ManaByte
Gold Member
Zack Snyder Says DC Is Making Batman 'Irrelevant' If He Can't Kill - IGN
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice director Zack Snyder has said DC is making the Caped Crusader "irrelevant" if he can't kill.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Zack Snyder Says DC Is Making Batman 'Irrelevant' If He Can't Kill
- Thread starter ManaByte
- Start date
chromhound
Member
SirKicksalot
Member
These articles leave out the context. He's talking about superheroes being modern takes on mythological characters, with Batman being a modern tutelary deity, and how this concept is at odds with the no-kill rule which is not even set in stone.
It ties in to a crazy anectode about the rating board asking that Batman does not fight Superman lmao
I could not believe my eyes when Murderman fucking pulverized those goons in Batman v Superman, but with the Snyder Cut additions I think his story turned out alright. It's interesting to see an older Batman stray so far from what he should be - and then find his way back to that ideal. It's not something that works in BvS as a standalone story, but it was never meant to stand alone so whatever.
>if Batman kills a murderer, he just replaces one murder with another!
>kills two murderers
>undergoes spontaneous mitosis and now there are two Batmen running around
It ties in to a crazy anectode about the rating board asking that Batman does not fight Superman lmao
I could not believe my eyes when Murderman fucking pulverized those goons in Batman v Superman, but with the Snyder Cut additions I think his story turned out alright. It's interesting to see an older Batman stray so far from what he should be - and then find his way back to that ideal. It's not something that works in BvS as a standalone story, but it was never meant to stand alone so whatever.
>if Batman kills a murderer, he just replaces one murder with another!
>kills two murderers
>undergoes spontaneous mitosis and now there are two Batmen running around
See, if you want a homicidal vigilante then you got Punisher or Death Wish. Batman and all his toys and rogues gallery plus killing just equals unhinged mayhem IMHO. I don't really even like the villans killing people because it makes the revolving door of Arkham just stupid.
Batman, particularly in the greater context of the Justice League and all that needs to stay a pg/pg-13 experience without wholesale slaughter. There is a limited amount of death that can happen abut none of it should be casual or trivial. Stuff like The Batman with Se7en style Riddler should always be a batman isolated side story just for adults, like Joker. These things shouldn't be the core product.
Snyder doesn't get this, and while I appreciated some of his superhero stuff the grimdark stuff wasn't it.
Batman, particularly in the greater context of the Justice League and all that needs to stay a pg/pg-13 experience without wholesale slaughter. There is a limited amount of death that can happen abut none of it should be casual or trivial. Stuff like The Batman with Se7en style Riddler should always be a batman isolated side story just for adults, like Joker. These things shouldn't be the core product.
Snyder doesn't get this, and while I appreciated some of his superhero stuff the grimdark stuff wasn't it.
FunkMiller
Member
It's become painfully apparent with everything Snyder has said recently that he was absolutely the wrong person to be anywhere near DC's characters. He absolutely does not understand Batman. And neither do his parade of fans who endlessly defend his terrible interpretation of the character.
He's a man child who thinks it's cool when superheroes kill. There's nothing deeper to it than that.
He's a man child who thinks it's cool when superheroes kill. There's nothing deeper to it than that.
Last edited:
Reizo Ryuu
Member
FunkMiller
Member
Fundamentally what Snyder never understood about the no-kill rule is that Batman has to maintain that line, because he knows if he crosses it, he'll become something far worse than any of his enemies. He is fully aware of just how terrible and destructive he could be. He's not got the no-kill rule just because he's weak, or 'nice', or 'uncool'.
It is actually the absolute coolest thing about the character, and it's laughable and pathetic that Snyder couldn't or wouldn't see it.
It is actually the absolute coolest thing about the character, and it's laughable and pathetic that Snyder couldn't or wouldn't see it.
Last edited:
Hugare
Member
I love different interpretations of the same character, so I'm ok with Batman killing someone in one of his stories
Just dont make it part of his character for good
I hate those overly protective fans that says things like "Superman HAS to be good, he cant have nuance"
I loved Snyder's interpretation of Superman and Injustice is one hell of a storyline
Just dont make it part of his character for good
I hate those overly protective fans that says things like "Superman HAS to be good, he cant have nuance"
I loved Snyder's interpretation of Superman and Injustice is one hell of a storyline
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
I would rather he kill than keep locking up the same bad guy/girl over and over. There’s a point where it becomes his fault for all the murders committed by others because he isn’t willing to put a proper stop to it.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
Ever ask why that is? He's a genius, a billionaire businessman, and the greatest detective in the world. It's not because he's stupid. He can surely see the damage he's doing by not just murdering these people straight off. There's a reason for it. One that gets explored a great deal. And it's a very good reason. It's why he's an interesting character.
