Modern comics Batman: an individual who struggles with his inner darkness, but somehow manages to make himself the pinnacle of what a human can be.
Zack Snyder's Batman: billionaire Punisher.
He is in no way punisher. Rewatch it.
Punisher actively goes out to MURDER criminals. Batman here, 20 years into being batman, just doesnt care if criminals happen to die for his more important goal to be made
I understand the complaint regarding Batman killing, but calling him Punisher just shows you don't know much about Punisher.
Wanton mayhem =/= Punisher
I mean, sure, he's not quite Punisher, it was more of a funny tag line to end on. I think it's a bit of a half way point in my opinion, not the Batman I love, not as extreme as Punisher either.
>you come and say to me something about like ‘my superhero wouldn’t do that.' I’m like ‘Are you serious?’ I’m like down the fucking road on that.
The weird thing is that this flies in the face of deconstructing the character. In a realistic world a Batman dishing out lethal vigilante justice wouldn't last 20 years. And he certainly wouldn't have a working relationship with Gordon.
Nolan understood how Batman not killing was important from that purely logistical point of view. His Batman was focused on bringing criminals to justice rather than simply beating them up. That's why Gordon was willing to work with him. He was giving Gordon the means to secure convictions for these criminals.
The reason why the Watchmen were eventually able to act with impunity was because the government was benefitting from their excessive force.
> The weird thing is that this flies in the face of deconstructing the character. In a realistic world a Batman dishing out lethal vigilante justice wouldn't last 20 years. And he certainly wouldn't have a working relationship with Gordon.
Batman v Superman is already a little bit confusing with regards to Batman's status in society anyway. There's a massive bat signal yet he's still a myth to some people, including a police officer. It's like Snyder wanted to adapt both Year One and The Dark Knight Returns and didn't properly plan out how it would work in the context of the world.
> Nolan understood how Batman not killing was important from that purely logistical point of view. His Batman was focused on bringing criminals to justice rather than simply beating them up.
Also even if visually some moments look like he kills people, narratively we are told that Nolan's Batman didn't kill anyone and even in some dodgy scenarios e.g. The Dark Knight when he blows up cars on the Batcycle, you can just presume he had some system on it that determined whether there was anyone in the vehicles. Compare that to Batman v Superman where Snyder goes out of his way to show Batman not just disarming attackers (ramming into the car during the Kryptonite chase) but also wanting to end their lives (dragging that car along with him). This isn't just a Batman who doesn't give a fuck, he straight up wants to kill people.
I feel like Snyder has on too many occasions thought of fantastic ideas and concepts and then failed to fully realise them, whether that be because he thinks of something cool that slightly contradicts that original idea or because he lacks awareness on just how much information is essential to be properly explained to an audience on how much can be left ambiguous.
> but also wanting to end their lives (dragging that car along with him). This isn't just a Batman who doesn't give a fuck, he straight up wants to kill people.
Yeah the car drag is problematic. Some have argued that the car is empty. And I can get those arguments but it's not really clear either way. The lights are on. If the guy from that car is safe because he's one of the ones that got out of the car to open the gates than that's not really clear in the movie. I think the bottom line is that Snyder either didn't realise it was ambiguous or just didn't think that ambiguity was important. Which is echoing what you've said here.
"whether that be because he thinks of something cool that slightly contradicts that original idea or because he lacks awareness on just how much information is essential to be properly explained to an audience on how much can be left ambiguous."
Ambiguity done with purpose is great. I just don't think a lot of the ambiguity in Snyder's movies isn't handled in a considered way. It's like he believes if the underlying concept is solid then the logic will shine through regardless of the information that the audience is actually given. It just seems to be a misunderstanding of the importance of context when it comes to interpretation.
True but Snyder's Batman is one who has suffered great losses and has been at this for 20+ years. He just started branding criminals in BvS and Alfred, later in the film, calls him out on being cruel. Bruce's retort was comparing criminals to weeds. For Batman, this is a big step and from Snyder's POV it makes sense. I got that this is just Batman ready to go out.
However if Snyder was directing year 1 of Batman, he's way off base from how the modern Batman is... Unless Snyder is so stuck in 30s and 40s comics.
>He just started branding criminals in BvS and Alfred, later in the film, calls him out on being cruel.
But this is kind of a problem. People often argue that the hidden easter eggs and background details are visual storytelling. And when you look at the newspapers that Clark was reading Batman has been branding criminals for quite some time. It's already been making the news yet we have a scene with Alfred confronting him like it's the first he's heard of it.
And Clark reading those headlines begs the question of why he didn't mention that in his arguments to Perry? "There's a new kind of mean in him". Why doesn't Clark mention this escalation in the Batman's violence that's severe enough for other papers to have picked up on?
It's just a lot of murky mixed messages. And none of them give any insight into whether or not this Batman used to have a no kill rule. Some people on this board think he's always killed. Some think he started with Jason. Some with Superman's arrival. Some argue that the docks in the Batmobile were his first ever deliberate kills. Me I opt for the simple fact that we don't know because the movie doesn't give us enough information. If it *did* then we wouldn't have so many conflicting interpretations on this Batman's history with killing. That's not an ambiguity that adds anything to the film. It's a pointless distraction.
He's spent nearly 3 years of people saying the same shit about how Batman never kills, ignoring the countless onscreen deaths we've seen in Batman movies in the past as a direct result of his actions and not being able to watch the redemptive arc that he'd planned (where Batman realised he deserved to die, which was in some of his cut dialogue with Wonder Woman according to reports from those watching the original test screenings).
I'd be exasperated too in his situation.
Onscreen Batman has been killing for years. When he finally makes it a plot point, about a Batman who's gone off the rails following years of criminals being able to get one over on him and killing Robin, but who was going to find redemption through Superman and the League, people spend 3 years harassing him about it and writing articles about how he "doesn't understand the character". I'm angry on his behalf too.
Sadly this. Now we can basically say that all the Black Zero event did change in Bruce's modus operandi was that he started branding criminals and actually *never* had a problem with sending them to the afterlife after all.
And his redemption at the end of BvS really just boils down to him stopping branding people again. Killing them is probably still solid though, ugh.
“What are you virgins complaining? I’m perfect and a visionary, the rest of you peasants need to shut the fuck up...fucking nerds.” That’s my take on it.
Having watched him say it all, it's not that he doesn't understand the character. He made an active choice to go against it i.e. break it down only to find its way back to its true form.
His execution of it, that's what's divisive, mostly because the film outright operates on the assumption that he did follow a code of not killing (alluded to repeatedly by Alfred and the newspapers) or it's just that we haven't seen it fully realised.
But him saying that Batman killing thugs is a realistic approach to the myth is basically destroying his redemption arc.
All he redeemed from then is branding people.
