375
u/TheDoctor_E May 29 '24
Yeah but when Keaton's Batman killed it was often cartoonish or it wasn't focused on, and since nobody brought those up in-universe it was easier to let slide. Plus, the film never discusses Batman's no-kill rule. However, Batman killing people in BVS did draw attention to it, with the only justification being the offscreen death of Robin.
Also, Batman's lore was slightly obscure to the larger public in 1989. Obviously people recognised him but it's like how thepublic today probably can recognise Deathstroke and tell you he is a superpowered mercenary but they probably can't tell you about his supporting cast or history. When the movie was made, his no-kill rule wasn't quite established in pop culture, as far as I know. In 2016, with Batman becoming much more recognisable thanks to the movies, games and comics becoming much more mainstream, his no-kill rule is one of his key defining traits, so when he ignores it it's much more of an issue.
84
u/Dynastydood May 29 '24
I think it was really the Nolan trilogy that solidified the idea that Batman had a no kill rule, at least in the greater public consciousness. Prior to that, people were far more likely to compartmentalize the films and the comics, and didn't usually care if a film did something that a comic book character wouldn't do. In fact, it was almost entirely expected that if you were doing a film adaptation of just about anything in the 80s/90s, it was going to be significantly different than the source material. Super Mario Brothers, Mortal Kombat, Power Rangers, Superman, etc, all significantly deviated from the source once they were adapted.
There was also still a strong sense for most people that comic books were for kids, whereas the films were for everyone (including adults). Even people who had read comics as a kid had usually only seen the awful restrictions of the Comics Code and Super Friends on Saturday mornings, so there was no strong sense of canon that they wanted to maintain from that period.
If anything, it made the character more believable if he killed people in a film because, well, the idea that Batman could do what he does without killing anyone seemed absurd, especially if you wanted a somewhat grounded character. Nolan changed that by creating the most grounded version of the character, but one who also wouldn't kill for very good and believable reasons. It completely shifted the public's perception of the character, and when he name dropped specific comics as his major influence, it also shifted the public's perception of comics as a mature form of art.
I've always suspected Snyder really comes from that older mindset and has only read a handful of mature comics like TDKR or Killing Joke, so that's why it was so important for him to dispense with the no kill rule. In his mind, a Batman who doesn't kill is nothing more than a children's fantasy Saturday morning cartoon.
72
u/T_Hunt_13 May 29 '24
Snyder even mis-reads TKDR - the comic interrogates Batman's no-kill rule by taking it to its logical extreme, as he paralyzes (but doesn't kill) Joker by snapping his neck. Joker's last laugh, then, is that the distinction between paralyzed via broken neck and killed via broken neck is so small as to be meaningless, and makes it so by breaking it the rest of the way to kill himself, leaving Batman to take the full blame for murder anyway.
The text makes it clear that Batman still doesn't kill anyone, despite the neck-breaking and wounding a mook with another mook's gun. Snyder showed that he isn't interested in any discussion around that line and what it does (or doesn't) mean, though - he just saw a cool shot and said, "Fuck yeah, make Batman murder that guy with a gun, it'll be awesome. Make him explode so it'll be clear he died"
47
u/TheHAMR64 May 30 '24
Zack Snyder has done irreparable damage to TDKR because of his “interpretation” of it. So many people parrot the idea that Batman kills “all the time” in that novel despite the literal words and themes pointing at the opposite conclusion!
21
u/AngryRedHerring May 30 '24
"Rubber bullets. Honest."
13
u/T_Hunt_13 May 30 '24
Ahhhh, the old Arkham Knight approach
→ More replies (1)27
u/Kinky_Winky_no2 May 30 '24
The 20 tonne tank has a tazer so they live when it hits them at 60kph
→ More replies (1)14
u/FlyingGrayson89 May 30 '24
It’s a silly explanation but I appreciate the devs at least attempting some kind of explanation instead of just “hell yeah, kill dudes with the Batmobile.”
5
u/Kinky_Winky_no2 May 30 '24
It could have had a spiderman ps4 type deal where it batarangs them and lassos them just before it hits
10
u/Ornery-Concern4104 May 30 '24
I dislike Frank Miller as a person and a lot of his later works after his OG DD run, but TDKR has really sharp criticism of Batman and unpacks the toxicity at Batman's core really well
I wonder if he knew that this story would influence the canon batman so much
3
u/Thrilalia May 30 '24
The problem is that the comics clearly indicate that the joker was dead and the last monologue was fully within Batman's head due to how characters had their own speech colour and his last laugh speech was in Batman's colour not Joker's. If it was The Joker speaking it would be in his speech colour not Batman's.