Power Pro
Member
bitbydeath
Member
SJRB
Gold Member
I just don't understand how Snyder still has such a warped view on what Batman is. How, after all these years, does he still miss the point that Batman doesn't kill?
Yeah yeah, he kills people in pretty much every movie, but if you make it one of his core principles he's just the Punisher with a cape. The whole point is that he does not kill as punishment for the crime. He'll break your body in ways that make you wish he killed you though, but he doesn't just straight up murder people.
The chase and batwing scenes in BvS where he straight up kills like 20 people is just wild.
Yeah yeah, he kills people in pretty much every movie, but if you make it one of his core principles he's just the Punisher with a cape. The whole point is that he does not kill as punishment for the crime. He'll break your body in ways that make you wish he killed you though, but he doesn't just straight up murder people.
The chase and batwing scenes in BvS where he straight up kills like 20 people is just wild.
Last edited:
Dr. Suchong
Member
I remember being tired of hearing the Wilhelm scream even back then.
How hard is it to record "New" screams?
Zathalus
Member
Honestly, I would be more annoyed with the authorities not giving the villains that deserve it a death sentence, or not having a proper maximum-security prison instead of the shit show that Arkham is.
lifa-cobex
Member
Murderman
INC
Member
Its a meme, like an in joke that's just not funny. It's the worst Easter egg in movie history tbh
FunkMiller
Member
It's because he thinks Batman kills in The Dark Knight Returns. Because he didn't understand The Dark Knight Returns.
I'm still amazed that after all these years people still defend Batfleck killing because Snyder thinks (and therefore they do too) that Batman kills the mutant holding the child hostage in TDKR.
He doesn't. It's obvious to anyone if they actually read The Dark Knight Returns. There is dialogue multiple times in the story afterwards that make it clear Batman has not killed.
His entire philosophy towards Batman stems from the fact he doesn't understand the very story he's trying to copy in his films.
Last edited:
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Synder sucks but batman not killing is one of the stupidest fucking things in comic book fiction. By not killing these psychopaths he faces he's causing more people to die.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
Batman doesn't kill because the character is against taking human life. Batman doesn't give a shit about criminals. Let's not forget that he's perfectly fine with causing brain damage.
No, the real and only reason is because he wouldn't have a rogues gallery if DC writers gave him a licence to kill. Joker, the Penguin, Two-Face etc would all have been brutally killed in their first encounter with the Dark Knight if he had a kill switch.
It wouldn't even be a competition. Batman would have Gotham crime free in a month if he was able to to take life and bathe in the blood of his enemies..
No, the real and only reason is because he wouldn't have a rogues gallery if DC writers gave him a licence to kill. Joker, the Penguin, Two-Face etc would all have been brutally killed in their first encounter with the Dark Knight if he had a kill switch.
It wouldn't even be a competition. Batman would have Gotham crime free in a month if he was able to to take life and bathe in the blood of his enemies..
Mobilemofo
Member
They should create a story around Wayne being diagnosed with Advanced Delusional Schizophrenia with Involuntary Narccistic Rage. This rage manifests itself around intense pressure, causing a switch in his demeanor and persona, allowing his rage to do the things he normally wouldn't.
Dr.D00p
Member
Everyone involved should stop treating this whimsical comic book nonsense as if it's a modern day equivalent of Shakespeare mixed with a dose of Freud.
It neither demands nor requires philosophical angst over the characters moral compasses.
They are there to entertain, that's all.
It neither demands nor requires philosophical angst over the characters moral compasses.
They are there to entertain, that's all.
ResilientBanana
Member
Yes, The Batman did terribly at the box office with you Snyder. 
Snyder and his dumb comic-con looking superheroes that look like they were pumped with cotton. He literally had the dumbest looking costumes.
Snyder and his dumb comic-con looking superheroes that look like they were pumped with cotton. He literally had the dumbest looking costumes.
Last edited:
I think one of the issues we are seeing is that folks don't really know the source material (comics), they just know the films, so characters are being iterated on over and over based on the shadows on the cave wall, getting progressively more divergent and monochromatic, rather than going back to the source each time. I bet if you polled writers in Hollywood about Captain America, 95% of them would only know Chris Evan's take on it. Heck, probably 99% of the audience for these films have never read a Captain America comic.
So things like "let's do a film where Batman kills" is really a reaction to countless comics/media where he DOESN'T kill, but if all you see is that Batman movie and he kills, that's "your" Batman. Particularly when you keep the focus on a more adult interpretation. How many folks, having seen ONLY the Batman films, think Batman is moody, depressed, CONSTANTLY whinging about his mum and da, always reacting, reacting, reacting to villains, solves every problem with his fists or a well placed explosive batarang, and is almost NEVER walking around as Bruce Wayne? This is because they haven't broadened their experience with the character and so their "take" on Batman is only informed by these very limited expressions in the first place.