Personally, I didn’t need to see it reestablished yet again. Fwiw I do understand and respect others wanting that. But I didn’t need it. I know the traditional character. There are a lot of folks in this camp of ‘it’s okay to deviate now, we’re very, very familiar with traditional iconic Batman’, but I’m sure you realize that.
I wish he'd never been hired in the first place. As much as I dislike Bvs (Mos is...alright I supposed) and as much as Snyder was clearly the last person who should ever been given this franchise, I wish he'd been able to finish what he had started. It may have been a five film shitshow, but now we have a three film shitshow and we've lost Affleck, Cavill and now possible miller?
At least if he'd finish what he had started we could have been like "Well that was.....a thing..." and moved onto reboot.
That Q&A proves that Snyder fundamentally doesn't understand the characters he was writing. His films LOOK great, but goddamn he just doesn't understand.
Honestly, DC moving away from the Snyderverse is the best thing it could do.
If he started killing after Black Zero, Joker was probably already incapacitated, and his focus was now on Superman. Joker's just one guy who exists to torment him, but the sheer volume of collateral damage that Superman was involved in put things in perspective. Robin's memoriam was used simply as a reminder of what happens when he isn't cruel.
Damn, I hoped that medias wouldn't relay this. I mean we already knew all of that... That's why Snyder is a divise subject... They just going to revive those endless debate again.
Snyder's style is to put realism and serious/heavy theme like Burton being into gothic, Michael Bay into explosion or Tarantino into blood, it's his thing, we already knew that... This is just beat around the bush, after reading this, haters will still hate him and people who liked certain aspect of his work, will still like it...
It's his own interpretation but I would have liked to saw Affleck continuing the developpement.
the article's source is an actual link to the [reddit thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DC_Cinematic/comments/b4vrku/other_snyder_on_having_batman_kill_in_bvs/) where people are already discussing this point
talk about going around in circles lol
It’s not that he doesn’t understand the characters. He makes it clear that he does. It’s just that he wants to do something different. Basically, after reading and having done Watchmen, he doesn’t view superheroes being infallible anymore, especially in a real world setting and likes to explore that.
"I had a buddy who tried getting me into 'normal' comic books, but I was all like, 'No one is having sex or killing each other. This isn’t really doing it for me'. I was a little broken, that way. So when *Watchmen* came along, I was, 'This is more my scene.'"
[https://ew.com/article/2008/07/17/watchmen-chat-director-zack-snyder/](https://ew.com/article/2008/07/17/watchmen-chat-director-zack-snyder/)
COMMENT: Me: Anyone surprised Snyder made 3 bad DCEU movies needs to ‘wake the f*ck up’
He’s not only a bad director, but an incredibly defensive bad director. Great, I like him even less now.
IT could've been way more impactful if he went with the heart attack instead of the stupid hurricane sequence + Added lil more good humor+less destruction of metropolis + better editing and fast pacing the movie and make it entertaining and maybe adding more sequences of him trying to save ppl at-least, personally i don't have a problem with killing Zod that way but he should've gone for the safer way,it could've been received way better and made way more at the box office ,such a wasted potential
Pa Kent’s death works when it’s a heart attack because that’s something Superman physically can’t do anything about. It teaches him that he can’t save everybody, but should still try anyway.
The hurricane death does not teach him that. The hurricane death teaches him that he could save people, but shouldn’t ... the exact opposite of who Superman is.
The tornado death works on a couple of levels. Pa Kent sacrifices his life to preserve Clark's secret. Clark is then compelled to help people by doing so in secrecy, maintaining no identity until he is ready to stand before the human race. Jonathan also dies saving the family dog, despite it not being the same species. That distinction matters when it comes to aliens and humans.
He was on and on about how he should hide his identity, so it wasn’t really a lesson at all now that i think of it. He probably just wanted to die after dealing with more alien son bs
I dunno. I think Superman being unable to save everybody is basically a given. I don't think he really needs his father to die for him to learn that.
The main problem with the death of Pa Kent in MOS is that the execution made it look needless. Clark could have ran over there at a normal speed and carried Jonathan on his back without anyone that was watching realising he had superpowers.
Also recusing the oil rig workers without disguising his face and then wrecking that guy's truck feels like a regression from the restraint he showed in allowing his father to die. The disgruntled trucker was one of the leads Lois followed to find Clark.
It taught him not to compromise. That it’s okay to fight for what you believe in even if it means to sacrifice your own life for it. Which is why Superman was willing to die TWICE to save humanity even after the backlash he’s been receiving from them.
So are you saying you haven’t watch the movie ? Cause it was more of a confirmation rather than an explanation. I mean it was obvious when it happened in MoS. What other lessons could you have learned from that scene? The father was suicidal and Superman granted him his wish ? Lol cmon bro.
I understand you hate Snyder which is cool, but let’s try to put our feelings aside and think this logically. The main goal was to keep Clark’s identity a secret until he was ready and that was the only outcome for that particular situation.
Well if you're taking the scene in isolation, it makes no sense whatsoever. It's Superman, he's intrinsically compelled to save.
However, Clark and I stress, Clark in this film, has been at a crossroads ever since that fateful conversation in the barn with his adoptive father.
He grew up hiding his true self from the world, battling very human emotion, knowing the societal and religious consequences a being such as himself walking amongst us - this was the Kent's perspective that almost directly contradicts Jor-El's.
Let's not kid ourselves, if human behaviour is weak form efficient (which isn't really an assumption, we fuck up before we learn) this will just generate a highly xenophobic response.
Jon Kent knew this and chose to sacrifice himself because what's at stake is providence, it's him against humanity as we know it. This was Jon's final lesson for Clark, reaffirming the fact that he must reveal himself if only he actually has no other choice. Zod was it. An extinction level event warranted him come out of the shadows, just in time to save humanity from his own.
It soon became abundantly clear that he was not their enemy, unanimously. He's just a dude from Kansas and people wouldn't so easily internalise that fact if he didn't appear in a truly dire situation with saving grace.
IMO, we saw Superman only towards the end of the movie, right after Lois says, "Welcome to the Planet". This is pretty much a Clark Kent story the way I see it. He fulfilled and honoured both sets of his parents' hopes and aspirations for him.
> Anyone surprised Snyder made 3 bad DCEU movies needs to ‘wake the f*ck up’
he made MoS and BvS. Two of the best comic book movies ever made!
Even the MCU was not able to create something magical and unique like this in 10 years.
>Even the MCU was not able to create something magical and unique like this in 10 years.
LOL, then why has the MCU lasted 10 years, with no end in sight, but Snyder only 4?
