>"If you don't test the morality of the character, then it's dead. It can't evolve, it can't move, it can only answer questions that doesn't break canon, and that's not the way to treat these legendary characters" — Zack Snyder
Regarding him on why he had Batman kill. I feel this is a prettt satisfactory answer especially given the character arc of Snyders batman. He was clearly off the deep end when we meet him and changed for the better by the end of BVS
I guess some people just can’t handle the idea that batman can ever stray off the path or break some sacred rule
Zack snyder was on joe rogan?
what the frick does that mean?
How does 'testing Batman' mean he has to kill people?
One of the things that MAKES a hero like Batman interesting is seeing him overcome obstacles and enemies WITHOUT breaking his rules
>It can't evolve
Who wanted Batman to evolve?
Same shit is used to justify batman never getting married or Spider-Man not having a wife and kids
>One of the things that MAKES a hero like Batman interesting is seeing him overcome obstacles and enemies WITHOUT breaking his rules
More like the Universe bending over for him so he doesn't lol.
It means it's hard to write something for a hundred-year old children's comic book story that hasn't been already done or violates some principle of design.
That's why capeshit is dead.
>One of the things that MAKES a hero like Batman interesting is seeing him overcome obstacles and enemies WITHOUT breaking his rules
Except that’s wrong because it’s Batman and it’s never about whether he can find a way that doesn’t require killing. The only story you usually get is Batman getting so fricking mad he almost kills someone in a temporary fit of rage.
Snyder meanwhile had Batman be someone who’s suffering from survivor’s guilt and PTSD, who has slowly lost his way and bit by bit become more cynical, paranoid and angry because he can’t win his war and now aliens exist and he couldn’t do jackshit to save his own employees from alien invasion so he’s resorting to extreme brutality and even murder to feel strong and safe again. And then Superman, to whom Batman projected all his fears and anger, shows him how far Batman has fallen when he’s becoming the new Joe Chill and makes him start to believe in being a real hero again. He is given hope by Superman.
>He is given hope by Superman
>the hope to slaughter a warehouse full of goons then blow the frick up another guy
Yes, truly groundbreaking cinema
the hope doesnt come until Superman sacrifices himself and we see it play out in Snyder cut you massive moron
All my friends hated Batman after this film. Great job Zack. You ruined every DC character.
That's exactly how I took it
>what the frick does that mean?
Anything Snyder wants it to mean. It's him being a pseud.
>Who wanted Batman to evolve?
Best not to play into that wording by saying you're happy being an amoeba - it'd be better to frame it as Snyder wanting Batman to not be Batman, which is not evolution, it's him hating the character.
Evolution is Batman getting a new outfit every so often and reverting it if the fans say "Ew".
Yeah we've enjoyed plenty of stories where he sticks to his rule even if we disagree with it or he's being ridiculous. Part of the reason why these characters don't grow like this is so there's consistency through the different series and stories. To deviate from that and create one where he is coping with ending life and being superheroes who kill, there's a fundamental element missing. It's an expectation that once subverted, there's something major changed.
If this were a liberal woman saying the same thing, there'd be more resistance, more cries of how "they are eroding culture".
>>It can't evolve
>Who wanted Batman to evolve?
this
Batman is timeless, you have to be a real fricking douchebag to think you can improve Batman
literal children
nah you just have mentality of a child--"klilling is okay as long as the story never acknowledges it!" lmao
You can evolve a character without injecting some form of modern viewpoints, it's just writers of today are too self centered and/or stupid to do so.
Zach is a legit moron.
He is a suit thinking he's an artist.
I think most people want characters to evolve to not get stagnant and stale to the average consumer, but I agree with everything else you said.
Tim Burton Batman killed and those films are far and above better.
And I feel on some level the story actually does acknowledge that it fricked up Batman in some way in a way that's more interesting
Batman had no problems killing the Joker out of revenge for the death of his parents in the first movie and seemed a lot more obsessive in his role as Batman
Then in Returns he seems somewhat more introspective about his role, especially since it drove away Vicki and he now sees what he could have become through Selina (I don't count him kicking the fat criminal with the dynamite, it's obviously cartoon violence since the guy shows up later when the Penguin gets the blueprints to the Batmobile)
And then from Forever onwards, Bruce has his more traditional "No Kill Rule" now that he's realized all it did was make him feel more empty and he doesn't want the same thing to happen to Dick. Two-Face still dies at the end but again that was more circumstantial, it's not like Bruce was just like "Okay Robin you went through enough character development, you can murder him now :)"
tl;dr there's a certain nuance, intentional or otherwise, to how Batman's character was tested in the Burton/Schumacher movies that was handled better than Snyder's attempts at doing the same thing
baman 89 was also more cartoony and stylized, so batman causing someone to fall through the floor and to his presumed death is more tolerable than literally machine gunning a car down to nothing but its chassis with a pair of machine guns and then slamming someones head with a crate and leaving a blood splatter
This
Snyder shot himself in the foot with his super-serious tone because with Burton you can gloss over deaths and other oddities since it's a cartoon world.
well tim burton didn't give a shit about being faithful or accurate to batman (like how joker killed Batman's parents?), but he also didn't try to excuse it as poorly as Zack does (at least to my knowledge).
What part of "depends on the writer" don't you get? moron.
>If you don't test the morality of the character, then it's dead
>why he had Batman kill
Wasn't this the point of the Harley gambit at the end of Joker War? To test and evolve the character without compromising on like, his one chief rule?