We are gonna hit a critical point where superheroes on screen are such pale reflections of their true selves the whole thing will collapse. Maybe we are already there.
So things like "let's do a film where Batman kills" is really a reaction to countless comics/media where he DOESN'T kill, but if all you see is that Batman movie and he kills, that's "your" Batman. Particularly when you keep the focus on a more adult interpretation. How many folks, having seen ONLY the Batman films, think Batman is moody, depressed, CONSTANTLY whinging about his mum and da, always reacting, reacting, reacting to villains, solves every problem with his fists or a well placed explosive batarang, and is almost NEVER walking around as Bruce Wayne? This is because they haven't broadened their experience with the character and so their "take" on Batman is only informed by these very limited expressions in the first place.
We are gonna hit a critical point where superheroes on screen are such pale reflections of their true selves the whole thing will collapse. Maybe we are already there.
hyperbertha
Member
If Batman kills there is no story. No more ral dilemma. None of his stories would work. You haven't got a clue have you?
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
You pretend like other super heroes don't kill yet somehow they have stories. You haven't got a clue do you?
Which DC hero routinely, or even infrequently, kills?
I agree that Marvel tends to get away with more slaughter, but I think there is a fundamental philosophical difference between those two worlds and a very different, almost generational, divide in the character concepts (DC more mythic archetypes, Marvel more human) and audiences (DC with a humanity focus, Marvel on adolescent teen angst and young adult matters).
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
I don't think the article is being fair. I listened to that whole part and there's additional context. What Snyder was talking about was not being allowed to put Batman into an impossible situation where he had no other option, and him immediately wanting to because of that. He specifically references Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns #2 as a point of reference.
The irrelevancy comes from pushing to protect Batman from those kinds of impossible scenarios where none of his tricks or gadgets would work. Tangentially related, he also then went on to mention how the Ratings board kept on giving Batman vs Superman an R because they really didn't like the idea of Batman fighting Superman.
So I get where he's coming from. Now whether he actually successfully executed on that is something different.
So I get where he's coming from. Now whether he actually successfully executed on that is something different.
Narratively I find this almost impossible as well. Snyder got into the one crack of that impossibility, that Batman hits up Superman almost immediately upon Superman's "coming out" when his nature isn't well known and Bruce is traumatized by his experience in Metropolis, but I dislike the idea that Batman is so far up his own ass that he can't recognize nobility, virtue, and chivalry in others, all of which Supes practically drips off like sweat.I don't think the article is being fair. I listened to that whole part and there's additional context. What Snyder was talking about was not being allowed to put Batman into an impossible situation where he had no other option, and him immediately wanting to because of that. He specifically references Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns #2 as a point of reference.
The irrelevancy comes from pushing to protect Batman from those kinds of impossible scenarios where none of his tricks or gadgets would work. Tangentially related, he also then went on to mention how the Ratings board kept on giving Batman vs Superman an R because they really didn't like the idea of Batman fighting Superman.
So I get where he's coming from. Now whether he actually successfully executed on that is something different.
But Snyder also made Kryptonians so OP that it seemed impractical that ANY mere human could threaten them, so what was the point? Take Henry Cavil and remove his super strength with kryptonite and you still got a really massive hunk of a guy (to be fair, Affleck at that point was a massive hunk himself).
AREYOUOKAY?
Member
hyperbertha
Member
50 iq detected. But keep moving them goalposts.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Brilliant retort. Batman not killing is one of the many reasons why he's the biggest asshole in all of comics.
Last edited:
Brilliant!
Though when those early Batman comics go public domain in a few years we are gonna see some WILD shit 'cause he was quite different back then. A lot more pulpy gun-slinging...
Reizo Ryuu
Member
all of them were in the golden age, wonder woman was killing nazis left and right and batman was shooting people in the face lol; the 'no-kill' stuff literally happened because of "think of the children" and the comics code authority, which is why the silver age DC heroes were so colourful/happy/silly.
March Climber
Member
I was going to bring up this scene too. Zack should have done the same.
NeonGhost
uses 'M$' - What year is it? Not 2002.
No body no death
Ikutachi
Gold Member
Glorified cap gun.Brilliant!
Though when those early Batman comics go public domain in a few years we are gonna see some WILD shit 'cause he was quite different back then. A lot more pulpy gun-slinging...
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
FFS, when you give any artist, in any medium, control of an established character it should be because you want to see THEIR VISION, not the established canon regurgitated for the umpteenth time.
