I got into an argument online about this. People were citing various comics where Batman had killed or had used guns, and the problem is that with all of the iterations of Batman, all of the different writers, retcons, universes, timeline resets, etc. throughout the decades, it's impossible to get a perfectly consistent vision of the character. There are going to be writers that will have Batman break his No Kill rule because the point of that comic was to emphasize the internal conflict. It's not because he's a murderer, it's because he's been pushed to the edge and put into an impossible situation. Just because it happened in a single comic, doesn't mean that the rule is broken forever and Batman is unchained. It's just a single writer's vision of what Batman is capable of.
It's the same thing with power scaling Just because a comics writer made it happen once, doesn't mean it is universally true for their character, but people will absolutely refuse to accept that.
Yeah but we don't wanna see that in a connected universe, when it's a one off elseworld it's okay but that version of batman was going to be the main batman for many years if it had been succesfull
@@GeneralTaco155555a Yeah like superman is the worst with this. In some stories he struggles to hold up a building. But in other comics he can punch so hard he can start a new Big Bang. Like Superman has some of the most inconsistent power scaling I've ever seen.
@@gwell2118 Yep. Batman is way worse though. Batman dodging god level beings and beating them is ridiculous. He's a regular guy who is pretty smart and has gadgets. Also, really funny when Wonder Woman fans compare her to Superman, when I don't think any of her feats come even close to Superman's most insane
I mean I feel like if a different director said this differently everyone would be behind it everytime Batman kills in the comics he seems to turn bad and insane and becomes bad I’d like to see that in a movie
*THERE’S A REASON* Batman drops off his villains at an “Asylum” and not “Blackgate Prison” it’s because he believes in reform… Amadeus Arkham (the founder of the asylum) did too but one patient broke him - Batman’s fighting the same battle as Amadeus.
Let's be honest, after the countless times that Joker and other villains have broken out of Arkham and continued to kill innocent people, you'd think he'd realise that reform would never work on such freaks. The writers r just too afraid to write such a story where he has to actually acknowledge that these villains can't be reformed.
@anonisnoone6125 - You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about - the story I mentioned ends in him taking a fire axe to the Asylum doors in defeat and letting the inmates go free. Only Harvey Dent reveals he actually did change.
@@JustanotherNPC8454 I could see him doing that by simply over explaining Jason's life. I loved and hated the Snyder cut justice league I got all the back soteies but they were all individual feature length films in one. 🤦🏿♂️
Or make a movie about Bruce's father. Thomas Wayne becomes Batman in a alt universe where Bruce is the one that dies instead of his parents. And with Thomas being Batman, he actually kills. He even carries two pistols. Make a movie about him and see how it goes
Saying Batman is irrelevant if he doesn’t kill is the equivalent to saying Superman is only interesting when he’s evil. Like no, both are just wrong and dumb.
@@haydenblazier6751I think it's disingenuous to say he has no respect for superheroes. His idea of superheroes is different than what we know, so it comes off as horrible to us.
@@anonisnoone6125 Than he has no respect for the people that consume superhero media as a whole. Why alienate your audience just to make pretentious "improvements" to a character that doesn't need it. He outright calls Batman's no kill rule and Superman's incorruptible goodness "stupid" and "unrealistic", but his head is so far up his own ass that he can't seem to realize those are the very qualities that make these two characters special.
Snyder is to superheroes, like Michael Bay is to Transformers. Their talent starts and ends at visuals, and they shouldn't be allowed within 1000 feet of a beloved franchise.
@@whitest_rabbit69 After recently watching footage of the live-action Transformers, I have to disagree. The CGI that's used in those has aged gracefully, especially compared to Marvel and DC's current VFX work. Don't get me wrong, I'm also mad for those movies making Optimus a murdering psycho, but one is to give credit where it's due when it comes to the visual effects. And the music is incredible, but that part of course has nothing to do with Bay's involvement. Edit: In hindsight, I think I responded to the wrong person and mixed up who was talking about who.
I wish Transformers live-action had more stuff like the Bumblebee movie. It wasn't the most original piece of media (in fact, it takes a LOT of plot-beats from Iron Giant), but it was a heartfelt, small-scale story about two friends. There's so much great Transformers media in both show and game media. Beast Wars, Animated, Prime, the Cybertron duology games, Devastation. When it comes to movies however, there's only like 2 I can appreciate fully.
I think the worst Batman take is that "He beats on poor people and doesn't help Gotham" which is factually WRONG as most his villains are very wealthy and Bruce constantly donates money to the betterment of Gotham and makes projects to do so as well
The whole reason he fights the League in Batman Begins and the Court of Owls in the comic with the same name, is _because_ he wanted to rebuild Gotham, help the poor and homeless rise a level in society by creating thousands of jobs and housing units, and prevent crime through well-funded community resources. It's so crazy to me these "Batman is the real villain" takes that suggest he does the above, because he DOES! Batman is special forces, Bruce Wayne is philanthropy. They are both needed for each situation, one of the conflicts in the latest Batman movie is that Batman hadn't been a philanthropist yet. When people suggest he hang up the cape and just give away money, it's like what do you think he's doing in both ways? His villains love to keep the poor and insane poor and insane, he fights against that and has reformed several villains. Hell, even as Batman we see without him the entire electric grid for Gotham would fail like Texas in the winter, it's Batman's tech that keeps the grid afloat, children in heated homes and hospitals drawing power.
Zack Snyder strikes me as a man who only knows Batman through Frank Miller's runs (at least the good ones, mainly DKR and Year One), without understanding the parts that make those stories work, as well as the fact that they deviate from Bruce's normal depiction and are meant to be their own thing.
He just sees one panel with Bruce and his big chest and looked at Affleck at went yep that's all we need, he replaced half of TDKR lore with his own head cannon.
It's like he brags about TDKR because he knows it's a fan favourite but his Batman aligns more with Miller's stuff after 9/11, like TDKRII, All Star Batman & Robin, and Holy Terror.
TBF, I don't think Frank Miller himself understood what made his stories work. Also thats not 100% accurate, he also definitely reads Alan Moore as well...which he also fails to understand, but on a much much deeper level of failure judging from his Watchman.
Lol, Snyder is so proud of himself for coming up with the most generic, edgelord idea that thousands upon thousands of people, including much better writers than him, have done. You aren't breaking the mold, you are just stepping into another less interesting one.
We legitimately never saw a Batman in the big screen before who'd gone off the deep end and abandoned his code until Batman v Superman. That movie had more originality than 99% of the rest of the formulaic and safe comic book fils out there
@christar1ful301 didn't Batman 1989 kill people? Plenty of comic depictions too, especially stuff dealing with late career Batman and Alan Moore's excellent The Killing Joke.
Its fair to want to show Batman's point of view as foolish, but instead of butchering the character just have red hood or someone else challenge that view point.
@@thorkagemob1297Damian's dynamic with Bruce and Dick in the comic is so good too. He always calls them out on their ideals and secretive nature, which is something that he himself is guilty of, because he himself is part of the Batfamily.
Or just show it for what is, a virtue that also serves as a character flaw for Batman. It's pretty admirable that he won't kill people, but that's when you start putting him in situations where his inability to do that causes him problems.
"Batman is the reason why Gothem is such a shithole" I can NEVER understand the stupidity of this argument!! ALL Batman does is turn criminals in to the police, it's the Justice system that doesn't give Joker and the rest of the super-villians the death penalty and Batman gets all the blame for ether Gothem unwilling or unable to contain or execute these very dangerous people or at least relocate them to a Supermax prison, instead they put them in to a Asylum of all places. Batman is the most stoic and humble of all Superheros and gets shit on the most right next to Superman for no reason.
That is literally his fault. He throws them into the Arkham asylum on his decision just for them to break out again. Hence why red hood is the best character
The biggest thing people don’t always get about Batman, is that his no kill rule isn’t just about not becoming like his villains or losing self control. Batman’s very hopeful, maybe crazily so, but it’s a huge part of why he even still believes Gotham itself can be saved.
Christopher Nolan managed to write a scene of Batman being forced to kill Two Face and everyone loved his movie. In other words, literally a skill issue on Snyder’s end lol
You can definitely have Batman kill in a story and it be well received, you just have to put good context behind it. The problem with BvS is that we get no context. We are just given a Batman who goes on killing sprees with the best explanation being that Joker killed Robin, which tbh is not enough justification as Batman still loses people even after his parents and typically still sticks to his morals.
@@codysellers4151plus the joker is still alive in this universe so what’s the fucking deal? Batman’s murdering randoms cause Jason is dead but he won’t avenge jason by killing his murderer???? wtf is Batman just stupid??
Lol bales Batman literally killed a lot of people in his initiation scene where he burns down ras temple. Bales Batman killed way before he murked Harvey dent…
@@haroldasusus4684Because clearly Snyder Batman knows random goons' 1-10 can't carry a movie; Unlike a Joker or Bane. But seriously, Snyder's Batman kills; But him killing in BvS holds no weight at all. He just kills random people for no thematic reason,other than to kill. And there's no dynamic to Superman as well, as his Superman also kills.
The existence of “Snyder cuts” just tells me he is a hack. If you need 6 hours to make a movie and it’s only alright by the end, you’re a bad director.
Batman: If there's even a 1% chance he might be evil, we have to take it as an absolute Also Batman: Whelp, our moms have the same name, better throw that 1% stuff out the window and treat him like an ally and be super sad when he dies despite only having known him for a few days/weeks and having an antagonistic relationship with him for 99% of that time.