I don't know shit about Batlore but wouldn't Batman basically go Joker if he actually killed someone, even a bad guy?
No, that’s just what some writers do to justify it because otherwise it’s moronic. It’s hardly some universal truth, Batman killed plenty of people in the early comics, he killed people in the tim burton movies. He 100% killed people in the league of shadows temple fire in Batman Begins but that doesn’t count for some reason.
Batman doesn't kill or use firearms and he works directly with the police so that parents wouldn't mind their children reading comic books with the character. The "Where does it stop?" was just Paul Dini's explanation from the New Adventures. It just so happens to be the best explanation because Dini is the best Bat writer.
Extremely based.
BvS Ultimate is the best capekino.
>charliegay has shit taste
makes sense
Lol the yurigay has sh-
Yeah I was about to say that
>it can only answer questions that doesn't break canon, and that's not the way to treat these legendary characters
What?
He's saying that because of the cultural impact and significance held by these characters, their morality should be less fixed to allow for their use in addressing and translating of real-world issues
Snyder didnt explore any moral ramifications from batman killing criminals or superman killing zod. The closest is batman "killing" clark being potrayed as bad but that's a no shit type thing.
>Snyder didnt explore any moral ramifications from batman killing criminals or superman killing zod
what? are you moronic? both of those things are integral to BvS, like Doomsday and Superman dying only happens BECAUSE he killed Zod, its right there in the plot of the movie, its not even subtext, its super text right there highlight how Superman killing Zod was the wrong thing. Also Batman's entire arc revolves around him finding ways to justify killing and then realizing he can do better / have hope, which directly leads into Snyder Cut.
Jesus christ you are so stupid its embarassing
Batman’s arc is realizing he shouldn’t kill Superman all the shit about him learning to be better was fan cope
Testing the morality of Batman's No Kill Code would be putting him in a situation where he has to work harder or get hurt, trying to keep people alive. Including people who are actively trying to kill him.
Scripting out him killing people isn't testing that morality, it's disregarding it. Zack is using word salad and hoping nobody notices.
Anon, Superman's and Batman have been addressing real world issues before you or Zack were a twinkle in your respective uncles' eye. Without killing people, funnily enough.
Kane estate lawyer is afraid of the prospect of Zack using Batman to tackle corruption in law enforcement
That simply shows the estate's own political views
What the frick are you talking about, Batman fighting police and government corruption has been a staple of the franchise for decades.
Not every character needs to be "developed". Most of the time "character development" is just a shallow label that people associate with "smart" and "good". But not every character needs it. It's fine to have a character who is generally mentally well-off and only faces occasional temporary internal/external struggles, but manages to stay true to their convictions at the end. Though this is more fitting for serialized works, I suppose movies do work better with a specific character arc to go over in a couple of others. That said, Superman suffers from "develoooopers" way more than Batman.
That's a hell of a slippery slope that can be justified changing characters whichever that way.
in a couple of hours*
Big talk for a gay who said "I made it for the fans" when it sucked and took dialogue and visuals from dozens of comics
>West Batman killed
>It’s just goofy 60’s action anon; bat dance and shark spray lol
>Burton Batman killed
>It’s just goofy 80’s action anon; wanna get nuts lol
>Schumacher Batman killed
>It’s just goofy 90’s action anon; batnipples amirite?
>Nolan Batman killed
>It’s just a grounded take anon; just like the comics you don’t read
>Snyder Batman killed
>OMG THIS IS FRICKING BULLSHIT OH MY FRICKING GOD REEEEE SNYDER YOU PIECE OF SHIT REEEE FRICK YOU ILL KILL YOU YOU FRICKING IDIOT
>Reeves Batman killed
>He’s green, it’s an early take and he’s still learning; not like he should save these bad guys anyway. Also, Pattinson is literally me
>Muschietti’s Batman’s kill; nobody bats an eye.
I’ll never get the hate boner for Snyder
Reeves batman didnt kill, and the nolan films made a big hoopla about batman not killing AND people have always complained about nolan and schumaker batman killing, what're you on?
>nolan films made a big hoopla about batman not killing
Blew up a temple full of people
Was fine with catwoman shooting Bane to death
Killing Talia via car crash is fine
>Blew up a temple full of people
that was an accident
Who did Pattinson Batman kill?
>West Batman killed
unknowingly
Adam West's Batman openly says "I'll kill you all, I'll rend you limb from limb" in the movie. The difference is it was actually based and kino unlike Snyder slop.
Careful, Cinemaphile is a James Gunn edgelord town.
>Commiefornia Podcaster opinions
Low T post
But enough about yourself.
He didnt challenge the morality tho, he had batman killing as if he always killed and didnt potray it as any "crossing of the treshold" type moment. Gordon and alfred are still with him despite that, superman and ww kill too, it means nothing.
All he had to do was say "this was a different take and I get why people wouldn't like that when so many versions of the character are opposed to killing". That's it. Instead of advertising this weird mixture of different versions of Batman that ended up being a psychotic moron instead of anything like the ones he took inspiration from.
If criminals are going to die and Batman won't give a shit, people can accept it if the movie doesn't heavily reference his moralhomosexualry or aversion to killing, or he doesn't go out of his way to do it. If the movie does make a point about him being more violent and unhinged and it's part of the conflict, you need to have an actual resolution to it other than "whatever we teamed up now and neither of us stopped killing." Wonder Woman fricking beheads Steppenwolf while Superman, Batman, and the rest of the league don't give a shit
You can't do a movie like this right after three popular films of Batman's extreme moralhomosexualry
You could. It would just require a better storyteller.
