Why Do People Enjoy the Zack Snyder Movies?

I do agree that superheroes are uninteresting when flawless, but they should overcome their flaws in the story like you said Batwing52.

ANerdWonder, how on earth is Snyder’s Superman hopeful? He spends the whole movie either not saving people or begrudgingly saving people, then he snaps someone’s neck. Now I don’t actually have too much of a problem with the neck snap, but I wouldn’t exactly call that hopeful in any way and it definitely doesn’t give a change from the hopelessness of the rest of the movie.


His movies, if nothing else, are beautiful to look at. He is a master of visuals. People can whine about Man of Steel and BvS being dark and dreary, but every seen looked beautiful and every action set piece looked amazing. He’s also kind of a man-child and he taps into the old teenage sensibility we all used to have where we by and large preferred style over substance.


When I say that superheroes should be flawless, I really just mean that they should be a prime example of what we should do with ourselves and our attitudes. They should be a watermark for what we can achieve when we put aside our differences and help one another. To jump into Marvel for a second, a character like Peter Parker works because he has our problems (paying the rent, working his job, etc.) while still making time to be a superhero, and somehow balancing it all. There’s a line in Justice League (that was clearly written by Whedon), where Bruce says that Clark is more human than he ever was. That one interaction with Alfred is everything I want out of my DC heroes. Batman wants to be able to get over his tragedies and make friends. Superman has done this even though he isn’t even a human. And, of course, Alfred’s going to have to listen to the whole thing. Flawless CAN be boring, if done wrong, but when done right, is incredibly inspiring.


I should note that Christopher Reeve’s Superman was hardly flawless. In fact, the whole point of Superman II is that he struggles with the selfless heroism that his dead father expects of him, even though that selflessness is exactly what the world needs. The issue with Superman’s characterization in Man of Steel is really just the consequence of the filmmakers repeating the mistake of Superman: Earth One, namely having Superman’s first appearance be in response to alien invaders looking for him. Grant Morrison handled his debut much better in 2011’s Action Comics (even though his story featured a big alien invasion, too!) by showing him doing low-level superheroics in costume (sorta) before taking on a bigger threat. Even better was Superman: Birthright, which firmly established his presence and popularity in Metropolis before going into its (thankfully fake) Kryptonian invasion. (Props to Secret Origin for avoiding any kind of alien invasion in the origin story!)

Batman v Superman, on the other hand, really nailed the character, especially in the Ultimate Edition.

1 Like

Because his work lives in my head much longer than most movie directors especially CBM helmers. He delivers on the visuals so much that it’s become a given now but the symbolism, themes, and influences he puts with those visuals is something only a handful of movie makers can do.

Besides that he actually had the stones and desire to create an actual and credible live action DCU on films when anyone with an internet connection within and without WB said it couldn’t be done. That’s a career worthy accomplishment in and of itself and makes ZS a day one director for me.


The only “symbolism” is his DC movies is obvious Christ parallels in Superman and David and Goliath stuff in the form of Batman. It’s so blatant as to be barely even metaphorical. Legitimately eye-roll-worthy half-efforts at depth.

Also, superheroes aren’t and shouldn’t credible. They have crazy powers that could never happen in real-life. When I go see CBMs with my (non-comic-reading) friends and they ask how someone’s powers work I just say, “They don’t. That’s what makes it fun.”
Superheroes are made-up, so, to paraphrase Grant Morrison’s Supergods (which I would encourage all Snyder fans to read for a different viewpoint), forcing them into reality as opposed to bringing them further into fiction makes no sense whatsoever.

I disagree. Snyder’s films aren’t all that interesting visually. They are OK, but not brilliant by any stretch. If anything they are contradictory to his “thematic ideas”. He has strong willful suspension of disbelief visuals, but wants people to kill, thinking that makes them more “real-world”. It’s absurd. Affleck’s casting as Batman was a bad idea to start with. He was a big screen name to try and put butts in seats. Affleck fails miserably in the role. MOS is let’s have a “god” who really doesn’t give a rats about humanity and a Batman that is little more than the Punisher in a Bat suit.

Let him go back to making non-blockbuster films, especially outside any genre that is supposed to be in anyway uplifting, because he can’t.