When you're too stupid to understand the scene Superman says Martha the same way Bruce's dad did in the beginning Batman almost becomes the same as his parents killer but you are an idiot and the second you hear Martha you draw some weird ass connection that the director didn't draw and movie also didn't draw y'all are just too stupid bet you don't even know the film was inspired by 1985 Excalibur and that scene is also a reference to a scene in that film with Arthur and Lancelot so you really don't know anything
My dad and I watched rebel moon last night (He religiously watches the Joe Rogan podcast and note that my dad has one of the most refined movies pallets I've ever seen) and when we watched all of it he actually thought it was alright and him and I were arguing about how good it actually was. He claimed that since it was the first movie in an apparent trilogy it had to set everything up and basically create the stakes. I in response talked about how the first Star wars film introduced most of the cast and also how the rebels literally win and blow up a planet destroying weapon. In rebel moon when they do nothing and kill a total of like 20 soldiers and a ship the movie has one of the characters say how important killing a hand full of soldiers was because more people will be inspired and start fighting back against the new world order or whatever (I don't remember what the hell the bad guy team was called) but the thing is a movie can't just say that and not have anything else to foreshadow or represent that people might just start fighting back against the bad guys My dad then said "well I guess we're gonna have to just wait for the director's cut to see how he improves it" and I responded with "IF he improves it it still will probably be the same movie, it will probably have the same ending since this is still a trilogy and it just about has to keep the same endpoints or else it just doesn't exactly stay as the same movie" My dad then said "listen man I just want a version with all the blood and gore that Netflix usually doesn't include, that's something Star wars couldn't do" I said "dad you don't even fucking like sci Fi, if you want a bloody gory shootout and knife fight just go watch john wick. And besides in Star wars they use fucking laser blasters and light sabers, there is a reason there aren't blood stained stormtroopers and lightsabers make a bloody mess to people that get cut by them* I'll im saying is that I thought this movie was a 4/10 before but it made me and my dad have an argument that involved talking shit on OG Star wars so now I hold all of that aggression towards rebel moon Final Rating 1/10
You should've pointed out that the villains at one point tied every single person they needed to execute up, but instead of shooting them, they shot at the one person who was in cover....or the fact that the main character could've just used her gun to shoot the antagonist guy in the head, which would've prevented him from being resurrected, but instead she decided to fight him in a lengthy fist fight.
I’m against art school. The best way of learning is through gaining experience and networking. Christopher Nolan self taught his directing style according to him.
@@Highostrich absolute facts! Michael Bays filmography is total dogshit imo, but at least he’s honest. It’s laughable how much Zack deflects and tries to pass it off as “oh you just don’t get it”. As if it’s not “look at me I’m 14, and I think this is cool because it’s dark edgy, and has a lot of sex and violence”
the literally reason why batman does not kill is because in his mind it does not make him better then those he's fighting against and it wont bring back his parents back from the night they were deleted its the whole batman morality analysis in the comics from like 2012 or before
Sorry to tell you this, but in the comics, Batman started off killing people he even had a machine gun on his Batmobile also in most of the Batman movies, he kills people you can have different versions of Batman you like even the original creator said this if you like him to kill people cool if you like him with his no killing role, cool but don’t get upset when people like something else
@@blakelandry9313and then due to censory and regulations, he stopped killing, and he became the character we love to this day. ever since the no kill rule was introduced as a workaround for censorship, it became a staple of his character because he is more interesting with the rule, as its hypocritical and extremely uncompelling if he simply kills without being a completely deranged and detached version of Bruce. just because the creator said it was okay doesn't mean I have to listen when the character has been done better BECAUSE of the rule. no one talks about whether Spider-Man should kill when it's the exact same thing, it's just that Batman gets all the focus simply because he is inherently more edgy and that's fucking boring
Snyder was that edgy kid in highschool who just ALWAYS took the opposing stance of what ever was popular, regardless of what he actually thought, because in his mind being contrarian is an interesting personality trait. Most kids grew out of it, but he didn't.
Why are people so obsessed with forcing Batman to be a killer? Much like the thousands of "Evil Superman" iterations, it's just an admission that you have no interesting takes on the character as is and need to beat the one point to death. Batman isn't just interesting because he has pointy ears and fights, you can still write great stories without needing to have him consider killing, and you can focus on the morality of not killing in interesting ways without trying to inherently alter _who_ the character is. Batman's Marvel stepbro Daredevil is a great recent example of that, (spoiler alert) although he also does not kill, starting the 2019 run he ends up actually killing someone on accident, for the first time in his existence, and it precedes an extremely well written narrative on accountability and authority and the nature of crime/punishment. (And if you don't know, Marvel canon is nearly absolute, every event that's happened since the real world 40's is still canon, so this absolutely changed this classic character on a fundamental level.) Also, Charlie's take on Batman is just a wrong, not surprising since he admittedly _doesn't read comics_ but talks like an authority on them. "Batman is mentally ill too" is such an extremely recent take on the character for his 85 year history that in no way can it define the whole character. Most of the stories that play off the idea of "Is Batman as insane as his villains?" end with the answer being a resounding no. The most famous of these stories being when he was hallucinating off of Scarecrow's toxin to consider he was insane, and only broke out because he knew inherently the ideas being implanted in him about his nature and motivations were wrong, his willpower was stronger. His heroism isn't born of an obsession to feel powerful (nor is power the reason he chose the Bat persona), it isn't born because without it he would be shaking in a corner thinking about his mom and dad. It's an innate force of good that exists to inspire the people of Gotham not to roll over to evil, it's not an obsession but willpower that allows him to go further than possible. The answer to the question of why Batman is Batman is always answered by heroism, not insanity. The versions of Batman that are verifiably and undeniably insane, such as Frank Miller's All-Star Batman or Tom King's Batman run are so universally hated by comics fans. Both because of how inherently wrong the character of Batman is that even a non-fan would find egregrious, and because of how absolutely badly written they are. Even the live action adaptation The Batman, which leaned so hard into the mental illness aspect that they made Kurt Cobain Bruce Wayne's hero and changed his mother's history and ancestry to be apart of a lineage of mental illness, ended up with the message being the Batman has to be more than the scars that made him, he has to be an inspiration as much as he was a beacon of fear.
Because you can like any version even the original creator said this, that man’s a basic character that you can do whatever you want if you wanna gate, keep people from liking a different version of Batman than boy that is cringe Why can’t people except that there are some versions of Batman, who kills I mean he started off killing people. He had a machine gun on his Batmobile and gun down a bunch of criminals. Even in all the movies he mostly killed people.
@@blakelandry9313 There's a whole lot of characters who kill, there is no need to try and change the fundamental character of Batman just because you like the killer has the name "Batman." It's really shallow. "You can like any version of the character" doesn't change that most people think Batfleck sucked as a character, or that Zack Snyder just wanted to be contrarian at the expense of these beloved franchises. He thinks he's the first one to come up with the idea "Batman, but he's a murderer" when he's not, he's simply the worst one to do it. Whenever Batman kills in the comics it is intentional, to show how extraordinary circumstances pushed him too far or how he breaks or how the situation absolutely calls for it. That's interesting, but these are mostly elseworld stories because it's not worth changing the fabric and grain of the character to an inferior version for pure shock value.
@ayomaando1608 yeah and I loved rebel moon buddy that doesn't make them "good" movies. I hated that movie, watching superman snap Zodds neck was the exact moment my childhood ended. It almost hurt lol
Why can’t you be happy? Did you know Batman started off killing people even in the Matt Reeves Batman movies he kills people. Can you people not accept different opinions?
@@blakelandry9313 AT WHAT PART DID ROBERT PATTINSON KILL? I’m fine with different versions of Batman with different opinions, but Matt Reeves Batman was strictly the only Batman that did not kill in a movie adaptation.
BATMAN DOES NOT KILL! Not only is he insane like Charlie said. like if he kills someone, it would literally push him over the edge and it would completely break him mentally. But he also doesn’t kill to represent hope and a bright future for Gotham.
The issue is almost NO ONE changes in the stories and so it just leads to more people in Gotham getting horribly brutalized. Especially cuz the criminals keep fuckin escaping. It's frustrating to me personally.
Did no one watch Matt Reeves' The Batman movie? Where he runs into other criminals who are inspired by his methods of fear and commit terrorism? And the conclusion of Bruce's arc in that movie is realising he needs to lead a better example for his city, one that's hopeful and inspiring? Why is this debate still ongoing?
The best explanation on why Batman doesn't kill is in Batman Begins when he has finished his training with the League of shadows and is forced to kill a criminal
The reason his take is so stupid is because there are a lot of well written stories where Batman is put in that situation, in which he figures something out or killing has some weight to it. Meanwhile Snyder's verison just kills because "its cool". To say that Batman is "irrelevant" prooves he's the one living in a dream world.
Batman shouldn't kill people because no one should have the authority to just go "ahh fuck this guy" and kill them. Leads directly to him thinking he should kill superman because "what if" that's the entire point of him putting that limit on himself
Which is why Punisher, Red Hood, Flashpoint Batman and Damien work on that area, they're interesting because they do justifiy every kill they do. When you have a Batman that kills and doesn't even do a Wolverine, feeling regret for being a murder machine, you completely failed in understanding the character (Tim Burton did that too but he didn't try to gaslight the audience lol).
I like a line he says to Damien in one of the animated movies. Damien: "He deserves it." Batman: "It's not about what he deserves, it's about who you are."
Why is it hard for people to understand that Batman refuses to kill people because he understands the finality of death and how permanent it changed his own life when his parents died. In his mind if he kills at all (even objectively bad guys) he still thinks he’s just as bad as the people who killed his parents and it would torture him if he did
There's a crossover comic from the 90s drawn by John romita jr where batman meets the punisher. And there's a very impactful part in the end where batman stops punisher from killing the joker. If you dont like that, you dont understand batman lore.
Such a great scene, loved Joker slowly realizing that the punisher is really going to end him before hand. That comic would make a billion dollars easy, batman vs punisher
The thing about Batman killing: do we really want a crazy, traumatized man who dressed up in a bat suit and beats up criminals to be judge, jury, and executioner? Batman knows how insane he is. So, in a temporary moment of sanity, he created a code he must follow in order to keep him from going overboard. Again, do we really trust the judgement of someone who constantly recruits children to fight crime when it comes to deciding who lives and dies?
Eh, that strikes me as only reading the surface of this character. His humanity comes from the fact that he doesn't want anyone to suffer through the trauma he did as a child. He's not completely mentally sane, but that doesn't undermine the core of his compassion in spite of his demeanor and brutality. The best Batman media will remind you of this.
@@leithaziz2716 You've gotta understand most people making that extremely surface level judgement have never picked up a comic book, they work backwards from the movies or just make assumptions from what they've heard. Most people think Bill Finger created him to be a nutcase when the whole "mental illness" lens on the character is really as recent as the 90's, and whenever the question is posed in the comucs on if Batman is just insane the answer is no. The character is focused on just as much as the actions taken, that's what seperated Marvel and DC from comic companies that existed before their creation. These people know "Bat persona, beats people up, puts himself in dangerous situations" and work backwards to a conclusion on his character. I can't imagine a comic reader seeing Batman comfort a traumatized little girl, smiling as he asks if she's ever wanted to know what it feels like to fly before grappling with her to take her somewhere safe, then coming to the conclusion that if he wasn't dressed like a Bat in that moment he would be quivering in a corner crying about his parents.
Yeah, I'm getting tired of the Batman is crazy takes. Using the fact that he dresses up in a costume isn't a great excuse when he exists in a world of superheroes who also wear costumes. @@billbill6094
@@leithaziz2716 I mean, Batman’s humanity is only one aspect of it (though a large one to be fair). If you look at the Tower of Babble storyline, particularly the one in the comics, Batman recognizes he let his paranoia go to far with keeping his plans a secret from the League. Thus why he resigned from the League. So, to act like his awareness of his insanity doesn’t play a huge impact on his actions is crazy to me. And this is before getting into Grant Morrison’s stuff
When I was young I always thought that Batman killing would be better until I realized that Batman represents free will. Basically Batman believes that by creating fear he will give people a reason to choose a better life.
I like a few of his movies, but Snyder saying his Rebel Moon director's cut will be full of sex and violence feels like the most edgy 13 year old shit imaginable
@@ivanagustinortiz5237 it's so weird how people try and look at one instance of batman killing in one comic and then think that's his entire character. Like no the writer of that particular book is either doing an alternate version or doesn't know batman
@@stephentarantino1313 pisses me off, and I'm more of a Superman fan nowadays. But Batman only killed for like what, one year out of 80-something years? The first detective comics story was a Spirit rip off and people will take that and say "uhhh yea Snyder cooked here". Or any Frank Miller work post 9/11 where he just says "fuck it" and his Batman kills from TDKRII onwards. Snyder says he takes inspiration from TDKR, but he means every other addition to that story that isn't as good.
He can kill but he shouldn’t kill willy-nilly like in Batman V Superman. You need to earn it Zack. Him inspiring The Riddler in The Batman was interesting and felt earned
It actually baffles me that people don't understand the no kill rule. It's not batman's job to kill people, batman already does enough by doing what he already does, doing MORE than enough. If he doesn't kill, that's up to him, and for his own reasons. What you should be angry, is at the government for not killing the super villains, which is their job to pass judgement and have passed the death penalty for ligher things 😭
It actually baffles me how you people think we don’t understand it. We do. It’s still retarded. However you try to justify it, Batman is directly responsible for his rogues murders since he repeatedly puts people like the joker back in prison knowing he’ll escape/wont be executed because of laws on insanity. It’s also dumb how everyone acts like he needs to obey the law when it comes to that law only. Meanwhile, he breaks nearly every single other law out there every night.
Zack Snyder is like the filmmaker equivalent of that friend you had in highschool that wrote terrible edgy fanfiction in some attempt to be "subversive" or "deep" when really it just demonstrated an immense misunderstanding of the source material
ngl seeing Charlie may not be the most knowledgable about comic books (not even knowing who booster gold was) but he 100% flawlessly understands batman better than most writers and directos so I'm surprised
Not just Batffleck. Keaton exploited mobsters in his two movies and Bale kil]Ed members of the League of Shadows in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises, also exploiting them.
Dude charlie so simply breaks down the flaws of Batman killing in like 30 seconds. It's not profound to understand Batman, if he kills it does not work!
This is why I'm surprised that marvel managed to do so well until endgame. It's so hard to walk the fine line of comic book characters in the real world. Parents wouldn't let their kids read the comics if he killed. Part of the reason I liked Snyders plot in Dawn of Justice because it showed people actually dying, which raises the stakes. Marvel ruined all superhero movies anyway with the multiverse. Then they would have to admit there is a universe where Marvel and DC exist simultaneously...
Deaths in the DCEU has been so poorly done nobody gave a rats ass about SUPERMAN when he died. Because it was done so poorly they brought him back immediately back in the next installment. I hate mcu, but DCEU is far far worse.
No in the comics he doesn't kill either, it's explicitly written as a "don't kill rule", it's only in the TDK trilogy where he kills but doesn't murder. Every Batman before that in movies actually did a lot of murdering, as did Batfleck. Robert Pattinson seems to be the only live action adaptation to have taken the "no killing" rule to heart.
The irony of having Snyder claiming that Batman is treated as this perfect god by his fans without realising that his fans are even worse and downright diabolical compared to Batman's.
I hate how Synder created an entire generation of Batman fans that only know him as the hero that kills, or a hero that should kill, and anyone who opposes that idea is an idiot.
Before you put your Batman in a situation where he HAS to kill, you first have to establish your Batman as someone who vows not to. From the minute Batfleck was on screen, he was killing people. This is not how you handle these characters
@@Mayan_88694 Oh cmon now..that extra half an hour clip couldn't save it. Lex acting like joker, Batman doesn't know whom to kill and whom not to, Superman being a symbol of destruction rather than hope ...and ofc Martha( Why did I take that name🤣) Snyder needs to realise that adding great cinematic shots and action sequence can't save poor storytelling..
It's honestly fascinating how many people want to try and tear Batman down over the last several years. Through the various iterations of comics, tv shows, and movies, there has been a very consistent and visible effort to tear down even the very idea of Batman in order to elevate other (typically more "diverse") heroes in his stead. And it's not limited to Batman either, any comic book enjoyer has been witness to the comic book industry doing its damndest to try and "deconstruct" and destroy the legacy superheroes that were the very thing to bring their companies to such prominence in the world.
No they haven't though. Batman who kills has been a trope since the CSA was introduced in 1964 (although a more known story with that group is JLA Earth 2 by Grant Morrison which the animated movie is based on). Deconstruction isn't used as much in DC anymore. I believe the most recent was in Injustice, but that was in 2013 (barring Snyder ofc). If you're talking about elevating other heroes, that's been going on for a while considering the whole Earth 2 squad came before Earth 1. Many legacy characters are more popular than their prime counterparts, and many have been in tv shows/movies that you know and love. The Flash that's in the Justice League animated series is Wally West, the 3rd Flash, who was the most popular Flash at the time. Green Lanterns speak for themselves. Barbara Gordon is the 2nd Batgirl. The Batman most people praise is like the 3rd or 4th iteration. The original Batman used guns, killed, and fought in WWII, but the only time he's been used in the last 50 years was in the 2 issue Generations series (2020-2021) which I'd highly recommend since it's more so a tribute to comics from the beginning to modern day. The most common deconstructed trope is evil Superman, but DC slowed down on that trope after The Boys came out and one of the characters called Homelander a tired and washed out trope (which is the writer basically saying Homelander is more a parody of evil Superman rather than a deconstruction). Since then DC hasn't used the trope very much. The only big writer who focuses on deconstruction is Donny Cates, but he only writes for Marvel and Image. That said, Donny Cates hasn't been writing these past few months due to amnesia after a car accident. Please don't speak about comics unless you know what you're talking about. lol
It's not a bad take.. it's an exploration in to the side of a fictional character we don't get to see. Snyder even mentions it's canon. His batman is told he's changed
Fun Fact: Kill Bill has a Directors Cut called Kill Bill The Whole Bloody Thing, it’s owned by Tarantino himself I believe and it’s only been seen by a handful of people, its the two movies edited into one and it also adds back a lot of violence and gore that was removed from the original versions
This could be out of context, but what Snyder said there didn't seem wrong to me. I interpreted that as "let's explore why he can't kill" rather than "let me just make him kill." And he's ONE HUNDRED percent right about the second part. If you don't put Batman in a situation where he can kill, then his rule means nothing. In The Dark Knight, he saves the Joker from falling. It's an important moment. You can't show that Batman doesn't kill if you can't show him make the decision
i kind of don't understand what you mean by your dark knight comment, but anyways, the reason snyder's comment on "let's explore why he doesn't kill" doesn't really land is because his version of batman did no such exploration. To also use The Dark Knight as an example, batman absolutely does kill two face, but because of this, batman faces immediate consequences, batman is now the number one enemy of gotham, all harvey's crimes become batman's, and eventually this culminates in the fall and later end of the batman as seen in Dark Knight Rises. Snyder's batman however, faces no such challenges or hardships for his murders. The only thing that really comes close to a consequence is superman seeing batman as some insane loon. I guess technically, the martha scene does kind of explore the why doesn't he kill thing since batman decides not to kill superman because he has a mom just like him but honestly i find it really weak and poorly executed. I'll cut snyder some slack since he didn't really get to follow through and finish his vision for these characters, maybe he really did want to expand on that "why" but just didn't get the chance to, seeing as how bvs ends with batman feeling pretty bad about misjudging superman and batman learning to be good again or whatever from him, i can imagine that MAYBE the intention was for batman to gradually become the batman that we know. But that isn't what happened snyder's batman does really just kind of kill people unconsequenciously, i got distracted and lost my train of thought, plus this message is pretty long already, you probably get what im getting at right? The consequence of killing is a pretty big batman theme i guess, if this batman neither experiences those consequences or fears the consequences of his actions, then he means nolthing, nothing was really explored with batman's character, this batman is uninteresting because he kills, there's no thought put into his actions, it's just something he does, nothing else really to it
I once read that Snyder writes based on the action sequence. He thinks of a really cool action sequence, then tries to write his way into the action sequence. He's basically writing the story backwards from certain moments to make those moments work. It's why characters in his stories are usually flat with little personality. He also doesn't understand subtext.
