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

[SupermanFan]

I think the new 52 animated universe got the timing of the Death of Superman spot on, he was well established by then.

 

[Babillygunn]

I think the new 52 animated universe got the timing of the Death of Superman spot on, he was well established by then.

It also doesn’t hurt that Peter Tomasi wrote the movie. To the point of this thread, Tomasi understands and respects the core of Superman better than nearly any writer in my lifetime. Tomasi celebrates who Superman is. Snyder was given every resource imaginable to celebrate the character but instead of finding Superman someone to celebrate, he dirtied him up because he was ashamed of someone who is pure and steadfast.

 

[STARMAN]

The approach to these recent films foster the mistaken belief that Superman is too good and old-fashioned to connect with modern audiences.

 

[Herofan]

They did Death of Superman in the SECOND MOVIE. Just think about that for a second.

Iron Man died in what...his tenth movie (counting cameos)?

Spider-Man died in his third.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Spider-Man died in his third.

There are a number of differences between the two.

1. Three is still more than two.

2. Man of Steel was an origin movie in which he became the full-fledged Superman only at the end, and then we immediately went into Death of Superman. This was not the case with Spider-Man who already had his origin prior to his first MCU appearance. We do get the complete Spider-Man character in Homecoming, unlike Man of Steel.

3. Spider-Man has had way more exposure on-screen in recent years and at least two of those (the first two Raimi films) were both extremely well-received and in recent memory. Superman hasn't had a true success since the 70s.

4. As popular as he is, Spider-Man is nowhere near as important to the larger Marvel Universe as Superman is to DC. Spider-Man is not a core Avenger, and many fans would argue he is better in his own little corner of the universe. By comparison, Superman is THE DC superhero. Going into Justice League without him is like trying to run a marathon with two broken legs.

5. Superman's death is presented as this big heroic sacrifice and it falls flat because they failed to properly establish Superman as being a really big deal. Spider-Man's death comes as a shock moment at the very end of the film where he is killed alongside millions of other people in a giant tragedy where the villain wins. The whole execution of it is handled very differently (and a lot better).

 

[Rorschach2012]

It will always be a shame that what was Superman's story got taken over by Batman and the JL. There was a gigantic missed opportunity to make a trilogy dedicated to Clark, and the character suffered for it.

BvS probably should’ve been MOS2 with Brainiac and Lex Luthor.

 

[Erzengel]

Having Batman trace Brainiac to Metropolis would have been a good storyline.

 

[The Duh]

5. Superman's death is presented as this big heroic sacrifice and it falls flat because they failed to properly establish Superman as being a really big deal.

For me, I actually didn't have too much of a problem with his death (I do agree doing Death of Superman was too soon, however); if anything, I had more problem with the funeral scene. I'm sure BvS treated Superman as a really big deal. The "big deal" though, was a figure in-universe who was treated as polarizing and controversial. He gets a member of the public who hates him and defaces his statue, a scene added to the Ultimate Edition where Superman watches news footage of the public committing hate crimes against him (lovely), two men who want to kill him for various reasons (Batman and Lex), and everyone else in the public see him as this God (which says nothing about whether they adore/like him or not). The funeral scene at the end of BvS felt hollow when it seemed that no one in-universe outside of Superman's circle actually liked the guy or saw him as one of their kind.

In MoS, after Superman takes on Zod's crew, there's a scene of the military ("This man is not our enemy") expressing their approval and a later fight with them has civilians reacting favorably to him. He gets no equivalent scenes with civilians in BvS. If only there was a similar scene in BvS with someone in the public, so that Superman's death could've felt like a case of "you don't know what you got till it's gone" when the public mourned him instead of him dying for a world that seemingly didn't care for him beforehand. Perhaps the Senate scene (if Lex didn't blow up the place) would've been Superman's chance to defend himself and show us who in the public actually likes him; it would've been nice to have a balance of viewpoints (like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 for instance had people of the public on radio giving for/against opinions on Spider-Man) so that Superman's death could be seen as a big deal to the in-universe people.


tl;dr Funeral scene fell flat (and on a side note, isn't as cool as the comics version where a whole host of heroes were there to mourn Superman)

 

[The Guard]

5. Superman's death is presented as this big heroic sacrifice and it falls flat because they failed to properly establish Superman as being a really big deal.