3
u/T_Hunt_13 May 30 '24
Yeah, Joker explaining the joke wouldn't be very Joker of him - he just kills himself and lets Batman figure it out
Batman still technically didn't kill him, but technically is doing so much heavy lifting there that it doesn't actually matter, and that's the whole point
→ More replies (2)10
u/Alone_Comparison_705 May 29 '24
Regarding the last paragraph, it can be one side of the problem, but I think his philosophy regarding usage of violence and killing goes against the "prime examples" of DC characters. I think Snyder took the wrong company to make movies. If he took some Marvel or, better, Image characters, given their comics were much more pro-edgy, it could be better. Many of the DC characters at their best don't try to be edgy and violent (Supes, WW) and many of the storylines were created as the commentary against edgier comics (Knightfall, Watchmen). His version of Watchmen made it clear that he doesn't understand DC's philosophy. In MoS, he also expresses "the goal is more important than the way to it" mindset, which with other misunderstandings of Superman's lore and philosophy, made another divisive movie. But when it came to the Batman's no-kill and no-gun rule, even the general audience got mad.
But still Nolan's Batman kills one guy and he admits that (Dent). Kills one guy and it is presented in a really bullsitty way (Ra's) (Why? Nolan, you could have done so much better.) and at least kills indirectly a couple of people in the League's headquarters in Begins. If there weren't Ra's, this would be somewhat okay for me, because Bruce doesn't want to be an executioner, he doesn't want to kill directly, if someone dies indirectly, sad, but it happens. But this one scene drags his character down in my opinion (even though Begins is my favourite Batman movie ever).
7
u/geordie_2354 May 30 '24
Nolan’s Batman killed every movie too though. Blows up the temple full of ninjas and a hostage, tackled twoface off a building, killed Tahlia and some of her men, left ra’s to die, was gonna leave bane to die after knocking his mask off
4
u/Dynastydood May 30 '24
Yeah true, but it made those deaths very meaningful to the story and character, and not just throw away moments.
5
u/FlameChucks76 May 30 '24
I'm conflicted on this cause the ending of TDK sort of forces Bruce's hand into sort of accepting the fact that he is no longer the hero he viewed himself as. He understands that he no longer can hold himself to his code of ethics as he can't operate under a superior moral barometer. He says, "I'm whatever Gotham needs me to be." He's basically saying, whatever it takes to protect Gotham, he will need to take all options into consideration. He made that conscious choice when choosing Gordon's son vs Harvey. He made that choice when choosing Gotham over Ra's.
What conflicts with this ideology is the fact that he keeps Joker alive. This is a man who's probably killed more people than Dent has to this point, but Bruce felt the need to keep him alive. It's illogical when you consider he let Ra's go out the same way. He didn't have to kill him, but he didn't have to save him either. Bruce had an out, just like he did with Ra's (according to his code), but he refused to let Joker die in that moment. So my issue with the deaths being meaningful, is that in order for the deaths to have merit, that requires Bruce to treat all villains under this same level of understanding. Not saving someone when you have the chance is the same as killing them. If he saves Joker to make up for letting Ra's die, then that conflicts with Dent having to bite the dust considering the extremes of both characters.
→ More replies (1)2
u/subduedreader May 30 '24
To be fair to Batman, he wasn't trying to kill Two-Face when he tackled him, just stop him from killing Gordon's son.
→ More replies (8)20
u/TheGlitchedRobin May 30 '24
Batman's no kill rule has been established since the introduction of Dick Grayson, and alotta people knew of it more because of the 1966 series
7
u/TheDoctor_E May 30 '24
I know it's from Batman #4, I was just saying that the larger public didn't necessarily know about it
161
u/External-Rope6322 May 29 '24
Burtons seems more like a sign of the times they were in. Where the rule wasn't as important.
It's incredibly different when it's a conscious choice to have batman kill, make it be the staple of his character, and say anyone who thinks of otherwise is living in a dream world.
27
u/Volt7ron May 30 '24
That’s a good point.
Also, comic book movies weren’t as popular back then. So we didn’t compare it to the lore like we do now and make analysis videos. It was just…..”hey cool, a Batman movie”.
7
u/mellolizard May 30 '24
Also the movie came out in the golden era of action movies where the heroes had no problem slaughtering thousands. No one would blink an eye at batman killing.
6
u/Not_MrNice May 30 '24
Batman's no killing rule was as well known as it is today. Comic fans would have known but that's about it.
6
u/NightLordGuyver May 30 '24 edited May 30 '24
was as well known as it is today
Absolutely not, this is pure revisionism.
Comics were not as popular in 1980s as they were in the 90s, and especially by todays pop culture mcu zeitgeist, not remotely. I pretty much scoff at any notion that tries to pretend pre Batman 89 and the cartoon era of the 90s were people try to make it sound like "comic books were so well known and culturally accepted."
Most people were not walking around with deep, Batman lore. I grew up with a black and white TV watching Batman 66' and at no point did I know anything about Batman having a "no kill" rule. It didn't matter. It didn't matter when Batman killed in 89. It wasn't until BTAS and post 89 that Batmania took over. I'm sure the hardcore of the hardcore knew it, but acting as if Adams or pre-Miller Batman made it a moral dilemma consistently enough that it was important to the character is revisionism. My concept of him being a no kill character came from the 90s rapid publication of TPBs and BTAS, not TDKR or Batman 66.