L Charlie take. :( Batman essentially kills people every comic but the writers just pretend that the people he slams through buildings would be fine. (Fine for comics, but it's just so weird to me to say that batman would never kill. Ideally, he wouldn't, but people are just so resistant to any kind of questioning of the foundations of a story) ...he does have some weird writing a lot of the times though lol...
Batman not killing has added to his character so much in the comics since his debut. He’s one of the only heroes in that universe with absolutely no powers, which makes you think that as a mortal hero facing life or death constantly, he’d kill nonstop to protect himself and others. But it’s WAY deeper than that, and you could make connections to the thoughts behind why in so many different ways which is so cool. “He wants people to see that a normal person can make a difference without special abilities, he knows he’s fragile and won’t stop killing if he starts.” There are INFINITELY more nuanced and interesting reasons as to why he DOESN’T kill in contrast to if he did.
@@zeno3062 no way bro he way joking????????? no way?????????? i didn’t know people on the internet could joke it’s only my third day out here i’m sorry 😔☝️
Christopher Nolan handled this dilemma so well in The Dark Knight. It would be so easy tell a story where the hero just kill his antagonist, but there are so much depth and implications in telling one where he is pushed towards all limits and have to come up to solutions where that one rule can't be broken. He is not a criminal, what also butchers Gordon in Zack Snyder's Justice League as well, since he knows what's up with the psycho-bat and even so work with him. Gordon would never team up with a crazy dude who spend the night killing people.
Zack Snyder still doesn’t understand jimmy Olsen or lex Luther or Batman and James Gun just cast the perfect Jimmy Olsen how do you fuck up jimmy Olsen
I think what he was saying is that he wanted to put the character in a situation where killing would be better, basically challenging his own values. And not putting him in situations like that basically make him uninteresting.
@@firstlast9846WB panicked cos it was run by pussies. Rather than focus on single characters first, they forced him to get the JL setup within 3 movies. U can say what u want about his writing but WB didn't help at all.
Well he fails to understand superman just as much as he failed to understand batman. He made superman scared of Johnathan Kent, and then he killed his first enemy he ever encountered. I could see this happening in the third film. But not his First conflict. That ain't superman.
"the Nolan cut of rebel moon will be the hardest r you've ever seen!" my dude, everyone who's seen the Netflix cut knows it's one of the hardest r's they've seen
I've thought about this for a while. I think it's because most people these days who want to watch a Batman movie are nihilistic atheists, so why would they understand the arc of a man growing past that phase?
@@lukeshioshio Shit man, that's quite possible these days. They are more about cancelling and hatred than the redemption of a changed man. It's truly sad
@@SuperMateoWorld1988 yeah I just feel like when your audience is 16 year olds who want to watch the world burn, BvS is just in a completely different realm. They couldn't possibly get it. That goes for the Zod neck snap scene in MoS as well.
@@onglanh5329 nah that's exactly what happened with BvS, a bunch of atheist teenagers not understanding the Martha scene because they are, in fact, atheist teenagers
Here’s the problem. If Batman kills you haven’t written Batman. You just wrote the Punisher in a bat costume.
I’m pretty sure you just stole this quote from one of the Batman authors
That's pretty much the case
@@SpongeBob64467yup and it's accurate
Simply not true
@@michaelthatoker7125 it is true
I got into an argument online about this. People were citing various comics where Batman had killed or had used guns, and the problem is that with all of the iterations of Batman, all of the different writers, retcons, universes, timeline resets, etc. throughout the decades, it's impossible to get a perfectly consistent vision of the character. There are going to be writers that will have Batman break his No Kill rule because the point of that comic was to emphasize the internal conflict. It's not because he's a murderer, it's because he's been pushed to the edge and put into an impossible situation. Just because it happened in a single comic, doesn't mean that the rule is broken forever and Batman is unchained. It's just a single writer's vision of what Batman is capable of.
It's the same thing with power scaling
Just because a comics writer made it happen once, doesn't mean it is universally true for their character, but people will absolutely refuse to accept that.
@@GeneralTaco155555apower scaling is dumb, Stan lee knew what’s up
Yeah but we don't wanna see that in a connected universe, when it's a one off elseworld it's okay but that version of batman was going to be the main batman for many years if it had been succesfull
@@GeneralTaco155555a Yeah like superman is the worst with this. In some stories he struggles to hold up a building. But in other comics he can punch so hard he can start a new Big Bang. Like Superman has some of the most inconsistent power scaling I've ever seen.
@@gwell2118 Yep. Batman is way worse though. Batman dodging god level beings and beating them is ridiculous. He's a regular guy who is pretty smart and has gadgets.
Also, really funny when Wonder Woman fans compare her to Superman, when I don't think any of her feats come even close to Superman's most insane
Wanting Batman to kill just because everyone says he isn't supposed to is like some edgy, contrarian teenager mindset
Its ironic cause the whole topic! Lol😂
The internet types who are into that would know all ab that
That is literally Snyder’s entire thing
Edgy teenage is essentially culmination of Snyder's writing/directing catalog
I mean I feel like if a different director said this differently everyone would be behind it everytime Batman kills in the comics he seems to turn bad and insane and becomes bad I’d like to see that in a movie
*THERE’S A REASON* Batman drops off his villains at an “Asylum” and not “Blackgate Prison” it’s because he believes in reform… Amadeus Arkham (the founder of the asylum) did too but one patient broke him - Batman’s fighting the same battle as Amadeus.
Let's be honest, after the countless times that Joker and other villains have broken out of Arkham and continued to kill innocent people, you'd think he'd realise that reform would never work on such freaks. The writers r just too afraid to write such a story where he has to actually acknowledge that these villains can't be reformed.
Seeing Amadeus’ backstory in the arkham asylum graphic novel was really chilling
@anonisnoone6125 - You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about - the story I mentioned ends in him taking a fire axe to the Asylum doors in defeat and letting the inmates go free. Only Harvey Dent reveals he actually did change.
@@anonisnoone6125 There are multiple reformed and retired Batman villains. Even Bane reformed before Flashpoint.
Bane is evil@@billbill6094
"The first thing it makes me want to do is disrespect the character and source material." Stop letting these people direct these movies
If people want a Batman who kills so badly just get into Red Hood, there ya go
Somehow, I think that even Snyder would fuck that up.
Or the Burton movies.
@@JustanotherNPC8454 I could see him doing that by simply over explaining Jason's life. I loved and hated the Snyder cut justice league I got all the back soteies but they were all individual feature length films in one. 🤦🏿♂️
Or make a movie about Bruce's father. Thomas Wayne becomes Batman in a alt universe where Bruce is the one that dies instead of his parents. And with Thomas being Batman, he actually kills. He even carries two pistols. Make a movie about him and see how it goes
Owlman, Jason/Red Hood, Flashpoint Thomas Wayne, etc.
Saying Batman is irrelevant if he doesn’t kill is the equivalent to saying Superman is only interesting when he’s evil. Like no, both are just wrong and dumb.
Been saying this shit for years. Snyder's got no respect for superheroes and it's clear as day in this interview.
@@haydenblazier6751I think it's disingenuous to say he has no respect for superheroes. His idea of superheroes is different than what we know, so it comes off as horrible to us.
@@anonisnoone6125 Than he has no respect for the people that consume superhero media as a whole. Why alienate your audience just to make pretentious "improvements" to a character that doesn't need it. He outright calls Batman's no kill rule and Superman's incorruptible goodness "stupid" and "unrealistic", but his head is so far up his own ass that he can't seem to realize those are the very qualities that make these two characters special.
THANK YOU.
Thoughts on the Tim Burton movies then? Obviously you don't know much about Batman if you don't think Batman doesn't kill
Snyder is to superheroes, like Michael Bay is to Transformers. Their talent starts and ends at visuals, and they shouldn't be allowed within 1000 feet of a beloved franchise.
Snyders visual effects after just shitty adobe after effects and poor lighting. Stop trying to give him credit for anything he sucks.
@@whitest_rabbit69And slow-mo. Don't forget the slow-mo. Or the bleached color palette of literally EVERY movie he's ever done.
@@whitest_rabbit69 After recently watching footage of the live-action Transformers, I have to disagree. The CGI that's used in those has aged gracefully, especially compared to Marvel and DC's current VFX work.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also mad for those movies making Optimus a murdering psycho, but one is to give credit where it's due when it comes to the visual effects. And the music is incredible, but that part of course has nothing to do with Bay's involvement.
Edit: In hindsight, I think I responded to the wrong person and mixed up who was talking about who.
@@leithaziz2716 he didn’t say anything about Micheal Bay, he was talking about Snyder. Snyder did not touch the Transformers flicks
I wish Transformers live-action had more stuff like the Bumblebee movie. It wasn't the most original piece of media (in fact, it takes a LOT of plot-beats from Iron Giant), but it was a heartfelt, small-scale story about two friends.
There's so much great Transformers media in both show and game media. Beast Wars, Animated, Prime, the Cybertron duology games, Devastation. When it comes to movies however, there's only like 2 I can appreciate fully.