I disagree. You don’t think the presence of a potentially Godlike savior or ultra powerful being involving himself in Earth's affairs is a big deal? The movie makes it clear that this is an issue.

The movie also opens with him having had a huge statute erected to him in the middle of “Heroes Park”. Clearly he is seen as a hero, enough to commission a statute and make him the key hero of the tragedy. There are sequences showing the villain and his associates trying to “tear down” someone who was seen as a hero, potentially even a God. It’s clear Superman was revered by many.

For me, I actually didn't have too much of a problem with his death (I do agree doing Death of Superman was too soon, however); if anything, I had more problem with the funeral scene. I'm sure BvS treated Superman as a really big deal. The "big deal" though, was a figure in-universe who was treated as polarizing and controversial. He gets a member of the public who hates him and defaces his statue, a scene added to the Ultimate Edition where Superman watches news footage of the public committing hate crimes against him (lovely), two men who want to kill him for various reasons (Batman and Lex), and everyone else in the public see him as this God (which says nothing about whether they adore/like him or not).

He gets far more than a defacer and people who want to kill him. The film actually had multiple characters weight in on various issues. There were a balance of viewpoints presented within the film. There was even an entire montage of different viewpoints about Superman.

Everyone does not see him as a god. One of the media personalities literally says “Maybe he’s just a guy trying to do the right thing.” at a key point in the montage.

The funeral scene at the end of BvS felt hollow when it seemed that no one in-universe outside of Superman's circle actually liked the guy or saw him as one of their kind.

There are those two fangirls at the Capitol, though. They clearly "like" him. The man had a statue of him. People who are only disliked don't usually get statues. Someone has to like you to commission one.

No one saw him as one their kind? They give him the funeral both of a human, and of a human hero. Half the point of the funeral sequence is that he is treated as one of them at last, and is ultimately seen as “one of them”.

In MoS, after Superman takes on Zod's crew, there's a scene of the military ("This man is not our enemy") expressing their approval and a later fight with them has civilians reacting favorably to him. He gets no equivalent scenes with civilians in BvS.

And that's okay. We don't have to see the same type of scene when it was already done. That was in MOS, and this film chooses to explore the issue in a different way. There are crowd sequences of people who are for and against Superman in the movie. Some people cheer, some people boo. That's sort of the whole point. And yes, a lot of the negative views on Superman "outweigh" the positive reactions to Superman, but that's the point. That's how conflicts are often handled in film. It needs to feel like a serious issue that has to be surmounted for the conflict and the hero overcoming it to feel earned.

Pretty sure Senator Finch is the character who is the audience identification character with regard to Superman's existence and impact on things. She was pretty clearly protecting the interests of both humanity and treating Superman relatively fairly in the film. And her role was both considerably meatier thematically and more nuanced than Hardy’s in MOS, jar of pee aside. So if Hardy’s few scenes satisfy, then I think the whole "enemy or hero" thing was pretty well handled in BVS as well.

If only there was a similar scene in BvS with someone in the public, so that Superman's death could've felt like a case of "you don't know what you got till it's gone" when the public mourned him instead of him dying for a world that seemingly didn't care for him beforehand.

After a film of his positive impact being questioned, that's pretty much the point of the whole funeral sequence. There's something to be said for being direct in dialogue, but there's also something to be said for visual storytelling. The funeral sequence in general is fantastic stuff.

Perhaps the Senate scene (if Lex didn't blow up the place) would've been Superman's chance to defend himself and show us who in the public actually likes him; it would've been nice to have a balance of viewpoints (like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 for instance had people of the public on radio giving for/against opinions on Spider-Man) so that Superman's death could be seen as a big deal to the in-universe people.

Again, the montage presents a balance of viewpoints. We also get to see various viewpoints on Superman’s existence and his role in events from Clark, Lois and Martha.

 

[fan4stic]

I disagree. You don’t think the presence of a potentially Godlike savior or ultra powerful being involving himself in Earth's affairs is a big deal? The movie makes it clear that this is an issue.