BvS doesn't work because there's no logical consistency between actions. Like for example
>Batman wants Kryptonite, so he goes to steal a shipment.
>He gets into a big huge fight with rockets and car chases and murder because it's badass and cool.
>Then he uses stealth and steals the kryptonite off camera anyway.
Why not just do that from the start? Because Zack wants step two and doesn't really care about steps 1 or 3. And that's fine, sometimes you need an action sequence to keep the audience from falling asleep. The problem is that the conflict of the movie hinges on another one of these logical lapses:
>Batman has no problem killing criminals.
>Batman is so is scared a rogue Superman would mean the end of the world that he thinks if there's any remote chance at all, then Superman needs to be taken out, yesterday.
>Martha
>Batman realizes Superman isn't an alien, he's just a human.
>Batman goes off and kills more human criminals.
The argument that a rogue superman would be unstoppable didn't actually get addressed, if anything Batman's fears got confirmed because Superman proved himself to be just as corruptible and flawed as the humans Batman has killed all throughout the movie. But who cares?! Doomsday!
You're right but I was too lazy to type that Snyder pulled it off in a shit manner
>Then he uses stealth and steals the kryptonite off camera anyway.
Stealth? Motherfricker the security camera footage shows how he had to wreck the entire facility to get the Kryptonite.
That's Snyder Stealth.
>The argument that a rogue superman would be unstoppable didn't actually get addressed
But it is. Superman never bends the knee to Lex. He is never corrupted. The only reason he fights Batman in the end is because Kryptonite gas makes him so weak that he has to start actually defending himself and knock Batman down so he won’t keep attacking him. You clearly don’t understand the movie.
The people who shit on these movies so hard don’t even watch them or listen to dialogue.
Except the Knightmare future wasn't a dream sequence. Ol Zack Attack confirmed it's totally within Superman's capacity to go full evil and kill everyone.
Knighmare was a representation of current day Batman’s paranoia and fears, as well as teasing a bad future where the world Superman gets mind controlled by an extra dimensional power by Darkseid that nobody else except Superman could defeat.
And yes, anyone can be corrupted in theory. That doesn’t justify Batman Bush era one percent doctrine where you have to kill everyone just to feel secure. Because then you literally would have to murder all life on the planet. That’s not rational. That’s why you have to have faith and trust, which is what saves the day in BvS when Bruce lets go of his fear. Superman sacrifices himself to save the world. If you believe in Batman’s logic then Batman also should be killed. You should be killed because I can’t trust you, maybe you will do something bad.
This. Idiots ignoring context is a sign of mental illness.
After all this shit, Joker, Harley and other members of his rogues gallery are still alive. The people he'd kill first if this were actually designed with his character in mind are all alive with no issue.
It's not "what if batman decided to start killing", it's "Batman but he kills people."
You operate on a faulty fanboy logic where you think if Batman kills then he has to go hunt down and murder specific villains because Batman’s code is just about not killing big name villains. Like he has to be a serial killer. This is wrong. Also, Batman fails to find and capture villains all the time unless they’re actively doing a heist and he catches them in the middle of it and gets clues to track them down that way . So even on that front your logic fails because the Joker could just be on an extended period of hiding. And he has a giant plot armour that allows him to survive certain death time and time again.
Batman didn’t just flip a switch and go “now I kill people”. What Snyder actually has Batman act like is more realistic and natural for a real person: his actions are progressively getting more sadistic and lethal as overcompensation for the weakness and failure he feels about not achieving anything. It’s him lashing out of PTSD and fear. Batman is out of control emotionally and it’s making him act irrationally. And that in turn makes him use more lethal methods. It’s a slow erosion of his ethics and methods where he doesn’t care if someone dies, not actively seeking him murder people. And then he becomes obsessed with Superman and focuses all his attention, rage and fears to him and makes killing him the thing that gives his mission and life a meaning because he thinks he will save the world. That’s why he isn’t going around murdering Scarecrow and Penguin. He isn’t ME NOW MURDERMAN. It’s Batman rationalising his actions by making killing Superman as something that just has to be done. If henchmen get hurt and killed along the way it’s acceptable collateral damage. You fundamentally are failing to understand his mindset because you can’t get your head to accept the story doesn’t work on your comic book cartoonish logic.
That's a lot of words to say you didn't understand the post
More like you didn’t even read the post.
I agree,
didn't read the post
Snyder Batman wasn’t actively hunting down villains to murder them, look at the warehouse fight. Some are knocked out and some die because it’s chaotic.
He clearly almost killed joker in the past in this canon when he punched all his teeth out. The only reason joker isn’t dead is because he’s either
A) locked securely in Arkham and batman isn’t gonna execute somebody who is already locked up otherwise he might as well machine gun a prison yard
B) joker isn’t easy to catch while loose. We barely got to see batfleck and Jared Leto joker interact but the little we see he was effective at making batman focus on saving others so he could escape
Which makes an interesting question for me. A lot of the time Jokers long term goal with Batman is to push him far enough to make him kill. Usually by baiting him to kill the joker himself by doing horrible shit
Leto’s joker had an actively violent batman who killed, and the joker didn’t sit around happy to die because he’d “won”. He’s still wanting to play the game and keep pushing Batman further
>It's not "what if batman decided to start killing", it's "Batman but he kills people."