I think the worst Batman take is that "He beats on poor people and doesn't help Gotham" which is factually WRONG as most his villains are very wealthy and Bruce constantly donates money to the betterment of Gotham and makes projects to do so as well
I mean everyone is poor compared to Bruce Wayne
Batman's villains sure do have a lot of expendable income to afford all their gadgets, technology, weapons and henchmen.
The whole reason he fights the League in Batman Begins and the Court of Owls in the comic with the same name, is _because_ he wanted to rebuild Gotham, help the poor and homeless rise a level in society by creating thousands of jobs and housing units, and prevent crime through well-funded community resources. It's so crazy to me these "Batman is the real villain" takes that suggest he does the above, because he DOES!
Batman is special forces, Bruce Wayne is philanthropy. They are both needed for each situation, one of the conflicts in the latest Batman movie is that Batman hadn't been a philanthropist yet. When people suggest he hang up the cape and just give away money, it's like what do you think he's doing in both ways? His villains love to keep the poor and insane poor and insane, he fights against that and has reformed several villains. Hell, even as Batman we see without him the entire electric grid for Gotham would fail like Texas in the winter, it's Batman's tech that keeps the grid afloat, children in heated homes and hospitals drawing power.
The whole reason for "Arkham Asylum" is so that his villains can reform
@theatlantean8036 and how's that "reform" coming along
Zack Snyder strikes me as a man who only knows Batman through Frank Miller's runs (at least the good ones, mainly DKR and Year One), without understanding the parts that make those stories work, as well as the fact that they deviate from Bruce's normal depiction and are meant to be their own thing.
He just sees one panel with Bruce and his big chest and looked at Affleck at went yep that's all we need, he replaced half of TDKR lore with his own head cannon.
It's like he brags about TDKR because he knows it's a fan favourite but his Batman aligns more with Miller's stuff after 9/11, like TDKRII, All Star Batman & Robin, and Holy Terror.
TBF, I don't think Frank Miller himself understood what made his stories work. Also thats not 100% accurate, he also definitely reads Alan Moore as well...which he also fails to understand, but on a much much deeper level of failure judging from his Watchman.
What's funny is that he still has his no kill rule in TDKR which is addressed in the story multiple times.
You would be correct. He only ever "read" TDKR and Watchmen.
Lol, Snyder is so proud of himself for coming up with the most generic, edgelord idea that thousands upon thousands of people, including much better writers than him, have done. You aren't breaking the mold, you are just stepping into another less interesting one.
This! So often these contrarian types see themselves as some kind of maverick or trendsetter, but they are just a sheep of a different color.
@@pyramear5414 "sheep of a different color" bars.
Someone said that Snyder is "Michael Bay wishing he was Christopher Nolan."
We legitimately never saw a Batman in the big screen before who'd gone off the deep end and abandoned his code until Batman v Superman. That movie had more originality than 99% of the rest of the formulaic and safe comic book fils out there
@christar1ful301 didn't Batman 1989 kill people? Plenty of comic depictions too, especially stuff dealing with late career Batman and Alan Moore's excellent The Killing Joke.
Its fair to want to show Batman's point of view as foolish, but instead of butchering the character just have red hood or someone else challenge that view point.
His son Damian is the perfect way to do that story imo
It's too big brain for Snyder to figure that out.
@@thorkagemob1297Damian's dynamic with Bruce and Dick in the comic is so good too. He always calls them out on their ideals and secretive nature, which is something that he himself is guilty of, because he himself is part of the Batfamily.
Or just show it for what is, a virtue that also serves as a character flaw for Batman. It's pretty admirable that he won't kill people, but that's when you start putting him in situations where his inability to do that causes him problems.
He can do whatever he want with batman and did it. keep crying.
The term "Snyder Cut" should just be a meme at this point
Pretty sure it is
@@emberparadox458 goes to show how behind I am 😅
@NosferatuAdvent defintiely better than what they put out previously in all fairness
He's rich!
They already joked about it in The Bear 😂
"Batman is the reason why Gothem is such a shithole"
I can NEVER understand the stupidity of this argument!! ALL Batman does is turn criminals in to the police, it's the Justice system that doesn't give Joker and the rest of the super-villians the death penalty and Batman gets all the blame for ether Gothem unwilling or unable to contain or execute these very dangerous people or at least relocate them to a Supermax prison, instead they put them in to a Asylum of all places.
Batman is the most stoic and humble of all Superheros and gets shit on the most right next to Superman for no reason.
That is literally his fault. He throws them into the Arkham asylum on his decision just for them to break out again. Hence why red hood is the best character
@@stimswwolf7867 No, he's returning them to where they were sentenced.
Batman is definitely not humble bro lmao
@@stimswwolf7867so u want him Kills? What do yall want?!
Gotham being a shithole is the REASON batman exists in the first place, not the other way around
The biggest thing people don’t always get about Batman, is that his no kill rule isn’t just about not becoming like his villains or losing self control. Batman’s very hopeful, maybe crazily so, but it’s a huge part of why he even still believes Gotham itself can be saved.
Christopher Nolan managed to write a scene of Batman being forced to kill Two Face and everyone loved his movie.
In other words, literally a skill issue on Snyder’s end lol
You can definitely have Batman kill in a story and it be well received, you just have to put good context behind it.
The problem with BvS is that we get no context. We are just given a Batman who goes on killing sprees with the best explanation being that Joker killed Robin, which tbh is not enough justification as Batman still loses people even after his parents and typically still sticks to his morals.
@@codysellers4151plus the joker is still alive in this universe so what’s the fucking deal? Batman’s murdering randoms cause Jason is dead but he won’t avenge jason by killing his murderer????
wtf is Batman just stupid??
Lol bales Batman literally killed a lot of people in his initiation scene where he burns down ras temple. Bales Batman killed way before he murked Harvey dent…
@@haroldasusus4684Because clearly Snyder Batman knows random goons' 1-10 can't carry a movie; Unlike a Joker or Bane.
But seriously, Snyder's Batman kills; But him killing in BvS holds no weight at all. He just kills random people for no thematic reason,other than to kill. And there's no dynamic to Superman as well, as his Superman also kills.
Lmfao that is literally just bias 😂
Crazy how as soon as Snyder isn't writing Batmans anymore, the movies become well loved again... Maybe he's irrelevant????
I'll take snyder batman over the newer one. Newest movie is fine but snyders version is way more what I prefer
@@kenk477go watch Punisher then, that seems more your cup of tea if you like Snyder's Batman
@@kenk477hell no. I prefer reeves batman overs snyder. At least matt understood how the character should be portrayed while being his own version
@@nemesisprime4501 Reeves Batman is also the most comic accurate live action batman yet.
Your existence is irrelevant
The existence of “Snyder cuts” just tells me he is a hack. If you need 6 hours to make a movie and it’s only alright by the end, you’re a bad director.
I'm willing to bet that the Snyder Cut of Rebel Moon is just a glorified extended cut of shit people hate about that film.
@@LeeSixTwentythe slow mo moments are actually cut down in the final version. The Snyder cut is gonna have a straight 5 minute jog in slow mo
And what are you? Some nobody who will never amount to anything?
@@map14le🤓☝️
@@map14le Bad day?
To be fair, Snyder ALSO believes that Batman loses his fucking mind whenever he hears the name "Martha" spoken aloud.
Batman: If there's even a 1% chance he might be evil, we have to take it as an absolute
Also Batman: Whelp, our moms have the same name, better throw that 1% stuff out the window and treat him like an ally and be super sad when he dies despite only having known him for a few days/weeks and having an antagonistic relationship with him for 99% of that time.
lol
When you're too stupid to understand the scene Superman says Martha the same way Bruce's dad did in the beginning Batman almost becomes the same as his parents killer but you are an idiot and the second you hear Martha you draw some weird ass connection that the director didn't draw and movie also didn't draw y'all are just too stupid bet you don't even know the film was inspired by 1985 Excalibur and that scene is also a reference to a scene in that film with Arthur and Lancelot so you really don't know anything
My dad and I watched rebel moon last night (He religiously watches the Joe Rogan podcast and note that my dad has one of the most refined movies pallets I've ever seen) and when we watched all of it he actually thought it was alright and him and I were arguing about how good it actually was.
He claimed that since it was the first movie in an apparent trilogy it had to set everything up and basically create the stakes. I in response talked about how the first Star wars film introduced most of the cast and also how the rebels literally win and blow up a planet destroying weapon.
In rebel moon when they do nothing and kill a total of like 20 soldiers and a ship the movie has one of the characters say how important killing a hand full of soldiers was because more people will be inspired and start fighting back against the new world order or whatever (I don't remember what the hell the bad guy team was called) but the thing is a movie can't just say that and not have anything else to foreshadow or represent that people might just start fighting back against the bad guys
My dad then said "well I guess we're gonna have to just wait for the director's cut to see how he improves it" and I responded with "IF he improves it it still will probably be the same movie, it will probably have the same ending since this is still a trilogy and it just about has to keep the same endpoints or else it just doesn't exactly stay as the same movie"
My dad then said "listen man I just want a version with all the blood and gore that Netflix usually doesn't include, that's something Star wars couldn't do"
I said "dad you don't even fucking like sci Fi, if you want a bloody gory shootout and knife fight just go watch john wick. And besides in Star wars they use fucking laser blasters and light sabers, there is a reason there aren't blood stained stormtroopers and lightsabers make a bloody mess to people that get cut by them*
I'll im saying is that I thought this movie was a 4/10 before but it made me and my dad have an argument that involved talking shit on OG Star wars so now I hold all of that aggression towards rebel moon
Final Rating 1/10
You should've pointed out that the villains at one point tied every single person they needed to execute up, but instead of shooting them, they shot at the one person who was in cover....or the fact that the main character could've just used her gun to shoot the antagonist guy in the head, which would've prevented him from being resurrected, but instead she decided to fight him in a lengthy fist fight.