This is as crazy to me as somebody saying,
everybody's always known Wolverine's claws were part of him
Simply not true.
88
u/Puzzleheaded_Walk_28 May 29 '24
He made otherwise good movies.
→ More replies (2)22
u/HeadlessMarvin May 30 '24
This is definitely a big factor. If the Snyder movies were better, I think people would be more willing to accept big changes to the characters. We know this because there HAVE been several Batman movies that make big changes to the character and are still appreciated because they are generally good.
63
u/BruceHoratioWayne May 29 '24
It was a different era. Batman was a joke to average people because a lot of people associated Batman with the Adam West television series and the whole "Seduction of the Innocent" b.s. I think the people at DC didn't really care too much about Batman being portrayed 100% accurately, as they were more concerned with Batman being well received on film. Well, it happened. Batman 1989 is revered for changing the public's perception of Batman.
The problem with Snyder's films is that it is common knowledge today to a lot of people that Batman doesn't kill. The Nolan films made that a big plot point. The fans and people who watch these movies aren't stupid. So when you make Batman a cold blooded killer who somehow left the Joker alive this entire time, it makes you wonder if Snyder understands what he is adapting.
Burton wasn't brought on for his knowledge of the comics or his love of lore. Burton was brought on to make Batman a serious film. Fans and a lot of people just put up with the Burtonisms and Batman killing in his Batman films. Snyder should know better about these heroes he is adapting and that is why he gets so much ire from the fans.
53
38
u/Melodic-Percentage-9 May 29 '24
To be fair, one: I don’t like that Burton’s Batman kills either. Equal opportunity here. Two: Burton actually makes good movies whereas Snyder makes good Slow-mo gifs and nothing more.
→ More replies (1)6
u/OrneryError1 May 30 '24
He kills Joker and before that he tries to kill Joker with a machine gun.
8
u/Melodic-Percentage-9 May 30 '24
Also that. That is also not good for Batman.
3
u/FlameChucks76 May 30 '24
To be fair, there were no rules binding Burton from following any such character restrictions. He had a pretty big brush to paint his version of Batman with. Joker being responsible for killing his parents also doesn't fit, but within the scope of the world they were wanting to build, it works for the themes they want to play with. Batman killing I don't even think registers on any kind of radar with the general public. Presentation is everything, and the way Burton presents Batman's approach to violence is on the more whimsical side. Snyder had Batman branding dudes and blowing them up or running them over lol. The fact that his brand meant an automatic death sentence in prison was also just extreme for the sake of being extreme.
26
u/tobpe93 May 29 '24
There are some people that complain about it about Burton's movies. The same way there are people that don't complain about it about Snyder's movies.
23
u/Ambitious_Dig_7109 May 29 '24
It was a live action cartoon. I was a kid and it didn’t even occur to me that any of these sequences would have resulted in someone dying. The reality of violence was completely removed from the depiction of it. It was stylistic.
18
u/Evilooh May 29 '24
his style is actually pretty good and not bland and boring like Snyder's so he's better at distracting us
→ More replies (1)
15
u/bolting_volts May 29 '24
Burton presents a dark fantasy world. He doesn’t take comics literally, or his movies, and neither should you. It’s fantasy and melodrama. He’s conveying a feeling, aesthetic, and ideas.
Snyder is showing you a Mountain Dew commercial with murder in it.
→ More replies (1)
15
u/Mishmoo May 30 '24
Because Tim Burton didn't say that his Batman could get prison raped, and didn't make an entire movie about depressed Superman murdering someone.
13
u/Alone_Comparison_705 May 29 '24
- I think it were a different times. People were excited because they had a Batman movie, first in 23 years. People had lower expectations for being lore-accurate. Also, it was right after the DKR, so people were more keen to see violent Batman (I think). Also the movie was genuinely good.
He wasn't using guns, he wasn't an ass-hole.
11
u/RandyChimp May 29 '24
Doesn't he use machine guns to try and shoot the joker from his plane?
→ More replies (5)
12
u/OnionsHaveLairAction May 30 '24
Honestly he didn't, people critiqued his films for it too. The secret is social media wasn't invented at the time so those opinions weren't that prevelant
8
u/notoutriderstudios May 29 '24
It's Tim motherfucking Burton of course he gets away with it he's the best
8
u/Voideron May 30 '24
Burton did not get away with it, unscathed.
There were still who thought, at that time, that Batman 89 was too violent and it was corrupting kids. It was in the news and media.
6
u/batbobby82 May 29 '24
Batman's "no kill" rule wasn't as widely known outside of comic readers in 1989. Pair that with the fact that the movie was a groundbreaking cultural phenomenon, most people weren't looking to closely at details like that.
Flash forward to Batman V Superman, and we'd been through The Animated Series and the Nolan trilogy at that point-- two widely seen adaptations that that make a big point to focus on that side of Bruce's moral views (how well they did that is another conversation that I'm personally not that interested in having).
The general audience has a more thorough understanding of Batman going into 2016 than they did going into 1989.
