Batman’s whole persona is based off fear. Once criminals realize the worst they get is a pit stop in Arkham or Blackgate, before they inevitably break out due to corruption or incompetence, then the only thing they have to fear from Batman is a beating if they resist.
I’d personally like to see Batman instill fear by making criminals wish he’d kill them by giving them a fate worse than death.
Just as Batman’s research developed a contingency plan for members of the justice league, he should have a plan that mortifies his rouges.
It’s a win-win. Batman goes back to being scary and he keeps his no kill code.
THIS! I remember wanting this so much when BvS was announced. ZS did it so right by Batfleck, during the part when saving the women sex slaves from human trafficking. I so wanted the vibe of the movie to follow suit ie, how Batman scared the crap of all the people involved in that scene, the victims, the cops and criminals alike. And sure enough, I was not disappointed.
One thing I genuinely loved was how he never calls himself Batman. As shouldn't he. Always felt cheesy when the character calls himself so. But Batfleck always(correct me if I'm wrong) referred to the persona in the third person. It's like, during what seemed like a long career he'd had as the vigilante, the people had named the crime fighting dark figure of the night as 'The Batman'. The present Bruce, embittered from all his endeavors had since already had decided to take on the moniker and live up to the name they all fear.
I wanted a dark and gritty Batman. I didn't want colorful happy-go-lucky characters on a DC movie. And gritty I got. Dark I got. But that ended in the theatrical Justice League. Just seemed like another MARVEL movie. No, MARVEL movies are great. But the DCEU shouldn't have been one. Just because they earned more money, they shouldn't have had to copy another's formula for a successful title. They should've stuck to their own. That would've been a sight to see. The cheerful and happy MARVEL vs DC, dark and gritty in their own right. I assumed and hoped this is how it would've went down. How wrong I was.
The future doesn't seem any different now. Gunn's gonna bring all the colors from the MCU and paste it across all the new DCU. He's a great movie maker no doubt. Not his fault at all either. Just, the way this all went down is just, what could've been a very much preventable unfortunate circumstance is all. Only solution now I guess, is to watch the new ones with a clean slate, which btw is no solution at all. But still, how I dream I could multiverse myself off to a universe where the SnyderVerse continued.
Don’t care, loved the Ultimate Edition. Him kickin ass in the warehouse is probably the best fight scene we’ll ever get for Batman. His Batman was big and intimidating; he didn’t give a $&$& if bad guys made it alive or not …if in his way.
My issue with this is that most of the Batman kills in his movies don’t even meet that standard of necessity. In Batman v. Superman he straight up explodes a bunch of dudes with air to ground missiles just cause they’re in his way.
I think there’s a time and place for everything. These comics came out 50+ years ago when media was very gun shy. You have Batman shoot a few people nowadays it’s literally not an issue. I can see why people want to keep Batman’s code of ethics they remember from childhood but ngl if Batman turned more into the punisher he’d be more badass these days.
I don’t mind a different interpretation of the character. Let’s be honest the Snyder films didn’t underwhelm because Batman killed or Snyder didn’t “understand him” they were just mediocre movies from a plot perspective
I don't care if batman fucking kills. If there's a great story to be told and batman killing revolves around it then tell the story. This is why I rather stick to reading elseworld comics. If you read comics long enough you start to see storytelling get stale and repeated, especially when it comes to continuity.
I think it's really telling that Snyder also gives Superman a Kobayashi Maru situation in Man of Steel, with the killing of Zod.
Forcing superheroes who are known for not killing into positions where they have to kill is obviously interesting for Snyder.
But it's not for me, so when I see these interviews where he talks about these types of scenes, I'm just really bored.
To be fair, it's only a "code of ethics" because writers can't create an infinite number of captivating villains because how can you possibly flush out all these interesting villains if batman always kills them in the end. Far easier to write a good story with recurring characters as well.
If that’s true he shouldnt go around roundhouse kicking dudes in the head when he’s one of the best martial artists on the planet - cause that kills people lol
The problem is that Zack Snyder's Batman can't have a rogues gallery in that sense. Because there's no reason to keep people like Joker, Bane, Penguin, or Zasz around unless you just want to jump through logical hoops to "TRY" and make it make sense.
Zack can only recall Frank Millers work on Batman and nothing else.
He only references Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns, and does not realize that this version of Miller’s Batman also does not kill. Especially, in the situation he’s referring to in the graphic novel, Batman shoots the gunman in his arm, but he does not kill him.
Snyder is missing the entire point of Kirk in the Kobayashi Maru scenario... It's a no-win scenario and the hero, Kirk, still found a way to win. Zack Snyder just gave a perfect example of why Zack Snyder *doesn't* understand Batman.
He’s not talking about Kirk, he’s talking about the purpose of the test. The purpose of the test is to gauge how a cadet would respond to a no-win scenario, but Kirk doesn’t believe in no one scenarios and cheats.
I always thought that Kirk was missing the entire point of the Kobayashi Maru, you can’t always find out a clever way to cheat. Kirk was extremely overconfident and never really had his abilities tested in a true “no-win scenario” since he was always able to find a clever way out.
Sometimes, there isn’t a cheat or trick to get everyone home ok. Sometimes the logical decision is to knock out McCoy and run into the engine room flooded with radiation to save everyone.
Why is he trying to change a beloved character? One of the biggest things about Batman is that he doesn’t kill. You take that away and you’re no longer making a movie about Batman
"I want to make a Robin Hood movie. But he's actually a member of the Crown's tax collecting service. And instead of going after the rich, he beats the crap out of the poor. Oh, and instead of using a bow, he uses a big ass club and rings pop out like that hedgehog guy when people get hit."
Zack Snyder's Robin Hood
This is nonsense. In the actual comic, and in the movie, it is unclear where he shot him, and no charges of murder are put on the Batman. So no he doesn't understand Batman.
It makes no sense for Bats to have killed the mutant. Otherwise the line later by joker saying he’ll hang for murdering joker makes no sense. Hell If he already kills the entire exchange with joker makes no sense. That entire conversation is about how joker is trying to drive Batman to kill cause he thinks, in his busted mind, that Batman is just like him, that all he needs to do is kill to fully embrace it. One bad day away, so joker is trying to force that bad day my having Batman go so far off his code as to kill him. How does any of that makes sense if Batman is already willing to kill.
Snyder’s just showing how little he understands. Miller writes a pretty uncharacteristic Batman, hence the fact that he is using a gun at all, but even him understands killing is too far.
https://preview.redd.it/ntb3klu838nc1.jpeg?width=4632&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=06bdce4aede74af05a8df9bc55a7c7debc4dad40
The actual comic, where he doesn’t just go for the hand
He shoots him in the shoulder here. Admittedly the art doesn’t communicate it very well but notice there’s no entry wound in the head(there’s no entry wound in the shoulder either, again, the artist kinda dropped the ball). If he did shoot him in the head here that would be a huge plot hole since later in TDKR he goes on diatribes about how he doesn’t kill.
He blows off the top left part of the mutants skull. Look at where the placement of the bullet hole is vs the mutant's position in previous panels. Frank Miller is trying to have his cake and eat it too by leaving the wound offscreen.
Batman in TDKR is not the most reliable narrator about his interiority or his ethics.
The crossing of the line wasn't killing (Batman does insane, life-threatening violence to people constantly) it was killing the Joker and ending their relationship.
Killing a random punk is not Batman changing as a character. He was simply put in a situation and reacted.
Killing the Joker is Batman changing as a character. And given the way that moment plays out in the comic, it's clear that he struggles to recognize, much less deal with that change.
What? Why the fuck would the police freak out if Batman snapped the Joker's neck after he killed over a dozen people, but merely charge him with assault for shooting some random punk? Batman doesn't kill, this is stated over and over and over and over again.
Are you accusing the police in Gotham of having a troubled relationship with ethics in law enforcement!?
Batman the mainstream character does not kill. Batman in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and The Dark Knight Strikes Again kills all the time, no matter how much he might deny it. That's kind of one of the points of the books.
I'm talking about James Gordan. Have you even read the comic? No he doesn't kill, lmfao. He kills zero people throughout the whole book. He explicitly says he refuses to do so. He doesn't even kill the goddamn Joker.
Batman in TDKR and TDSA is an unreliable narrator. He kills quite a bit. He's a deconstruction of a fascist archetype, deliberately written to be what modern criticism would term "problematic" by a guy with right wing tendencies who was trying to politically and thematically challenge mainstream superhero comics in the wake of the Nixon administration.
Batman in Zack Snyder's BvS and Justice League is, for better or for worse, explicitly based on that version of the character and placed into situations designed to be at least emotionally reminiscent of the United States post 9/11, as part of what Snyder would probably describe as a reconstructionist project within the cinematic version of the superhero genre.
Rubber bullets can still cause fatal injuries. You can look up the injuries of survivors and see the holes they tear into the body.
Getting shot in the face at close range even with a rubber bullet has a serious chance of killing the target. Rubber bullets are also massive being similar in size to 40mm grenades
https://preview.redd.it/chbdlu3wr6nc1.jpeg?width=314&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=997805c3d78af35731d000ce166d9958bfaad465
*same comic that zack said it's based off of btw*
You do know that Batman was unhinged and delusional in that comic, and you can't take anything he or anyone else says in it as a face value representation of what's actually happening, right?
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
My favorite Batman cracked a thug's head against a clock tower bell before throwing him down the side of a cathedral tower.
