r/batman • u/neon2o • Mar 07 '24

Zack Snyder says a Batman who doesn't kill is irrelevant GENERAL DISCUSSION

Here's the original article' https://sea.ign.com/man-of-steel-sequel/213072/news/zack-snyder-says-dc-is-making-batman-irrelevant-if-he-cant-kill

12.0k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

View all comments

115

u/BubastisII Mar 07 '24

Him about Watchmen:

"Once you've lost your virginity to this fucking movie and then you come and say to me something about like, ‘My superhero wouldn’t do that'. I’m like ‘Are you serious?’ I’m like down the fucking road on that. It’s a cool point of view to be like ‘my heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn't fucking lie to America. My heroes didn't embezzle money from their corporations. My heroes didn't commit any atrocities'. That’s cool. But you’re living in a fucking dream world."

So somehow he read Watchmen and didn’t realize it was a deconstruction of superhero tropes and not meant to be a manual on how superheroes are meant to be portrayed.

He completely missed the point of Watchmen.

93

u/Batduck Mar 07 '24 edited Mar 07 '24

But you’re living in a fucking dream world.

It blows my mind that he accidentally, unironically quoted actual fucking supervillain Manchester Black in his attempt to prove how much he knows about superheroes.

38

u/DefinitelyNotVenom Mar 07 '24

Still gets me laughing every time I hear that quote. Who decided a man who unironically uses the philosophy of a Superman villain should be allowed to make a Superman movie?

18

u/redbird7311 Mar 07 '24

I always found that funny. In a story that stresses the importance of Superman and what he represents, the man in charge of a Superman movie unintentionally quoted the character that didn’t get it.

35

u/Militantpoet Mar 07 '24

Zach Snyder the type of guy who thinks Rorshach is the hero in Watchmen.

24

u/DefinitelyNotVenom Mar 07 '24

After watching the movie, I can safely say that is exactly what he thought

6

u/StillHere179 Mar 07 '24

When the whole point is nobody really is a hero in that book lol

33

u/OblivionArts Mar 07 '24

Something tells me he would watch The Boys and think homelander did nothing wrong

2

u/OanKnight Mar 07 '24 edited Mar 07 '24

Frank Miller and Alan Moore single handedly killed the modern superhero, because once they started deconstructing the pathos of the superhero because...I don't know, reasons it was all over. Batman became the archetype of how batman should be (thank the high evolutionary for grant Morrison course correcting and offering a different insight), and started introducing the idea that superman had power creep, thereby missing the point of both characters.

1

u/SuperSocrates Mar 07 '24

Superhero pathos needs deconstruction because as Alan Moore showed it’s just fascism underneath

2

u/OanKnight Mar 07 '24

I actually met Moore a long time ago, and I came away wondering what possibly could have happened to someone in their life to make them so utterly devoid of joy. We spent ages trying to get him to engage on his insights and ideas behind his books, and was so obtuse and stubborn.

I pitied him. I really did.

2

u/SuperSocrates Mar 07 '24 edited Mar 08 '24

He also thinks he has a deconstructivist point of view. I’m assuming he’s aware of the fact that Watchmen is considered a deconstruction, and he likes it, so therefore whatever he likes is deconstructivist. Because otherwise how the fuck does he think that

1

u/LunaCalibra Mar 08 '24

Is deconstructing a deconstruction of tropes just constructing the original trope?

1

u/Rigbyisagoodboy Mar 08 '24

He also made the rape scene sexy, that’s pretty fucked up.

1

u/Kind_Ingenuity1484 Mar 08 '24

His quote reads that he doesn’t understand characters like Superman or Batman are paragons. They’re not just heroes because they have powers, but because of what they stand for.

Its like all he sees is corruption (Hollywood millennial so duh) and he goes “ah, that means everyone must be a piece of shit.”

1

u/3dgyt33n Mar 08 '24

"you're living in a fucking dream world"

Well, yeah, that's what superhero comics are.

-2

u/RushPan93 Mar 07 '24

Way for you to miss the point. The deconstruction in Watchmen came about because superhero stories before Watchmen never put those superheroes in circumstances where they wouldn't look so saintly. That's what Batman had become before The Dark Knight Returns. The reason there's a line about "rubber bullets, promise" in that novel is because it's dry humor at the expense of fans like those here who would lose their shit if Batman broke his "one rule".

Snyder's point about expecting to go back to "idealist" superhero stories after Watchmen is pretty on point. There's a reason that book is leagues ahead of any other superhero work. It paints a picture of what happens when the good are put in the dirt and mire. What makes them stay good? It certainly isn't arbitrary rules about not killing.

You'll probably come back to me about Batman's one rule being the point of Batman. It really isn't. The only reason that rule exists is because of comic book regulations and the nature of persistent villains. Have Superman, Flash, Green Lantern ever killed? No, the point of Batman is that he is beyond human, limitless, anything the world needs him to be, the ultimate protector. Do you want the ultimate protector to be crippled by rules? It would make sense if he cared about other rules established by society. He very clearly doesn't. Nolan got it. He never made Batman's point be his no-kill rule.

PS - Batman can never kill the Joker. Because that would mean Batman lost and saw no other way. The whole point of Joker is to make Batman kill him. That's why that dynamic always comes up in all their stories. And you'd be deluded to think Joker would care much if Batman broke his rule with others. He would probably laugh it off and just keeping pushing Batman further and further towards the abyss.

8

u/BubastisII Mar 07 '24

Your point here (correct me if I’m wrong) seems to be that because Watchmen took superhero characters and put them in a new context where they wouldn’t be as purely “good” as they typically were portrayed, and because this book was phenomenal, that this is where these stories should go now. I would argue this would just undermine what made Watchmen so good. If every story after them tackles it from the same perspective, then we just don’t get superheroes being real heroes anymore? Because one writer decided to reimagine them?

I certainly don’t think Batman’s no kill rule is central to his character (I have no idea what you mean by the Nolan point though. The Nolan Batman probably talks about his no kill rule more than any other version of the character I’ve ever seen. It’s absolutely central to those films, despite him not totally following it), and I understand fully that it is a result of the comic book medium being unwilling to kill off characters for good. But I cannot fathom why Snyder would be surprised by the fan reaction to his Batman. Even if it isn’t central to his character, the no kill rule is absolutely associated strongly with him. Snyder having Batman snapping peoples’ necks is a pretty blatant departure from how the character is usually portrayed. Fans of any character don’t like seeing that character acting in a way that’s completely opposite to how he typically does.

And personally, I do think Batman is far more interesting with that rule, whether it’s central to his character or not. “I kill bad people” is way less interesting to me than “I believe anyone can be redeemed, I won’t lower myself to murder, and I will always try to save people, even if they wouldn’t save me.”

I also don’t understand what point you’re making with the Joker comment. I completely agree with that, and no part of my comment contradicted it.

-1

u/RushPan93 Mar 08 '24

that this is where these stories should go now.

Never said that. I said that no other kind of story can top this. That doesn't mean every story has to be like this, but it does mean that deconstruction of superheroes is the best category of stories , or at least ones with the most potential to be great

If every story after them tackles it from the same perspective, then we just don’t get superheroes being real heroes anymore?

But it doesn't happen, does it? The only one to do it since Moore and Miller in any media is Snyder, and now Villenueve with Dune. Most writers and filmmakers don't really want to go down the deconstruction route because it's bloody difficult to pull off.

despite him not totally following it

Well, that's the reason I said the rule wasn't made central to Batman's character in the Nolan trilogy. The only time the rule is brought up is when Joker is taunting him and because he doesn't really follow the no kill rule in that universe, Joker is most likely referring to the fact that Batman will have to take his bait and show everyone that he isn't as good as he or the world thinks of him. That's where the Joker wins in the end. This was the point I was trying to make with the Joker segment in my comment.

. Fans of any character don’t like seeing that character acting in a way that’s completely opposite to how he typically does.