The fan isn't entitled to, or should expect to like every version.
Snyder's vision is heavily influenced by Miller's DKR, which contains some pretty radically reworked depictions of both Batman and Superman and is considered a classic graphic novel.
The fan isn't entitled to, or should expect to like every version.
Snyder's vision is heavily influenced by Miller's DKR, which contains some pretty radically reworked depictions of both Batman and Superman and is considered a classic graphic novel.
arkhamguy123
Banned
Arkham Batman is a badass brute in many respects but still had so many nice touches to his humanist side.
He’s uncomfortable when freeze steps on penguins broken hand with his spike boot and tells him to stop. He holds poison Ivy in his arms as she dies. He tries to get Hugo strange medical attention after fatally stabbed. Tries to reason with scarecrow in asylum before he drops his gas in the water instead of pulverizing him in the 2 seconds it would’ve taken him. Offers a hand and an apology to Arkham Knight as Jason literally holds a gun to his face.
Literally no other big mainstream version of Batman in games, tv, or film has been as erroneous as Snyder’s take. (The visual aesthetics and the warehouse scene are phenomenal though)
arkhamguy123
Banned
If you actually read TDKR you’ll also see Afflecks Batman basically only shares the same batsuit with the frank miller Batman.
Snyder’s take is so dumbed down and surface level. I understand a book you can get first person introspection and a movie (that you’re sharing with Superman) can’t quite capture the same character texture but cmon. Chris Terrio and Goyer didn’t even try. It’s not even in the same league.
Frank Miller Batman was hyper intelligent. Mature and cynical in a real and a relatable way you can get as you get older and/or life has met you with copious disappointment. As opposed to afflecks sleepy low energy performance he uses to convey this weary jaded nature. TDKR Batman was hyper eloquent. As opposed to the near silent protagonist of affleck Batman because Snyder thinks it’s dumb when superheroes talk or whatever.
I’ll give Zack this, I mean he did do something different and arguably interesting with the character. Or at least could have been interesting with better writing. The idea was there. And he nailed the kinetic and visual aspects for the most part. It was cool to see a live action Batman that fights and moves like DCAU Batman. But eh. That’s about it. He really missed the mark trying to make him like TDKR Batman
DetectiveBananas
Member
Pretty sure 80% of the guys I beat up in the Arkham series video games were dead from trauma and internal bleeding 
. Batman is most definitely a murderer
. Batman is most definitely a murderer
Wildebeest
Member
So what he is saying is that batman not killing isn't a law like gravity, but more like that politicians shouldn't lie under oath.
FunkMiller
Member
I don't think the article is being fair. I listened to that whole part and there's additional context. What Snyder was talking about was not being allowed to put Batman into an impossible situation where he had no other option, and him immediately wanting to because of that. He specifically references Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns #2 as a point of reference.
The irrelevancy comes from pushing to protect Batman from those kinds of impossible scenarios where none of his tricks or gadgets would work. Tangentially related, he also then went on to mention how the Ratings board kept on giving Batman vs Superman an R because they really didn't like the idea of Batman fighting Superman.
So I get where he's coming from. Now whether he actually successfully executed on that is something different.
Thanks for proving my point. Batman does not kill in The Dark Knight Returns. You're just spouting Snyder’s (incorrect) opinion.
Last edited:
ManaByte
Gold Member
Dan Slott (@dan.slott) on Threads
Dark Knight Returns doesn't work as a story if Batman kills the kidnapper. It only works if he shoots and wounds him. Later, in the same chapter, the news confirms Batman has never killed anyone. The reason Commissioner Yindel is able to launch a manhunt against Batman is because it's believed...
www.threads.net
Last edited:
Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Banned
Batman has billions he could easily promote death penalty to the legislators of the state.
Indeed, not just that but it borders on absurdity. I see the films and shows going on and on about how batman's costume and operation is one based on eliciting fear in criminals? Fear of what becoming disabled? Realistically most media doesn't show batman making criminals disabled, so the criminals appear again and again with light damage. What is there for them to fear after batman builds a reputation of nonlethality and nondisability inducing?
Which makes sense. This is just politically correct virtue signalling. Marvel is killing left and right and they face no issue. Kiddie gloves are absurdist when dealing with genocidal maniacs and mass murderers.
edit:
For superman it kinda makes some sense, given his godly power to solve things without killing and the powerlessness of humans. Though when facing the monstrous aliens and gods he fights he definitely can't afford to go nonlethal against opponents as powerful as him trying to kill him. Trying to be nonlethal against such opponents risks him losing and billions dying or being enslaved, which is ridiculously stupid.
Last edited: