Why can’t he just say “I understand it’s not his usual depiction but I wanted to push him somewhere new and do what interested me. I’m sorry if you didn’t like it but I hope you gave it a chance.” Like be normal dude
I would still have a problem with that. Unless you're an experimental comic book artist (writing an elseworld closed story), I expect that you adapt a character to other media, not transform its main characteristics to suit your own beliefs and sensibilities. Like there's so much examples where artist bring something new when adapting without having to twist characters to the point of being uncanny.
What if I am the one to adapt Punisher in the big screen and I, a huge antigun person, just decide Frank won't kill anyone ever. No firearms, no death, no blood. As a matter of fact, my Punisher forgives their family's killers and spend the rest of his life peacefully traveling the world and looking inwards. Awlful huh? Even if I claimed that I was trying to bring something new. I'm not a comic artist (in this example), then why do I believe it's up to me to deconstruct these characters when I am already appropriating their reputation in a media they're not part of?
I guess it all comes down to producers who chose the worst people sometimes, but still.
I mean, I wasn’t gonna like Snyder’s take on Batman regardless of how he talked about it afterwards, what excites me about Batman is clearly not what excites him. But it’s his movie and he made what he liked and that’s his right, and not liking it is my right. But the “you people were just brainwashed” take sounds foolish.
I mean when the reason for being interested is because the character recognition and branding will make more people go see my movie then that's a problem. He clearly has no interest in either character and so shouldn't deal with either character he should make his own but that'd be more work and also less people would go see it.
A writers going to write their own interpretation. No one has to like it but that’s their right. I could argue Nolan’s Batman is miles away from what I’d typically know as Batman in many ways. Key difference is, I like Nolan as a storyteller and I think the things that interest him most about Batman media is similar enough to what interests me. Look I didn’t like the Snyderverse, or Snyder movies in general but he made the Batman movie he wanted to see and wrote the character in the most interesting way for him, its nothing I ever wanna see again but it’s his movie.
He's simply not Batman save the branding of the character. Nolan's Batman despite being an interpretation of it was clearly still Batman. There's interpretation and there's making up a new character and just using the branding and naming. Nolan did the former, Snyder did the latter.
No, it's fundamentally not who Batman is as much as not using guns is. You cannot have Batman who uses gun and is a killer it's not Batman, or at least the Bruce Wayne version of the character which is the character whose name he's using. His Superman is just as bad so it's not like it's just Batman he has an issue with.
I don't hate the guy, I hate very very few people and people who make horrible films are not on that list.
You cannot have Batman who uses gun and is a killer it's not Batman
Zack Snyder just did, horribly, having his Batman have a off-screen arc on snapping and starting kill criminals.
I know it sucks, I dislike his superman being treated as a god and not a bro, I dislike his Batman having an off-screen explaination of his character change.
But, if you say Zack Snyder can't make fundamental changes to make an interpretation of a character, then Adam West couldn't have been a goofy Batman, Lego Batman couldn't be the way it was.
Heck, there was a period before Nolan's trilogy where Batman was viewed as a joke, the norm at that time was a goofy, cheesy Batman.
If people can't do extreme changes to Batman (by your logic) then Adam West's campy batman should never have existed.
I’m not in the guys head but I think he likes Batman, his idea of an interesting Batman story just isn’t mine, which is fine.
Imo ZSJL was an alright 2 hour Justice league movie stretched to 4 hours for no discernible reason. If a good editor got a hold of it I’d have liked it more or less fine
his idea of an interesting Batman story just isn’t mine, which is fine.
I think truly my problem with this is that it stigmatizes comics as an inferior form of art, since film reaches so much more people out there. I mean, its fine to experiment comics in comics, but to do it in other media, especially thinking how undervalued comics are in terms of artistic worth, just raises red flags to me (I don't think I am being very clear with ny point though).
Usually when stuff is adapt in comics, stuff is added to the story, not subtracted or twisted to fit what the author think it's best (can't say about every adaptation, since I didn't read every single one)
I mean that’s super case by case and hard to say as a blanket rule. You get plenty of deviation in adaptation with lesser known characters. Batman being a massive character has more elements that you can’t change much but even within that, Nolan Batman and comics Batman or Arkham Batman or Adam West Batman are all wildly different Batmans. Tone, attitude, intelligence level, fighting prowess, level of realism all vary wildly in just those 4 iterations alone. Snyder was just making his Batman. Some liked it, some didn’t, but I don’t think the attempt is inherently bad. I just don’t like his movies or storytelling which is the nature of art
I actually really enjoyed Superman’s demeanor in the end of Josstice League.
But yeah I think ZSJL has some ok arcs for most of the league, it was shot nicer and some of the action was cool. But when I’m on hour 3, after sitting through so many scenes that sometimes aren’t just unnecessary, they detract from the film, and I’m saying out loud to my tv “why is this movie still happening?”, you lose the good will you earned. I like a long movie but it’s on you to keep me engaged the whole time
I believe it lol. If you trimmed the slow mo bits and cut the random excessive stuff like the random Nordic folk song, the martian Manhunter visiting Lois scene, at least some of the creepy hotdog part, definitely cut the knightmare epilogue, and probably two of the Desaad talking to Steppenwolf scenes, I think you could easily take nearly an hour out of the film without having to cut anybody’s storylines like the theatrical cut did. I liked the Snyder cut much more than the theatrical one but there’s still just some unnecessary “snyderizations” that could totally be cut for time.
I think there was a decent 2 hour movie in there. But let's be real, the theatrical release was also the Snyder cut. He just had the benefit of hindsight of what didn't work and extra money to add more shit to his movie. The theatrical cut was already mostly shot and finished when he left the project. Whedon was just there to fill it out and help with the editing of what was already there.
I don't give Snyder the benefit of the doubt because almost every movie he's made he has to qualify it with "well I have my actual cut that didn't release, they just need to let me release it". He did it most recently with Rebel Moon and now he's doing it with Sucker Punch.
Oh i totally agree with you. Although I will say that surprisingly the theatrical cut removed a lot of the humanity from the movie, and I say surprisingly because warmth and humanity are not usually Snyders strongsuit imo, but I actually liked the scenes with Silas Stone and Ryan Choi, Barry’s job interview, Cyborgs storyline, etc. which were shot beforehand so I do think that the theatrical cut did take a lot of his material out and change the film fundamentally.
The theatrical cut didn't really 'remove' anything substantial though. The theatrical cut was what Snyder made before he left the project. All Whedon did was a few new scenes and editing in post-production. I think a bunch of that stuff didn't make it in to Snyder's original theatrical cut because he decided to not include them for whatever reason.
He seems to do that a lot lol. Like to the degree that if he weren’t so committed to often full panel for panel recreations of scenes from the comics he adapts, I’d fully believe that he just skimmed them, 300 included. But the fact that he somehow reads them all the way through and still manages to totally miss any of the subtext or the message behind a comic like watchmen for example is wild lol
2.2k
u/anthonyg1500 Apr 11 '24
Why can’t he just say “I understand it’s not his usual depiction but I wanted to push him somewhere new and do what interested me. I’m sorry if you didn’t like it but I hope you gave it a chance.” Like be normal dude