The movie also opens with him having had a huge statute erected to him in the middle of “Heroes Park”. Clearly he is seen as a hero, enough to commission a statute and make him the key hero of the tragedy. There are sequences showing the villain and his associates trying to “tear down” someone who was seen as a hero, potentially even a God. It’s clear Superman was revered by many.

Considering he's not those things, and I think, to me, the movie doesn't so much develop that, as introduce it, talk about the idea of it, and then have it destroyed by Lex and never really resolve it, that concept isn't something I think is handled well.


I think it's not out of the question that some may think that would lean more on trying to seem like that's the case, but not actually developing it on a personal level.

He gets far more than a defacer and people who want to kill him. The film actually had multiple characters weight in on various issues. There were a balance of viewpoints presented within the film. There was even an entire montage of different viewpoints about Superman.

Everyone does not see him as a god. One of the media personalities literally says “Maybe he’s just a guy trying to do the right thing.” at a key point in the montage.

As far as the theatrical cut goes: I think some scenes of people talking on tv's doesn't necesarily, to some, a strong development of viewpoints make. As it stands, 3 independent characters hate him (Wally, Bruce and Lex). I think Alfred, Perry and that general guy doesn't care as much either way. And Lois and Martha like him.

There are those two fangirls at the Capitol, though. They clearly "like" him. The man had a statue of him. People who are only disliked don't usually get statues. Someone has to like you to commission one.

No one saw him as one their kind? They give him the funeral both of a human, and of a human hero. Half the point of the funeral sequence is that he is treated as one of them at last, and is ultimately seen as “one of them”.

I don't even know who those fangirls are. Which, to me, and the others, is apart of that not personal thing.

After he died. I'd say that's more of an issue, to me, I have with this movie. I don't think they would, with the situation, as developed, like that.

And that's okay. We don't have to see the same type of scene when it was already done. That was in MOS, and this film chooses to explore the issue in a different way. There are crowd sequences of people who are for and against Superman in the movie. Some people cheer, some people boo. That's sort of the whole point. And yes, a lot of the negative views on Superman "outweigh" the positive reactions to Superman, but that's the point. That's how conflicts are often handled in film. It needs to feel like a serious issue that has to be surmounted for the conflict and the hero overcoming it to feel earned.

Pretty sure Senator Finch is the character who is the audience identification character with regard to Superman's existence and impact on things. She was pretty clearly protecting the interests of both humanity and treating Superman relatively fairly in the film. And her role was both considerably meatier thematically and more nuanced than Hardy’s in MOS, jar of pee aside. So if Hardy’s few scenes satisfy, then I think the whole "enemy or hero" thing was pretty well handled in BVS as well.

I don't think the hero overcomes it. I don't think he and the movie really deals with at all. And if the idea is that what happens at the end is a showcase of that happening, I don't think that's the case for Superman overcoming it and I don't buy that people, as a whole, would do that.

Was she? She didn't address he destruction of metropolis. I have zero interest in the government officials complaining about the crossing international borders stuff. That, to me, doesn't speak to me, as something that I view as her being fair to Superman, particularly when the issue of "Should Superman be able to go into other countries" is far removed from something I care about, which is more, "Superman, as far as we've been told, killed people" and "Should Superman face consequences for engaging in a fight that caused deaths in the middle of a city, with his powers, and can we trust him, knowing that he's not perfect and with his powers the types of mistakes that would more likely have smaller scale consequences for us earthlings, could be more likely to have larger scale consequences for him?". To me, those concepts aren't developed strongly and dealt with. Along with other things.

After a film of his positive impact being questioned, that's pretty much the point of the whole funeral sequence. There's something to be said for being direct in dialogue, but there's also something to be said for visual storytelling. The funeral sequence in general is fantastic stuff.

I don't buy that that would happen. I don't care what the movie is trying to show me. To me, that wasn't a personal thing that'd been developed on screen.

 

[The Guard]

Considering he's not those things, and I think, to me, the movie doesn't so much develop that, as introduce it, talk about the idea of it, and then have it destroyed by Lex and never really resolve it, that concept isn't something I think is handled well.

I was merely addressing the statement that these things weren't in the movie. I'm not interested in the endless "It wasn't executed well" argument.

