Batman Beyond shows it best in its first episode. Bruce Wayne is an older batman and physically can't continue and gets into a situation where he is forced to use a gun (only to threaten) a badguy and afterwards he is so horrified from it he knows he has to retire batman.
@@leonthefreon6765 There was some leaked Into the Spiderverse style concept art for a Batman Beyond movie that James Gunn said no to that got leaked. You should look it up. It was super cool. Who would you have play Terry? We all know that Michael Keaton should probably be Bruce (unless you have your own actor picked) but let me know. I am genuinely curious.
The idea of trying to tell a story about a Batman who decided to start killing and stop holding back with criminals falls apart IMMEDIATELY if The Joker is still alive and running around
In that case try adapting the Thomas Wayne batman or the batman who laughs but he won't ; why?? Cause it takes reading comics which he's never done in his career
How do you think it would go down with the GCPD when "mass murderer" Batman shows up at the crime scene demanding to share resources? Last I checked, the NYPD at marvel didnt have a "punisher signal" on some roof somewhere .... And for good reason. Cops can't cooperate with killers.
The problem is that he likes THE IDEA of Frank Miller’s Batman but he wants to go even harder with it. Especially when you find out that in his movies, he really likes Excalibur.
@@KillaD69The Dark Knight Returns (alternatively titled Batman: The Dark Knight Returns) is a 1986 four-issue comic book miniseries starring Batman, written by Frank Miller, illustrated by Miller and Klaus Janson, with color by Lynn Varley, and published by DC Comics. It tells an alternative story of Bruce Wayne, who at 55 years old returns from retirement to fight crime while facing opposition from the Gotham City police force and the United States government. The story also features the return of classic foes Two-Face and the Joker, and culminates with a confrontation with Superman, who is now a pawn of the government.When originally published, the series was simply titled Batman: The Dark Knight, with a different title for each issue (The Dark Knight Returns, The Dark Knight Triumphant, Hunt the Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Falls), but when the series was collected into a single volume, the title of the first issue was applied to the entire series. Some of the earliest collected editions also bore the shorter series title. The story introduces Carrie Kelley as the new Robin and the hyper-violent street gang known as the Mutants. In the Pre-Flashpoint DC Multiverse, the events of The Dark Knight Returns and its associated titles were designated to occur on Earth-31.[1] The miniseries has since been followed by a number of sequels: The Dark Knight Strikes Again, The Dark Knight III: The Master Race, Dark Knight Returns: The Last Crusade and Dark Knight Returns: The Golden Child. Another series, All Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder, is considered by Miller to be a prequel. The Dark Knight Returns is widely considered to be one of the greatest and most influential Batman stories ever made, as well as one of the greatest works of comic art in general, and has been noted for helping reintroduce a darker and more mature-oriented version of the character (and superheroes in general) to pop culture during the 1980s. Various elements of the series have since been incorporated into depictions of Batman in other media, while a direct animated adaptation of the story, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, was released as a two-part film across 2012 and 2013.
His assertion that Rebel Moon had more viewers than people who saw Barbie was insane. I'm not a fan of Barbie (shocker that a middle aged man didn't care for Barbie, I know) but I freely admit it was the biggest movie of the year. Zack had to be baked out of his gourd when he said that.
Admittedly I'm not big into comics (my main Batman exposure is B:TAS/Timmverse)...but one trait that was drilled into the show/me is that Batman doesn't kill, and whenever the urge comes (like in beyond) he immediately regrets it.
yes like most people here, and do you know what? that version was an adaptation made for mindless happy children's tv. whereas snyders batman is an adaptation for adults who actually understand the character.
And in spite of your limited exposure to Batman you clearly understand the character vastly better than Zack Snyder. I figure half the problem is that characters that are supposed to be smart (like Batman) are being written by idiots.
The part where Zack takes forever to get to the point of why Batman should kill is his directing style in a nutshell. He spends so much time making things look so impactful and deep only for the payoff to fall flat on it's face. He puts so much emphasis on these characters being Gods that he forgets to include the human aspects that fans love. The only time he puts out a decent to good film is when he's doing a direct adaptation. He seriously needs an editor/writer who's not gonna be afraid to reel him in and keep him from being too ambitious.
he made batman and superman human bro, you can dislike the direction of the movies but he did infact humanize them,human having complex emotions is humanizing, you guys just want childish stories with the no killing rule
@@Yuuki_Asuna these characters were already humanized, you'd know that if you actually read the comics, and they managed to do that without turning them into murder happy psychos
"Martha!!!!" I never scoffed so much in a movie theather. Synder has proved in other works he's efficiently capable of successful filmmaking. 300, Watchmen, and Dawn of The Dead.
@@Yuuki_Asuna here's an example of superman's complex emotions: yOu dOn'T uNdErStAnD hahahahaha they made superman an edgy emotionally crippled teen who can't express his feelings when he just needed to tell batman: i need your help. lex luthor has my mother. he's threatening to kill her unless i kill you. he wants us against each other instead, we get some autistic crap like: hE gUnNa kiLL dAh mArThA batman: why DID you say that name? that's random af haha
@@kyla3635 it’s literal his movie 😂, if you have the job of DIRECTION you can do what you want and interpret it however you want. batman has killed in almost every movie and yet ppl hate snyder…sounds like fake outrage or selective outrage. make your own film if you got that much beef
Hate this argument. Batman doesn't kill. He would rather heal the villains as his Dr. Father did. It's not his right to kill, it's the people, the cops, he needs the cops on his side, and if he kills he will lose Gordon. He doesn't want to step over the edge. Matt Reeve's Batman film proved Zack Snyder's words wrong. I'm not sure why only Batman's name is ever brought up. What about Superman or Spider-Man or the countless other heroes who don't kill? It's fiction, and that's the main reason.