If Micheal Bay went to art school you’d get Snyder.
Michael Bay went to art school. Same one Snyder went to matter of fact.
I’m against art school. The best way of learning is through gaining experience and networking. Christopher Nolan self taught his directing style according to him.
Michael Bay at least knows what he does. Snyder thinks he is making high art
@@Highostrich absolute facts! Michael Bays filmography is total dogshit imo, but at least he’s honest. It’s laughable how much Zack deflects and tries to pass it off as “oh you just don’t get it”. As if it’s not “look at me I’m 14, and I think this is cool because it’s dark edgy, and has a lot of sex and violence”
@@Crunch_ButtsteakThe sentence is key here.
the literally reason why batman does not kill is because in his mind it does not make him better then those he's fighting against and it wont bring back his parents back from the night they were deleted its the whole batman morality analysis in the comics from like 2012 or before
Sorry to tell you this, but in the comics, Batman started off killing people he even had a machine gun on his Batmobile also in most of the Batman movies, he kills people you can have different versions of Batman you like even the original creator said this if you like him to kill people cool if you like him with his no killing role, cool but don’t get upset when people like something else
@@blakelandry9313 sends links tell me where you got this info from
@@pandaangy1826 I read a comic lol it’s not that hard to read a lot of the comics. Plus it’s literally a few of the first issues in the series.
@@pandaangy1826 also, there’s a really good UA-camr who has a lot of good points his name is Tex
@@blakelandry9313and then due to censory and regulations, he stopped killing, and he became the character we love to this day. ever since the no kill rule was introduced as a workaround for censorship, it became a staple of his character because he is more interesting with the rule, as its hypocritical and extremely uncompelling if he simply kills without being a completely deranged and detached version of Bruce. just because the creator said it was okay doesn't mean I have to listen when the character has been done better BECAUSE of the rule. no one talks about whether Spider-Man should kill when it's the exact same thing, it's just that Batman gets all the focus simply because he is inherently more edgy and that's fucking boring
You don't need to add "makes a fool of himself" when talking about Zack Snyder, being a fool is his factory default.
Snyder was that edgy kid in highschool who just ALWAYS took the opposing stance of what ever was popular, regardless of what he actually thought, because in his mind being contrarian is an interesting personality trait. Most kids grew out of it, but he didn't.
Lol most kids did *not* grow out of it
5TFU fake DC fan!
THIS^^^
If edgy is liking a different style of Batman than boy, you are cringe did you know Batman started off killing people? I know mine blowing, right
It's not edgy for a hero to kill people you goofball
Why are people so obsessed with forcing Batman to be a killer? Much like the thousands of "Evil Superman" iterations, it's just an admission that you have no interesting takes on the character as is and need to beat the one point to death. Batman isn't just interesting because he has pointy ears and fights, you can still write great stories without needing to have him consider killing, and you can focus on the morality of not killing in interesting ways without trying to inherently alter _who_ the character is.
Batman's Marvel stepbro Daredevil is a great recent example of that, (spoiler alert) although he also does not kill, starting the 2019 run he ends up actually killing someone on accident, for the first time in his existence, and it precedes an extremely well written narrative on accountability and authority and the nature of crime/punishment. (And if you don't know, Marvel canon is nearly absolute, every event that's happened since the real world 40's is still canon, so this absolutely changed this classic character on a fundamental level.)
Also, Charlie's take on Batman is just a wrong, not surprising since he admittedly _doesn't read comics_ but talks like an authority on them. "Batman is mentally ill too" is such an extremely recent take on the character for his 85 year history that in no way can it define the whole character. Most of the stories that play off the idea of "Is Batman as insane as his villains?" end with the answer being a resounding no. The most famous of these stories being when he was hallucinating off of Scarecrow's toxin to consider he was insane, and only broke out because he knew inherently the ideas being implanted in him about his nature and motivations were wrong, his willpower was stronger. His heroism isn't born of an obsession to feel powerful (nor is power the reason he chose the Bat persona), it isn't born because without it he would be shaking in a corner thinking about his mom and dad. It's an innate force of good that exists to inspire the people of Gotham not to roll over to evil, it's not an obsession but willpower that allows him to go further than possible. The answer to the question of why Batman is Batman is always answered by heroism, not insanity.
The versions of Batman that are verifiably and undeniably insane, such as Frank Miller's All-Star Batman or Tom King's Batman run are so universally hated by comics fans. Both because of how inherently wrong the character of Batman is that even a non-fan would find egregrious, and because of how absolutely badly written they are. Even the live action adaptation The Batman, which leaned so hard into the mental illness aspect that they made Kurt Cobain Bruce Wayne's hero and changed his mother's history and ancestry to be apart of a lineage of mental illness, ended up with the message being the Batman has to be more than the scars that made him, he has to be an inspiration as much as he was a beacon of fear.
Because you can like any version even the original creator said this, that man’s a basic character that you can do whatever you want if you wanna gate, keep people from liking a different version of Batman than boy that is cringe Why can’t people except that there are some versions of Batman, who kills I mean he started off killing people. He had a machine gun on his Batmobile and gun down a bunch of criminals. Even in all the movies he mostly killed people.
@@blakelandry9313 There's a whole lot of characters who kill, there is no need to try and change the fundamental character of Batman just because you like the killer has the name "Batman." It's really shallow. "You can like any version of the character" doesn't change that most people think Batfleck sucked as a character, or that Zack Snyder just wanted to be contrarian at the expense of these beloved franchises. He thinks he's the first one to come up with the idea "Batman, but he's a murderer" when he's not, he's simply the worst one to do it.
Whenever Batman kills in the comics it is intentional, to show how extraordinary circumstances pushed him too far or how he breaks or how the situation absolutely calls for it. That's interesting, but these are mostly elseworld stories because it's not worth changing the fabric and grain of the character to an inferior version for pure shock value.
@blakelandry9313 if you can do whatever you want to a character then that character don't matter.
Lego batman can explode a man with a punch
The same goes to Spider-Man
Lego batman bettter@@KENSHIROez3260
Zack Snyder hasn't made a good movie since 2006. He just can't anymore
What he needs to do is to just stop writing the movies and let someone that actually knows how to write a story to do it.
@@KevinLopez-fm9kzwell actually 2013,
I adore man of steel.
@ayomaando1608 yeah and I loved rebel moon buddy that doesn't make them "good" movies. I hated that movie, watching superman snap Zodds neck was the exact moment my childhood ended. It almost hurt lol
@@RatQueenDreams so if it was you in that situation you’d just the family die ?
Damn
And rebel moon was not good lol
@ayomaando1608 there's like a billion things wrong with that movie. Just like makes batman kill people he makes superman also kill
Why can’t Snyder be happy with some of the past Batman adaptations where Batman actually kills people, including Tim Burton’s versions?
Why can’t you be happy? Did you know Batman started off killing people even in the Matt Reeves Batman movies he kills people. Can you people not accept different opinions?
@@blakelandry9313 AT WHAT PART DID ROBERT PATTINSON KILL? I’m fine with different versions of Batman with different opinions, but Matt Reeves Batman was strictly the only Batman that did not kill in a movie adaptation.
@@blakelandry9313you are just wrong
@@Dinguskhan5003 not at all maybe you should do something called research
@@blakelandry9313 maybe you should numbskull, at what point was it implied that Robert Pattinson killed.
BATMAN DOES NOT KILL! Not only is he insane like Charlie said. like if he kills someone, it would literally push him over the edge and it would completely break him mentally. But he also doesn’t kill to represent hope and a bright future for Gotham.
He also CAN’T kill because it means he gives up hope that anyone can change their ways
The issue is almost NO ONE changes in the stories and so it just leads to more people in Gotham getting horribly brutalized. Especially cuz the criminals keep fuckin escaping. It's frustrating to me personally.
He does kill. Enough of this debate already
Did no one watch Matt Reeves' The Batman movie? Where he runs into other criminals who are inspired by his methods of fear and commit terrorism? And the conclusion of Bruce's arc in that movie is realising he needs to lead a better example for his city, one that's hopeful and inspiring?
Why is this debate still ongoing?
@@leithaziz2716thank you, that's what I'm saying!
The best explanation on why Batman doesn't kill is in Batman Begins when he has finished his training with the League of shadows and is forced to kill a criminal
“You wanna know something funny?….. Even after everything you’ve done, I would’ve saved you”
-The real Batman
The reason his take is so stupid is because there are a lot of well written stories where Batman is put in that situation, in which he figures something out or killing has some weight to it. Meanwhile Snyder's verison just kills because "its cool".
To say that Batman is "irrelevant" prooves he's the one living in a dream world.
Batman shouldn't kill people because no one should have the authority to just go "ahh fuck this guy" and kill them. Leads directly to him thinking he should kill superman because "what if" that's the entire point of him putting that limit on himself
Which is why Punisher, Red Hood, Flashpoint Batman and Damien work on that area, they're interesting because they do justifiy every kill they do. When you have a Batman that kills and doesn't even do a Wolverine, feeling regret for being a murder machine, you completely failed in understanding the character (Tim Burton did that too but he didn't try to gaslight the audience lol).
I like a line he says to Damien in one of the animated movies.
Damien: "He deserves it."
Batman: "It's not about what he deserves, it's about who you are."
Why is it hard for people to understand that Batman refuses to kill people because he understands the finality of death and how permanent it changed his own life when his parents died. In his mind if he kills at all (even objectively bad guys) he still thinks he’s just as bad as the people who killed his parents and it would torture him if he did
There's a crossover comic from the 90s drawn by John romita jr where batman meets the punisher. And there's a very impactful part in the end where batman stops punisher from killing the joker. If you dont like that, you dont understand batman lore.