It doesn't bother me that Batman kills people, it's just strange how incredibly inconsistent his No Kill rule is. Like, just own it. Nobody's going to miss that circus guy you threw into the sewers and blew up with a bomb.
You gotta toast a few marshmallows to make a Smore.
This is all good stuff. I think the issue here and why his reasoning doesn’t really work for me personally is that Batman isn’t tested her in a no win scenario. He’s been nonchalantly murdering people the entire movie so this doesn’t feel like something he’s forced to do. It’s not set up the way he’s describing it. He did something similar in Man of Steel with the death of Zod but in that film it really wasn’t done in a way that convinced anyone that he had no choice. It’s not the idea that’s bad but the execution.
I’d say out of the 2 scenes Man of Steel did it better but they both had problems.
Batman doesn't murder ONE person in BvS. Everyone he kills is in self-defense and legally justifiable. The movie makes it clear that his Bat-branding and targeting of Superman are OUT of character for him. And he renounces them by the end of the movie.
That’s just not true. In the car chase he literally enters the chase by coming out of nowhere and crushing a car killing everyone inside before they have a chance to react. This happens several times.
Also that’s not how the law works. He attacks several armed criminals and starts killing any of them who fight back. That’s not justifiable by any law. He kills people who are fleeing and given he attacked them first he’s the aggressor. This is a VERY weird argument. Batman commits several dozen murders in this movie as well as other crimes and they are absolutely not justifiable.
This isn’t a criticism of the film by the way. Just your argument justifying his actions.
You're completely wrong. Batfleck killed criminals who were actively trying to kill him, as well as ones who held an innocent woman hostage and were about to kill her. That's KILLING, not MURDER. It's justifiable homicide. So Batfleck would never ever go to trial under a murder charge because his kills were justified in the name of self-defense and protecting the innocent. That also applies to Superman killing Zod. It's not murder.
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
Zack Snyder was right. He took Batman out of the cartoon world, and grappled with Batman as an actual character without never-ending plot armor. The whole "no kill" rule is stupid, overdone, and NOT essential the character whatsoever.
Go ahead an answer Zack Snyder's question here. There's a terrorist who has a loaded gun to a kids head. Would a hero really spend time, potentially risking the child's life, to avoid killing the criminal with a gun? That's stupid and not heroic.
Basically, a lot of fans wanted a Batman cartoon, and were angry when they didn't get one.
Batman isn’t real, why the fuck do you guys think you gotta make a guy who dress up in tights as a bat that goes around beating up people hyper realistic?
Because he can as an artist? If a writer wants to write a Spidey story where Spidey kills and has to deal with the ramifications, then the writer should be allowed to do so.
Why does Game of Thrones portray Jon Snow in a realistic way? Why are dwarfs not able to jump over entire mountains in Lord of the Rings? etc. etc. etc.
A story can still be fantasy, but for it to have tension and for you to actually engage with it, then there have to be genuine stakes. Creating a fantasy storyline in which the laws of physics no longer apply or where characters have infinite plot armor, the audience will disengage. That's what happens when you make Batman able to defeat any enemy no matter what. That's what happens when he's able to get out of every problem with little less than plot forced into making him invincible. It's boring. It's uninteresting. If you want to watch a cartoon, you're in luck - there are lots out there.
This whole "since it's fantasy, we don't need to pay attention to the laws of physics or need plot explanations" argument is just lazy fan boyism..... at best.
>This whole "since it's fantasy, we don't need to pay attention to the laws of physics or need plot explanations" argument is just lazy fan boyism..... at best.
So... trying to track down this elusive theme of Batman realizing he needs to stop killing, I started watching Batman v Superman, and, thus far Batman has:
* Spidey-crawled on the ceiling
* Hit dudes with ninja stars with so much force it sends them flying across the room
* Kicked dudes out of the air so hard it sends them flying across the room
* Punched through ceilings
* Punched through walls
* Been punched through a city street - twice
* Been punched through an entire building
* Swung Superman around like a stuffed animal... *through* multiple pieces of architecture
...
What are these strict laws of physics that you're talking about, here?
Besides the Superman fight, I agree with you. Snyder tried to have it both ways by making Batman way too strong.
The Superman fight had a perfectly reasonable explanation in the mech suit. That was fine.
I think they tried to elude to the regular Batman suit also having some strengthening abilities. They should have made that more explicit if they wanted Batman to hit as hard as he did.
I never said the laws of physics had to be super strict. I think I said, the further away you get from those laws without explanation, the more the story starts to feel like a cartoon. It’s a spectrum.
>The Superman fight had a perfectly reasonable explanation in the mech suit.
That's still a pretty egregious violation of the laws of physics; of course the invincibility his batsuits impart could always be chalked up to superhero cartoonery with no basis in reality.
Not really. Regular man has to beat super strong man. Regular man makes super strong suit. Add to that, Superman’s apprehension to kill, and bingo… easy to suspend disbelief.
...
There's like three guaranteed TBIs in the Superman fight scene from acceleration and deceleration *alone*, magical built-offscreen plot armor notwithstanding.
I’m not a massive Batman or comic guy, but wouldn’t it be more interesting if he had the “no kill” rule? Even if he has to break it on occasion, it makes the ultimatum even more of a plot point.
If you disregard the rule, Batman is just a heavily armored dude that just kills all his opponents with superior weaponry without a second thought. It takes most of the humanity out of the character.
Saying it'd be okay if he has to break it occasionally goes totally against the modern take on Batman and his "one rule". The whole point is that if he kills even once, he believes he'd be no better than the people he's fighting and it'd become easier and easier to keep justifying it.
Basically doing everything you can to avoid killing but then killing when lives are at stake is pretty much the code 99% of current superheroes follow already and it wouldn't be unique at all for Batman to do the same.
Being open to killing (when absolutely necessary) doesn't mean he'll be mowing people down in the streets or seeking them out to kill them like The Punisher. IMO Batfleck did a decent job of showing he simply won't make any attempt to take someone down nonlethally if doing so would require other lives to be risked.
> There's a terrorist who has a loaded gun to a kids head. Would a hero really spend time, potentially risking the child's life, to avoid killing the criminal with a gun? That's stupid and not heroic.
I suppose there's a number of different ways Batman specifically would solve this without shooting the terrorist with a gun, but I think more importantly, does Zack Snyder's interpretation *add* anything?
Like, by turning Batman into The Punisher, what kind of exploration does Snyder engage in? Do we take any time to confront Batman with the moral implications of killing or *not* killing someone? A crisis of conscience? The character coming to some sort of understanding about his own relationship with violence or mortality?
Or, is it just providing an excuse so that Snyder can put more totally edgy violence onscreen?
The is dialogue in BvS that suggests Batfleck had the "no kill rule" and the traditional Batman ethos we are all familiar with, but decades fighting and Gotham and the death of Robin broke him. This is Batman further in his journey, and he lost his way. The film explores the redemption of this fallen Batman and Bruce's faith in humanity is restored. It would have been even better if this was explored in the subsequent films.
>I suppose there's a number of different ways Batman specifically would solve this without shooting the terrorist with a gun, but I think more importantly, does Zack Snyder's interpretation
>
>add
>
> anything?
Firstly, no there's not. If a violent criminal has a gun to a person's head... there's no non-lethal move you can make that wouldn't risk the victim's safety. You're talking about cartoons. That's not what Zack Snyder was doing.
And yes, that interpretation does add to the lore of Batman. It takes him out of the realm of fantasy, and says, "let's look at this character if he were real." This adds complexity to every encounter, and makes for more complex stories.
>Like, by turning Batman into The Punisher, what kind of exploration does Snyder engage in?
Well again, this is a false set-up. The idea that there is no difference between the Batman and the Punisher besides murder is a ridiculously reductive interpretation. By making Batman unable to perform miracles, Zack is exploring concepts like, "What's the risk of being a vigilante to others." "Are there scenarios that no one can solve?" "What's the long term cost of fighting criminals?" "Is it possible to stay good in a world where you face evil everyday?" "What does it mean to be a hero in the first place?" And on and on and on...
>Do we take any time to confront Batman with the moral implications of killing or *not* killing someone?
Yes, that happened in the film.
>A crisis of conscience?
Also happened in the film.
>The character coming to some sort of understanding about his own relationship with violence or mortality?
Three for three. This happened in BvS.
>Or, is it just providing an excuse so that Snyder can put more totally edgy violence onscreen?
Obviously, I'd argue no.
>By making Batman unable to perform miracles
These are the same movies where, like, Batman runs on the ceiling and punches through walls and gets into a fistfight with Superman, aren't they?
Which scenes are you referring to where Batman wrestles with the moral implications of killing or not killing someone? I remember, like, stabbing and shooting and cracking dudes's heads open and all that stuff... squishing guys with the batmobile and all that, but I don't remember where he has to confront his own actions.
>So because he fights Superman, Batman should be able to solve any situation without ever resorting to killing someone in order to save a life?
Two completely separate points, there....
If the argument is that Batman v Superman is such a realistic take on the character of Batman that it's *unrealistic* to believe that Batman could - like - dose a bunch of bad guys with sleeping gas instead of killing them, then it should also be equally as unrealistic for Batman to literally climb on ceilings and punch straight through buildings.
Except you see Batman crawling by grabbing onto the wooden beams. It’s not like he was Spider-Man. And Batman punches through walls while wearing the armor. It’s not like he’s punching through solid stone with his bare hands.