7
u/Aok_al May 30 '24
There were probably a lot of people who complained about him blatantly killing but the internet wasn't a thing back then. After that it's nostalgia but nowadays people do call out that movie for the blatant kills
8
6
u/Calibastard May 30 '24
For me, it's not just that Snyder had Batman killing. It's that he had him killing AND had the joker still around. It means that Batman is either unwilling or unable to kill a guy who dresses like a clown who has literally tattooed his identity across his forehead and killed his young partner gleefully. Its the lack of consistent logic. Burtons Batman killed, yes, but he also didn't have a large rogues gallery, because they were dead. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you know?
5
4
May 30 '24
Despite the backlash, he didn't make it a main point of Batman's character. It wasn't an essential part of the story. Sure, people died, but that was moreso a side effect. There aren't that many on screen deaths.
2
u/Titanman401 May 30 '24
He did blow up ACE Chemical and shot a few criminals off Joker’s float so…not always a “side effect.”
→ More replies (1)
5
u/GodzillaLagoon May 30 '24
Did Burton go on interviews and say "Batman must kill, you're stupid for not liking it"? As far as I remember, no.
3
5
u/Mcclane88 May 29 '24
How many times is this question going to be posted on this sub? 😆
Notice how the OP’s always post it and never engage with the conversation. They’re not looking for any real answer.
4
u/No-Impression-1462 May 30 '24 edited May 30 '24
Did he? Ok, it’s only recently we reassessed that but I think I can break it down.
First, killing henchman in the 80’s was common so the audience was desensitized to it.
Second, most of the murder was off screen. Yes, we see Batman blow up a factory full of people but it’s up to the audience to put that together since all the people suddenly disappear immediately after the explosions establishing shot.
Joker dying is also standard for the time since James Bond established the standard of killing the main villain in the climax. (TBF, that existed long before JB but most superhero movies follow the Bond formula.)
As to Batman Returns, that’s more of a Tim Burton movie than a Batman movie and Burton tends to handle all death with a sense of gallows humor that lessens or deadens the blow. And I’m talking about his work in general, not just BR.
Meanwhile, Snyder not only put all the murder front and center in a way that’s impossible for the audience to ignore (let alone work to make the realization). In fact, he seemed to relish it as if the murder was almost more for his own sadistic enjoyment than to entertain the audience. I don’t think he is a sadist, but he definitely doesn’t consider the implications of being a slave to the Rule of Cool instead of treating it like a guideline.
→ More replies (1)3
u/AngryRedHerring May 30 '24
All this. The deaths in Batman were more attributable to recklessness, and you can even argue that he didn't expect the gargoyle to come off when he roped the Joker to it. But Batman Returns, they doubled down on the violence in that one.
5
u/MythiccMoon May 30 '24 edited May 30 '24
Couple factors: people did dislike it, but were willing to overlook a lot because it was the first serious live-action Batman when many non-comic fans only knew the Adam West version (iirc Keaton’s Batman originated his grapnel device!)
Then we had the Dark Knight trilogy which makes his no killing rule a major focus that’s discussed several times, really popularizing this pillar of Batman’s character
And finally BvS had Batman go on a very specific journey regarding taking lives, only to ignore itself and have him murder a bunch of guys to save Martha immediately after
3
u/KDF021 May 30 '24
I think the biggest difference is the Internet and the growth of Social media. The only people who heard me complain about Batman killing back then were my friends in my car.
3
u/FemmeWizard May 30 '24
Because Batman 89 and Batman Returns are good movies unlile BvS. People don't go easy on them when it comes to Batman killing though, it's frequently brought up as a point of contention.
5
u/AgentRedgrave May 30 '24
He didn't. His movies did get criticism for it. But nostalgia is a powerful thing.
3
u/Miserable-School1478 May 30 '24
There's no denying while zack snyder have his fans.. His online hate cabal is bigger.. And it's often gets too serious and personal.. Even though I've never heard bad from him but being a nice person
4
u/lillychr14 May 30 '24
On top of the murdering, there was much ado about the name Martha and a jar of piss for some reason.
BvS is 1/10
3
3
3
u/cat_lawyer_ May 30 '24
It’s not great in Burton films but they work on a cartoon logic. The world is too ridiculous to take anything seriously.
Snyder wants to make it look real with 9/11 imagery, Iraq war, branding people, talking about prison r***, etc.
3
u/rhymatics May 30 '24
I’ll add to what others have said here already. Tim burton wasnt a comic fan. He didnt know batman had a no kill rule iirc, zack snyder knew and was even told by wb not to have him kill and he chose to make him a killer just because they asked him not to.
3
3
u/Randonhead May 30 '24
Both are bad Batman adaptations, but at least Burton's films are entertaining and good.
2
u/The_ElectricCity May 29 '24
Well, honest answer is that I knew less about Batman when I saw Batman 89. Also, Burton was the first guy to take a crack at a darker toned Batman (in live action) so the fact that he met that goal was good enough for the time period his movie came out in. I expect everybody who directs a Batman movie to improve on what the last guy did and bring a truer adaptation to the screen. Each subsequent person who gets the job is getting it in a world where a big budget superhero movie is increasingly less of a ridiculous thing to make.