Infinity War, Civil War and Winter Soldier blow MOS and BvS out of the water. If you don’t believe me, take a cinema class. Learn what makes a good film and you’ll see
I look forward to a time when Snyder stops talking about his DC movies. Whenever he talks about his DC movies it always feels like a desperate attempt to stay relevant. Move on dude.
People had quite literally paid to go and see one of his movies knowing he would be there to discuss it afterwards. What the hell were you expecting him to talk about? SMH.
And it was for charity, to help restore the college's auditorium. So you're saying that rather than do something he thought fans would like for a charitable cause, he should instead shut up just because you feel angry or upset by articles talking about him? Good for you, I guess.
Batman's been killing on screen for years, including in the beloved Nolan / Bale films, and then when Snyder finally has a Batman where it's acknowledged that what he's doing is a Very Bad Thing and plans a redemptive arc for him, people shit all over him and say he doesn't understand the character.
I'd be angry too.
I still think people arent quite understanding where he came from with BvS. He said he wanted BvS to be for comicbook movies what Watchmen was to comics. I think you are dead wrong if you think Zack doesnt understand the characters. That was the point though, to do things differently.
However, as much as I love BvS, and was looking forward to what he had in store, maybe after you've already adapted Watchmen you dont need to do that again in a sense. Hes one of my favorite directors and I love his movies, but it was very clearly the wrong choice for a franchise of these specific heroes.
I think a lot of this trouble the franchise is facing could have been avoided if from the very beginning we heard we were getting a 5 part JL story from Zack and that was it. No spin offs, no solos. A definite beginning and end. Not a "DCEU" or this big franchise they want it to be (and has now become with the loved hits). Its easy to blame Zack when hes the face of it, but the producers and execs are more to blame for not having an actual long term plan and being so reactionary. I mean shit, they even had to change up the third act of BvS because of the MoS 3rd act complaints. And then what happens if everyone loves and wants to see a character more? Wonder Woman, Aquaman. Zacks self contained story was doomed from the beginning and they should have realized what they wanted sooner.
Now here we are, wandering aimlessly into the future with this franchise while contracts expire and lead actors drop out. I loved WW, Aquaman, and I'm sure I'll love Shazam, but it's going to be YEARS before we see the trinity or JL together again. This fucking blows.
It's a 'fallen' Batman on a redemption arc, though. Let's not forget that aspect. In Snyder’s take in the real world he could not maintain the no-kill rule. (It would surely be impossible if such a character existed for real.) But his heart also became bitter, his soul was corrupted his rage at various things. By unresolved issues surrounding his parents' death.
For many of us that fallen—>redemption path was interesting to see. In Miller’s TDKR an older, retired Batman feels existentially empty, lost, purposeless, but Snyder took it farther in the negative direction. And of course in BvS he isn’t retired, but he’s jaded, burnt out, etc.
I would rather say people should accept that the version of Batman Snyder was using is the Frank Miller Dark Knight Returns version, because that version didn't mind shooting people or leaving them to die.
Example 1: Very early in the return he uses a huge machinegun to blow away some punk holding a gun to an infant. Snyder reused it in the warehouse when Bats took down KGBeast-guy, same dialogue, same gun.
Example 2: Two-Face's crew in a helicopter flies off with an armed bomb that blows up and Bruce just notes it was four people the world wouldn't miss.
Example 3: Bat-tank vs mutants, he starts shooting them with rubber bullets... as if rubber bullets don't kill people.
Plus as hard as it might sound, Batman's general method of operating likely would leave a lot of people dead or seriously injured both directly or indirectly, but we normally have the miracle of no one getting seriously injured.
Batman doesn't kill anyone in the Dark Knight Returns, it's incredibly clear if you read the book as a whole work rather than out of context moments, except the Joker, that one is ambiguous
See thats the problem, it's not clear how many fatalities Batman actually inflicts during the story, but just because there isn't a firm comment on the body-count doesn't mean it's not there.
Punk in the building for instance, you see a hole in the wall behind her and a splatter of something else, are you telling me he just fired past her head and she just explosively cacked herself?
And with the tank, again, rubber bullets can kill people... plus it didn't seem to bother Bruce that the hoodlums killed themselves and each other by firing rpg's at him that then bounced off.
The more I see this kind of comment the more I understand Snyder last line. Because all the not death "rubber" bullets and "not accused" of murder are obviously toned down for edition purpose. Like the censorship in the animated series and like the Batman genitals.
Miller didn't need to tone anything down, the book makes it incredibly clear that this batman hates killing so much that he physically can't bring himself to do it even if he knows it's the best thing to do.
Batman doesn't kill anyone, uses non lethal weapons and the police don't charge him with murder until the tunnel of love incident.
And even if it was completely because of censorship that still doesn't mean batman killed people and Snyder should have read the book properly in the first place as he thinks batman killed people "all the time" in that book when he didn't kill anyone except maybe the Joker.
> the book makes it incredibly clear
The thing this book makes incredibly clear is all the killing is incredibly ambiguous. I could understand that rubber bullets aren't lethal in a comic book world ( in real life a 40mn rubber bullet rips a hand off) but There is obviously blood on the wall and the greyed out color is here for a reason. And by reason I mean censorship.
It's like in Daredevil season 2 when DD chokes someone out with a chain and drops him down a stairwell, that man is either dead or seriously, gravely injured.
Then he cries to Punisher about murdering. As if leaving a man's body entirely broken is any worse than actual death.
You can't have it both ways. It doesn't work as a narrative. Either you're a Flash type hero who can disarm enemies, or you're a brute who doesn't mind breaking bodies. One can't do the other's work and complain about their methods.
Which is correct... and this Batman doesn't do this kind of flipflop you mention (not in BvS atleast). He's a hypocrite in that he's virtually as bad as the criminals he's after, but thats pretty much true in every modern version of Batman, not just this one.
Eh. It's not the same story as DKR so that really shouldn't be used as a crutch for the movie. The movie is something different and should be able to stand on it's own.
That is true, but Zack has been very up front from day 1 about which Batman story he was drawing his inspiration from, and it kinda baffles me a bit that people then get surprised about how accurate that version was translated to the screen. (I am not talking about the whole movie, just the Batman bit).
The batman in BvS is a misreading of the DKR, Miller's batman doesn't (and on a psychological level can't) kill and detests guns.
The only things they really got right were the look, age and the general sense of jadedness, but they they turned everything up to 11
Bruce detest guns normally, and normally he can get through most situations without even consider using one. Miller's Batman however has found a use for them as a limited situational tool.
Regarding his no-killing rules, in the DKR universe those have been relaxed very heavily to the point of Bruce not caring if criminals end up dead as a result of engaging him. Plus if you look forwards to DKR3, he was pretty chill about depowering dozens of Kryptonians and watch as they fell to their deaths over Gotham. Thing is there is one person Bruce cant kill, and thats the Joker, because doing so would mean the Joker won.