Yeah that's a good point too. This Batman is okay with killing henchmen but none of his rogues are dead? Even after Joker apparently killed Dick in this universe?
How do you know none of his rogues are dead? I don’t recall any of them showing up in BvS. None of them were involved with Luthors plans in Gotham (except for KGBeast equivalent who batman then kills)
Joker being alive is because he escaped
>How do you know none of his rogues are dead?
Because there's no indication that they are and the ones we do see are alive. you're just making up your on head canon to justify bad writing.
>How do you know none of his rogues are dead?
The only rogue he confirmed has killed was KGBeast (and most people didn't even know it was him)
Deadshot is alive.
Joker is alive.
Harley is alive.
Killer Croc is alive.
Polka-Dot Man is (was) alive.
Calender Man is alive.
Black Mask is (was) alive.
King Shark is alive.
>How do you know none of his rogues are dead?
Are you fricking stupid
Again you people fundamentally fail to understand what Snyder’s take on Batman’s killing is in the movie and just keep yapping about how if Batman kills then he has to just care about killing his rogue gallery.
It’s bizarre because we specifically see this batman and now he acts. He peacefully arrested Deadshot by appealing to him in front of his daughter. Knowing he cares about her and would not want to risk her being in any danger at all, or letting her see him try to murder Batman.
And deadshot must have killed countless. Batman is not the punisher in the Snyderverse. He didn’t even kill those human traffickers, he just branded them. Which Luthor manipulated people into thinking was him giving them a death sentence by getting people inside to murder whoever had the brand
And what is that? Because so far all I'm seeing is "Batman is exactly the same except he has action scenes where he kills nameless minions no one cares about and never actually anyone of consequence." What, exactly, is Snyder's take here? Nothing is being "tested," nothing has "evolved." It's just Batman, but with ridiculous action scenes you can't pretend don't result in death.
People get mad when a comic book film tries to treat them like adults.
>treats like adults
>just color corrects everything to grey
Its as adult as a teenager dressing in all black and painting blood on a gi joe tbh.
Snyder is a teenager's idea of what maturity is. have a nice day.
>The only way to test characters is to have them fail their test of character
That's the kind of logic I'd expect from Zack, yeah.
You thought you did something there, didn't you?
Nah it's just that Zack's nonsense explanation reminds me of the whole Kobayashi Maru example he gave when defending Superman killing Zod.
>I felt like, if we could find a way of making it impossible for him — Kobayashi Maru, totally no way out — I felt like that could also make you go, “This is the why of him never killing again.”
The entire point of the Kobayasu Maru as a narrative device is to NOT that it's a no win situation, it's to reveal how the test taker thinks:
- Kirk doesn't believe in no win situations, so he cheats and games the system and gets a win.
- Scotty exploits specific engineering knowledge to pass because the computer as to acknowledge that ship shields wouldn't work a certain way.
- Sulu flat out refuses to engage with the scenario because he thinks it's more likely such a scenario would be a trap
- Chekov chooses self sacrifice.
Even newer shit like Lower Decks uses it to establish character. Boimler takes the unwinnable test 17 times, which gets played as a joke but also shows you just how much shit the guy is willing to swallow.
Snyder seems to have completely misunderstood the narrative device. Which, you know, tracks given how shit his movies stories are.
But it IS the way to treat these characters, it's why they've lasted as long as they have, it's what people expect and what they want. What they don't want is BVS.
>Go through all the effort of giving us one of the best looking Batman costumes
>Cut dialogue because "they look too silly talking in costume"
Does he think he came up with the concept for a Batman that kills people or is this just him defending himself from movie critics strictly for the movies being shitty?
Not sure why him answering a question about people being upset his batman killed means you think he’s saying he came up with the concept
Fr fr. Making Batman kill as a "big moral test of character" is a cheap and least effort possible way to do that. It's like every edgelord writer with an overcompensating ego goes for that thinking that their Batman is the grittiest and coolest because of that, but they never realize they're not the first to go with that route or even notice they all wrote the same fricking thing in the end.
Man if you're going to write a Batman that kills then at least be a little bit creative and not just the same Batman That Kills number 358846
Probably both. Look at how Rebel Moon has been eviscerated by critics and the man's response to all that.
>but they never realize they're not the first to go with that route or even notice they all wrote the same fricking thing in the end.
Did Snyder say he was the first to do this, or are you just ranting about imaginary arguments
NTA but is the character really "moving or evolving" like Zack claims he tried doing if the character's already been through those same tired steps and stories before?
Moving maybe, but in a circle.
The frick is rebel moon?
It's what you say if a homie with chainsaw knees ever tries to run your fade, fricks him right up
zack snuder's failed star wars movie turned original property.
yes, it was so shitty even disney thought it was too bad too adapt
Not sure how this is meant to be a diss on Snyder, Disney are just bad at managing Star Wars in general.
rebel moon is complete dogshit tho
Haven’t watched it, you did? Lmao
out of curiosity a friend of mine wanted to watch it to see if it was as shitty as everyone said. we closed it after an hour, but i was checked out by minute 30.
pick the most boring YA movie you've ever seen and watch it at 0.75 speed. you'll have a good idea of what rebel moon feels like
Testing morality is fine. How you do it is what matters and reflects your skill as a writer. On a slight tangent about killing what qualifies as "people" is also important
When will there be justice for the thousands of robots that have died at Batman's hands?
can we just have fun stories with draculaman stopping the bird looking guy and the clay monster without trying to lecture me about morality? fine don't kill the villian fine throw him in jail, why act like is a big deal? a shit tone of heroes don't kill either.