Such a great scene, loved Joker slowly realizing that the punisher is really going to end him before hand. That comic would make a billion dollars easy, batman vs punisher
The thing about Batman killing: do we really want a crazy, traumatized man who dressed up in a bat suit and beats up criminals to be judge, jury, and executioner?
Batman knows how insane he is. So, in a temporary moment of sanity, he created a code he must follow in order to keep him from going overboard. Again, do we really trust the judgement of someone who constantly recruits children to fight crime when it comes to deciding who lives and dies?
Eh, that strikes me as only reading the surface of this character. His humanity comes from the fact that he doesn't want anyone to suffer through the trauma he did as a child. He's not completely mentally sane, but that doesn't undermine the core of his compassion in spite of his demeanor and brutality.
The best Batman media will remind you of this.
@@leithaziz2716 You've gotta understand most people making that extremely surface level judgement have never picked up a comic book, they work backwards from the movies or just make assumptions from what they've heard. Most people think Bill Finger created him to be a nutcase when the whole "mental illness" lens on the character is really as recent as the 90's, and whenever the question is posed in the comucs on if Batman is just insane the answer is no.
The character is focused on just as much as the actions taken, that's what seperated Marvel and DC from comic companies that existed before their creation. These people know "Bat persona, beats people up, puts himself in dangerous situations" and work backwards to a conclusion on his character.
I can't imagine a comic reader seeing Batman comfort a traumatized little girl, smiling as he asks if she's ever wanted to know what it feels like to fly before grappling with her to take her somewhere safe, then coming to the conclusion that if he wasn't dressed like a Bat in that moment he would be quivering in a corner crying about his parents.
Yeah, I'm getting tired of the Batman is crazy takes. Using the fact that he dresses up in a costume isn't a great excuse when he exists in a world of superheroes who also wear costumes. @@billbill6094
@@hope-cat4894 Batman is crazy because he doesn't kill. The US has a death penalty for a reason.
@@leithaziz2716 I mean, Batman’s humanity is only one aspect of it (though a large one to be fair). If you look at the Tower of Babble storyline, particularly the one in the comics, Batman recognizes he let his paranoia go to far with keeping his plans a secret from the League. Thus why he resigned from the League. So, to act like his awareness of his insanity doesn’t play a huge impact on his actions is crazy to me. And this is before getting into Grant Morrison’s stuff
When I was young I always thought that Batman killing would be better until I realized that Batman represents free will. Basically Batman believes that by creating fear he will give people a reason to choose a better life.
Zack Snyder is like the person no one invites but somehow is always there and over stays their welcome like bro go home lmao
I thought Batman didn't kill because it wouldn't make him any better than the criminals he fights.
You thought right. Charlie's "Batman is insane" take is not consistent with how the character is typically portrayed, even outside the comics.
@@psnfailout000?
My problem is that in the DCEU Batman has no problem killing but at the same time why do Joker and the rest of the big villains still live
I like a few of his movies, but Snyder saying his Rebel Moon director's cut will be full of sex and violence feels like the most edgy 13 year old shit imaginable
Can’t believe batman was the bay harbour butcher
Remember the movie where Batman was like “no guns…”
Meanwhile had machine guns and rocket launchers on every vehicle he owns?
Also, remember in the comics when Batman had a machine gun on the Batmobile and gun down a bunch of criminals
And he uses them on a non lethal way (except against Talia for Rises).
@@blakelandry9313 Bob Kane's Spirit parody. Bill Finger, Jerry Robinson and Sheldon Moldoff are the creatives who created the definitive Batman.
@@ivanagustinortiz5237 it's so weird how people try and look at one instance of batman killing in one comic and then think that's his entire character. Like no the writer of that particular book is either doing an alternate version or doesn't know batman
@@stephentarantino1313 pisses me off, and I'm more of a Superman fan nowadays. But Batman only killed for like what, one year out of 80-something years? The first detective comics story was a Spirit rip off and people will take that and say "uhhh yea Snyder cooked here". Or any Frank Miller work post 9/11 where he just says "fuck it" and his Batman kills from TDKRII onwards. Snyder says he takes inspiration from TDKR, but he means every other addition to that story that isn't as good.
He can kill but he shouldn’t kill willy-nilly like in Batman V Superman. You need to earn it Zack. Him inspiring The Riddler in The Batman was interesting and felt earned
He should just make a red hood movie then.
Did you know Batman started off with a machine gun on his Batmobile and murdered a bunch of criminals also in most of his movies he kills people
No, he will learn to screw that up. It’s not just about his take on Batman. He sucks at screenwriting. I mean look at rebel moon.
@@blakelandry9313 HOLY FUCK dude you have commented everywhere just fucking educate yourself please
Bruce Wayne's parents were shot right in front of his face when he was a young kid. I'm pretty sure he had PTSD.
If you want a Batman who kills then go watch The Punisher
That's why the punisher is better
@@thecaptain6520 debatable
It actually baffles me that people don't understand the no kill rule. It's not batman's job to kill people, batman already does enough by doing what he already does, doing MORE than enough. If he doesn't kill, that's up to him, and for his own reasons. What you should be angry, is at the government for not killing the super villains, which is their job to pass judgement and have passed the death penalty for ligher things 😭
It actually baffles me how you people think we don’t understand it. We do. It’s still retarded. However you try to justify it, Batman is directly responsible for his rogues murders since he repeatedly puts people like the joker back in prison knowing he’ll escape/wont be executed because of laws on insanity. It’s also dumb how everyone acts like he needs to obey the law when it comes to that law only. Meanwhile, he breaks nearly every single other law out there every night.
It is SO refreshing to hear this response to people who think batman should kill.
4:09 Batman is technically insane because he expects a different result each time he sends his villains to Arkham hoping they will get better.
Zack Snyder is like the filmmaker equivalent of that friend you had in highschool that wrote terrible edgy fanfiction in some attempt to be "subversive" or "deep" when really it just demonstrated an immense misunderstanding of the source material
ngl seeing Charlie may not be the most knowledgable about comic books (not even knowing who booster gold was) but he 100% flawlessly understands batman better than most writers and directos so I'm surprised
I always find the use of the term “objective” when discussing fictional characters to be funny
Subjectively, you are wrong. Objectively.
I still don’t understand what Snyder said wrong. It made sense for Affleck’s iteration and the story that was being told
why’s his keyboard so beautiful sounding
Not just Batffleck. Keaton exploited mobsters in his two movies and Bale kil]Ed members of the League of Shadows in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises, also exploiting them.
Dude charlie so simply breaks down the flaws of Batman killing in like 30 seconds. It's not profound to understand Batman, if he kills it does not work!
At this point Snyder is just a caricature of a 16 year old who write edgy fanfiction while being convinced that it's "deep"
This is why I'm surprised that marvel managed to do so well until endgame. It's so hard to walk the fine line of comic book characters in the real world. Parents wouldn't let their kids read the comics if he killed. Part of the reason I liked Snyders plot in Dawn of Justice because it showed people actually dying, which raises the stakes. Marvel ruined all superhero movies anyway with the multiverse. Then they would have to admit there is a universe where Marvel and DC exist simultaneously...
Deaths in the DCEU has been so poorly done nobody gave a rats ass about SUPERMAN when he died. Because it was done so poorly they brought him back immediately back in the next installment. I hate mcu, but DCEU is far far worse.
Batman can be written to against or for killing. It doesnt matter. Hes Batman.
Batman does kill. He doesn’t murder.
THERES A DIFFERENCE PEOPLE
No in the comics he doesn't kill either, it's explicitly written as a "don't kill rule", it's only in the TDK trilogy where he kills but doesn't murder. Every Batman before that in movies actually did a lot of murdering, as did Batfleck. Robert Pattinson seems to be the only live action adaptation to have taken the "no killing" rule to heart.
@@billbill6094 Wrong, He killed multiple times in the Tim Burton Movies
@@sherman1476yeah but that Batman from Burton movies got rid of the Joker. Snyder made a Killer Batman but he leave that Joker breathing?? Come on
@@sherman1476 That's literally what I said, wdym "wrong"?
@@billbill6094 "No in the comics he doesn't kill either,"
Tf do you mean either
The irony of having Snyder claiming that Batman is treated as this perfect god by his fans without realising that his fans are even worse and downright diabolical compared to Batman's.
I hate how Synder created an entire generation of Batman fans that only know him as the hero that kills, or a hero that should kill, and anyone who opposes that idea is an idiot.
5TFU fake DC fan!
Before you put your Batman in a situation where he HAS to kill, you first have to establish your Batman as someone who vows not to. From the minute Batfleck was on screen, he was killing people. This is not how you handle these characters
That is how you handle it. people loved man of steel, Batman v Superman, Zack Snyder s justice league etc.
@@Mayan_88694 I love man of steel...but bvs was trash.
@@Mayan_88694 I love man of steel...but bvs was trash.
@@abhinavcky8513 no it wasn’t, the ultimate edition was a masterpiece
@@Mayan_88694 Oh cmon now..that extra half an hour clip couldn't save it. Lex acting like joker, Batman doesn't know whom to kill and whom not to, Superman being a symbol of destruction rather than hope ...and ofc Martha( Why did I take that name🤣) Snyder needs to realise that adding great cinematic shots and action sequence can't save poor storytelling..
Everytime Snyder releases a movie, he makes a fool of himself.
Man of steel was loved by everyone, so was Batman v Superman ultimate edition, so was 300, so was the Snyder cut. Keep coping
Is that why man of steel, Zack Snyder s justice league etc. were loved by everyone?
@@Mayan_88694 the irony of you saying keep coping
@@onglanh5329 there is no irony, you Snyder haters are beyond pathetic
@@Mayan_88694 really now, personal attack ? talking about pathetic
Its funny because Batman kills in The Dark Knight Rises and know bats a eye.