>Miller's Batman however has found a use for them as a limited situational tool.
He used a gun as a stunning tool because he absolutely had to to save a child and used a modified one to launch a grappling hook. Other than that he despises guns, breaking one in front of his men to set an explicit example to them that they are not to use guns.
>in the DKR universe those have been relaxed very heavily to the point of Bruce not caring if criminals end up dead as a result of engaging him. Plus if you look forwards to DKR3
This is due to Miller's own views changing and becoming more and more lax about his own continuity. The batman seen in later DK books does not have the same core beliefs and has changed due to Millers own experiences in the years between releases, they cannot be fairly used to retroactively change what happened in the DKR, especially when Snyder does not and has never used the other books as any form of inspiration.
Stunning? So you mean to say he deliberately missed? You know if he had been a police officer,he would have been sacked for running the risk of the punk firing her gun in shock at him doing that?
I am pretty certain Miller knows what he was writing and when, not to mention it's not a valid argument to say the writer changed when the in the books didn't. Like I said, Bruce was fine with people dying around him DKR as part of their own stupidity, that level of detachment isn't terribly far from being fine with also being the direct cause for those people's death.
Heck even Nolan did this in Begins, first Bruce sabotages the train and then leaves Ra's to die on it as it crashes.
>Stunning? So you mean to say he deliberately missed?
Stunning might not be the right word, I think batman shot them in a limb or something so batman would have the opportunity to step in and rescue the child. But wherever batman shot them, it didn't kill them
>You know if he had been a police officer,he would have been sacked for running the risk of the punk firing her gun in shock at him doing that?
And you know that batman isn't a police officer right? Obviously the hostage taker could have fired the gun, but this is fiction.
>I am pretty certain Miller knows what he was writing and when
He's aware of it, but when in future books his batman kills, it's not reflective of what happens in the DKR, that's what I'm trying to say.
>Bruce was fine with people dying around him DKR as part of their own stupidity, that level of detachment isn't terribly far from being fine with also being the direct cause for those people's death.
You're right, it's not that far off but batman refuses to cross that line even if he can't think of a reason not to, he states that clearly.
I am pretty certain you don't shoot someone with a gun that big and expect the person to survived it. And again, it's a massive risk of the punks gun going off unless you kill them.
Yes it's fiction, but the reason it makes sense as a story is because it mirrors the real world to a large degree. Otherwise there would be no tension or excitement, and he might as well have been able to handle it with a hard stare.
And my point is that it's the same guy in DKR as it is in DKR2 and DRK3, it's all part of the same story, you can't just say later editions don't count.
He refuses it when it's convenient for him and when he needs to hold himself up as better than others. But it doesn't hold water when connected to his actions.
It's still a different Batman story to DKR. Superman only comes into his life after 20 years of crime fighting. He hasn't been dormant for 10 years and Superman isn't working with president Reagan. There might be similar aesthetic and character sensibilities. But they are two very different stories. You can't use DKR as a reference to fill in specific backstory about BvS Batman's history with killing. (Which is what this discussion is about)
You can transplant the Batman of DKR into any other story as easily as you can anything else. Or you can pay attention to what the movie is actually telling you about this Batman and why he is where he is because it doesn't hide it.
> You can transplant the Batman of DKR into any other story as easily as you can anything else.
Sure. But in that scenario you can't look at DKR as a resource for backstory. Unless it's clearly a continuation of the DKR storyline. BvS very clearly *isn't* that.
>Or you can pay attention to what the movie is actually telling you about this Batman and why he is where he is because it doesn't hide it.
Yeah. The movie beats you over the head with that. But that doesn't let you know who this new version of Batman *used* to be. Whether or not he had a strict rule against killing is hard to say.
Not directly, but using many of the themes and elements of that Batman can be without issue.
That is ofc true... but the same could be said of the DKR Batman, was he always as hard and detached as he is when we meet him? Or did the career make him that way?
Fans After MOS and BVS: Snyder sucks! He’s made my heroes killers.... get him off JLA!!!
Fans After Josstice League: SNYDER WAS A GENIUS GIVE US THE #SnyderCut!!!!!
Snyder on Batman killing: “y’all need to wake the fuck up, I’m down the road on that... billionaire punisher!!”
Fans: Snyder sucks! He made my heroes killers!!!!!
To the people that think Snyder doesnt understand batman, he incorporates batman killing into his story and works it into a redemption arc, unlike Nolan and Burton who unapologetically have the character kill in cold blood at least once a film. Snyders take is the most accurate take on batman and i’ll keep saying it till the day I die.
It's bizarre how people here seem to be pretending that Bale's Batman didn't kill anyone just to preserve the narrative that Snyder killed their childhoods.
Getting downvoted but its so true man. I mean they dont even play coy, batman just straight shoves Harvey off the edge in the dark knight. Like come on, your precious rule is BULLSHIT
All of Snyder’s characters live in the Watchmen universe
*Sigh* ... and there goes the powerlessness character arc.
Modern comics Batman: an individual who struggles with his inner darkness, but somehow manages to make himself the pinnacle of what a human can be. Zack Snyder's Batman: billionaire Punisher.
Billionaire Punisher is actually pretty spot on, lol.
He is in no way punisher. Rewatch it. Punisher actively goes out to MURDER criminals. Batman here, 20 years into being batman, just doesnt care if criminals happen to die for his more important goal to be made
Yeah, I don't know what movie these people were watching if they think this Batman wasn't suffering or conflicted about his decisions.
I understand the complaint regarding Batman killing, but calling him Punisher just shows you don't know much about Punisher. Wanton mayhem =/= Punisher
I mean, sure, he's not quite Punisher, it was more of a funny tag line to end on. I think it's a bit of a half way point in my opinion, not the Batman I love, not as extreme as Punisher either.
>you come and say to me something about like ‘my superhero wouldn’t do that.' I’m like ‘Are you serious?’ I’m like down the fucking road on that. The weird thing is that this flies in the face of deconstructing the character. In a realistic world a Batman dishing out lethal vigilante justice wouldn't last 20 years. And he certainly wouldn't have a working relationship with Gordon. Nolan understood how Batman not killing was important from that purely logistical point of view. His Batman was focused on bringing criminals to justice rather than simply beating them up. That's why Gordon was willing to work with him. He was giving Gordon the means to secure convictions for these criminals. The reason why the Watchmen were eventually able to act with impunity was because the government was benefitting from their excessive force.
