

Also a interesting look at BvS i think.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

19 pages of discussion. To answer the question of this thread, one simply need watch Batman v. Superman to get the answer.

 

[Sithborg]

So, I saw Snyder is cutting the Supe line "Do you bleed?", citing that it makes no sense. Sure, it might not be what he envisioned, but it makes more goddamn sense than "Martha". What a hack of a filmmaker.

 

[Babillygunn]

19 pages of discussion. To answer the question of this thread, one simply need watch Batman v. Superman to get the answer.

To paraphrase Ra’s in Batman Begins: Only a cynical man would call these 19 pages a discussion.

 

[Mysterious]

Just look at what he did to wonder womans costume alone. Powers???........sigh

 

[Mani-Man]

So, I saw Snyder is cutting the Supe line "Do you bleed?", citing that it makes no sense. Sure, it might not be what he envisioned, but it makes more goddamn sense than "Martha". What a hack of a filmmaker.

Yup, shows you that the man doesnt get it and lives in his own world.
Sure the line in JL was dumb as a rock, but it makes a lot more sense than the martha scene in context.

He could simply say no the scene will not be in, but going "Pffft no because it makes no sense" comes off as incredible arrogant and tonedeaf.

 

[Babillygunn]

Yup, shows you that the man doesnt get it and lives in his own world.
Sure the line in JL was dumb as a rock, but it makes a lot more sense than the martha scene in context.

He could simply say no the scene will not be in, but going "Pffft no because it makes no sense" comes off as incredible arrogant and tonedeaf.

I think it comes off juvenile and petty. He’s basically selling what his supporters are buying which is: “I’m a great filmmaker and my stuff is better than the other guy’s. He ruined my masterpiece so I’m going to throw out everything he did”.
Problem is, history doesn’t support him being capable of crafting a masterpiece

 

[The Guard]

He doesn't want anyone else's material in his film. Most filmmakers wouldn't.

 

[Erzengel]

I don't think Snyder is necessarily "crapping" on Whedon's version. I think he's just speaking like he does regardless if it's to people on set or in an interview. He always talked like the other person is on the same wavelength as he is, so if you're not, then yeah it comes off like he's being patronizing.

 

[Babillygunn]

Maybe most filmmakers wouldn’t want other people’s materials in their films.

But most professionals wouldn’t publicly rip other filmmakers’ product the way he has. Children would act that way, but not a mature professional.

 

[Mani-Man]

He doesn't want anyone else's material in his film. Most filmmakers wouldn't.

Thats not the problem, he could have simply said "no it wont be in, no its not one of my shots"
But he goes "uh no that literally makes no sense" almost as if its and insult to even think the great Zack Snyder could have done such a scene.

When has done plenty of scenes that are way worse than this.
Its always the way he tries to get his point across, that comes off as if he thinks everybody is an idiot.

 

[Sorath]

I just realized that I’ve been back at this thread engaging in these same crazy discussions!

View attachment 36315

It's the very definition of Insanity.

 

[batfreakforever]

Thats not the problem, he could have simply said "no it wont be in, no its not one of my shots"
But he goes "uh no that literally makes no sense" almost as if its and insult to even think the great Zack Snyder could have done such a scene.

When has done plenty of scenes that are way worse than this.
Its always the way he tries to get his point across, that comes off as if he thinks everybody is an idiot.

It doesn't make sense for him to include that line because he didn't write that line. He's the director and its his movie. He can say what he wants about it.

 

[batfreakforever]

I don't think Snyder is necessarily "crapping" on Whedon's version. I think he's just speaking like he does regardless if it's to people on set or in an interview. He always talked like the other person is on the same wavelength as he is, so if you're not, then yeah it comes off like he's being patronizing.

He's honest and doesn't sugar coat anything. If he's got an opinion about his own movies and why he does them like he does then he can say whatever.
Whedon and WB/DC messed with his film and still stamped his name on it which got crapped on. I'd be pissed too. He has every right to be mad at Whedon, WB and DC.

 

[Primal Slayer]

He's honest and doesn't sugar coat anything. If he's got an opinion about his own movies and why he does them like he does then he can say whatever.
Whedon and WB/DC messed with his film and still stamped his name on it which got crapped on. I'd be pissed too. He has every right to be mad at Whedon, WB and DC.

He knows that Whedon/WB/DC had to put his name on the film by law. He cant hate on Whedon for being brought in to finish something that the network wanted.

 

[batfreakforever]

He knows that Whedon/WB/DC had to put his name on the film by law. He cant hate on Whedon for being brought in to finish something that the network wanted.

Whedon is at fault as much as the executives. He hacked it to bits and rewrote entire scenes. He knew what he was doing to another directors film. People need to stop defending Whedon about justice league.