Conste que yo no coincido al 100% con las opiniones del guionista de American Alien, que por cierto creo que tiene buenas críticas.
Yo si creo que, a través de las diferentes versiones que han pasado en 75 años, se forma una versión canónica con los mejores aportes de todas, dentro y fuera de los cómics.
Pero os las reproduzco para que veáis que, opines lo que opines, lo que dice Snyder NO HAY POR DONDE COGERLO. De hecho, es tan ridículo que Landis se niega a discutirlo.
Because of my various Superman videos, a lot of people are asking me for my opinions on Zack Snyder saying "his Superman was true to canon."
If you don't know, I've publicly expressed that I felt Man Of Steel was strangely dark, brooding, humorless and violent take on Superman.
I personally found this choice bizarre, as it's so radically different than the hopeful, gee-whiz tone of the vast amount of Superman lore.
But I'm not going to criticize the specifics of what Snyder is saying, though I am bewildered by its meaning. It's a crazy thing to say.
I don't want to waste time arguing whether or not the brooding, extremely quiet Christ figure in Man of Steel is "accurate to canon."
First of all, flatly, it isn't in line with most portrayals of Superman, which is fine. That's fine. Snyder did his own thing. But canon.
If you know comics, and if you know SPECIFICALLY DC comics, you know that "canon" has been...problematic.
So saying "I did the 'canon' version" of an everchanging character, implying you did the 'real' version of Superman, is a weird thing to say.
Which real version? Golden age that couldn't fly? Silver age that was basically a god? Modern age with the mullet?
What does canon mean?
It's one of the strangest claims I've ever heard a director make: that they did the "canon" version of a multicanon character.
I don't want to start any kind of shitstorm that I'm "shitting" on Snyder or anything, but it is a weird, weird thing to say.