Frick Snyder. If you ever supported anything he did you are not a human being.
Holy shit, there are still Snyderhomosexuals in the wild in 2024. I thought your kind was successfully exterminated.
I liked batfleck and I even liked the idea of a jaded worn down batman that crossed the line and no longer takes issue with killing even street level thugs. The movies just weren't very good.
I will give credit for the scene where Bruce is looking at his suit and it looks like a demon tempting him before he goes to the party with Lex, that was kino.
The guy is obsessed with TDKR. It's like it is the only Batman story he's ever read.
It is one of the two best Batman stories ever made. And it's a huge margin under those.
Sure, but it is a terrible book to start with when you were trying to build a DC cinematic universe. It's also one of the books to blame for edge lords jerking off to batman now.
99% of the fans that read TDKR don’t actually understand TDKR and that it was supposed to he a parody
Bruce's morality is still quite grounded in TDKR. I don't know where this meme came from that Returns Batman is some Punisher-style killer. Even Synder touts that shit.
>It's okay that I grossly mischaracterized Batman in a really shitty way nobody liked, because... it was challenging!
It's no wonder BvS was probably the worst superhero movie pre-covid.
The thing that annoys me about this shit is Batman isn't real. He is in situations the writers put him in. And the point of these superheroes is when you put them in a seemingly impossible position is they always find the solution that's not killing because they are SUPER human and are able to do these extraordinary things.
Is every superman face just edited? Why does he look moronic in every single panel?
The panel got edited with a mirror on Superman's face. That's on you
Yeah that’s not true at all. This is a fan rationalising the no kill rule that is part of the genre’s established status quo. 99% of the time stories are just about catching and then beating up the bad guy. There is no “oh noes, look at these impossible hurdles I have to go through in order to not kill”. Superheroes just don’t kill because you want to reuse characters and it makes it easier to sell merchandise and justify why the heroes aren’t in trouble with the law. Everything else is just bullshit you made up in your head.
I mean yeah. But usually when I say that in these stupid arguments I get ignored because people want to make up all this other shit. Of course the real reason is a combination of these are based on stories for children and you can't have Batman fight a popular villain every week if he kills them every time.
If you can't argue your point without resorting to "because the writer said so", then you never had a point worth reading in the first place.
i never understood why people get so hung up on the no kill rule. unless it's addressed why bother?
and the explanation is simple, batman doesn't wanna start the slippery slope. he kills the joker and that's it? maybe yes, maybe no, but he doesn't wanna cross that line in fear of becoming himself a super villain
Aang evolved over the course of ATLA without killing anyone
Because it’s a kiddy cartoon.
Still better than anything Snyder has written.
Having a turtle offer the magic ethical solution was one of the weak points in its writing though. Especially since the only power check for the ability was unbending force of will, which didn't really make much sense when Aang's entire problem was being unsure and wanting to avoid confrontation and Ozai's entire character was zealous, near pathological egotism and unwavering vision of his own superiority.
>"If you don't test the morality of the character, then it's dead. It can't evolve, it can't move, it can only answer questions that doesn't break canon, and that's not the way to treat these legendary characters" — Zack Snyder
ok,makes sense
>Regarding him on why he had Batman kill.
Forget what I said, this guy is a moron.
Nolan tackled this subject better in Batman Begins. Bruce is going to murder Joe Chill in front of everybody in court, but Falcone's assassin does it first. Robbed of his chance, he and Rachael have a conversation about what creates criminals and that Joe Chill was just a symptom of larger societal problems. Bruce never goes Dirty Harry and just murders people. His primary focus is to try and root out corruption within the systems so that they can function properly.
Snyder's Batman storms a warehouse filled men with machine guns who knows he's coming. They have this hostage that they're supposed to kill, but they just don't. Batman loudly enters the warehouse and kills all of them while they fire machine guns at him. Like a full two minutes of fighting and they still don't kill the hostage. Finally Batman bursts into the room with the hostage and points an M60 at the guy using one arm. The hostage taker is armed with a flamethrower (because apparently flamethrowers are excellent weapons for close confined spaces) and still refuses to kill the hostage. He tells Batman to drop his gun. Batman shoots the fuel tank and is able to quickly drop his gun and make it over to the hostage just as the hostage taker and the entire room explode. Batman and the hostage are of course completely uninjured despite being right next to the guy.
Snyder takes what could be an extremely volatile situation and treats it dumber than even most comic books would.
You’re conflating completely different situations and character arcs that have no real relation or similarities beyond just killing incidentally being related.
Given Snyder's body of work, it's clear he doesn't really have any interest in understanding anything on a deeper level, he just likes cool shit. 300, Watchmen, BvS, MoS,Justice League, everything good about them came from source material, everything else is just style.
>no real relation or similarities beyond just killing incidentally being related
I'm pretty sure that was the point of the comparison he was making
I don’t get your point. Why would they kill the hostage if a murderous batman is outside killing your fellow criminals?
That would be surrendering the only possible leverage you have to stay alive
Their orders are to kill the hostage if anything suspicious happens near them to make sure everything goes as planned and they didn't even attempt to hand her over as leverage to get Batman to stop.