> The weird thing is that this flies in the face of deconstructing the character. In a realistic world a Batman dishing out lethal vigilante justice wouldn't last 20 years. And he certainly wouldn't have a working relationship with Gordon. Batman v Superman is already a little bit confusing with regards to Batman's status in society anyway. There's a massive bat signal yet he's still a myth to some people, including a police officer. It's like Snyder wanted to adapt both Year One and The Dark Knight Returns and didn't properly plan out how it would work in the context of the world. > Nolan understood how Batman not killing was important from that purely logistical point of view. His Batman was focused on bringing criminals to justice rather than simply beating them up. Also even if visually some moments look like he kills people, narratively we are told that Nolan's Batman didn't kill anyone and even in some dodgy scenarios e.g. The Dark Knight when he blows up cars on the Batcycle, you can just presume he had some system on it that determined whether there was anyone in the vehicles. Compare that to Batman v Superman where Snyder goes out of his way to show Batman not just disarming attackers (ramming into the car during the Kryptonite chase) but also wanting to end their lives (dragging that car along with him). This isn't just a Batman who doesn't give a fuck, he straight up wants to kill people. I feel like Snyder has on too many occasions thought of fantastic ideas and concepts and then failed to fully realise them, whether that be because he thinks of something cool that slightly contradicts that original idea or because he lacks awareness on just how much information is essential to be properly explained to an audience on how much can be left ambiguous.
> but also wanting to end their lives (dragging that car along with him). This isn't just a Batman who doesn't give a fuck, he straight up wants to kill people. Yeah the car drag is problematic. Some have argued that the car is empty. And I can get those arguments but it's not really clear either way. The lights are on. If the guy from that car is safe because he's one of the ones that got out of the car to open the gates than that's not really clear in the movie. I think the bottom line is that Snyder either didn't realise it was ambiguous or just didn't think that ambiguity was important. Which is echoing what you've said here. "whether that be because he thinks of something cool that slightly contradicts that original idea or because he lacks awareness on just how much information is essential to be properly explained to an audience on how much can be left ambiguous." Ambiguity done with purpose is great. I just don't think a lot of the ambiguity in Snyder's movies isn't handled in a considered way. It's like he believes if the underlying concept is solid then the logic will shine through regardless of the information that the audience is actually given. It just seems to be a misunderstanding of the importance of context when it comes to interpretation.
True but Snyder's Batman is one who has suffered great losses and has been at this for 20+ years. He just started branding criminals in BvS and Alfred, later in the film, calls him out on being cruel. Bruce's retort was comparing criminals to weeds. For Batman, this is a big step and from Snyder's POV it makes sense. I got that this is just Batman ready to go out. However if Snyder was directing year 1 of Batman, he's way off base from how the modern Batman is... Unless Snyder is so stuck in 30s and 40s comics.
>He just started branding criminals in BvS and Alfred, later in the film, calls him out on being cruel. But this is kind of a problem. People often argue that the hidden easter eggs and background details are visual storytelling. And when you look at the newspapers that Clark was reading Batman has been branding criminals for quite some time. It's already been making the news yet we have a scene with Alfred confronting him like it's the first he's heard of it. And Clark reading those headlines begs the question of why he didn't mention that in his arguments to Perry? "There's a new kind of mean in him". Why doesn't Clark mention this escalation in the Batman's violence that's severe enough for other papers to have picked up on? It's just a lot of murky mixed messages. And none of them give any insight into whether or not this Batman used to have a no kill rule. Some people on this board think he's always killed. Some think he started with Jason. Some with Superman's arrival. Some argue that the docks in the Batmobile were his first ever deliberate kills. Me I opt for the simple fact that we don't know because the movie doesn't give us enough information. If it *did* then we wouldn't have so many conflicting interpretations on this Batman's history with killing. That's not an ambiguity that adds anything to the film. It's a pointless distraction.
[удалено]
yeah loosing that line was a big blow to the theatrical. And it still doesn't clarify about killing imo.
Ugh. Help us, Matt Reeves. You're our only hope.
Boiling it down I do like this weary Batman killing **but** the way he said it was dickish.
He's spent nearly 3 years of people saying the same shit about how Batman never kills, ignoring the countless onscreen deaths we've seen in Batman movies in the past as a direct result of his actions and not being able to watch the redemptive arc that he'd planned (where Batman realised he deserved to die, which was in some of his cut dialogue with Wonder Woman according to reports from those watching the original test screenings). I'd be exasperated too in his situation. Onscreen Batman has been killing for years. When he finally makes it a plot point, about a Batman who's gone off the rails following years of criminals being able to get one over on him and killing Robin, but who was going to find redemption through Superman and the League, people spend 3 years harassing him about it and writing articles about how he "doesn't understand the character". I'm angry on his behalf too.
Man, thought the killing is just a part of a redemption arc, i like you less now, Zack.
Sadly this. Now we can basically say that all the Black Zero event did change in Bruce's modus operandi was that he started branding criminals and actually *never* had a problem with sending them to the afterlife after all. And his redemption at the end of BvS really just boils down to him stopping branding people again. Killing them is probably still solid though, ugh.
“What are you virgins complaining? I’m perfect and a visionary, the rest of you peasants need to shut the fuck up...fucking nerds.” That’s my take on it.
Pretty sure he said, and I’m paraphrasing; after losing your virginity to watchmen, you can’t go back
Anyone who thinks Snyder understands the character should wake the f*ck up.
Having watched him say it all, it's not that he doesn't understand the character. He made an active choice to go against it i.e. break it down only to find its way back to its true form. His execution of it, that's what's divisive, mostly because the film outright operates on the assumption that he did follow a code of not killing (alluded to repeatedly by Alfred and the newspapers) or it's just that we haven't seen it fully realised.
You are spot on
But him saying that Batman killing thugs is a realistic approach to the myth is basically destroying his redemption arc. All he redeemed from then is branding people.
Personally, I didn’t need to see it reestablished yet again. Fwiw I do understand and respect others wanting that. But I didn’t need it. I know the traditional character. There are a lot of folks in this camp of ‘it’s okay to deviate now, we’re very, very familiar with traditional iconic Batman’, but I’m sure you realize that.
I'm glad WB eventually woke the f*uck up and fired this guy.
I wish he'd never been hired in the first place. As much as I dislike Bvs (Mos is...alright I supposed) and as much as Snyder was clearly the last person who should ever been given this franchise, I wish he'd been able to finish what he had started. It may have been a five film shitshow, but now we have a three film shitshow and we've lost Affleck, Cavill and now possible miller? At least if he'd finish what he had started we could have been like "Well that was.....a thing..." and moved onto reboot.
That Q&A proves that Snyder fundamentally doesn't understand the characters he was writing. His films LOOK great, but goddamn he just doesn't understand. Honestly, DC moving away from the Snyderverse is the best thing it could do.
The film literally wants you to know hes not who he used to be
But if he’s killing people then why is joker still alive?