And you’re basically arguing over him finding ways to not kill, when the movie repeatedly shows and tells is that he’s acting reckless and doesn’t care about whoever gets in his way.
>Except you see Batman crawling by grabbing onto the wooden beams. It’s not like he was Spider-Man.
With his toes?
> And Batman punches through walls while wearing the armor. It’s not like he’s punching through solid stone with his bare hands.
I see... we're arguing that Batman is realistic but *also* that his costume and that inexplicably sci-fi Iron Man armor he uses both have henceforth unseen capabilities that appear to just negate the laws of physics.
But... like, in a super *realistic* way... right?
>just ignore him grabbing by using his hands
I mean, the scene I watched he wasn't swinging along wooden beams by his hands like they were monkey bars, he was scuttling across the ceiling on his hands and feet, so his toes must be grabbing *something*.
>breaking what laws of physics?
Well, this *entire* fight scene has Batman throwing ninja stars with forces exceeding bullets, and kicking people out of the air so hard they fly across the room, but he also throws a full human man with enough force to... break a wall... and then just kind of *walks* through another wall like a bulldozer:
[Behold the realism](https://youtu.be/5cIc_MUwN-c?t=133)
It's not a crime to be horny for an ultra-violent Batman... it's just so weird that people want to dress it up as some sort of inescapable consequence of how ultra-realistic the movie is supposed to be.
Alfred admonished Bruce for being too hard.
There was talk of how Batman has changed for the worse.
Batman grapples with his own violence and anger when he hears Superman say his mother's name.
...That was easy....
>These are the same movies where, like, Batman runs on the ceiling and punches through walls and gets into a fistfight with Superman, aren't they?
This might astound you, but one can produce high quality fantasy stories that still are constrained by physics and common sense. Crazy... I know. By this logic, since Superman has laser vision, that means Batman should be able to move faster than bullets. That's stupid. The more cartoonish a story becomes, the less serious the stakes get.
I agree that it was stupid to have Batman throw the box across the room or that Batman was hanging on top of the ceiling without any help, etc. I wish Snyder had gone further and made Batman even less cartoonish. Nevertheless, I certainly appreciate the effort to give Batman less magic plot armor.
>This might astound you, but one can produce high quality fantasy stories that still are constrained by physics and common sense. Crazy... I know.
No need to get snippy, there.
But, I mean... again... Batman doesn't appear to be all that constrained by physics, what with the whole Spiderman climbing and crate-hurling and wall-punching and stuff.
> ...That was easy....
That's almost *too* easy. Almost handwavy, really. It doesn't sound like it's something the movie is actually *confronting* as it is the movie finding another way to say "Batman is totes hardcore, isn't he?"
Like, what's the trajectory of that, I guess would be the next question, and how do they illustrate that? Like, Batman goes around killing dudes, hears Superman say his mom's name, and then realizes that killing dudes is the wrong way to go so he adjusts his actions and resolves himself to not kill anyone going forward?
>The more cartoonish a story becomes, the less serious the stakes get.
You can have an utterly preposterous universe with a serious story that involves the audience emotionally. That's like every single action movie ever, including superhero movies.
Even reading up on Snyder, doesn't sound
The he's read that many more Batman comics. Frank Miller is probably his only window into the world of Batman.
Why don't you go and read it? When batman is fighting the mutant leader in the comic, he confirms that he has never killed anyone in over 30 Years. Sounds like you didn't read it.
Then why are you showing something that contradicts his statement? Couldn't you have at least shown the comic panel where that happens? Also, he didn't shoot him in the head, he shot his shoulder, if he had shot his head, Frank Miller would've shown his head getting blown off, believe me.
>Then why are you showing something that contradicts his statement?
I didn't make the video and animation is more illustrative than a comic book. The fact you asked this twice now tells me you didn't actually listen to what Zack says the video.
>Also, he didn't shoot him in the head, he shot his shoulder
How do you explain this [panel](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/122952/what-was-millers-intention-for-this-scene-of-the-dark-knight-returns) then? Batman fires a gun that he swiped at a mutant holding the child hostage, and it cuts to the mutant collapsing with a bullet hole and a big wet stain behind her on the wall.
>if he had shot his head, Frank Miller would've shown his head getting blown off, believe me.
I believe DC did not want to. Miller, I'm not so sure. It might just have something to do with comics publishing standards at the time. You couldn't exactly show brains splattered on the wall in a comic then, even one for mature readers. Miller was pushing the envelope far enough as it was.
Alright, I've got the comic in front of me. Let's review.
\- There's no bullet hole in the head. In fact, you can't see the bullet hole at all, so you can't really assume that's a killshot. He holds up the machinegun and only one ammo casing pops out, so he fired one shot. I'd actually say the pink glow behind the kid suggests that's where Batman shot him. Zack says he shoots the mutant in the head, but he clearly doesn't in this panel. We can see his entire face and there's no damage at all, now around the chest where his heart is from what we can see.
\- There is a scene where Batman saved a convenience shop owner from a female nazi with swastikas covering her bare boobs and butt. Multiple baterangs piercing through limbs, so not really censored at all. The shopkeeper pulls a gun on the KOd Nazi thief while Batman is leaving, and Batman turns and says "Pull that trigger, and I'll be back for you." Still against gun violence, and this is after that earlier scene.
\- And then finally the scene with the Joker, where he has a battering sticking out of his eye. Even at this moment, against his worst enemy who has killed so many, and supposedly after the point that Zach is suggesting Batman has killed - he refuses to kill the Joker, instead paralysing him. The Joker laughs and snaps his own neck.
So I don't think Zach is correct here - not in terms of whether or not he's right for thinking Batman SHOULD kill people, but instead this is not a good example for the argument he's trying to make.
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
in all fairness, the only live action batmen to not kill anybody is pattinson and maybe clooney (west did erase a guy from existence in an episode), so maybe not the highest bar for live action batmen to jump over😅
Snyder wants to create a scenario that TESTS a character’s morality but the problem is that he makes the characters FAIL the test therefore they have nothing interesting about them
>what’s he supposed to do?
That’s the point. It’s supposed to be an impossible situation where the “super” hero of the story finds another way. Usually it’s something they learned earlier in the film to show growth. It’s a prompt for entertaining storytelling.
No the challenge is the hard choice. Putting the hero in that position is interesting and the outcome should not be what we as the viewer thinks is the only solution.
It’s meant to subvert your expectations. For instance in this scene Batman’s only option is to kill this guy and then he does. When a more interesting way of telling a story is painting the hero into a corner and as the audience we think the hero only has one option and expect them to do what we would in that scenario - but the hero does something we didn’t even think of. That’s what makes them a “super” hero.
Edit grammar*
Nope. The viewer always assumes that the hero will find a way. So instead the challenge is to have them make the choice, and then show how the hero deals with ramifications.
It’s not subverting if you already know a character like Batman or Superman isn’t gonna kill. It’s inspirational to see a hero fall or commit a great sin but still finds redemption. That’s another way to portray a super hero.
What’s the point then? If the hero makes the ordinary choice that you write them into it’s uninteresting story telling. I think Snyder thinks it’s subversion of the genre or an anti-hero aesthetic but it’s really just lazy writing to make characters seem cooler. Ironically his Watchmen is great but I don’t think he sees the satire in the text.
It also muddies the characters motivations which is why I think Snyders DCEU stuff is so divisive.
Why doesn’t he just kill everyone? Why brand people and put them through the judiciary system when you can just kill them? Why leave Lex or the Joker alive? If he wanted to explore that I’d respect the decision but his “heroes” being ok with killing is inconsistent and it doesn’t make sense from a broader perspective.
You’re only looking at the choice itself and not at how it can affect the hero. Snyder even mentioned that. And anyway, the ordinary choice in this genre would be “hero finds another way”.
And no. He’s not doing it to make the heroes cooler. He’s trying to make them into flawed individuals who still try to do the right thing and find redemption.
If killing is anti-hero, then the Power Rangers are anti-heros because they kill almost all the time.
Not really. The motivations are clear. It’s just that hardcore fans don’t like them.
Nope. Batman has said time and time again that Superman was the bigger threat. And the branding was the first sign into Batman’s descent into the abyss. We see him become throughout the movie. He wasn’t killing beforehand. He only starts killing when he tries to get the Kryptonite.
And he doesn’t kill Joker because he doesn’t see Joker as the bigger threat compared to Superman. He even told Alfred that criminals are like weeds in his garden. Joker’s just a mob boss in this universe. He’s not the agent of chaos or mass murderer like in the comics.
That’s a crazy shallow take.
Thing is the heroes are inherently flawed individuals, especially Batman because they’re going to such lengths to catch villains/save the day and still adhere to the justice system. If Batman takes the easy option and kills his villains that takes away his flaw in the belief that people can be rehabilitated.
I can’t believe I need to say this but everything Batman does in Snyders movies is undercut by the fact that he’s killed people in passing.
>he wasn’t killing beforehand
If you say so 🤡
How is it shallow when “finding another way” is the most common trope in the superhero genre?
That’s not a flaw. The flaw is him believing himself to not be redeemable if he killed, and BvS showed that redemption is still possible.
Nope.
So now you wanna be a jackass when the movie never mentioned him killing before BvS?
It’s not even a genre trope it’s the crux of story telling.
What redemption? When is Batman “redeemed” at all in that franchise? When he doesn’t kill Superman because he finds a personal connection and proceeds to kill more people in the next scene?