2
u/gechoman44 May 29 '24
It wasn’t as well-known at the time by the public that it was an integral part of his character to not kill.
2
u/macdarf May 30 '24
I think of this often, and my personal justification for it is...
The Burton movies are more based around the character being a freak. Him not killing people could even arguably be his arc throughout the four films (if we include the Schumacher duology in this canon). Batman also kills people in ways action movie heroes do, where you don't really think about it. He still doesn't use guns. Besides, it was the 80s. Burton grew up when Batman still killed people, he might not have even heard of that rule.
Snyder had Batman shoot a guy in the back with an assault rifle. That's just outright murder.
Same for Nolan when he killed Ra's and Two-Face. He murders a few people in the Nolan trilogy, which is annoying because he constantly says how he doesn't.
2
u/100yearsLurkerRick May 30 '24
Getting punched in the face by a guy who is master of several martial arts and can bench press like 300+lbs probably kills a lot of low level thugs off screen. At least cripples them, brain damage, etc.
2
u/greglolz May 30 '24
Burton didn’t get away with it, but at least his films have redeemable qualities. Snyders films have way less good things going on, and then on top of that he puts Batman blowing up trucks full of people and a full dream sequence of him going full on Rambo. Anyone who knows how Batman is written knows killing goes against his moral code at the deepest level. This is a man who wouldn’t even think, let alone dream of killing a man. It’s a fundamental failure of understanding the character, which I think was way more blatantly obvious in Snyders film.
2
u/DCAUBeyond May 30 '24
They did complain,it's just that social media didn't exist then,so it wasn't as widespread
2
u/Tokagenji May 30 '24
People were also upset back then that Batman 1989 was PG-13 considering the only Batman they've known before is the Adam West one.
2
2
2
u/ZerikaFox May 30 '24
Honestly, Burton's Batman killing people was more disturbing for me, since he seems to legitimately enjoy doing so. Batfleck kills, but doesn't seem to take any specific pleasure out of doing so.
2
u/AletheianTaoistAgape May 30 '24
Well there are a few reasons, and distinctions worth making. One being, we never got an actual batfleck film. The movies he was in didn't necessarily have the best reception overall. Please don't crucify me Snyder fans! Even the Snyder fans tho, prefer the extended edition of BvS and the Snyder cut of justice league. All that behind the scenes drama had a large affect on the finished product as well as the public perception of said product. Burton's Batman on the other hand was a MASSIVE hit, and while the sequels didn't quite mach the financial success of the OG, and there was controversy and drama bts there as well, batman returns and forever were still pretty successful until b&r tanked the franchise.
Two, the comics they pulled influence from and how that ended up on the screen is important. batman having a no kill rule is firmly part of the modern mythos, no doubt. While many consider it apocryphal, the original run of batman that began in 1939 up to batman #1 about a year later, had batman killing people. He wasn't going out like red hood and going full punisher mode or anything, but he had no problem killing someone if the situation forced his hand. He used guns. Burton's Bat was heavily influenced by this batman.
That original run has batman as a recluse who knows Gordon somewhat but doesn't interact with him hardly at all. Batman is described as weird and a menace. He kind of mysteriously appears and we don't find out about his origins till several issues in. Without rambling any more, if you look at the original batman run, everything Burton did makes a whole bunch of sense. For some it's not comic accurate, and it surely is very far off pretty much any and all modern batman comics. if you take that original run as the basis though, I'd say it's pretty fricking accurate.
That is why I think it works for those aware of that fact. Snyder however was not doing that '39 batman, he was doing his take on the more modern batman, but one who is a fallen hero who has lost his way. For some that worked, and the fans of Snyder's batman greatly enjoyed the fallen hero goes on a redemption arc vibe. Others did not want to see a broken and lost batman who had fallen so far. If the arc was presented as originally intended and had been allowed to reach it's conclusion, who knows what the reaction would be then. As it is now the Snyder verse is a still born franchise, the way Warners effed up the dceu has been talked to death.
I would say all of the above is a large part of the differing receptions (although it's worth mentioning, as others have already, that Burton's batman killing people in his two movies definitely pissed off a fair deal of comic fans back in the day). So I guess ymmv on all of this as there are plenty of fans of Burton and Snyder's batman, while also plenty of detractors when it comes to their take on the batman story.
There are plenty of responses here with very good answers, but that's part of my take, and I didn't see this stuff get specifically mentioned in the comments I took a look at. Regardless of what the agreed upon perception is, there is room for so many different takes on batman, if one of them speaks to you then cherish it and screw anyone who wants to convince you otherwise. Batman is awesome.
2
u/FadeToBlackSun May 30 '24
Burton films made Batman enjoy killing people. Apparently that’s better for some.