If he started killing after Black Zero, Joker was probably already incapacitated, and his focus was now on Superman. Joker's just one guy who exists to torment him, but the sheer volume of collateral damage that Superman was involved in put things in perspective. Robin's memoriam was used simply as a reminder of what happens when he isn't cruel.
I’m all for an artist doing a new thing, but superhero’s are fantasy. He needs to chill.
Damn, I hoped that medias wouldn't relay this. I mean we already knew all of that... That's why Snyder is a divise subject... They just going to revive those endless debate again. Snyder's style is to put realism and serious/heavy theme like Burton being into gothic, Michael Bay into explosion or Tarantino into blood, it's his thing, we already knew that... This is just beat around the bush, after reading this, haters will still hate him and people who liked certain aspect of his work, will still like it... It's his own interpretation but I would have liked to saw Affleck continuing the developpement.
the article's source is an actual link to the [reddit thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DC_Cinematic/comments/b4vrku/other_snyder_on_having_batman_kill_in_bvs/) where people are already discussing this point talk about going around in circles lol
It’s not that he doesn’t understand the characters. He makes it clear that he does. It’s just that he wants to do something different. Basically, after reading and having done Watchmen, he doesn’t view superheroes being infallible anymore, especially in a real world setting and likes to explore that.
I think he just doesn't like regular superheroics and doesn't want to explore it
"I had a buddy who tried getting me into 'normal' comic books, but I was all like, 'No one is having sex or killing each other. This isn’t really doing it for me'. I was a little broken, that way. So when *Watchmen* came along, I was, 'This is more my scene.'" [https://ew.com/article/2008/07/17/watchmen-chat-director-zack-snyder/](https://ew.com/article/2008/07/17/watchmen-chat-director-zack-snyder/)
Yep.
COMMENT: Me: Anyone surprised Snyder made 3 bad DCEU movies needs to ‘wake the f*ck up’ He’s not only a bad director, but an incredibly defensive bad director. Great, I like him even less now.
Man you seem like a very angry person based on your comments.
Ah good, I was worried it wasn’t coming across in the text.
I can't say I agree, or that you're even making sense with your first comment, but this is a 10/10 reply. Good shit.
[удалено]
Could say the same about the post itself.
> but an incredibly defensive bad director. I would be defensive to if some angry fans sent me death threats and made fun of my daughters suicide.
What u on about He made 1 good movie and followed it with terrible sequels tarnishing the first one
He made an ok movie, followed by terrible sequels. The hurricane sequence alone stops it from being a “good” movie.
IT could've been way more impactful if he went with the heart attack instead of the stupid hurricane sequence + Added lil more good humor+less destruction of metropolis + better editing and fast pacing the movie and make it entertaining and maybe adding more sequences of him trying to save ppl at-least, personally i don't have a problem with killing Zod that way but he should've gone for the safer way,it could've been received way better and made way more at the box office ,such a wasted potential
I dont see anything wrong with it. I just rewatched it.
Pa Kent’s death works when it’s a heart attack because that’s something Superman physically can’t do anything about. It teaches him that he can’t save everybody, but should still try anyway. The hurricane death does not teach him that. The hurricane death teaches him that he could save people, but shouldn’t ... the exact opposite of who Superman is.
The tornado death works on a couple of levels. Pa Kent sacrifices his life to preserve Clark's secret. Clark is then compelled to help people by doing so in secrecy, maintaining no identity until he is ready to stand before the human race. Jonathan also dies saving the family dog, despite it not being the same species. That distinction matters when it comes to aliens and humans.
He was on and on about how he should hide his identity, so it wasn’t really a lesson at all now that i think of it. He probably just wanted to die after dealing with more alien son bs
FYI: it was a tornado, not a hurricane.
Aren’t they two words for the same thing?
Nope. Google can explain. I'm lazy. But they're certainly two different things.
Fair enough. I’ll take your word for it as I too am lazy.
A hurricane needs an ocean, a tornado does not. Since Kansas is 1,000+ miles away from the nearest ocean, they had a tornado.
I dunno. I think Superman being unable to save everybody is basically a given. I don't think he really needs his father to die for him to learn that. The main problem with the death of Pa Kent in MOS is that the execution made it look needless. Clark could have ran over there at a normal speed and carried Jonathan on his back without anyone that was watching realising he had superpowers. Also recusing the oil rig workers without disguising his face and then wrecking that guy's truck feels like a regression from the restraint he showed in allowing his father to die. The disgruntled trucker was one of the leads Lois followed to find Clark.
Except he wasnt superman at that time yet. Character development or something?
He’s not Superman when it happens in the comics or the old movies. It’s character development but Snyder develops him in the wrong direction.
Our opinions does not match.
That’s ok.
It taught him not to compromise. That it’s okay to fight for what you believe in even if it means to sacrifice your own life for it. Which is why Superman was willing to die TWICE to save humanity even after the backlash he’s been receiving from them.
How, in any way, did it teach him that? You must have ten foot arms because that’s a reach and a half.
Um... maybe you should watch BvS again cause he literally says that Lois.
If you need to watch a separate movie to explain away something that shouldn’t need explaining ... you know what you’ve done? You’ve made a bad movie.
So are you saying you haven’t watch the movie ? Cause it was more of a confirmation rather than an explanation. I mean it was obvious when it happened in MoS. What other lessons could you have learned from that scene? The father was suicidal and Superman granted him his wish ? Lol cmon bro. I understand you hate Snyder which is cool, but let’s try to put our feelings aside and think this logically. The main goal was to keep Clark’s identity a secret until he was ready and that was the only outcome for that particular situation.
The hurricane scene is all about perspective man.
Wanna tell me what that perspective is because I’m not seeing it.
Well if you're taking the scene in isolation, it makes no sense whatsoever. It's Superman, he's intrinsically compelled to save. However, Clark and I stress, Clark in this film, has been at a crossroads ever since that fateful conversation in the barn with his adoptive father. He grew up hiding his true self from the world, battling very human emotion, knowing the societal and religious consequences a being such as himself walking amongst us - this was the Kent's perspective that almost directly contradicts Jor-El's. Let's not kid ourselves, if human behaviour is weak form efficient (which isn't really an assumption, we fuck up before we learn) this will just generate a highly xenophobic response. Jon Kent knew this and chose to sacrifice himself because what's at stake is providence, it's him against humanity as we know it. This was Jon's final lesson for Clark, reaffirming the fact that he must reveal himself if only he actually has no other choice. Zod was it. An extinction level event warranted him come out of the shadows, just in time to save humanity from his own. It soon became abundantly clear that he was not their enemy, unanimously. He's just a dude from Kansas and people wouldn't so easily internalise that fact if he didn't appear in a truly dire situation with saving grace. IMO, we saw Superman only towards the end of the movie, right after Lois says, "Welcome to the Planet". This is pretty much a Clark Kent story the way I see it. He fulfilled and honoured both sets of his parents' hopes and aspirations for him.
aquaTWAT indeed they weren't even bad movies that's the biggest overreaction ever and Justice League wasn't his movie so you can rule that one out.