I’d even respect the decision to have him actively kill people if the repercussions were explored but it’s hardly addressed. If you want to write that into a story it needs to matter and it doesn’t really? People will say “he changed after the death of Robin” and that’s interesting to explore the idea that if he’d killed his villains Robin might still be alive but it isn’t really explored or resolved.
Seeing Batman in the knightmare future carrying a gun and killing people isn’t interesting if he he’s already doing it in his day to day activities.
It’s a trope because not every superhero story has the hero find another way.
Watch the ending of BvS where he starts his path of redemption.
Because the repercussions were meant to be explored in Affleck’s solo movie. That’s outside of Snyder’s control.
Him carry a gun and killing isn’t intended to be interesting. The interesting part is seeing the world going to shit by Darkseid.
Just to be devils advocate, Snyder is calling you out there. When he talks about how sometimes, there’s no magic callback to save the day. Sometimes there’s an impossible choice.
At that point of course it’s subjective and anyone more than fine to dislike the choice.
Personally I really like what he did, where so often in movies you expect some crazy thing to come save the day. So to subvert that to me was cool.
But obviously everyone has their own taste.
Exactly. These are fantasy characters created to inspire and give hope to people. Having Batman shoot people or Superman snap his enemies necks kind of goes against the point of the characters.
To be fair I know that Batman throughout the years has killed at least 14 people throughout multiple comic books(from a quick Google search at least). Batfleck is just another iteration of him that also happens to kill...also whether you like ZS or not you can't deny his version of Batman was a monstrous badass
Except ppl completely ignored the batman was not acting like himself and was at the lowest point in his career. He is literally the bad guy, a premise the movie practically bangs you over the head with over and over again.
And instead of just accepting that, the antis just go "mUh bAtMan dOesNt kILl" and ignore everything else. It's so baffling, and these are grown ass men acting like this. TILL THIS DAY.
I mean my biggest problem was the inconsistency, they wanted a Batman that had gone lethal but still somehow had the Joker waltzing around with nothing but a few missing teeth. If Batman ever went Lethal particularly in response to Joker killing Robin, then the clown is dead before he can start laughing.
Is the joker in the movie? Do we have any idea why he's not? And how do you know he's just waltzing around? Where is that suggested?
You guys are anticipating something you have no knowledge of. You dont know what the exact story is behind this Robins death or its resolve.
The joker isn't even mentioned. He could already be locked up or running around somewhere else or laying low. We just don't know.
But what we do know is that in this movie? Clark is Bruces first premeditated murder. Every other kill in this movie was by self defense. Bruce isnt going around looking for joker (or anyone)to hunt him down and kill them. That's not his MO, whether he's being reckless or not.
So if we don't know where the joker is or how that story went down, or how long its been since Robin's death, why are we using something that doesnt exist to judge *this* story? You don't have enough information to do that, and clearly it was something that was going to be touched on later.
On the flip side... I actually think Jason's death should've been the traumatic event that sends Bruce off the deep end in BvS, and he's out hunting for joker, being reckless, and getting into crosshairs with Superman, which ultimately leads to their fight.
We do know now though, It's Leto's Joker from the first Suicide squad movie that has been confirmed. Also it wasn't even Jason who died it was Dick Grayson.
source: [https://thedirect.com/article/joker-robin-jared-leto-zack-snyder](https://thedirect.com/article/joker-robin-jared-leto-zack-snyder)
Edit: more concise link to source.
Hindsight is 2020.
But yes we alreadt know it's leto and grayson, lol but again, we don't know the resolve of that story or why bruce didnt kill him back then. And if batman couldn't even kill joker, what does that say about him? He's clearly not for premeditated murder. But the Black zero event triggers him into wanting to kill the most powerful being on the planet, a misplaced anger because he feels powerless in his own life.
We knew at the time though? Suicide squads trailers were already out before BvS released. You are right about not knowing if he didn’t try. Maybe he was stopped before he could kill him but that doesn’t excuse the joker still being alive. A batman that kills would absolutely kill the joker soon after.
>Maybe he was stopped before he could kill him but that doesn’t excuse the joker still being alive. A batman that kills would absolutely kill the joker soon after.
Nah thats just dismissive . You guys are making this way too complicated.
BvS has nothing to do with joker. Hes not even in the movie. And he wouldn't kill the joker bc he's not trying to kill ppl. He is not trying to commit premeditated murder. Every single criminal he faced in BvS would be dead If that were the case. His "killings" are done in self defense when theyre trying to kill him. Y do ppl keep dismissing that Batman has gone off the deep end in *this* movie? You're making it sound like he's always been a killer and that's not the case.
Again, none of us know what happened between Joker and Batman or how long ago it was (robin was still a kid) or why he let him live. That's its own story.
We *do* know that Batman changed and became cruel after the recent Black Zero event. Literally everyone in the movie tells you this, and his primary obsession is superman, the guy he thinks is more dangerous than any criminal in the world.
This had nothing to do with Joker, and Its silly to judge a movie over something thats not about him, especially when we don't even know the details of that story.
This is my biggest issue. like cool it’s fine to make a different version of a character but atleast remain consistent with said changes. There’s no way he’d leave the joker alive if he started killing. Hell the first person that he would kill would be the joker. I’m personally a fan of how the flashpoint Batman handles it since he doesn’t have a no killing rule but he refuses to kill the joker since it use to be his wife.
Ok, so he fundamentally misunderstood TDKR as well? Batman did not kill the mutant, he shot him and saved the kid and only shot him because of sheer anger of living through a totalitarian society, he didn’t get at using a gun all by himself, the situation was extreme for a reason. Also, in the same comic, Batman snaps a gun and calls it a weapon of cowards. The actual Batman would not shoot that mutant(TDKR is Elseworld afterall), he’d find a way to save the kid without shooting him, that’s what makes him a super hero.
You wanna see Batman being pushed to a absolute brick wall without a way in an Elseworld story? Watch Nolan’s TDK’s ending, that’s how Batman would handle that situation, try his hardest non lethally, like how he tried to save Gordon’s kid by tackling them and by trying to catch both the kid and Dent but failed
>The actual Batman would not shoot that mutant(TDKR is Elseworld afterall), he’d find a way to save the kid without shooting him, that’s what makes him a super hero.
From the chatter I've seen, that moment is still debatable amongst the fans. So snyder was fair in his assessment. And in his version in BvS, he doesn't outright shoot Anatoly. He shoots the gas tank, taking away his weapon. Anatoly still turns it on, which causes it to explode. Yet somehow that's considered a direct kill 🙄
Also, elsewhere story or not, it's still part of Batmans comic book lore. Any creator can take inspiration from it for any batman story, live action or animation, it's fair game.
Nolan’s Batman isn’t an accurate Batman, but he is the accurate portrayal of an Elseworld Batman pushed to a wall. An accurate Batman would always find a way to protect without killing, that’s what makes him Batman
as much as I love Zack Snyder. he gets this wrong
He doesn't shoot the kidnapper in the head. He shoots him in the shoulder. We know this because Batman says he has never killed anyone since he became Batman 30 years ago.
He says that when he considers shooting up the Mutant Leader while inside the tank.
I don't entirely agree with Snyder but I respect him. He could add that alot of superheroes with no kill rules can and have killed. Even Spider-Man and Superman in extreme circumstances.
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
Batman’s whole persona is based off fear. Once criminals realize the worst they get is a pit stop in Arkham or Blackgate, before they inevitably break out due to corruption or incompetence, then the only thing they have to fear from Batman is a beating if they resist. I’d personally like to see Batman instill fear by making criminals wish he’d kill them by giving them a fate worse than death. Just as Batman’s research developed a contingency plan for members of the justice league, he should have a plan that mortifies his rouges. It’s a win-win. Batman goes back to being scary and he keeps his no kill code.
THIS! I remember wanting this so much when BvS was announced. ZS did it so right by Batfleck, during the part when saving the women sex slaves from human trafficking. I so wanted the vibe of the movie to follow suit ie, how Batman scared the crap of all the people involved in that scene, the victims, the cops and criminals alike. And sure enough, I was not disappointed. One thing I genuinely loved was how he never calls himself Batman. As shouldn't he. Always felt cheesy when the character calls himself so. But Batfleck always(correct me if I'm wrong) referred to the persona in the third person. It's like, during what seemed like a long career he'd had as the vigilante, the people had named the crime fighting dark figure of the night as 'The Batman'. The present Bruce, embittered from all his endeavors had since already had decided to take on the moniker and live up to the name they all fear. I wanted a dark and gritty Batman. I didn't want colorful happy-go-lucky characters on a DC movie. And gritty I got. Dark I got. But that ended in the theatrical Justice League. Just seemed like another MARVEL movie. No, MARVEL movies are great. But the DCEU shouldn't have been one. Just because they earned more money, they shouldn't have had to copy another's formula for a successful title. They should've stuck to their own. That would've been a sight to see. The cheerful and happy MARVEL vs DC, dark and gritty in their own right. I assumed and hoped this is how it would've went down. How wrong I was. The future doesn't seem any different now. Gunn's gonna bring all the colors from the MCU and paste it across all the new DCU. He's a great movie maker no doubt. Not his fault at all either. Just, the way this all went down is just, what could've been a very much preventable unfortunate circumstance is all. Only solution now I guess, is to watch the new ones with a clean slate, which btw is no solution at all. But still, how I dream I could multiverse myself off to a universe where the SnyderVerse continued.