As for killing, it gratuitous to say the least. It makes characters less interesting not more. Batman is two dimensional because he is caught solely in his “ego” while Supes is a walking “superego”. There is no nuance. There is no complexity. 2d characters shoved in a 3d set.

I’ll concur that Snyder can be seen as a “man-child”. He has never moved on from what you describe as “his teenage years”. This is utterly apparent in his comical defense of how “right his vision is”, and anyone who disagrees with it is subject to his use of his public status and press coverage to ridicule those with different opinions.

DC made a great call distancing themselves from him. He’s toxic & his films were poor investments. Just look at his cost vs return ratio. It is no surprise that Suicide Squad, WW, Aquaman, & Shazam we’re not directed by Snyder and all did better returns than Snyder’s trilogy. He’s not worth the money. Proven by the one thing that doesn’t lie, money. As a big budget CBM filmmaker he is a bust. Pure and simple. Snyder supporters can love his movies. Bully for them. It doesn’t change the hard, cold facts of what Snyder brought to the DCEU, which was garbage the theater going public rejected.



The creators of Superman were two Jewish kids who retold the story on Moses at a time when Jews were facing genocide in Europe as their own country was doing nothing to stop it. That is the truth of Superman’s origin.

1 Like

Here are my thoughts on why I love Zack Snyder’s movies. Sure, you can disagree with them, but they are to me why I love the movies.

His visuals and his attention to detail are amazing. Almost every shot has something important going on in it. Allegories and references to classic literature, myth and even classic comics pop up quite a lot and make his movies that much more interesting on a philosophical level.

Yes, sometimes the symbolism can be a little heavy-handed (the Christian symbolism with Superman for example) but I think it works for the movies.

To me, Watchmen: The Ultimate Cut is the ultimate comic book adaptation, ripped almost directly from the pages to the screen. Man of Steel, to me, is the only good Superman movie because Superman is relatable and while he may not be as heroic or cheerful as Donner’s Superman was, he manages to stay true to himself and try to be hopeful while bringing hope to others even during the darkest of times. He felt like a spot on adaptation of the Post-Crisis Superman, especially from the early 2000’s. I believe that if Snyder had been allowed to finish his vision of Justice League, we would’ve seen that Superman evolve into the true ideal of hope everyone knows Superman as.

Now, some people have criticized his Batman for being too brutal and trigger-happy, but I saw him as a spot on (maybe slightly exaggerated) adaptation of Bruce in the comics in the months after Jason Todd died, and he has a lot of The Dark Knight Returns Batman in him too, which is also pretty cool (though thankfully he didn’t take inspiration from Miller’s later works). The “Martha” scene, to me, was beautiful and perfectly in character with both of them. The comics long established that the names “Thomas”, “Martha” and “Jason” trigger intense post-traumatic flashbacks from Bruce because he couldn’t save them and will always blame himself for it. Hearing that name in association with attempted murder made Bruce remember why he became Batman in the first place.

I think, perhaps, the only negative thing I can say about Snyder and his movies is in itself something I don’t consider to be much of a problem, but his movies tend to be overly long at times.


@DeSade-acolyte, I disagree with your opinion regarding him, but it is YOUR opinion and you’re entitled to it.


What’s truly eye rolling is this cynical tendency by so-called movie critics, lay or otherwise, to be satisfied with narrative works that follow the same story beats while being being creatively bankrupt as to resemble nothing more than television shows from the 80’s. Snyder’s cinematic crime for many detractors like the ones in this thread is to be happy seeing nostalgic product that aims for nothing, accomplishes nothing, and is only concerned with box office gross than actually challenging anything besides running times.

I’ve seen Reeves and Reeve as Superman and West as Batman and they succeeded in their times because they moved the characters and the genre forward just like I saw SUPERMAN RETURNS and BATMAN AND ROBIN fail because not only were they stiff and boring but because they tried to sell a stale product in a new bag.

