,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
So, I was browsing the interwebs and I came across a page from 2016; someone asking someone else what he thought of Zack's decision to not include a scene of Superman blocking out cries for help in BvS bc they interfered with finding Martha Kent. Unsurprisingly, logic takes leave
And down a rabbit hole it goes about how it would mean he let ppl die (when does he not?) and that Superman's one rule is "there's always another way" (but said guy reviews back issues of post crisis continuity where he literally mostly fails to "another way"). Then, something
--about BvS introduced "it's Superman" by dropping him through a roof (his back issue reviews did it tho), flying a guy through a wall (again, his reviews of the comics have this) and by so doing, killing many innocents (even someone with a walnut sized brain knows that's BS).
What's the point of this? Well the point is, how can someone who reviews back issues of post crisis Superman, the literal foundation of Snyder's take, be simultaneously so blind to Zack's accurate characterisation? And this guy hates the post 90s comics for being "dark"
But fans of the post 90s comics also hate the 90s for the same reasons. If fans of Superman, who claim to love Superman, claim to read Superman, then turn around and do not recognise Superman when they DO get Superman on-screen, isn't Superman doomed?
Meanwhile, 75% of the ppl who wrote/drew the comics he loves are credited on Zack's film & anyone who's honest with themselves can recognise their work/influence but somehow, it escaped his notice. I guess, Superman can fail to find another way & be sad, until Zack does it.