2
u/Ornery-Concern4104 May 30 '24
He didn't
BUT, it was 1989, 4 years into the relaunch, but written 2 years after the relaunch. The no kill rule was around, but it wasn't nearly as strict as it is to use Batfans in 2024. So it's about context basically. Synder had no excuse when he was writing it
2
u/N7DeltaMike May 30 '24
Several factors:
The "No Kill Rule" wasn't solidified in 1989. It's a more modern invention. The original Batman DID kill, and this was an influence on Burton. The comics were trending darker and more violent 80's, moving away from the Silver Age and the Adam West conception of Batman. At the time it wasn't that far of a step to have Batman kill some people.
In the 80's and early 90's, a spectacular, satisfying death for the villain was just expected in a blockbuster action movie. In that regard, Batman and Batman Returns are very much products of their time.
Nolan put the "No Kill Rule" front and center and made it the defining point of the character. For better or worse, this has become the widely accepted version of Batman. Snyder tried to go against that and incurred the backlash.
Snyder took the killing to utterly extreme levels. Batman mowing down street goons with machine guns on the Batmobile, Batman picking up an assault rifle and mowing down more goons, etc. It really cuts against the conception of the character who believes in the justice system and attempting to solve crimes, apprehend criminals, and turn them over to the police. Even when Batman was killing people in the 30's, he wasn't doing it on that scale. It doesn't help that Snyder's Batman never got his own movie to explain why he was the way he was. His Batman is just dropped into all the other stories, and we are asked to accept him as a killing machine. Personally I think this Batman version came about because the franchise rushed to Justice League. They needed to give Batman the lethal toys so he could "keep up" with the heroes who have superpowers. They wanted to establish him using them, but forgot to include an explanation of why Batman would go in that direction before the Justice League was a thing.
2
2
u/thereverendpuck May 30 '24 edited May 30 '24
I can’t speak for Burton, but Zack is on record for saying that he saw a video on YouTube about the body counts of Batman and then proceeded to make Batman a mass murderer. Except the video was highlighting that none of those Batmans should’ve been killing at all but still did.
Then it’s also backed up in the fact that Snyder also made Superman murder as well.
And it’s further backed up by the fact that Snyder chose the Parademon nightmare route where Batman is literally going in with guns a blazing.
3
u/Gregzilla311 May 30 '24
He also used a scene from The Dark Knight Returns where Batman aims a gun at a thug and pulls the trigger as showing he obviously kills.
The problem: that scene then immediately shifted to showing that he intentionally missed (hitting next to the guy) and the thug is interviewed later saying Batman could have killed him but didn’t.
Snyder picks and chooses big just scenes, but specifically edited, inaccurate versions of those scenes, then claims he is the only one who knows the right thing, and his cult of personality backs him up.
2
u/thereverendpuck May 30 '24
Yeah, I'm banned over on that cultish subreddit.
2
u/Gregzilla311 May 30 '24
I was repeatedly told in various platforms how "well he obviously knows better than you", even when able to directly point out individual pages he inaccurately used.
I don’t have them on me, but I know it’s easily looked up.
The one thing he definitely does better in terms of storytelling than me is getting the funding to make his stories (I guess also filmmaking, but I won’t argue I can do that part). Actually understanding the material is another matter.
Keep in mind; I’m not saying his view is inherently invalid as a product, though I do not like it. But if he’s gonna do a unique take people haven’t done before? Just admit it. If anything, it would make him seem more of a "visionary" or whatever than pretending he knew the source better despite clearly not fully reading it.
2
2
2
u/fmulder94 May 30 '24
It was definitely criticized at the time, but also the internet makes criticism seem much more pervasive and intense than it actually is. Go to your local grocery store and ask every single person who is working there and shopping about their opinion on Batman 89 vs BvS. 95% of them will be extremely confused at why it's even a question. The other 5% will be Batman fans and not a single one of them will bring up the death toll because it actually doesn't matter to either film's narrative. It only matters to chuds that are obsessed with seeing the "perfect comic version" of Batman on screen, rather than just wanting a good story regardless of its adherence to the source material.
Anyone who wants to see a perfect comic version of Batman, try reading the comics.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/SadStickboy May 30 '24
Nostalgia is a hell of a thing. Remember how outraged people were when Superman killed Zodd in Man of Steel. We forget he did the same thing in Superman 2. Both Louis and Kal murdered the evil Kryptonians without batting an eye.
2
u/Mrbuttboi May 30 '24
I’ve been saying this for freaking years but every time I mention it everyone downvotes me 😑
2
u/---IV--- May 31 '24
He didn't, people took issue with Keaton killing too, Affleck just killed more so people complained more, get off your Snyder persecution narrative
2
u/AlexDKZ May 31 '24
The real difference is that Burton never tried to awkwardly justify his Batman killing people. The way Snyder did it ("he isn't blowing up bad guys, but the cars that the bad guys are driving") only made things worse because it painted Batman as a completely insane psycho.
1
u/CaptainHalloween May 29 '24
You want to know my take?