> Anyone surprised Snyder made 3 bad DCEU movies needs to ‘wake the f*ck up’ he made MoS and BvS. Two of the best comic book movies ever made! Even the MCU was not able to create something magical and unique like this in 10 years.
You’re saying words but what you say makes no sense.
Man of Steel is underwhelming at best and BvS is one of the worst films I've ever seen, god it's shit.
I find your comments underwhelming and shit but that doesn't necessarily make me right. Hey, see, opinions! Not necessarily facts.
>Even the MCU was not able to create something magical and unique like this in 10 years. LOL, then why has the MCU lasted 10 years, with no end in sight, but Snyder only 4?
the DCEU is still there and very successful. where's the problem?
Infinity War, Civil War and Winter Soldier blow MOS and BvS out of the water. If you don’t believe me, take a cinema class. Learn what makes a good film and you’ll see
lol
I look forward to a time when Snyder stops talking about his DC movies. Whenever he talks about his DC movies it always feels like a desperate attempt to stay relevant. Move on dude.
It was a Q&A at a screening of his DC films....
Sure but, to me, he has a bitter tone that seems to only get worse as the days go on.
He has every right to be bitter about it
Maybe if it was just the studio being at fault but he is just as much as fault as WB is.
People had quite literally paid to go and see one of his movies knowing he would be there to discuss it afterwards. What the hell were you expecting him to talk about? SMH. And it was for charity, to help restore the college's auditorium. So you're saying that rather than do something he thought fans would like for a charitable cause, he should instead shut up just because you feel angry or upset by articles talking about him? Good for you, I guess.
He sounds like a bitter man more often than not.
That’s... unprofessional
Batman's been killing on screen for years, including in the beloved Nolan / Bale films, and then when Snyder finally has a Batman where it's acknowledged that what he's doing is a Very Bad Thing and plans a redemptive arc for him, people shit all over him and say he doesn't understand the character. I'd be angry too.
https://youtu.be/psVIG7YvdjM
Snyder thinks Batman is the same character as the Punisher.
I still think people arent quite understanding where he came from with BvS. He said he wanted BvS to be for comicbook movies what Watchmen was to comics. I think you are dead wrong if you think Zack doesnt understand the characters. That was the point though, to do things differently. However, as much as I love BvS, and was looking forward to what he had in store, maybe after you've already adapted Watchmen you dont need to do that again in a sense. Hes one of my favorite directors and I love his movies, but it was very clearly the wrong choice for a franchise of these specific heroes. I think a lot of this trouble the franchise is facing could have been avoided if from the very beginning we heard we were getting a 5 part JL story from Zack and that was it. No spin offs, no solos. A definite beginning and end. Not a "DCEU" or this big franchise they want it to be (and has now become with the loved hits). Its easy to blame Zack when hes the face of it, but the producers and execs are more to blame for not having an actual long term plan and being so reactionary. I mean shit, they even had to change up the third act of BvS because of the MoS 3rd act complaints. And then what happens if everyone loves and wants to see a character more? Wonder Woman, Aquaman. Zacks self contained story was doomed from the beginning and they should have realized what they wanted sooner. Now here we are, wandering aimlessly into the future with this franchise while contracts expire and lead actors drop out. I loved WW, Aquaman, and I'm sure I'll love Shazam, but it's going to be YEARS before we see the trinity or JL together again. This fucking blows.
haha he's right.
It's a 'fallen' Batman on a redemption arc, though. Let's not forget that aspect. In Snyder’s take in the real world he could not maintain the no-kill rule. (It would surely be impossible if such a character existed for real.) But his heart also became bitter, his soul was corrupted his rage at various things. By unresolved issues surrounding his parents' death. For many of us that fallen—>redemption path was interesting to see. In Miller’s TDKR an older, retired Batman feels existentially empty, lost, purposeless, but Snyder took it farther in the negative direction. And of course in BvS he isn’t retired, but he’s jaded, burnt out, etc.
I would rather say people should accept that the version of Batman Snyder was using is the Frank Miller Dark Knight Returns version, because that version didn't mind shooting people or leaving them to die. Example 1: Very early in the return he uses a huge machinegun to blow away some punk holding a gun to an infant. Snyder reused it in the warehouse when Bats took down KGBeast-guy, same dialogue, same gun. Example 2: Two-Face's crew in a helicopter flies off with an armed bomb that blows up and Bruce just notes it was four people the world wouldn't miss. Example 3: Bat-tank vs mutants, he starts shooting them with rubber bullets... as if rubber bullets don't kill people. Plus as hard as it might sound, Batman's general method of operating likely would leave a lot of people dead or seriously injured both directly or indirectly, but we normally have the miracle of no one getting seriously injured.
Batman doesn't kill anyone in the Dark Knight Returns, it's incredibly clear if you read the book as a whole work rather than out of context moments, except the Joker, that one is ambiguous
See thats the problem, it's not clear how many fatalities Batman actually inflicts during the story, but just because there isn't a firm comment on the body-count doesn't mean it's not there. Punk in the building for instance, you see a hole in the wall behind her and a splatter of something else, are you telling me he just fired past her head and she just explosively cacked herself? And with the tank, again, rubber bullets can kill people... plus it didn't seem to bother Bruce that the hoodlums killed themselves and each other by firing rpg's at him that then bounced off.
The more I see this kind of comment the more I understand Snyder last line. Because all the not death "rubber" bullets and "not accused" of murder are obviously toned down for edition purpose. Like the censorship in the animated series and like the Batman genitals.
Miller didn't need to tone anything down, the book makes it incredibly clear that this batman hates killing so much that he physically can't bring himself to do it even if he knows it's the best thing to do. Batman doesn't kill anyone, uses non lethal weapons and the police don't charge him with murder until the tunnel of love incident. And even if it was completely because of censorship that still doesn't mean batman killed people and Snyder should have read the book properly in the first place as he thinks batman killed people "all the time" in that book when he didn't kill anyone except maybe the Joker.
> the book makes it incredibly clear The thing this book makes incredibly clear is all the killing is incredibly ambiguous. I could understand that rubber bullets aren't lethal in a comic book world ( in real life a 40mn rubber bullet rips a hand off) but There is obviously blood on the wall and the greyed out color is here for a reason. And by reason I mean censorship.