I think it's not out of the question that some may think that would lean more on trying to seem like that's the case, but not actually developing it on a personal level.As far as the theatrical cut goes: I think some scenes of people talking on tv's doesn't necesarily, to some, a strong development of viewpoints make. As it stands, 3 independent characters hate him (Wally, Bruce and Lex). I think Alfred, Perry and that general guy doesn't care as much either way. And Lois and Martha like him.I don't even know who those fangirls are. Which, to me, and the others, is apart of that not personal thing.

And again, the issue is whether the viewpoints were present in the film, not whether they felt "personal" enough or were handled well. You are welcome to your opinion on the matter.

After he died. I'd say that's more of an issue, to me, I have with this movie. I don't think they would, with the situation, as developed, like that.I don't think the hero overcomes it. I don't think he and the movie really deals with at all. And if the idea is that what happens at the end is a showcase of that happening, I don't think that's the case for Superman overcoming it and I don't buy that people, as a whole, would do that.

The movie doesn't ask you to buy that people, as a whole, would do that any more than the content of people at say, a large protest or memorial service represents "everyone".

The movie never really indicates that people, as a whole, have embraced him, only that he is honored by many of the people in Metropolis and possibly elsewhere, the government, his loved ones and those who fought with him. We don't get shown what percentage of the globe ultimately embraces him. It's likley there are still people who would fear his presence, which is largely the point the movie was trying to make, that people would have different perspectives on such a person.

Was she? She didn't address he destruction of metropolis.

That's probably because there's already a character in the movie that addresses this (Bruce) and the whole "Can we trust him?" thing is absolutely found in the film in several sequences.

Also, that character addresses the destruction on a very personal level, which I believe is the thing you keep talking about.

I have zero interest in the government officials complaining about the crossing international borders stuff. That, to me, doesn't speak to me, as something that I view as her being fair to Superman, particularly when the issue of "Should Superman be able to go into other countries" is far removed from something I care about, which is more, "Superman, as far as we've been told, killed people" and "Should Superman face consequences for engaging in a fight that caused deaths in the middle of a city, with his powers, and can we trust him, knowing that he's not perfect and with his powers the types of mistakes that would more likely have smaller scale consequences for us earthlings, could be more likely to have larger scale consequences for him?".

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here.

You seem to be interested in them exploring a specific incident, but while a specific incident kicks off the hearings in BVS, Finch wants to get to the bottom of whether Superman should intervene broadly in human events, period.

To me, those concepts aren't developed strongly and dealt with. Along with other things.I don't buy that that would happen. I don't care what the movie is trying to show me. To me, that wasn't a personal thing that'd been developed on screen.

Again, I don't much care to discuss how well they were executed, as those conversations tend to go nowhere fast. I'm only pointing out that they're in the movie.

 

[fan4stic]

The movie doesn't ask you to buy that people, as a whole, would do that any more than the content of people at say, a large protest or memorial service represents "everyone".

The movie never really indicates that people, as a whole, have embraced him, only that he is honored by many of the people in Metropolis and possibly elsewhere, the government, his loved ones and those who fought with him. We don't get shown what percentage of the globe ultimately embraces him. It's likley there are still people who would fear his presence, which is largely the point the movie was trying to make, that people would have different perspectives on such a person.

The movie has spent its time, more having the negative side of the situation. If this isn't here to show a change, I don't see the point.

If that's the case, I think, to me, the ending doesn't have a lot going for that.

That's probably because there's already a character in the movie that addresses this (Bruce) and the whole "Can we trust him?" thing is absolutely found in the film in several sequences.

Also, that character addresses the destruction on a very personal level, which I believe is the thing you keep talking about.

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here.

You seem to be interested in them exploring a specific incident, but while a specific incident kicks off the hearings in BVS, Finch wants to get to the bottom of whether Superman should intervene broadly in human events, period.