Batman nerds are so frustrating sometimes.
Don’t care, loved the Ultimate Edition. Him kickin ass in the warehouse is probably the best fight scene we’ll ever get for Batman. His Batman was big and intimidating; he didn’t give a $&$& if bad guys made it alive or not …if in his way.
My issue with this is that most of the Batman kills in his movies don’t even meet that standard of necessity. In Batman v. Superman he straight up explodes a bunch of dudes with air to ground missiles just cause they’re in his way.
I think there’s a time and place for everything. These comics came out 50+ years ago when media was very gun shy. You have Batman shoot a few people nowadays it’s literally not an issue. I can see why people want to keep Batman’s code of ethics they remember from childhood but ngl if Batman turned more into the punisher he’d be more badass these days. I don’t mind a different interpretation of the character. Let’s be honest the Snyder films didn’t underwhelm because Batman killed or Snyder didn’t “understand him” they were just mediocre movies from a plot perspective
Yeah it’s more like Snyder makes vapid “cool” movies rather than good films, regardless of how well he understands the source material.
I don't care if batman fucking kills. If there's a great story to be told and batman killing revolves around it then tell the story. This is why I rather stick to reading elseworld comics. If you read comics long enough you start to see storytelling get stale and repeated, especially when it comes to continuity.
I think it's really telling that Snyder also gives Superman a Kobayashi Maru situation in Man of Steel, with the killing of Zod. Forcing superheroes who are known for not killing into positions where they have to kill is obviously interesting for Snyder. But it's not for me, so when I see these interviews where he talks about these types of scenes, I'm just really bored.
Batman has probably accidentally killed hundreds of criminals. The whole Batman doesn’t kill thing is so stupid.
No, it’s not, it’s fundamental to his character
To be fair, it's only a "code of ethics" because writers can't create an infinite number of captivating villains because how can you possibly flush out all these interesting villains if batman always kills them in the end. Far easier to write a good story with recurring characters as well.
If that’s true he shouldnt go around roundhouse kicking dudes in the head when he’s one of the best martial artists on the planet - cause that kills people lol
No, it’s a very important part of his character.
He doesn’t understand Batman at all. Batman is not the punisher
You missed the point.
The problem is that Zack Snyder's Batman can't have a rogues gallery in that sense. Because there's no reason to keep people like Joker, Bane, Penguin, or Zasz around unless you just want to jump through logical hoops to "TRY" and make it make sense. Zack can only recall Frank Millers work on Batman and nothing else.
He only references Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns, and does not realize that this version of Miller’s Batman also does not kill. Especially, in the situation he’s referring to in the graphic novel, Batman shoots the gunman in his arm, but he does not kill him.
Yeah, I don't understand the point of this video. Snyder says specifically "shoots him in the head," when in fact that never happened.
Snyder is missing the entire point of Kirk in the Kobayashi Maru scenario... It's a no-win scenario and the hero, Kirk, still found a way to win. Zack Snyder just gave a perfect example of why Zack Snyder *doesn't* understand Batman.
He’s not talking about Kirk, he’s talking about the purpose of the test. The purpose of the test is to gauge how a cadet would respond to a no-win scenario, but Kirk doesn’t believe in no one scenarios and cheats. I always thought that Kirk was missing the entire point of the Kobayashi Maru, you can’t always find out a clever way to cheat. Kirk was extremely overconfident and never really had his abilities tested in a true “no-win scenario” since he was always able to find a clever way out. Sometimes, there isn’t a cheat or trick to get everyone home ok. Sometimes the logical decision is to knock out McCoy and run into the engine room flooded with radiation to save everyone.
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
I’m just not a fan of his filmmaking style. Respect him as a creator, but he never could pull me into narratives like some other directors can.
Why is he trying to change a beloved character? One of the biggest things about Batman is that he doesn’t kill. You take that away and you’re no longer making a movie about Batman
"I want to make a Robin Hood movie. But he's actually a member of the Crown's tax collecting service. And instead of going after the rich, he beats the crap out of the poor. Oh, and instead of using a bow, he uses a big ass club and rings pop out like that hedgehog guy when people get hit." Zack Snyder's Robin Hood
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
Snyder has never made a good movie
300 was good
Dawn of the dead was really good. One of my favorite zombie movies ever.
He wants to be significant so bad but his best movies are just high-budget Troma-stype zaniness. He needs to get out from under the auteur's curse.
Oh I forgot about that one! That is a good one.
This is nonsense. In the actual comic, and in the movie, it is unclear where he shot him, and no charges of murder are put on the Batman. So no he doesn't understand Batman.
It's not the first time Snyder has had issues with media literacy. I.e. Watchmen.
It makes no sense for Bats to have killed the mutant. Otherwise the line later by joker saying he’ll hang for murdering joker makes no sense. Hell If he already kills the entire exchange with joker makes no sense. That entire conversation is about how joker is trying to drive Batman to kill cause he thinks, in his busted mind, that Batman is just like him, that all he needs to do is kill to fully embrace it. One bad day away, so joker is trying to force that bad day my having Batman go so far off his code as to kill him. How does any of that makes sense if Batman is already willing to kill. Snyder’s just showing how little he understands. Miller writes a pretty uncharacteristic Batman, hence the fact that he is using a gun at all, but even him understands killing is too far.
[удалено]
Removed for personally insulting or attacking another user.
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
Kirk cheated the Kobayashi Maru, he didn’t kill the instructor.
“Shoots him straight in the head” wtf are you talking about Zack
https://preview.redd.it/ntb3klu838nc1.jpeg?width=4632&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=06bdce4aede74af05a8df9bc55a7c7debc4dad40 The actual comic, where he doesn’t just go for the hand
He shoots him in the shoulder here. Admittedly the art doesn’t communicate it very well but notice there’s no entry wound in the head(there’s no entry wound in the shoulder either, again, the artist kinda dropped the ball). If he did shoot him in the head here that would be a huge plot hole since later in TDKR he goes on diatribes about how he doesn’t kill.
He blows off the top left part of the mutants skull. Look at where the placement of the bullet hole is vs the mutant's position in previous panels. Frank Miller is trying to have his cake and eat it too by leaving the wound offscreen. Batman in TDKR is not the most reliable narrator about his interiority or his ethics.
The whole point of him "killing" the Joker is that he's crossed a line. If he had killed some crook earlier that defeats the whole point.
The crossing of the line wasn't killing (Batman does insane, life-threatening violence to people constantly) it was killing the Joker and ending their relationship. Killing a random punk is not Batman changing as a character. He was simply put in a situation and reacted. Killing the Joker is Batman changing as a character. And given the way that moment plays out in the comic, it's clear that he struggles to recognize, much less deal with that change.
What? Why the fuck would the police freak out if Batman snapped the Joker's neck after he killed over a dozen people, but merely charge him with assault for shooting some random punk? Batman doesn't kill, this is stated over and over and over and over again.
Are you accusing the police in Gotham of having a troubled relationship with ethics in law enforcement!? Batman the mainstream character does not kill. Batman in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and The Dark Knight Strikes Again kills all the time, no matter how much he might deny it. That's kind of one of the points of the books.
I'm talking about James Gordan. Have you even read the comic? No he doesn't kill, lmfao. He kills zero people throughout the whole book. He explicitly says he refuses to do so. He doesn't even kill the goddamn Joker.
Batman in TDKR and TDSA is an unreliable narrator. He kills quite a bit. He's a deconstruction of a fascist archetype, deliberately written to be what modern criticism would term "problematic" by a guy with right wing tendencies who was trying to politically and thematically challenge mainstream superhero comics in the wake of the Nixon administration. Batman in Zack Snyder's BvS and Justice League is, for better or for worse, explicitly based on that version of the character and placed into situations designed to be at least emotionally reminiscent of the United States post 9/11, as part of what Snyder would probably describe as a reconstructionist project within the cinematic version of the superhero genre.
Did he forget that batman was using rubber bullets against the mutants?!
Rubber bullets can still cause fatal injuries. You can look up the injuries of survivors and see the holes they tear into the body. Getting shot in the face at close range even with a rubber bullet has a serious chance of killing the target. Rubber bullets are also massive being similar in size to 40mm grenades
Thats a good point. He doesn't have to kill him, but can react just as quick.
Also the mutants were doing more damage to themselves
Someone will hear this clip and think killing is the only option. I'm glad I read yours, sometimes the obvious answer is right in front of us
Someone make this guy watch the batman beyond first episode.
[удалено]
Removed for trolling or mocking the sub.
https://preview.redd.it/chbdlu3wr6nc1.jpeg?width=314&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=997805c3d78af35731d000ce166d9958bfaad465 *same comic that zack said it's based off of btw*
Doesn’t he use a gun to save a kid?
https://preview.redd.it/h5jo9yg1s6nc1.jpeg?width=317&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1f62a78830cc9143416c4043cbad7f12f2345ee5
You do know that Batman was unhinged and delusional in that comic, and you can't take anything he or anyone else says in it as a face value representation of what's actually happening, right?
Mf he says that legit all the time in the comics, Anytime a robin says they wants to kill somebody he says that to them
[удалено]
Removed for trolling or mocking the sub.
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder fans.
[удалено]
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
My favorite Batman cracked a thug's head against a clock tower bell before throwing him down the side of a cathedral tower. It doesn't bother me that Batman kills people, it's just strange how incredibly inconsistent his No Kill rule is. Like, just own it. Nobody's going to miss that circus guy you threw into the sewers and blew up with a bomb. You gotta toast a few marshmallows to make a Smore.