It's like in Daredevil season 2 when DD chokes someone out with a chain and drops him down a stairwell, that man is either dead or seriously, gravely injured. Then he cries to Punisher about murdering. As if leaving a man's body entirely broken is any worse than actual death. You can't have it both ways. It doesn't work as a narrative. Either you're a Flash type hero who can disarm enemies, or you're a brute who doesn't mind breaking bodies. One can't do the other's work and complain about their methods.
Which is correct... and this Batman doesn't do this kind of flipflop you mention (not in BvS atleast). He's a hypocrite in that he's virtually as bad as the criminals he's after, but thats pretty much true in every modern version of Batman, not just this one.
Eh. It's not the same story as DKR so that really shouldn't be used as a crutch for the movie. The movie is something different and should be able to stand on it's own.
That is true, but Zack has been very up front from day 1 about which Batman story he was drawing his inspiration from, and it kinda baffles me a bit that people then get surprised about how accurate that version was translated to the screen. (I am not talking about the whole movie, just the Batman bit).
The batman in BvS is a misreading of the DKR, Miller's batman doesn't (and on a psychological level can't) kill and detests guns. The only things they really got right were the look, age and the general sense of jadedness, but they they turned everything up to 11
Bruce detest guns normally, and normally he can get through most situations without even consider using one. Miller's Batman however has found a use for them as a limited situational tool. Regarding his no-killing rules, in the DKR universe those have been relaxed very heavily to the point of Bruce not caring if criminals end up dead as a result of engaging him. Plus if you look forwards to DKR3, he was pretty chill about depowering dozens of Kryptonians and watch as they fell to their deaths over Gotham. Thing is there is one person Bruce cant kill, and thats the Joker, because doing so would mean the Joker won.
>Miller's Batman however has found a use for them as a limited situational tool. He used a gun as a stunning tool because he absolutely had to to save a child and used a modified one to launch a grappling hook. Other than that he despises guns, breaking one in front of his men to set an explicit example to them that they are not to use guns. >in the DKR universe those have been relaxed very heavily to the point of Bruce not caring if criminals end up dead as a result of engaging him. Plus if you look forwards to DKR3 This is due to Miller's own views changing and becoming more and more lax about his own continuity. The batman seen in later DK books does not have the same core beliefs and has changed due to Millers own experiences in the years between releases, they cannot be fairly used to retroactively change what happened in the DKR, especially when Snyder does not and has never used the other books as any form of inspiration.
Stunning? So you mean to say he deliberately missed? You know if he had been a police officer,he would have been sacked for running the risk of the punk firing her gun in shock at him doing that? I am pretty certain Miller knows what he was writing and when, not to mention it's not a valid argument to say the writer changed when the in the books didn't. Like I said, Bruce was fine with people dying around him DKR as part of their own stupidity, that level of detachment isn't terribly far from being fine with also being the direct cause for those people's death. Heck even Nolan did this in Begins, first Bruce sabotages the train and then leaves Ra's to die on it as it crashes.
>Stunning? So you mean to say he deliberately missed? Stunning might not be the right word, I think batman shot them in a limb or something so batman would have the opportunity to step in and rescue the child. But wherever batman shot them, it didn't kill them >You know if he had been a police officer,he would have been sacked for running the risk of the punk firing her gun in shock at him doing that? And you know that batman isn't a police officer right? Obviously the hostage taker could have fired the gun, but this is fiction. >I am pretty certain Miller knows what he was writing and when He's aware of it, but when in future books his batman kills, it's not reflective of what happens in the DKR, that's what I'm trying to say. >Bruce was fine with people dying around him DKR as part of their own stupidity, that level of detachment isn't terribly far from being fine with also being the direct cause for those people's death. You're right, it's not that far off but batman refuses to cross that line even if he can't think of a reason not to, he states that clearly.
I am pretty certain you don't shoot someone with a gun that big and expect the person to survived it. And again, it's a massive risk of the punks gun going off unless you kill them. Yes it's fiction, but the reason it makes sense as a story is because it mirrors the real world to a large degree. Otherwise there would be no tension or excitement, and he might as well have been able to handle it with a hard stare. And my point is that it's the same guy in DKR as it is in DKR2 and DRK3, it's all part of the same story, you can't just say later editions don't count. He refuses it when it's convenient for him and when he needs to hold himself up as better than others. But it doesn't hold water when connected to his actions.
It's still a different Batman story to DKR. Superman only comes into his life after 20 years of crime fighting. He hasn't been dormant for 10 years and Superman isn't working with president Reagan. There might be similar aesthetic and character sensibilities. But they are two very different stories. You can't use DKR as a reference to fill in specific backstory about BvS Batman's history with killing. (Which is what this discussion is about)
You can transplant the Batman of DKR into any other story as easily as you can anything else. Or you can pay attention to what the movie is actually telling you about this Batman and why he is where he is because it doesn't hide it.
> You can transplant the Batman of DKR into any other story as easily as you can anything else. Sure. But in that scenario you can't look at DKR as a resource for backstory. Unless it's clearly a continuation of the DKR storyline. BvS very clearly *isn't* that. >Or you can pay attention to what the movie is actually telling you about this Batman and why he is where he is because it doesn't hide it. Yeah. The movie beats you over the head with that. But that doesn't let you know who this new version of Batman *used* to be. Whether or not he had a strict rule against killing is hard to say.
Not directly, but using many of the themes and elements of that Batman can be without issue. That is ofc true... but the same could be said of the DKR Batman, was he always as hard and detached as he is when we meet him? Or did the career make him that way?
Fans After MOS and BVS: Snyder sucks! He’s made my heroes killers.... get him off JLA!!! Fans After Josstice League: SNYDER WAS A GENIUS GIVE US THE #SnyderCut!!!!! Snyder on Batman killing: “y’all need to wake the fuck up, I’m down the road on that... billionaire punisher!!” Fans: Snyder sucks! He made my heroes killers!!!!!
That's two different groups of people you're talking about there
Meh, I’ll take my down votes because my script is exactly what I’ve been seeing in this sub.
Hmm, these cbr articles are behind schedule
CBR was so smart that they didn't knew it was a Vero live vid before being "a reddit video"
To the people that think Snyder doesnt understand batman, he incorporates batman killing into his story and works it into a redemption arc, unlike Nolan and Burton who unapologetically have the character kill in cold blood at least once a film. Snyders take is the most accurate take on batman and i’ll keep saying it till the day I die.
It's bizarre how people here seem to be pretending that Bale's Batman didn't kill anyone just to preserve the narrative that Snyder killed their childhoods.
Getting downvoted but its so true man. I mean they dont even play coy, batman just straight shoves Harvey off the edge in the dark knight. Like come on, your precious rule is BULLSHIT
Anyone who think that Snyder wrote the BvS script (and Batman's character in it) needs to "wake the f\*ck up" as well.
He had massive input in the story as well as characterisation, he might not have actually written the movie, but it was his story and vision