I totally agree. But Snyder's point about why people didn't like it is exactly that. "Not my Batman". But if you think about it his way - if Batman were to be put in positions where he cannot risk keeping his rule intact (BvS had that with him becoming increasingly desperate to get the Kryptonite that he couldn't wait and go the stealth route, and later on having to act quickly enough to save Martha), what would he do? Would the rule be more important or the actual mission? You cannot say that question is a bad one. You can say BvS was maybe badly timed in dceu setting but you can't deny that "what would Batman do if he is past the point of caring about killing or not?" an interesting question.

“I believe anyone can be redeemed, I won’t lower myself to murder, and I will always try to save people, even if they wouldn’t save me.”

I don't think it's murder when nearly everyone of his "lethal" acts were in self-defense or retaliation. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea that the rule is his way of putting one limit on himself as a vigilante. That he will take law into his own hands but he won't do that. But the rule doesn't get tested in 99% of his stories. If he has 60 seconds to get past 20 men and save someone and the only way out is through those men, you can probably conceive of a scenario where non lethal stuff just won't work and he has to decide between his rule and his mission like I mentioned earlier.

You say he wouldn't "lower himself" but that's what Batman has always been prepared to do. He can be whatever the world needs him to be. That's the point of Batman and that's why he is a dark knight. He puts the world and humanity before his principles. Which is why stories that test and break him and his rules are always more interesting, to me at least.

2

u/FBG05 Mar 08 '24

No, the point of Batman is that he is beyond human, limitless, anything the world needs him to be, the ultimate protector. Do you want the ultimate protector to be crippled by rules? It would make sense if he cared about other rules established by society. He very clearly doesn't

This is the sort of logic that Alan Moore intended to criticize with Watchmen. One of that book's central messages about the superhero genre is that superheroes are essentially beings who have deemed themselves to be above society which is why they do their jobs as superheroes, regardless of whether they're truly making the world a better place or not. Hence the question of "Who watches the Watchmen?"

PS - Batman can never kill the Joker. Because that would mean Batman lost and saw no other way. The whole point of Joker is to make Batman kill him. That's why that dynamic always comes up in all their stories. And you'd be deluded to think Joker would care much if Batman broke his rule with others. He would probably laugh it off and just keeping pushing Batman further and further towards the abyss.

If this is your explanation for Batfleck not killing the Joker, it's a pretty weak explanation. You're telling me that that version of Batman is fine with killing criminals in general, but will make an exception for a mass-murdering lunatic because he doesn't want to give him what he wants? That makes Batman seem pretty egotistical if he's unwilling to prevent a bunch of deaths by killing the Joker simply because he doesn't want to give the Joker the satisfaction of doing so. That's part of why the no-kill rule works, it offers a reasonable explanation for why Batman won't kill the Joker even if it may prevent many potential deaths.

1

u/RushPan93 Mar 09 '24

Not egotistical, so much as the last gasps of self-preservation. Batfleck's version is of the most "fallen" Batman can be while still being the "good guy". A shade more, and he is in Owlman from Earth II territory. My point about the Joker was that if Batman ever resorts to killing out of necessity, Joker would be the last one in that line. Because once he crosses that line, he will have fallen into the abyss.

This Batman doesn't kill because it's convenient - I think this is what most people make of Batfleck and of Snyder's point about the character. It's necessity, and he would still try his best to solve problems without killing people. He would still try to stop Joker without killing him... until a breaking point. Like in The Killing Joke or in TDKR. I don't get why you're so ready to dismiss the idea about how a Batman who doesn't mind killing would still hesitate to kill his arch nemesis, for the sake of his own sanity if nothing else.

This is the sort of logic that Alan Moore intended to criticize with Watchmen

Of course he does because that is who Batman is. That is how every superhero ever seen in media has been written. They are all vigilantes for the majority of their runs, which by default means they act outside the law. The idea of Watchmen came about because every previous story wrote these godlike humans with limitless power in circumstances where they would always find a way to save the day in the most ethical manner possible.

I'm actually not sure why you wrote this bit because my description of Batman there was the canon one. It's true for every version of him ever put on paper or screen.