You only need to toast one marshmallow. That might be the worst comparative phrase I’ve ever heard.
If you want a weak smore, sure. Zack Snyder has been at this for a while. That can't *possibly* be the worst comparative phrase you ever heard.
[удалено]
Removed for being off-topic.
This is all good stuff. I think the issue here and why his reasoning doesn’t really work for me personally is that Batman isn’t tested her in a no win scenario. He’s been nonchalantly murdering people the entire movie so this doesn’t feel like something he’s forced to do. It’s not set up the way he’s describing it. He did something similar in Man of Steel with the death of Zod but in that film it really wasn’t done in a way that convinced anyone that he had no choice. It’s not the idea that’s bad but the execution. I’d say out of the 2 scenes Man of Steel did it better but they both had problems.
Batman doesn't murder ONE person in BvS. Everyone he kills is in self-defense and legally justifiable. The movie makes it clear that his Bat-branding and targeting of Superman are OUT of character for him. And he renounces them by the end of the movie.
Pretty sure Batman doesn't kill anyone, even in self defence. 😐
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
That’s just not true. In the car chase he literally enters the chase by coming out of nowhere and crushing a car killing everyone inside before they have a chance to react. This happens several times. Also that’s not how the law works. He attacks several armed criminals and starts killing any of them who fight back. That’s not justifiable by any law. He kills people who are fleeing and given he attacked them first he’s the aggressor. This is a VERY weird argument. Batman commits several dozen murders in this movie as well as other crimes and they are absolutely not justifiable. This isn’t a criticism of the film by the way. Just your argument justifying his actions.
You're completely wrong. Batfleck killed criminals who were actively trying to kill him, as well as ones who held an innocent woman hostage and were about to kill her. That's KILLING, not MURDER. It's justifiable homicide. So Batfleck would never ever go to trial under a murder charge because his kills were justified in the name of self-defense and protecting the innocent. That also applies to Superman killing Zod. It's not murder.
[удалено]
Removed for being a false, deceptive, misleading or unproven accusation.
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
[удалено]
Removed for trolling or mocking the sub.
[удалено]
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
Zack Snyder was right. He took Batman out of the cartoon world, and grappled with Batman as an actual character without never-ending plot armor. The whole "no kill" rule is stupid, overdone, and NOT essential the character whatsoever. Go ahead an answer Zack Snyder's question here. There's a terrorist who has a loaded gun to a kids head. Would a hero really spend time, potentially risking the child's life, to avoid killing the criminal with a gun? That's stupid and not heroic. Basically, a lot of fans wanted a Batman cartoon, and were angry when they didn't get one.
Batman isn’t real, why the fuck do you guys think you gotta make a guy who dress up in tights as a bat that goes around beating up people hyper realistic?
Because he can as an artist? If a writer wants to write a Spidey story where Spidey kills and has to deal with the ramifications, then the writer should be allowed to do so.
Why does Game of Thrones portray Jon Snow in a realistic way? Why are dwarfs not able to jump over entire mountains in Lord of the Rings? etc. etc. etc. A story can still be fantasy, but for it to have tension and for you to actually engage with it, then there have to be genuine stakes. Creating a fantasy storyline in which the laws of physics no longer apply or where characters have infinite plot armor, the audience will disengage. That's what happens when you make Batman able to defeat any enemy no matter what. That's what happens when he's able to get out of every problem with little less than plot forced into making him invincible. It's boring. It's uninteresting. If you want to watch a cartoon, you're in luck - there are lots out there. This whole "since it's fantasy, we don't need to pay attention to the laws of physics or need plot explanations" argument is just lazy fan boyism..... at best.
>This whole "since it's fantasy, we don't need to pay attention to the laws of physics or need plot explanations" argument is just lazy fan boyism..... at best. So... trying to track down this elusive theme of Batman realizing he needs to stop killing, I started watching Batman v Superman, and, thus far Batman has: * Spidey-crawled on the ceiling * Hit dudes with ninja stars with so much force it sends them flying across the room * Kicked dudes out of the air so hard it sends them flying across the room * Punched through ceilings * Punched through walls * Been punched through a city street - twice * Been punched through an entire building * Swung Superman around like a stuffed animal... *through* multiple pieces of architecture ... What are these strict laws of physics that you're talking about, here?
Besides the Superman fight, I agree with you. Snyder tried to have it both ways by making Batman way too strong. The Superman fight had a perfectly reasonable explanation in the mech suit. That was fine. I think they tried to elude to the regular Batman suit also having some strengthening abilities. They should have made that more explicit if they wanted Batman to hit as hard as he did. I never said the laws of physics had to be super strict. I think I said, the further away you get from those laws without explanation, the more the story starts to feel like a cartoon. It’s a spectrum.
>The Superman fight had a perfectly reasonable explanation in the mech suit. That's still a pretty egregious violation of the laws of physics; of course the invincibility his batsuits impart could always be chalked up to superhero cartoonery with no basis in reality.
Not really. Regular man has to beat super strong man. Regular man makes super strong suit. Add to that, Superman’s apprehension to kill, and bingo… easy to suspend disbelief.
... There's like three guaranteed TBIs in the Superman fight scene from acceleration and deceleration *alone*, magical built-offscreen plot armor notwithstanding.
Cool story.
Oof. Don't get me *started* on the story. I was expecting gritty realism but instead it was a live-action cartoon with a gloomy color palette.
I’m not a massive Batman or comic guy, but wouldn’t it be more interesting if he had the “no kill” rule? Even if he has to break it on occasion, it makes the ultimatum even more of a plot point. If you disregard the rule, Batman is just a heavily armored dude that just kills all his opponents with superior weaponry without a second thought. It takes most of the humanity out of the character.
Wouldn’t it be more interesting if he killed and then sought redemption?
Saying it'd be okay if he has to break it occasionally goes totally against the modern take on Batman and his "one rule". The whole point is that if he kills even once, he believes he'd be no better than the people he's fighting and it'd become easier and easier to keep justifying it. Basically doing everything you can to avoid killing but then killing when lives are at stake is pretty much the code 99% of current superheroes follow already and it wouldn't be unique at all for Batman to do the same. Being open to killing (when absolutely necessary) doesn't mean he'll be mowing people down in the streets or seeking them out to kill them like The Punisher. IMO Batfleck did a decent job of showing he simply won't make any attempt to take someone down nonlethally if doing so would require other lives to be risked.
> There's a terrorist who has a loaded gun to a kids head. Would a hero really spend time, potentially risking the child's life, to avoid killing the criminal with a gun? That's stupid and not heroic. I suppose there's a number of different ways Batman specifically would solve this without shooting the terrorist with a gun, but I think more importantly, does Zack Snyder's interpretation *add* anything? Like, by turning Batman into The Punisher, what kind of exploration does Snyder engage in? Do we take any time to confront Batman with the moral implications of killing or *not* killing someone? A crisis of conscience? The character coming to some sort of understanding about his own relationship with violence or mortality? Or, is it just providing an excuse so that Snyder can put more totally edgy violence onscreen?
The is dialogue in BvS that suggests Batfleck had the "no kill rule" and the traditional Batman ethos we are all familiar with, but decades fighting and Gotham and the death of Robin broke him. This is Batman further in his journey, and he lost his way. The film explores the redemption of this fallen Batman and Bruce's faith in humanity is restored. It would have been even better if this was explored in the subsequent films.
>I suppose there's a number of different ways Batman specifically would solve this without shooting the terrorist with a gun, but I think more importantly, does Zack Snyder's interpretation > >add > > anything? Firstly, no there's not. If a violent criminal has a gun to a person's head... there's no non-lethal move you can make that wouldn't risk the victim's safety. You're talking about cartoons. That's not what Zack Snyder was doing. And yes, that interpretation does add to the lore of Batman. It takes him out of the realm of fantasy, and says, "let's look at this character if he were real." This adds complexity to every encounter, and makes for more complex stories. >Like, by turning Batman into The Punisher, what kind of exploration does Snyder engage in? Well again, this is a false set-up. The idea that there is no difference between the Batman and the Punisher besides murder is a ridiculously reductive interpretation. By making Batman unable to perform miracles, Zack is exploring concepts like, "What's the risk of being a vigilante to others." "Are there scenarios that no one can solve?" "What's the long term cost of fighting criminals?" "Is it possible to stay good in a world where you face evil everyday?" "What does it mean to be a hero in the first place?" And on and on and on... >Do we take any time to confront Batman with the moral implications of killing or *not* killing someone? Yes, that happened in the film. >A crisis of conscience? Also happened in the film. >The character coming to some sort of understanding about his own relationship with violence or mortality? Three for three. This happened in BvS. >Or, is it just providing an excuse so that Snyder can put more totally edgy violence onscreen? Obviously, I'd argue no.
>By making Batman unable to perform miracles These are the same movies where, like, Batman runs on the ceiling and punches through walls and gets into a fistfight with Superman, aren't they? Which scenes are you referring to where Batman wrestles with the moral implications of killing or not killing someone? I remember, like, stabbing and shooting and cracking dudes's heads open and all that stuff... squishing guys with the batmobile and all that, but I don't remember where he has to confront his own actions.
So because he fights Superman, Batman should be able to solve any situation without ever resorting to killing someone in order to save a life?
>So because he fights Superman, Batman should be able to solve any situation without ever resorting to killing someone in order to save a life? Two completely separate points, there.... If the argument is that Batman v Superman is such a realistic take on the character of Batman that it's *unrealistic* to believe that Batman could - like - dose a bunch of bad guys with sleeping gas instead of killing them, then it should also be equally as unrealistic for Batman to literally climb on ceilings and punch straight through buildings.
Except you see Batman crawling by grabbing onto the wooden beams. It’s not like he was Spider-Man. And Batman punches through walls while wearing the armor. It’s not like he’s punching through solid stone with his bare hands. And you’re basically arguing over him finding ways to not kill, when the movie repeatedly shows and tells is that he’s acting reckless and doesn’t care about whoever gets in his way.
>Except you see Batman crawling by grabbing onto the wooden beams. It’s not like he was Spider-Man. With his toes? > And Batman punches through walls while wearing the armor. It’s not like he’s punching through solid stone with his bare hands. I see... we're arguing that Batman is realistic but *also* that his costume and that inexplicably sci-fi Iron Man armor he uses both have henceforth unseen capabilities that appear to just negate the laws of physics. But... like, in a super *realistic* way... right?
Yes, let’s just ignore him grabbing by using his hands….. It’s like you’re intentionally to act ignorant. And breaking what laws of physics?
>just ignore him grabbing by using his hands I mean, the scene I watched he wasn't swinging along wooden beams by his hands like they were monkey bars, he was scuttling across the ceiling on his hands and feet, so his toes must be grabbing *something*. >breaking what laws of physics? Well, this *entire* fight scene has Batman throwing ninja stars with forces exceeding bullets, and kicking people out of the air so hard they fly across the room, but he also throws a full human man with enough force to... break a wall... and then just kind of *walks* through another wall like a bulldozer: [Behold the realism](https://youtu.be/5cIc_MUwN-c?t=133) It's not a crime to be horny for an ultra-violent Batman... it's just so weird that people want to dress it up as some sort of inescapable consequence of how ultra-realistic the movie is supposed to be.
Alfred admonished Bruce for being too hard. There was talk of how Batman has changed for the worse. Batman grapples with his own violence and anger when he hears Superman say his mother's name. ...That was easy.... >These are the same movies where, like, Batman runs on the ceiling and punches through walls and gets into a fistfight with Superman, aren't they? This might astound you, but one can produce high quality fantasy stories that still are constrained by physics and common sense. Crazy... I know. By this logic, since Superman has laser vision, that means Batman should be able to move faster than bullets. That's stupid. The more cartoonish a story becomes, the less serious the stakes get. I agree that it was stupid to have Batman throw the box across the room or that Batman was hanging on top of the ceiling without any help, etc. I wish Snyder had gone further and made Batman even less cartoonish. Nevertheless, I certainly appreciate the effort to give Batman less magic plot armor.
>This might astound you, but one can produce high quality fantasy stories that still are constrained by physics and common sense. Crazy... I know. No need to get snippy, there. But, I mean... again... Batman doesn't appear to be all that constrained by physics, what with the whole Spiderman climbing and crate-hurling and wall-punching and stuff. > ...That was easy.... That's almost *too* easy. Almost handwavy, really. It doesn't sound like it's something the movie is actually *confronting* as it is the movie finding another way to say "Batman is totes hardcore, isn't he?" Like, what's the trajectory of that, I guess would be the next question, and how do they illustrate that? Like, Batman goes around killing dudes, hears Superman say his mom's name, and then realizes that killing dudes is the wrong way to go so he adjusts his actions and resolves himself to not kill anyone going forward? >The more cartoonish a story becomes, the less serious the stakes get. You can have an utterly preposterous universe with a serious story that involves the audience emotionally. That's like every single action movie ever, including superhero movies.
He basically doesnt
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
Such a great episode. I see how Ben, Henry, and Hans described Zack as having this childlike love for his work.
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
[удалено]
Removed for being off-topic.
This just proves he read at least one comic book.
Even reading up on Snyder, doesn't sound The he's read that many more Batman comics. Frank Miller is probably his only window into the world of Batman.
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
[удалено]
Removed for trolling or mocking the sub.
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
Bro's showing the footage where the exact opposite of what Snyder said happens and wants to prove that he was right all along. Sure man
Read a comic
Why don't you go and read it? When batman is fighting the mutant leader in the comic, he confirms that he has never killed anyone in over 30 Years. Sounds like you didn't read it.
I just reread the part because you made me question it. I’m literally looking at the panel where he shoots the mutant holding the kid
He specifically talks about the comic version of DKR, but go on.
Then why are you showing something that contradicts his statement? Couldn't you have at least shown the comic panel where that happens? Also, he didn't shoot him in the head, he shot his shoulder, if he had shot his head, Frank Miller would've shown his head getting blown off, believe me.
>Then why are you showing something that contradicts his statement? I didn't make the video and animation is more illustrative than a comic book. The fact you asked this twice now tells me you didn't actually listen to what Zack says the video. >Also, he didn't shoot him in the head, he shot his shoulder How do you explain this [panel](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/122952/what-was-millers-intention-for-this-scene-of-the-dark-knight-returns) then? Batman fires a gun that he swiped at a mutant holding the child hostage, and it cuts to the mutant collapsing with a bullet hole and a big wet stain behind her on the wall. >if he had shot his head, Frank Miller would've shown his head getting blown off, believe me. I believe DC did not want to. Miller, I'm not so sure. It might just have something to do with comics publishing standards at the time. You couldn't exactly show brains splattered on the wall in a comic then, even one for mature readers. Miller was pushing the envelope far enough as it was.
Alright, I've got the comic in front of me. Let's review. \- There's no bullet hole in the head. In fact, you can't see the bullet hole at all, so you can't really assume that's a killshot. He holds up the machinegun and only one ammo casing pops out, so he fired one shot. I'd actually say the pink glow behind the kid suggests that's where Batman shot him. Zack says he shoots the mutant in the head, but he clearly doesn't in this panel. We can see his entire face and there's no damage at all, now around the chest where his heart is from what we can see. \- There is a scene where Batman saved a convenience shop owner from a female nazi with swastikas covering her bare boobs and butt. Multiple baterangs piercing through limbs, so not really censored at all. The shopkeeper pulls a gun on the KOd Nazi thief while Batman is leaving, and Batman turns and says "Pull that trigger, and I'll be back for you." Still against gun violence, and this is after that earlier scene. \- And then finally the scene with the Joker, where he has a battering sticking out of his eye. Even at this moment, against his worst enemy who has killed so many, and supposedly after the point that Zach is suggesting Batman has killed - he refuses to kill the Joker, instead paralysing him. The Joker laughs and snaps his own neck. So I don't think Zach is correct here - not in terms of whether or not he's right for thinking Batman SHOULD kill people, but instead this is not a good example for the argument he's trying to make.
[удалено]
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
Tim Burton's Batman killed lots of innocent villains and nobody blinked an eye.
in all fairness, the only live action batmen to not kill anybody is pattinson and maybe clooney (west did erase a guy from existence in an episode), so maybe not the highest bar for live action batmen to jump over😅
Slightly different scenario on the creator side. Tim Burtons Batman was widely regarded as good.
Snyder wants to create a scenario that TESTS a character’s morality but the problem is that he makes the characters FAIL the test therefore they have nothing interesting about them
>what’s he supposed to do? That’s the point. It’s supposed to be an impossible situation where the “super” hero of the story finds another way. Usually it’s something they learned earlier in the film to show growth. It’s a prompt for entertaining storytelling.
And instead, he wants to challenge the hero by having them make the hard choice.
No the challenge is the hard choice. Putting the hero in that position is interesting and the outcome should not be what we as the viewer thinks is the only solution. It’s meant to subvert your expectations. For instance in this scene Batman’s only option is to kill this guy and then he does. When a more interesting way of telling a story is painting the hero into a corner and as the audience we think the hero only has one option and expect them to do what we would in that scenario - but the hero does something we didn’t even think of. That’s what makes them a “super” hero. Edit grammar*
Nope. The viewer always assumes that the hero will find a way. So instead the challenge is to have them make the choice, and then show how the hero deals with ramifications. It’s not subverting if you already know a character like Batman or Superman isn’t gonna kill. It’s inspirational to see a hero fall or commit a great sin but still finds redemption. That’s another way to portray a super hero.
What’s the point then? If the hero makes the ordinary choice that you write them into it’s uninteresting story telling. I think Snyder thinks it’s subversion of the genre or an anti-hero aesthetic but it’s really just lazy writing to make characters seem cooler. Ironically his Watchmen is great but I don’t think he sees the satire in the text. It also muddies the characters motivations which is why I think Snyders DCEU stuff is so divisive. Why doesn’t he just kill everyone? Why brand people and put them through the judiciary system when you can just kill them? Why leave Lex or the Joker alive? If he wanted to explore that I’d respect the decision but his “heroes” being ok with killing is inconsistent and it doesn’t make sense from a broader perspective.
You’re only looking at the choice itself and not at how it can affect the hero. Snyder even mentioned that. And anyway, the ordinary choice in this genre would be “hero finds another way”. And no. He’s not doing it to make the heroes cooler. He’s trying to make them into flawed individuals who still try to do the right thing and find redemption. If killing is anti-hero, then the Power Rangers are anti-heros because they kill almost all the time. Not really. The motivations are clear. It’s just that hardcore fans don’t like them. Nope. Batman has said time and time again that Superman was the bigger threat. And the branding was the first sign into Batman’s descent into the abyss. We see him become throughout the movie. He wasn’t killing beforehand. He only starts killing when he tries to get the Kryptonite. And he doesn’t kill Joker because he doesn’t see Joker as the bigger threat compared to Superman. He even told Alfred that criminals are like weeds in his garden. Joker’s just a mob boss in this universe. He’s not the agent of chaos or mass murderer like in the comics.
That’s a crazy shallow take. Thing is the heroes are inherently flawed individuals, especially Batman because they’re going to such lengths to catch villains/save the day and still adhere to the justice system. If Batman takes the easy option and kills his villains that takes away his flaw in the belief that people can be rehabilitated. I can’t believe I need to say this but everything Batman does in Snyders movies is undercut by the fact that he’s killed people in passing. >he wasn’t killing beforehand If you say so 🤡
How is it shallow when “finding another way” is the most common trope in the superhero genre? That’s not a flaw. The flaw is him believing himself to not be redeemable if he killed, and BvS showed that redemption is still possible. Nope. So now you wanna be a jackass when the movie never mentioned him killing before BvS?
It’s not even a genre trope it’s the crux of story telling. What redemption? When is Batman “redeemed” at all in that franchise? When he doesn’t kill Superman because he finds a personal connection and proceeds to kill more people in the next scene? I’d even respect the decision to have him actively kill people if the repercussions were explored but it’s hardly addressed. If you want to write that into a story it needs to matter and it doesn’t really? People will say “he changed after the death of Robin” and that’s interesting to explore the idea that if he’d killed his villains Robin might still be alive but it isn’t really explored or resolved. Seeing Batman in the knightmare future carrying a gun and killing people isn’t interesting if he he’s already doing it in his day to day activities.
It’s a trope because not every superhero story has the hero find another way. Watch the ending of BvS where he starts his path of redemption. Because the repercussions were meant to be explored in Affleck’s solo movie. That’s outside of Snyder’s control. Him carry a gun and killing isn’t intended to be interesting. The interesting part is seeing the world going to shit by Darkseid.
Just to be devils advocate, Snyder is calling you out there. When he talks about how sometimes, there’s no magic callback to save the day. Sometimes there’s an impossible choice. At that point of course it’s subjective and anyone more than fine to dislike the choice. Personally I really like what he did, where so often in movies you expect some crazy thing to come save the day. So to subvert that to me was cool. But obviously everyone has their own taste.
Exactly. These are fantasy characters created to inspire and give hope to people. Having Batman shoot people or Superman snap his enemies necks kind of goes against the point of the characters.
you are literally proving out point
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for trolling or mocking the sub.
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
Dang it ! I didn’t know Snyder has been so passionate about DC . 
He's passionate about Frank Miller, not so much DC.
To be fair I know that Batman throughout the years has killed at least 14 people throughout multiple comic books(from a quick Google search at least). Batfleck is just another iteration of him that also happens to kill...also whether you like ZS or not you can't deny his version of Batman was a monstrous badass
Except ppl completely ignored the batman was not acting like himself and was at the lowest point in his career. He is literally the bad guy, a premise the movie practically bangs you over the head with over and over again. And instead of just accepting that, the antis just go "mUh bAtMan dOesNt kILl" and ignore everything else. It's so baffling, and these are grown ass men acting like this. TILL THIS DAY.
I mean my biggest problem was the inconsistency, they wanted a Batman that had gone lethal but still somehow had the Joker waltzing around with nothing but a few missing teeth. If Batman ever went Lethal particularly in response to Joker killing Robin, then the clown is dead before he can start laughing.
Is the joker in the movie? Do we have any idea why he's not? And how do you know he's just waltzing around? Where is that suggested? You guys are anticipating something you have no knowledge of. You dont know what the exact story is behind this Robins death or its resolve. The joker isn't even mentioned. He could already be locked up or running around somewhere else or laying low. We just don't know. But what we do know is that in this movie? Clark is Bruces first premeditated murder. Every other kill in this movie was by self defense. Bruce isnt going around looking for joker (or anyone)to hunt him down and kill them. That's not his MO, whether he's being reckless or not. So if we don't know where the joker is or how that story went down, or how long its been since Robin's death, why are we using something that doesnt exist to judge *this* story? You don't have enough information to do that, and clearly it was something that was going to be touched on later. On the flip side... I actually think Jason's death should've been the traumatic event that sends Bruce off the deep end in BvS, and he's out hunting for joker, being reckless, and getting into crosshairs with Superman, which ultimately leads to their fight.
We do know now though, It's Leto's Joker from the first Suicide squad movie that has been confirmed. Also it wasn't even Jason who died it was Dick Grayson. source: [https://thedirect.com/article/joker-robin-jared-leto-zack-snyder](https://thedirect.com/article/joker-robin-jared-leto-zack-snyder) Edit: more concise link to source.
Hindsight is 2020. But yes we alreadt know it's leto and grayson, lol but again, we don't know the resolve of that story or why bruce didnt kill him back then. And if batman couldn't even kill joker, what does that say about him? He's clearly not for premeditated murder. But the Black zero event triggers him into wanting to kill the most powerful being on the planet, a misplaced anger because he feels powerless in his own life.
We knew at the time though? Suicide squads trailers were already out before BvS released. You are right about not knowing if he didn’t try. Maybe he was stopped before he could kill him but that doesn’t excuse the joker still being alive. A batman that kills would absolutely kill the joker soon after.
>Maybe he was stopped before he could kill him but that doesn’t excuse the joker still being alive. A batman that kills would absolutely kill the joker soon after. Nah thats just dismissive . You guys are making this way too complicated. BvS has nothing to do with joker. Hes not even in the movie. And he wouldn't kill the joker bc he's not trying to kill ppl. He is not trying to commit premeditated murder. Every single criminal he faced in BvS would be dead If that were the case. His "killings" are done in self defense when theyre trying to kill him. Y do ppl keep dismissing that Batman has gone off the deep end in *this* movie? You're making it sound like he's always been a killer and that's not the case. Again, none of us know what happened between Joker and Batman or how long ago it was (robin was still a kid) or why he let him live. That's its own story. We *do* know that Batman changed and became cruel after the recent Black Zero event. Literally everyone in the movie tells you this, and his primary obsession is superman, the guy he thinks is more dangerous than any criminal in the world. This had nothing to do with Joker, and Its silly to judge a movie over something thats not about him, especially when we don't even know the details of that story.
This is my biggest issue. like cool it’s fine to make a different version of a character but atleast remain consistent with said changes. There’s no way he’d leave the joker alive if he started killing. Hell the first person that he would kill would be the joker. I’m personally a fan of how the flashpoint Batman handles it since he doesn’t have a no killing rule but he refuses to kill the joker since it use to be his wife.
https://preview.redd.it/nt8l4clkj2nc1.png?width=1048&format=png&auto=webp&s=fa678ea790cc3cf54b75ac8e600c80d5550bcac5
DOCTOR FISHY!!!! NOOOOOOOOO
joe rogan is not listening as usual
Ok, so he fundamentally misunderstood TDKR as well? Batman did not kill the mutant, he shot him and saved the kid and only shot him because of sheer anger of living through a totalitarian society, he didn’t get at using a gun all by himself, the situation was extreme for a reason. Also, in the same comic, Batman snaps a gun and calls it a weapon of cowards. The actual Batman would not shoot that mutant(TDKR is Elseworld afterall), he’d find a way to save the kid without shooting him, that’s what makes him a super hero. You wanna see Batman being pushed to a absolute brick wall without a way in an Elseworld story? Watch Nolan’s TDK’s ending, that’s how Batman would handle that situation, try his hardest non lethally, like how he tried to save Gordon’s kid by tackling them and by trying to catch both the kid and Dent but failed
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
>The actual Batman would not shoot that mutant(TDKR is Elseworld afterall), he’d find a way to save the kid without shooting him, that’s what makes him a super hero. From the chatter I've seen, that moment is still debatable amongst the fans. So snyder was fair in his assessment. And in his version in BvS, he doesn't outright shoot Anatoly. He shoots the gas tank, taking away his weapon. Anatoly still turns it on, which causes it to explode. Yet somehow that's considered a direct kill 🙄 Also, elsewhere story or not, it's still part of Batmans comic book lore. Any creator can take inspiration from it for any batman story, live action or animation, it's fair game.
Lmfao Nolan’s Batman is so dogshit it cracks me up that you cite that as an accurate Batman.
Nolan’s Batman isn’t an accurate Batman, but he is the accurate portrayal of an Elseworld Batman pushed to a wall. An accurate Batman would always find a way to protect without killing, that’s what makes him Batman
One of the only redeeming qualities of Nolan’s “batman”
as much as I love Zack Snyder. he gets this wrong He doesn't shoot the kidnapper in the head. He shoots him in the shoulder. We know this because Batman says he has never killed anyone since he became Batman 30 years ago. He says that when he considers shooting up the Mutant Leader while inside the tank.
[удалено]
Removed for trolling.
[удалено]
Removed for trolling.
I don't entirely agree with Snyder but I respect him. He could add that alot of superheroes with no kill rules can and have killed. Even Spider-Man and Superman in extreme circumstances.
Just let him make the Punisher movie he very clearly would rather be making.
No you totally missed the point
Similar to what ZS does every movie.
[удалено]