It's honestly fascinating how many people want to try and tear Batman down over the last several years. Through the various iterations of comics, tv shows, and movies, there has been a very consistent and visible effort to tear down even the very idea of Batman in order to elevate other (typically more "diverse") heroes in his stead. And it's not limited to Batman either, any comic book enjoyer has been witness to the comic book industry doing its damndest to try and "deconstruct" and destroy the legacy superheroes that were the very thing to bring their companies to such prominence in the world.
No they haven't though. Batman who kills has been a trope since the CSA was introduced in 1964 (although a more known story with that group is JLA Earth 2 by Grant Morrison which the animated movie is based on). Deconstruction isn't used as much in DC anymore. I believe the most recent was in Injustice, but that was in 2013 (barring Snyder ofc).
If you're talking about elevating other heroes, that's been going on for a while considering the whole Earth 2 squad came before Earth 1. Many legacy characters are more popular than their prime counterparts, and many have been in tv shows/movies that you know and love. The Flash that's in the Justice League animated series is Wally West, the 3rd Flash, who was the most popular Flash at the time. Green Lanterns speak for themselves. Barbara Gordon is the 2nd Batgirl. The Batman most people praise is like the 3rd or 4th iteration. The original Batman used guns, killed, and fought in WWII, but the only time he's been used in the last 50 years was in the 2 issue Generations series (2020-2021) which I'd highly recommend since it's more so a tribute to comics from the beginning to modern day.
The most common deconstructed trope is evil Superman, but DC slowed down on that trope after The Boys came out and one of the characters called Homelander a tired and washed out trope (which is the writer basically saying Homelander is more a parody of evil Superman rather than a deconstruction). Since then DC hasn't used the trope very much.
The only big writer who focuses on deconstruction is Donny Cates, but he only writes for Marvel and Image. That said, Donny Cates hasn't been writing these past few months due to amnesia after a car accident.
Please don't speak about comics unless you know what you're talking about. lol
Zack just needs to make a punisher movie instead of trying to turn Batman into punisher
just read the comics i’m certain they got a comic where batman kills people
???
It's not a bad take.. it's an exploration in to the side of a fictional character we don't get to see.
Snyder even mentions it's canon.
His batman is told he's changed
Calls it a stupid take, refuses to elaborate further. Sounds like penguinz0
Fun Fact: Kill Bill has a Directors Cut called Kill Bill The Whole Bloody Thing, it’s owned by Tarantino himself I believe and it’s only been seen by a handful of people, its the two movies edited into one and it also adds back a lot of violence and gore that was removed from the original versions
Everytime zack speaks haters are going crazy
Charlie s viewership and how they rage when you disagree with Charlie is insane like dude would make a video uf he knew
This could be out of context, but what Snyder said there didn't seem wrong to me. I interpreted that as "let's explore why he can't kill" rather than "let me just make him kill."
And he's ONE HUNDRED percent right about the second part. If you don't put Batman in a situation where he can kill, then his rule means nothing.
In The Dark Knight, he saves the Joker from falling. It's an important moment. You can't show that Batman doesn't kill if you can't show him make the decision
i kind of don't understand what you mean by your dark knight comment, but anyways, the reason snyder's comment on "let's explore why he doesn't kill" doesn't really land is because his version of batman did no such exploration. To also use The Dark Knight as an example, batman absolutely does kill two face, but because of this, batman faces immediate consequences, batman is now the number one enemy of gotham, all harvey's crimes become batman's, and eventually this culminates in the fall and later end of the batman as seen in Dark Knight Rises. Snyder's batman however, faces no such challenges or hardships for his murders. The only thing that really comes close to a consequence is superman seeing batman as some insane loon. I guess technically, the martha scene does kind of explore the why doesn't he kill thing since batman decides not to kill superman because he has a mom just like him but honestly i find it really weak and poorly executed.
I'll cut snyder some slack since he didn't really get to follow through and finish his vision for these characters, maybe he really did want to expand on that "why" but just didn't get the chance to, seeing as how bvs ends with batman feeling pretty bad about misjudging superman and batman learning to be good again or whatever from him, i can imagine that MAYBE the intention was for batman to gradually become the batman that we know. But that isn't what happened snyder's batman does really just kind of kill people unconsequenciously, i got distracted and lost my train of thought, plus this message is pretty long already, you probably get what im getting at right?
The consequence of killing is a pretty big batman theme i guess, if this batman neither experiences those consequences or fears the consequences of his actions, then he means nolthing, nothing was really explored with batman's character, this batman is uninteresting because he kills, there's no thought put into his actions, it's just something he does, nothing else really to it
Raikage Darui & Kller bee vs six paths of pain
Everyone brings up the TDKR (which is elseworlds so it’s not even canon) scene where he shoots someone even though it was a rubber bullet
He doesn't even hit the goon fyi, it just grazes the wall near him to intimidate him.
@@leithaziz2716And said goon came out alive, just injured.
@@leithaziz2716been a while since I read it but that makes Snyder bros look dumber
The Micheal bay of superhero directors 💀
- A bitter nobody that will never amount to anything
I like Henry Cavil, I do not like Synder’s films, he made three good films, thinks he’s a visionary.
His fans don’t help
the hell? randomly saw you on another totk video
I think the reason he killed in the movie was because he lost it after Superman and Zod fought. He stopped killing after Justice League died
I once read that Snyder writes based on the action sequence. He thinks of a really cool action sequence, then tries to write his way into the action sequence. He's basically writing the story backwards from certain moments to make those moments work. It's why characters in his stories are usually flat with little personality. He also doesn't understand subtext.
I hate this argument, Batman shouldn't kill! I wonder why citizens of Gotham dont kill Joker. If you want a hero to kill then pick a different hero.
L Charlie take. :(
Batman essentially kills people every comic but the writers just pretend that the people he slams through buildings would be fine. (Fine for comics, but it's just so weird to me to say that batman would never kill. Ideally, he wouldn't, but people are just so resistant to any kind of questioning of the foundations of a story)
...he does have some weird writing a lot of the times though lol...
Charlie be having lots of terrible takes (im saying this as a fan of his content)
Snyder’s take is bad because he really didn’t put Batman in a situation where killing was the only option. He just wrote the punisher as Batman.
Batman not killing has added to his character so much in the comics since his debut. He’s one of the only heroes in that universe with absolutely no powers, which makes you think that as a mortal hero facing life or death constantly, he’d kill nonstop to protect himself and others. But it’s WAY deeper than that, and you could make connections to the thoughts behind why in so many different ways which is so cool. “He wants people to see that a normal person can make a difference without special abilities, he knows he’s fragile and won’t stop killing if he starts.” There are INFINITELY more nuanced and interesting reasons as to why he DOESN’T kill in contrast to if he did.
I think someone like redhood, deathstroke, dead shot would be Zack’s speed instead of Superman and Batman
Snyder with one of the worst takes ever 😂
They’ll make a Red Lion Film
Red Lion
3 views and its been a minute
Charlie's so underrated 😢
36k and it’s been 9 he’s aight
Wooooosh
@@zeno3062 no way bro he way joking????????? no way?????????? i didn’t know people on the internet could joke it’s only my third day out here i’m sorry 😔☝️
Christopher Nolan handled this dilemma so well in The Dark Knight. It would be so easy tell a story where the hero just kill his antagonist, but there are so much depth and implications in telling one where he is pushed towards all limits and have to come up to solutions where that one rule can't be broken. He is not a criminal, what also butchers Gordon in Zack Snyder's Justice League as well, since he knows what's up with the psycho-bat and even so work with him. Gordon would never team up with a crazy dude who spend the night killing people.
Zack Snyder still doesn’t understand jimmy Olsen or lex Luther or Batman and James Gun just cast the perfect Jimmy Olsen how do you fuck up jimmy Olsen
I think what he was saying is that he wanted to put the character in a situation where killing would be better, basically challenging his own values. And not putting him in situations like that basically make him uninteresting.
As much as I liked MoS and his justice league this is a fucking dog shit take
I can’t blame WB for having no faith and panicking when this was the guy in charge.
@@firstlast9846WB panicked cos it was run by pussies. Rather than focus on single characters first, they forced him to get the JL setup within 3 movies. U can say what u want about his writing but WB didn't help at all.
Well he fails to understand superman just as much as he failed to understand batman. He made superman scared of Johnathan Kent, and then he killed his first enemy he ever encountered. I could see this happening in the third film. But not his First conflict. That ain't superman.
5TFU fake DC fan@@firstlast9846
There are many ways Batman could incapacitate the Joker without breaking the no kill rule.
first?
bro actually did it. the chosen one
Multiple different characters who he has a fundamental misunderstanding and hate for.
2:09 i actually agree with snader here, whats the point of the character, if you dont create moraly tough situations for him
Batman can kill.
"the Nolan cut of rebel moon will be the hardest r you've ever seen!" my dude, everyone who's seen the Netflix cut knows it's one of the hardest r's they've seen
Snyder’s the type of guy to say Spider-Man Lotus is good.
Wow, Snyderverse Batman story arc went over so many people's heads 😂
I've thought about this for a while. I think it's because most people these days who want to watch a Batman movie are nihilistic atheists, so why would they understand the arc of a man growing past that phase?
@@lukeshioshio Shit man, that's quite possible these days. They are more about cancelling and hatred than the redemption of a changed man. It's truly sad
@@SuperMateoWorld1988 yeah I just feel like when your audience is 16 year olds who want to watch the world burn, BvS is just in a completely different realm. They couldn't possibly get it. That goes for the Zod neck snap scene in MoS as well.
@@lukeshioshio Wow Snyder fans are surely delusional
@@onglanh5329 nah that's exactly what happened with BvS, a bunch of atheist teenagers not understanding the Martha scene because they are, in fact, atheist teenagers