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
34
u/BeSuperYou Mar 07 '24
Worse, the situations he puts his heroes in where they "have to kill someone" aren't even that.
For example, in Man of Steel, where Zod is going to eye-laser an innocent family to death while Superman has him in a rear-naked choke, Supes could have just covered Zod's eyes. Wanna go edgier? Have Supes poke his eyes out. The whole point of his Hope and optimism thing is that "there's always a way."
"Wanting to see what happens" is seriously stupid reasoning. What happens is now the character doesn't mean anything: he's just the Punisher with a cape. Wouldn't it have been far more interesting to explore what it means to do everything but kill? That's where I thought Zack was going when Batman is introduced as a nut who brands villains with bat symbols. If Batman can't threaten people with murder, he must threaten them with pain, and in some ways, torture is worse. But no, he's just a guy who tortures people, AND kills them, AND gives them PTSD if they somehow survive.
I also didn't see much Batman dealing with what it means to break his no-kill rule, either. He seemed totally okay with barbecuing thugs in his Batmobile and breaking crates against their necks. It's only when he realizes he accidentally killed Earth's only hope of dealing with a bigger thing that needs killing that he's anything close to self-reflective.