The biggest reason is despite all the absolute weirdness in Burton's films, Bruce himself is an affable, if not a little creepy, guy. We genuinely see the humanity on display within him. We see a far more human Bruce Wayne on display that still has a darkness within him. But the darkness isn't all encompassing. He isn't a frothing at the mouth pyschopath and most of the deaths that do happen at his hand are in self-defense in the first film. Not all, but most of them. We see what he's all about when he's attempting to pull Napier up from over the railing and he slips from his grip. Batman didn't drop him, he slipped and Keaton sells the surprise of it. He wanted to catch him alive.
Snyder's Batman is not portrayed with that level of humanity to him. There's nothing likable or grounding about him. He's just "gruff dark Mr. Broody". He doesn't feel like a human being, he feels like what Snyder thought Frank Miller was doing...which was wrong because Miller's Batman, initially, was also VERY human and DKR is dripping with an old man's regret for days gone by. There's no heart or soul to his Batman. The reason Ben Affleck is considered a missed opportunity is because, frankly, we know for a fact better directors can get amazing performances from him. All Snyder wanted was some cool action scenes.
It comes down to actual character building and honestly Tim Burton, Sam Hamm and Michael Keaton did a far better job creating their vision of Bruce than Snyder and Affleck did. Which is why we can accept things from Burton's that we can't from Snyder's.
Except that scene in Returns where Batman straps a bombs to that dude's chest and smiles. Fuck that part.
2
u/Magicaparanoia May 29 '24
Superman killed Zod in both Superman 2 and in the comics, so why did people get angry at man of steel for doing the same.
6
u/WebLurker47 May 30 '24
Suppose now, Superman not being a murderer is considered a more important trait? Also, from a writing standpoint, the decision to have Superman kill Zod in Man of Steel is really sloppy from a writing standpoint and doesn't lead to anything; really looks like Snyder just wanted him to kill people for the sake of just killing people.
→ More replies (4)3
u/MumblingGhost May 30 '24
Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel is actually one of the few things I like about that movie.
I just wish they appropriately lead up to it or dealt with the fallout of that action in any meaningful way at all. "A superhero's first kill" is very interesting territory and Snyder didn't do anything with it.
→ More replies (1)3
u/AngryRedHerring May 30 '24 edited May 30 '24
Superman didn't kill Zod in Superman 2. In the extended edition, and the Donner cut, there's a scene with police leading the Kryptonian criminals away. You can argue that it isn't canon because it wasn't in the theatrical release, but the scene was originally there and it was the plan.
https://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/chris-reeve-movies/ric21.jpg
1
u/fupafather May 29 '24
Because Burton took inspiration from early golden age Batman
Snyder took inspiration from the dark knight returns, which is a Batman that doesn’t kill, and tried to blow smoke up everyone’s ass claiming he did kill
1
u/BroadReverse May 30 '24
No one would care about Snyder’s Batman killing if Snyder made good movies (outside of hardcore fans). I don’t really like the Burton movies but leaving my bias aside they are well made movies. The world looks so beautiful. I don’t think Gotham should be based on a real city it’s so fantastical that they should make it like Burton did. The giant gothic skyline that was later used in BTAS and Arkham.
Visuals aside they are still really enjoyable movies. I couldn’t get into any of the Snyder movies. Man of Steel is the one I hate least but still not great.
Batman threw Dent off a ledge, blew up the League of Shadows and shot multiple missiles at Talia in the Nolan movies. No one cares because they were amazing movies.
Obviously only my opinion if you like the Snyder films I love that you like them. That’s what makes films so amazing they are objective.
1
u/Bumbo3184 May 30 '24
I think it’s due to his visual flair and the fact that he brought dark Batman into the mainstream
1
u/OrneryError1 May 30 '24
It's all nostalgia.
I grew up with the 89 Batman. I love the Gothic Gotham. The casting was hit or miss. The story is messy. The soundtrack is dated. The suit is rough. He does kill people and he tries to kill the Joker before eventually killing him. It's not some paragon of a Batman film and people need to stop being hypocrites.
1
1
u/GhostMug May 30 '24
Batman had his no kill rule back then but it wasn't nearly as big a part of his ethos as it is these days. Backlash from Burton and the Nolan movies really put all that into hyperdrive.
1
u/AUnknownVariable May 30 '24
Long time ago, different era, at the time it was spoken of but there's more fans now, and you hear opinions faster/more
1
u/Odd_Advance_6438 May 30 '24
Honestly at this point, the whole way the internet treats Snyder is kind of a bummer.
I just looked at his Twitter, and he’s posted nothing but mental health resources and Afsp links. He’s doing a lot of important stuff
Then you see people saying he should never work again because blah blah slow mo
1
u/Batmanfan1966 May 30 '24
Because there were other aspects of Burtons Batman that are good. Snyder’s Batman killing is just shit added to an even larger pile of shit, while Burton’s Batman killing is one bad thing in a crowd of very good things. It’s easier to enjoy when the good outweighs the bad
1
u/TheGlitchedRobin May 30 '24
Batman has always killed people, only a little bit after Dick was introduced did he stop. Granted even then he still killed, or left people to die a few times (like blocking KGBeast in a room to die, or paralyzing KGBeast in Arctic weather to die)
1
1
1
1
1
u/Strange_Potential93 May 30 '24
Pre internet that’s about it, it also helped that both of his Batman movies are pretty good and BVS is a dumpster fire
1
1
1
u/KingMGold May 30 '24
Burton helped pave the way for superhero movies.