Believe it or not, Snyder actually has the perfect response to this
I will never forgive Snyder for the Watchmen movie
The whole “Batman’s arc is about learning not to kill” or some shit was a cope made up by the fans
Snyder's big mistake was basing his initial version of Batman on The Dark Knight Returns, it's just way too unfitting for his introduction into the DCEU.
Plus that Batman didn't kill
Snyder never wanted to just make a MCU clone with tons of movies for batman and superman. The only reason he got the job to begin with is because he was the only one willing to dedicate what would have been a decade or more of his life to a single property and his production company would take a lot of the risks (and ,sake good money since he’s actually smart as frick regarding promotional deals. Man of Steel and BVS made back their budget before ever hitting theatres because he had so many companies, and even the Us military paying him/Warner Bros for advertising using his movies or characters.
My point being his plans from the start were completely at odds with what WB hq wanted. Or at least wanted after their leadership shakeup
So I can’t blame Snyder. It’s not like he hid his plans until it was too late. The Warner bros execs just agreed it was fine. Would chop movies to shit before release and make them worse. Then panic when they didn’t make gangbusters and frick things up even worse
Snyder clearly had significant pull simply because look how long his movies were prior to his pullout during justice league. And how comparatively little was cut to make it closer to a reasonable length for a blockbuster.
Meanwhile Ayers Suicide Squad was studio controlled from start to end complete with reshoots of the entire thing. Massive tonal shifts etc. much like the justice league shitshow
I doubt suicide squad was ever gonna be some masterpiece but I do think ayers original vision was clearly more interesting.
Nonsense, people wanted regular Batman and Superman and he give us characters in name only.
The real problem with the whole thing was starting with Zod as a villain, you need to make the first villain a human based one because you need to show that people can frick up enough / be enough of a threat to JUSTIFY the intervention of someone as powerful as Superman
….no you don’t. This is pure power level idiocy
It’s not power level shit it’s showing that their IS a need for Superman on earth outside of problems that exist mostly because he’s here…
This too, it was jarring seeing Clark throwing homies so casually through buildings. Why the frick would ANYONE trust Superman after what he did to metropolis in man of steel?
I do think the Dragon Ball level fights should have been reserved for the crossover event movies
The problem is that Zack is a lot smarter than most of the mindless DC drones.
Except he’s not. If Zack Snyder just came out and said “I’m more interested in cool visuals than I am about telling a cohesive, sensible story” he’d actually come off a lot smarter than he does when he tries to justify his bizarre storytelling decisions with his word salads.
My personality isn’t tied to comic book characters so I had no problem with Batman or Superman killing. And Snyder shouldn’t be apologetic about it. Literally all he has to say is “well Burton’s Batman killed and you guys didn’t complain about it”.
Batman is just an IP to hang stories onto. There is no character and no one should get upset at what a creator does for one individual story because there are endless other stories with different characterizations to enjoy instead.
So how the frick is Snyder joker still alive? If Batman did decide to go full punisher wouldn’t the first person he’d go after be the moronic gangster clown who murdered his adoptive son?
Judging by Suicide Squad he whimsically escapes capture/death all the time
Imagine being a Snyder dickrider in 2024
I honestly don't even know if they exist.
Very boring that his only "evolution" is have Batman and Superman kill.
>character is known for not doing something
>Lol what if they did it
Bravo Snyder
>If you don't test the morality of the character, then it's dead.
This I agree with, but you can't get from that premise to Batman using guns. A heroes morality should always be tested, constantly be tested. It is by them being tested that we see their true mettle, how they handle themselves even when the tides have turned against them and they have to make impossible choices.
What Zack the Hack fails to understand is that Batman using guns is not Bruce being tested, it is Bruce *failing* his tests. Being put in a challenging situation is not a free pass to giving up your morals and ideals, anyone can stick to their ethical code when its convenient. Sticking to your code when its hard is the challenge, and a person who cannot do so has proven themselves the weaker person for it.
You call tell a good story about a hero put in a situation where they are forced to compromise their ideals for one reason or another. But the story has to recognize that this is a FAILURE of the hero, one that they will have to grapple with for the rest of their lives. Simply treating such a violation of their code as normal is not the character being tested, it is the character being ignored. And if you want that to seem intentional rather than just lazy or ignorant, you have to have something to show for it afterwards. Synderverse Batman doesn't have any payoff for this, its simply Zack not thinking anything about the character and resenting playing with someone else's toys coming with strings when that was what he was paid money to do.
>But the story has to recognize that this is a FAILURE of the hero
That’s what BvS does.
Except he keeps killing after he realizes so it means nothing
>habits can be fixed with a blink of an eye
>fails to understand Batman’s full character redemption arc begins when he has saved Martha and witnesses Superman dying, as shown when he goes to Luthor but then chooses not to brand him
I’m literally surrounded my morons who can’t understand anything if it isn’t spoon fed to them.
>batman chooses not to kill another person because he got superman killed
where is he testing Batman's morality anon?
He didn’t get Superman killed.
It sounds to me like you're the one who needs to be spoonfed.
The problem is Superhero characters only really work in a cartoon logic. Once you introduce a sense of realism to them it quickly becomes obvious that these are just violent sociopaths in spandex.
Depends on the hero, honestly. The real problem that superheroes have when you introduce realism isn't their intention to do good, its their certainty of it.
As a simple example: when Batman drops into an ally to stop a mugging in progress, he is never wrong. Batman never spots something from 300 ft away on a rooftop and misinterprets a situation and goes to kick the ass of a couple of drunks or some people making out or whatever. He never has to sit and gauge a situation for potentially too long because he's not sure if this requires his intervention or not. Everything is openly telegraphed to him, his choice of action clear, ever time and basically at instant speed. Batman never crashes through the wrong skylight in the wrong warehouse and scares the shit out of the night watchman of a furniture store.
Real life doesn't have a narrator telling you what is objectively happening. You don't just automatically know all of the details of a crime, real people have limited awareness and often very little information to work with even if they are trying to be observant. That limitation, combined with inserting yourself into situations where you are expecting to use force from the outset, is a recipe for disaster. You only need to punch an innocent person through a wall ONCE to be in deep shit, and the more often you try to be a 'hero' the more likely you are to eventually get one of these wrong.
>The real problem that superheroes have when you introduce realism isn't their intention to do good, its their certainty of it.
I'd argue that the very methods they employ are fundamentally wrong. They freely tresspass, vandalise property, and assault people. This only works when the rest of the universe bends over backwards to accomodate them. In real life people would be horrified of them.
Its worth pointing out that the superhero as we understand it is an evolution of the vigilante cowboy gunslinger. Very popular american pulp genre that survived into the radio era, the vigilante hero was *explicitly* operating outside of the law in their pursuit of personal justice in a setting where authority was either weak (the sheriff and the deputy were no match for the local bandits) or corrupt (the local sheriff was owned by the rich landowner villain and in on the scheme). With help potentially weeks or months away, the gunslinger was on their own to solve the problem by whatever means they had, which was usually backed by their strength of arms.
The relationship between these two genres isn't even up for debate. The domino mask being an iconic superhero outfit element comes from the pulp hero the Green Hornet, but the Green Hornet only did it because HE was stealing that particular design element from the Lone Ranger. In universe, the Green Hornet is *literally* related to the Lone Ranger, who is his great granduncle. Green Lantern and Robin and dozens of other capes are all walking around in more colorful Lone Ranger knockoff costumes, a contextual connection that would have been obvious to audiences 80 years ago but is largely lost of modern readers.
Originally, superheroes were simply copying the formula of vigilant cowboy heroes, and when the cowboys did it there was no ambiguity that what they were doing was a crime. A justified crime, maybe, but there was a reason they hid their identity from the law and it wasn't fashion sense.
The Snyder DC movies are just miserable. No joy, just open misanthropy. The entire DCEU was a mess but you could really tell the difference between Snyder's direction and literally everyone else's. Even the worst non-Snyder directors still had a spark of joy in their works. Even WW 1984 is preferable to Snyder's misery.
Zack skews things. You can take a scene from Watchmen movie and think on the face of it "he gets it" but actually dissect it and you quickly you realise he missed the point. Man of Steel is meant to be his sort of pastiche of a Nolan movie. Nolan was an Executive Producer. Zimmer did the music, just like the Nolan films. But it got none of what those films really did well. It is quite telling that WB wanted to try and get Christian Bale back as Batman for BvS to retroactively make the Nolan films the start of the DCEU. Zack kind of reminds me of a Roland Emmerich. Emmerich really wants to make Spielberg type movies but his blockbusters always end up feeling completely off and alien. There is something he misses.
No it was stupid, it's always dumb to take a core element of a character and change it to try and look deep. Why not just write a good story with the character the way they are, and use there limiations to show there character like Batman having an easy out if he killed his enemy but choosing not to because he knows it's not the right way. A perfect way to do this is to use a villain like two face someone who is quite literally insane and not bullshit insane like the joker.
ITT
>noooooo my fictional characters should be incorruptible!!!
So why didn't Batman kill the Joker then?
'Testing' the morality of a character means him failing?
>If you don't test the morality of the character
He didnt test shit, as far as i can tell he was just another diferent batman, its true morons on the internet made a big deal about it but thats just self-aggrandizing bullshit
>only answer questions that doesn't break canon
See? Like this, what question was answered? Was there a question that was made even besides who would win in a fight between batman and superman? They didnt answer that, the fight ends in the middle and clark wasnt even trying
>Batman and Superman become le friends after their big le fight
>Cut to warehouse scene where Batman kills multiple people
The only "new rule" Batman was using as a response to Superman was branding people. It was apparently standard operating procedure for this universe's Batman to kill nameless mooks all along. Regardless, the movie is terrible at communicating this and the general audience clearly did not get it (and I can't blame them).
Is that Zack Snyder?
This sounds like the moronic ramblings of a 14 year old edgelord who thinks he's going to be the next Scorsese
Why doesn't Snyder simply make a Shadow movie if he wants "Batman but if he used guns and killed people"? He could do it and it would be great.
1. he's tard and a casual who never read Shadow
2. they already made one that bombed inthe 90's
also related The Spirit, that terrible adaptation directed by Frank Miller himself, the all bluescreen movie
I feel like he said in a dumb way but that idea of protecting your god and being unwilling to accept unusual or controversial interpretations of a character is a good point. The only advantage to dragging around such ancient characters for 100 years is seeing people attempt new things with them, even if it isn't stupid and not that new like with Snyder.
Can we all appreciate that The Batman perfectly handled Bruce's no killing ethic? He was actually the most morally noble Batman out of all of them
That movie sucked.
