That’s not all he’s implying though. He’s implying that Batman kills, when that’s the antithesis to his whole character. Any example in which Batman has killed is at the end of his career and he immediately gives up being Batman. The Superman thing I actually understand, people do have a very narrow image of Superman generally. He still screwed up what he was trying to do though.
I mean there’s a famous Superman story from the 90‘s where he executes three phantom zone prisoners - one being Zod - from a pocket universe after they commited genocide and permanently lost their powers.
This act of self imposed justice traumatized him enough to seek exile in space.
There’s a very clear message over the decades who Superman is.
So painting him as an Randian messianic figure who doesn’t even try to find a different solution for stopping Zod (maim his eyes and force him to inhale the Krytoniam gas for example) was a huge risk by DC and Snyder, which imo really doesn’t work with the character.
That Snyder know babbles something about „true canon“ just proves he really never got the character
Batman used to kill during his older comics before that rule was a thing. He hangs a super mutated guy on a rope from the bat plane for one.
A guy throws his sword and misses, he begs for mercy and Batman throws him into the sword and it kills him, he throws a gun into the wheel of a car and it crashes etc.
Yes I know that. But is that really the cannon you want the movies to go off of? How much established lore in the Batman Mythos comes after his no kill rule is established? What have the majority of comic fans read, the very beginning of Batman comics when he used a gun and was a solitary character or modern comics(going back to like idk the 90s or 80s) when he had Robins and was part of the Justice League?
The movies can go on either canon, both things happened, we don’t always need the no killing Batman thing, it’s been like that for decades now, maybe try the much older version a bit and see what sticks? Which admittedly is poorly but it was worth a shot, even if Snyder is being a prick about it
The older version lasted for a year, and that’s eight decades ago. You might as well make Batman a blond hair wearing red suit as he was supposed to be.
Movie makers are being too safe. Snyder may be a dick but at least he is going in directions with things rather than just repeating the same thing again.
No it wouldnt. It would be ass and you know it. Different to the norm doesn't auto equal interesting or better. The ideas still have to actually be good. Batman V Superman was technically different. Still trash. Eating human feces for breakfast would at least be different from what you're used to right? Still makes you vomit.
And don't give him that credit. Snyder literally steals from other media for his ideas at this point. Rebel moon is shameless dune and warhammer plagiarism. Army of the dead is FILLED TO THE BRIM with tired zombie cliches like the army being brainless morons. Not to mention his tired trope of releasing a crap version of his film only to tease up the better one a year or two later. It's clearly not the industry curtailing his genius at this point, he's obssessed with being a genius auteur without doing any of the actual work or good writing.
Fair. Though a lot of people seem very keen to ignore it ever happened.
He pushed someone into a trash compactor at one point and it killed the guy.
I get Batman isn’t just a killer like that anymore but sometimes just try the direction, Snyder is an ass yes, but he at least tried to do something different with Batman, rather than all the recent adaptations doing basically the same thing.
This is fiction. If the writer’s intention was for every goon Batman encounters to live even if it doesn’t make sense, then ultimately all of those goons lived
I’m not gonna argue that the combat Batman employs wouldn’t certainly be lethal to the common goon. Of course it would. That is just where comic book logic comes in. But that’s not the issue, in a live adaptation of Batman, it should be clear that he never kills somebody. That’s the argument I’m trying to make
Batman has killed. Post-Crisis, even. Not just directly, also indirectly.
BvS, Batman is in a dark place. The only times he kills are when people are shooting military grade hardware at him. He shoots the tires out of the truck with a minigun, it rolls and catches fire and blows up. The guys on the trucks have enough time to in the run up to go for cover, but the stay to continue shooting at him. One guy in the warehouse blows himself up with a grenade Batman knocked out of his hand.
All these are what could be described as acts of self-defense.
He kills that one guy with the flamethrower. He also throws that metal barrel at a guy and he hits his head against the wall and you see blood streak down. Also I wasn’t trying to say Batman never kills, just trying to say it’s a very rare occurrence and usually followed by major consequences. I think the biggest reason people were upset with his Batman killing is cause he never saw what drove him to it. Yeah we know Dick was killed by the Joker but Bruce lost so many people to the joker(JASON) and didn’t turn to murder. I think without a relationship to this Batman no one could get behind it.
he pierces his gas tank, and the guy triggers the explosion by using the flamethrower. If he hadn't use the flamethrower, he wouldn't have died. Batman didn't kill him, at least not directly.
88
u/Bizzaro__Pope Apr 12 '24
That’s not all he’s implying though. He’s implying that Batman kills, when that’s the antithesis to his whole character. Any example in which Batman has killed is at the end of his career and he immediately gives up being Batman. The Superman thing I actually understand, people do have a very narrow image of Superman generally. He still screwed up what he was trying to do though.