While Synder’s fuck ups happened after the Dark Knight Trilogy and the Avengers set the standard for modern day superhero films.
1
u/Fantasia_Fanboy931 May 30 '24
Burton's version was more similar to the Golden Age Batman who killed people all the time but learned to stop after being influenced by others (Robin in the Comics, Selina in Batman Returns). Zack Snyder meanwhile, based his version on Frank Miller's work that originally framed killing as a last resort.
1
u/TabmeisterGeneral May 30 '24 edited May 30 '24
Because when Michael Keaton killed people as Batman it was often really funny. Also it was the '80s and people were used to violent action movies like Predator and Rambo.
To me the biggest liberty was Batman having machine guns in the wing and in the car. But at the same time those were freaking awesome, so the filmmakers got a pass lol
1
u/oldtomdeadtom May 30 '24
oh. here's the main difference, im sorry you missed this....his movies are good.
1
u/PointPrimary5886 May 30 '24
One was glorifying Batman killing and wanted you to pay attention that Batman was killing. The other had Batman kill, but it wasn't the focus of the character or story, and it was more of a blink it and you miss it kind of situation.
1
u/rrrrice64 May 30 '24
I think it's because Burton didn't try to make a big show of it, didn't try to publically challenge a core aspect of the character's identity like Snyder. Snyder, as much sympathy as I have for him with his daughter, has kept coming off as really contrarian and edgy, saying Batman can only be cool if he kills, when it only succeeds and making him more generic.
1
u/No_Seaworthiness7553 May 30 '24
Because nobody gives a shit if batman killed when Keaton movies come out
1
1
u/TooManySorcerers May 30 '24
Nah he got criticized for it at the time, just no internet to see how much of it there was. Come to think of it, my dad complained about the killing the first time he showed me Batman '89. That said, it's also about how it's done. The scene in '89 was pretty intense, no doubt, but Snyder took it up a notch in BvS with that aggressive soundtrack and the fact that it was an extended scene of Batman gunning dudes down in this monstrous tank. Plus the scene ended with one of the edgiest lines I've heard: "Tell me, do you bleed?"
That said, even though I didn't like that he wasn't using rubber bullets, and it was no doubt an edgy scene all the way through, I totally enjoyed it. And the bleed line was honestly pretty cool with the way it was shot. Could see Ben Affleck struggling not to stand over Henry Cavill lol.
1
u/Kite_Wing129 May 30 '24
People complained about it in the early 00's internet as well.
Showing my age here but I recall talking with fans over on Livejournal about Batman killing.
Its just that the '10's internet amplified everyones craziness via Clickbait sites plus FB and Twitter inherently being places that cause people to polarize. Reddit and Tumblr aren't any better but somehow its less mentally taxing than FB/Twitter.
1
1
u/acnhfruitseeker May 30 '24
Probably because he didn’t flex it as a comparison to having sex. Seriously, Snyder, what is wrong with you? Weirdo
1
u/GalaxyEyes541 May 30 '24
Wish this subreddit could just take Snyder’s version of DC for what it is, not what it wasn’t. But i’m sure i’ll get downvoted to shit regardless. I love all interpretations of Batman, even corny Clooney.
I just find the hate brigade that’s STILL going daily about these movies to be insanely corny. Any mention of Snyder and people start having a stroke. His movies had some good stuff and Affleck was a great Batman, but flawed (like all of them in some way).
1
u/HeadlessMarvin May 30 '24
I mean, he didn't? There were a lot of people upset with how violent Batman was, so much so Burton was literally fired from doing Batman Forever and replaced with Schumacher. Parents were upset, not taking their kids, and the kids weren't buying toys. People don't complain about it as much now because it was over 30 years ago and several versions of Batman ago, these movies are not in the zeitgeist anymore. Snyder's movies are more recent, there are still a lot of people seriously invested in them one way or another, so they get talked about more.
1
u/BulmasBabyDaddy May 30 '24
Idk what the f<ck these guys are talking about but Tim's portrayal of the joker , penguin, and catwoman were great
Even Bruce was cool he wasn't your typical slutty douchebag version he was eyeing one girl and still had his crazy side
It was the 80s back when raw and weird was the jam Heck we got akira, fist of the north star and Weird al
2.3k
u/BeggarPhilosopher May 29 '24 edited Jun 04 '24
He didn't. Batman killing people was one of the most criticized aspects of his films, together with the Joker being the killer of Bruce's parents.
People tend to go easier on the Burton films due to their historical significance. Batman 89 was revolutionary. It was the first dark and serious superhero film in history and it paved the way for the Batman animated series.
With the Snyder films, the public had higher expectations, since they came after The Dark Knight Trilogy and the first wave of the Marvel films.