Snyder, much like Christopher Nolan with Batman in his Dark Knight trilogy, showed there is much more to Superman and the larger DCU than what had come before. Putting forth that these characters or any fictional characters actually only fit one sort of narrative is limiting and small minded. The great Carl Barks took Donald Duck of all characters and expanded his adventures from eight minute cartoons to long, involved story arcs so trying to put forth that characters described with adjectives like super, wonder, and marvel aren’t strong enough to support any expansion of their myths outside of their foundational sources is something only a limited and lazy intellect would assert.

An intellect or actually a willful ignorance happy in its cave with product, because that’s all it is, that doesn’t challenge in anyway always falls back on tired tropes such as reducing varied and deeper meanings to Christian drag when all ancient societies have savior myths while failing to see allegory that touches on subjects that move the needle on newscasts every 24 hours.

Product is rarely discussed after it is consumed like a Richard Lester or Brian Singer Superman movie while art, or, if that is too pretentious, genre changing cinema like a Richard Donner or Zack Snyder Superman movie is still discussed years and decades, pro and con, afterwards.



Mainstream theatrical releases are about one thing, making money. Without it there are no mainstream movies.

Rule 1: make money
Rules 2 thru n: refer to Rule 1

It is unfortunate that especially in the area of comics movies get the most run. They are also seen by many more people than an issue of a comic. I’ll put any Adams/O’Neil issue of the Bat up against any Batman film or tv, live action or animated and the comics out do them by a mile.

The two things. I find today is that materials have changed so much. They aren’t as constrained by print limitations. Which creates graphic styles that we couldn’t have on newsprint. But, it’s also a bit of a crutch. Having restraints pushes artists beyond what they think they can do.

For good or ill, and I’d probably say the latter, the CBM and especially in today’s CGI abilities colors the aesthetic. Writers and artists are influenced by them, as many have said. It leads me to wonder, if you didn’t have all of that collected memory (and perhaps some of the inspiration it brings) what comic stories would writers and editors be giving us. I lean towards the idea that if they didn’t have that film/tv influence, the stories would be more dynamic.

Never once did I say that new scenarios, ideas, or environments were bad. Superhero media often falls into cycles of repetition, followed by innovation, followed by repetition. There is, however, despite what your kindergarten teacher might have told you, such thing as a bad idea. Superman and Batman are well-established characters. The joy of seeing them in new scenarios is thinking about how a character we know and love will adapt to fit in. Knightfall is legitimately one of the smartest comics I’ve ever read, because it breaks Batman down by forcing him to do too much of the thing he can’t not do. Bane frees all the criminals in Gotham, so despite Batman’s knowledge that it’s stupid, he rounds them all up, tiring himself out and readying him for the famous back-snapping. This is a character we know in a scenario we do not. Man of Steel is a movie with the following cast of characters:

-Emotionless Jesus stand-in

-Weird reporter girl with something off that you can never put your finger on

-That guy from the Matrix as a newspaper publisher who does the opposite of what every other person in his situation would have done at every turn


These are not familiar characters. These are not superheroes.
These are unrealistic, stoic, blank faces doing their best to make a story that should be about hope hopeless.

Actually, if anything, these are new characters in familiar scenarios. We’ve seen a Zod invasion a million times. We’ve seen a Superman origin a million times. We’ve seen Superman-as-messiah a million times. We’ve seen Perry White publish a story about Superman a million times, because we’ve seen Lois Lane write a story about Superman a million times. And don’t even get me started on Batman v Superman. Old Batman? Million times. Superhero stand-off? Million times. Doomsday? Million times. These movies are nothing but repetitive cop-out attempts at depth.

^ Let’s go through this post piece-by-piece, shall we?

“Emotionless Jesus stand-in”

MoS’ Clark Kent is far from"emotionless", and the Superman character has always been a Christ (or Moses) analogue.

“Weird reporter girl with something off that you can never put your finger on”

Ummm, what? This is the vaguest “criticism” I think I’ve ever heard.

“That guy from the Matrix as a newspaper publisher who does the opposite of what every other person in his situation would have done at every turn”

Again with the vagueness. If you’re going to make a criticism, actually make it.


Of all of the criticisms that get leveled against MoS, this is the one that is the most baseless because Jonathan Kent neither says this nor implies it.

What he actually says is that he doesn’t know what Clark should have done. In other words, he’s not actually answering Clark’s question… which ought to have bern obvious from the conversation as presented and the context of the situation in which it occurs.