I mostly find it funny how much the no-kill rule stuff has dominated discourse around Batman and Superman while Marvel could not give a single shit about it. Everyone of the Avengers has an absurd kill count. Fricking Clint became a serial killer for five years and everyone kinda just let it go.
It's because Marvel recognized that kind of restriction only really exist and is useful in the context of making new comics every month. When you have 2-3 movies a year with real actors who will age out of roles or have other commitments anyway you can be more lenient with killing characters.
Didn't he suggest he would let Batman get raped in prison?
>I want to test Batman's morality and put him into situations where he'd be forced to kill
>puts batman against a bunch of low level henchmen and has him cracking open their skulls and killing them
>has baton use his bulletproof car to runner and shoot these henchmen with missiles
holy shit Snyder is a genuine moron
Why didn't Batman kill the Joker?
Joker actor gets paid more, he outranks Bats actor who is in a mask and not famous enough.
Wouldn’t testing Bat-Man’s morality be more thematic if he was placed in a situation where he had to kill but he refused and went far beyond to avoid any deaths at personal sacrifice in order to prove he could maintain his morality in the face of the test?
no, Zach just wants Bats to be a brutal badass
That happens all the time in the comics but often the tests are so contrived and ridiculous they make Batman come off like a moron, see Red Hood. Best to just not talk about it at all.
>"Actually if you do the math more people watched Rebel Moon than Barbie."
I know it's not really Cinemaphile related but this is fricking delusional.
But that is correct and fairly reasonable assessment that can be made because a single streaming view likely has more than just one person watching it.
>This one rule about this character sure is hard to work around, I bet I could have a lot of fun if we just ignored it... yeah...
But he didn't test Batman's morality. His depiction of Batman begins as a killer, we don't see a shift, nor does Batman really wrestle with this change. All we know is Robin was killed and now he shoots thugs. I'm all for experimenting with characters but Snyder's Batman didn't do that.
>we don't see a shift
It is mentioned and also your expectations of what Batman is like normally already achieves that shift to be noticeable
>nor does Batman really wrestle with this change
The entire movie is partially about how he’s lost his way and by the end he’s starting to go back to his old self, having been inspired by Superman. He realises he’s been in the wrong. He had debate about his new methods with Alfred.
>It is mentioned and also your expectations of what Batman is like normally already achieves that shift to be noticeable
Kinda, but the dominant image of Batman in the cultural imagination at that time was Nolan's who was already a hyper-militarized dark Batman, who, while not a killer, perpetuated the fantasy of making Batman a Punisher-type character.
>The entire movie is partially about how he’s lost his way and by the end he’s starting to go back to his old self, having been inspired by Superman. He realises he’s been in the wrong. He had debate about his new methods with Alfred.
His redemption just makes him look like a douche. He went around killing people for who knows how long and lightens up his methods after his run in with Supes, but continuing to be Batman after being a murderer makes him come off as irresponsible at the absolute least. You could try something like that if he was only killing the worst of the worst, but he was blasting no name goons. A reckoning with his methods should necessitate a reckoning with his role as a vigilante. Snyder's Batman just comes across like an incomplete take on what Miller was going for.
>but continuing to be Batman after being a murderer makes him come off as irresponsible at the absolute least
He continues to be Batman because he knows something bad is going to arrive and he needs to build a team to deal with the threat. His entire redemption is about trying to become better person again and saving the world together is part of it. He was also supposed to ultimately die as he’s saving the world, so he was going to pay the price for his actions. He redeems himself by his actions and building the Justice League and then sacrificing himself. Or would have if WB hadn’t had cold feet and aborted the original saga.
Your issues are that you completely fail to see the full arc that was intended for Batman.
I see the arc, there are still many problems. The first of which goes back to Man Of Steel, Supes killing Zod established that killing a threat is at least morally negotiable which decreases the weight of Batman's past actions, especially when this killing was done by the man who inspired him. Next is the fact that the next entry in the story, Snyder's Justice League, does not have Batman wrestling with his past killings, theyre not even mentioned, but rather his arc is him reckoning with his past inability to trust others. These elements make it seem like Snyder's trying to cover his own ass and Batman was only killing because Snyder thought it'd be cool.
>It is mentioned
No it isn't, the only "new rule" made explicit is branding people.
>and by the end he’s starting to go back to his old self
How? When we see him in the warehouse, AFTER the Superman fight, he's still killing.
He stops branding people. You really do need to be spoonfed every little thing don’t you
>He stops branding people.
Great. He doesn't stop killing.
Yeah he does, what people did he kill in justice league?
Except that’s exactly what that scene means. Like I said. You need everything spoon fed apparently
>It is mentioned and also your expectations of what Batman is like normally
This argument doesn't work when half you guys are whining that all the movie Batman kill people because then it's not a departure
People wilfully ignore that trend. That’s why people keep bringing it up
Okay but then that includes Zack because he's acting like he's done something special.
Testing a character's morality is fine, but Snyder went about it in the worst way possible.
You can't test a character's morality if you don't understand it in the first fricking place, which is the part Zack doesn't seem to grasp
I don't care what people say, Batman using the batmobile to launch a car into another car is the funniest thing the character has ever done.
synder is legitimately one of the stupidest people in the industry
Based.
Batman not killing makes him fricking impotent and makes him look like he's not enacting the final solution to the Gotham problem.
okay Ra's
Based the whole reason batman doesnt kill is cause hes for kids, in an adult movie he should be able to kill
>in an adult movie