I think it doesn't address that with Batman, as Batman isn't my side. Batman's a homicidal maniac who wants to kill Superman for revenge. That doesn't represent my side of the situation. i think Batman isn't driven by legitimate questions of Superman's power and how he weilds it, and these issues aren't addressed by Batman to Superman and not dealt with, to me, by the character of Superman. As far as the movie, the theatrical cut anyway, I think shows, all Superman knows is that Batman is a loon who wants to kill him. Batman is, I think, presented as a villain. Even by Batman's resolution to that issue, isn't about who Superman is or Batman coming to a conclusion about Superman's actions. It's about Batman seeing him as a person. I think, to me, that doesn't mean anything to the consequences of Superman's actions, how Superman deals with them, why he makes those mistakes, how people in general feel about them, how he learns from them, how he feels about them on a direct personal level.

I think that doesn't address anything that I think has deep personal meaning, in regards to the characters. I think, to me, whether or not Superman crossed borders means nothing to Superman, Lex or Bruce, personally.

Again, I don't much care to discuss how well they were executed, as those conversations tend to go nowhere fast. I'm only pointing out that they're in the movie.

I think, to me, it being an idea in the movie, doesn't mean a lot to the movie, in this.

 

[Binker]

One of the things I appreciate from Zack is how much mythology, allusions and symbolism he adds to these films. We know about Excalibur being used as a major influence through his films, even the pieta for the scene in BvS where Superman is lowered towards Diana and Lois, but there's others that even I didn't know about such as this:

 

[Binker]

We must not forgot the allusions, symbolism, and the mythologies Zack planted in BvS. These videos are proof:

 

[SwordOfMorning]

One of the things I appreciate from Zack is how much mythology, allusions and symbolism he adds to these films. We know about Excalibur being used as a major influence through his films, even the pieta for the scene in BvS where Superman is lowered towards Diana and Lois, but there's others that even I didn't know about such as this:

Some of that is fun, I'm a huge fan of Excalibur, but just because it is a reference to something doesn't make Batman hurling Superman around smashing him through pillars like a ragdoll and dragging him around on a string not hysterically funny.

 

[Binker]

Some of that is fun, I'm a huge fan of Excalibur, but just because it is a reference to something doesn't make Batman hurling Superman around smashing him through pillars like a ragdoll and dragging him around on a string not hysterically funny.

Only to people like you.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Only to people like you.

...People who find a glowering Academy award winner in a big cumbersome suit of armour growling ridiculous dialogue and CGI swinging Henry Cavill 'round right round like a record baby on the end of a string cartoonishly smashing him through pillars unintentionally funny?

 

[flickchick85]

Only to people like you.

I mean, it did look pretty goofy. A lot of Snyder's OTT self-serious moments tend to result in unintentional comedy for me, unfortunately.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I actually really try not to be snarky about big, goofy emotional moments in these types of movies - I even kinda sorta think Affleck almost sells Martha - but Snyder goes so far over the top it's hard to actually engage with emotionally. The beat the **** out of each other in an abandoned men's room and Batman hits Superman in the head with a ****ing sink for Godssake, although I will say that and the phallic Kryptonite spear lead into the rather interesting take that BvS is a story about toxic masculinity. It absolutely isn't unless Terrio snuck some subversive stuff in there but it makes the movie a lot more interesting.

 

[flickchick85]

I can 100% invest in big OTT emotional "cheesy" moments in superhero movies when the earnestness is built into the movie's foundation and is ultimately part of its charm, but for movies with such built-in cynicism and try-hard "edginess" as BvS? Nah, can't do it.

 

[Binker]

...People who find a glowering Academy award winner in a big cumbersome suit of armour growling ridiculous dialogue and CGI swinging Henry Cavill 'round right round like a record baby on the end of a string cartoonishly smashing him through pillars unintentionally funny?

I said what I said

 

[Binker]

I mean, it did look pretty goofy. A lot of Snyder's OTT self-serious moments tend to result in unintentional comedy for me, unfortunately.

Then the problem is you.

 

[flickchick85]

Then the problem is you.

Seems to be a common problem. Maybe a it's a pandemic.

 

[Binker]

Seems to be a common problem. Maybe a it's a pandemic.

Acting like that doesn't help your case.

 

[flickchick85]

Acting like that doesn't help your case.

You're the only person here being needlessly aggressive. Chill. Don't take criticisms to movies you like so personally. People disliking something in a movie you like isn't a problem with them. It's simply another valid POV that differs from your own.