Pa Kent should have said, “I don’t know,” instead of, “Maybe.” That’s really the only issue with that scene. MoS is hardly the first time that Jonathan had concerns about Clark exposing himself too early. It’s just a case of one word sounding too much like, “Yes.”

1 Like

Okay, here we go:

Lois never really acts like Lois. She’s kind of shy, but also fierce…? Maybe? Kind of? She doesn’t ever really act like a human would act in any situation, she just kind of acts how the plot needs her to act. Which means sometimes I get glimpses of Lois, and other times it’s just Adams doing a weird thing that Snyder needs he to do. I think Amy Adams could have made a great LL given the right script, but she wasn’t and so she doesn’t.

Lawrence Fishburne, likewise, could have been a great Perry White. Except for the fact that at every turn he decides to do the opposite thing to what any sound-of-mind newspaper publisher would do. He holds back from the world the information that, hold on… ALIENS EXIST! And he does this because why? Because he doesn’t think it’s true? Because there’s not enough evidence? No, he does it because he feels like people don’t deserve the truth. Yeah. The Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies are way overrated. They have all manner of problems that people like to overlook in favor of nostalgia, but one area where they shine over the competition is in JJJ. JJJ in those movies (played by an absolutely perfect-looking J.K. Simmons) is a jerk to his employees, but when asked who gives him the pictures of Spider-Man by Green Goblin, he keeps Peter’s identity a secret. This is a good superhero movie news reporter. Rough exterior, but he cares about his employees and their safety. Perry White in MoS doesn’t give a darn about his employees so long as the intern brings his coffee in the morning.

But, okay. Those two above are problems. But nothing, NOTHING compares to Jonathan Kent. You say that in that scene he says “I don’t know”. You’re right. He does. But that’s not JK. JK would have told Clark that he did the right thing. That above all, he needs to use his powers to help others, not himself. “I don’t know” is passive. It might as well be a “Yes, yes you should let people die,” as it isn’t like we (or poor Clark, for that matter) get any closure or advice for the situation. Also, the obvious subtext of that interaction is that Jon isn’t really saying “I don’t know”, it’s more like he’s saying “Maybe”. Plus it never really comes back in the story in any meaningful way.

And now let’s talk about Clark. My main critique with the line “emotionless Jesus stand-in” is less on the Jesus part and more on the emotionless part. Where in the story does Clark show any emotion other than a vague melancholy about… well, everything. This emphasizes that Clark is “a god among humans”, that he should be completely emotionally unattached from us because he isn’t one of us. Except that he’s been raised on earth by two humans since (basically) birth. Although, his father doesn’t really seem like the best person.


Immediately after the “Maybe” scene, Jonathan Kent takes Clark to the barn and shows him the spacecraft. He says, “I have to believe that you were…you were sent here for a reason,” and then goes on to tell him that one day he will have to choose “whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not.” Clark clearly interprets his words to mean that he was sent to Earth to do good, despite Jonathan’s fears that his opportunity to accomplish that purpose could be lost if he is exposed too soon. In BvS, Clark even refers to Superman as “the dream of a farmer from Kansas,” even if both Kents hold back from forcing that dream on their son. It’s an interesting contrast with Jor-El from the Richard Donner films, who not only tells Kal-El, “For this reason above all–their capacity for good–I have sent them you, my only son” (talk about a Jesus stand-in!), but then scolds his son for wanting to “live as one of them.”

Granted, the narrative of MoS forces Clark to expose himself against his own will, which kinda makes everything Jonathan did to protect his son (including his death) kinda pointless. As I said earlier, the debut of Superman reaaaally shouldn’t involve an alien invasion.


I like all the little nods to things that DC comic fans will see and understand I know he shouldnt have done some of the fan service stuff he did in bvs because if your a casual fan you will be confused by all this but it still makes me feel good when I watch it to say oh that’s a reference to Jason todd or that’s a flash point reference or oh man look at that parademon all of it was cool but ultimately it didn’t help the story at all

1 Like

Yeah, it really shouldn’t. It takes away from Superman’s choice to be a hero and turns it into more of an impulse decision.