Batman driving around like he’s in Twisted Metal, just wasting Lex’s goons when he could more easily find whatever facility they’re transporting the Kryptonite to, break in and take it with minimal casualties which he does later in the movie should be a testament to his vision. The only thing forcing Batman to kill is you, Mr. Snyder.
That's like getting frustrated that the Punisher executes his enemies like sorry, but Batman Superman dont kill bad guys, and I'm tired of people trying to change their traditional standards to fit with "modern times."ideals or narrative. Batman, Spider-man, & Superman are still top sellers in merchandise in the world just by being traditional heroes.
But no one actually gives a fuck about what they “represent”, only the nerds do lol. They just like the characters because they find them cool. Go outside and ask anyone their favorite Batman stories or if they even know that he has a “no kill” rule and right about everyone will not be able to answer both questions.
@@ElmerPonceCastro That's surface level thinking, majority of people do care what Superman, Spiderman, and Batman represents becasue majority of people in this world are Christians. The traditional do gooders heroes are safer to family and children to read and watch on TV and everyone that likes Spiderman always tells us why they like him because of what he represents morally so nice try.
@venomj8179 But Batman and Superman do kill their villans before. Superman killed Bazarro, Metalico, and Doomsday While Batman has killed Clayface, Two-face, Dracula, Darkseid and Joker (He and others come back from the dead alot)
If batman would ever kill someone his first murder would be the joker , isn't that what the killing joke was all about?? He is just making excuses for his lack of knowledge of the charecter
@user-my2yb3yj7w He made the most hopeful and optimistic hero a depressed loner lol Yeah you can find some outlier examples of these character doing these things but it goes against their best traits that people want to see.
@user-my2yb3yj7wWhich translated wrong on the screen and made most moviegoers completely give up on the Brand. There is. Reason why Marvel has succeeded whereas DC failed. And DC for the longest time has always been the most popular but Snyder did damage the brand.
Yes, he is wrong. That's what the Joker usually tries to do: he doesn't want to kill Batman, he wants Batman to betray all of his principles. Putting Batman in a situation where he HAS to kill would be an example of this. It would be the ultimate defeat for him. That's also why Batman trained himself so extensively: to be skilled and prepared enough to never be left with no choice but to kill.
Pretty selfish of him to be more concerned with proving that he’s “better” than Joker, rather than ending him and preventing Joker from killing a bunch of innocent ppl, before he’s tossed in a cell again.
@gigeorge6sic6 It’s not selfish. Batman knows if he killed Joker he’d never stop killing and with all of his skills and resources could become far worse.
@@gigeorge6sic6 That's not Batman's job. His role is to combat and expose crime + corruption, not play judge, jury, and executioner. There could always be another villain as dangerous as Joker, and there may not always be a masked vigilante to go all Punisher on him. The U.S. government is every bit as capable of putting a stop to Joker permanently as Bruce. They simply refuse to change the laws to make it legal. Batman killing Joker would only be a short term solution when the corrupt environment that created him and the gutless authorities that refuse to finally give him capital punishment are the root of the issue. They keep making the "slippery slope, where do we draw the line with mentally ill people" argument, but the fact is that Joker's shown time and again how he's beyond rehabilitation and most prisons can't hold him. Why should it be Batman's responsibility to end him, just so he can become feared as a murderer and give cops that much more reason to go after him, further tainting the message of what he stands for? If the judicial system is vulnerable to someone like Joker repeatedly escaping, then it's the system that needs to change and stop sparing homicidal psychos on grounds of mental illness. Someone needs to make that hard call and legislate it. If somebody who's done even a fraction of the damage Joker's committed existed in the real world, he would've gotten the needle years ago, insanity or not. He wouldn't still be getting sent back to the same place he's broken out of countless times. Only in Gotham would that happen, in this fictional universe run by a greedy, creatively bankrupt Editorial who refuse to let their most marketable villain die.
@@wilcee238 I hate when ppl say that (he can’t stop killing after just one). Obviously the punishment should fit the crime and killing should only be applicable to the most heinous of villains, when it comes to this character . He’s so concerned about losing his own sanity and yet again he would rather protect Joker , than let someone else pop him like Red Hood or Punisher, whom those two actually get more things done btw.
This is a problem that isn't exclusive to Snyder and goes all the way back to the infamous Kill Bill monologue about Clark and Superman's duality. This idea that the civilian persona is worn on top of the costumed identity instead of the other way around, and it's very much influenced this desire by some filmmakers to reinterpret or reimagine specific characters because as they are, they find them uninteresting and plain, especially with Superman In the process they kind of forget that Superman works because he's so vanilla, and Batman works because he is a guy who despite his emotional stagnation from a child, holds onto a very rigid moral code. The stuff about him being a vigilante who works outside the law is what the public labels him as, but he's always been an altruistic person who just exists in a corner where violence is highly perpetuated For some people being a genuinely good person isn't enough. It's lame, it's antiquated and it isn't modern enough. I have to ask them why? Superman literally originated the archetype of the superhero; if I wanted something that subverted that archetype there are plenty of Superman-likes like Homelander, Omni-Man, Sentry, Hyperion, Miracleman etc. Same with Batman with characters like Nite-Owl and Midnighter.
that was also a speech given by a villain, so it's a villainous perspective on superman... wouldn't trust it to give insight into superman as much as it does to the person saying it
He tries to use the example of the Kobiyashi-Maru from Star Trek as a “No-Win” situation to justify why DC heroes would kill, while ignoring the fact that Kirk beat the test by cheating, reprogramming it into a winnable-scenario, because “I don’t believe in no-win scenarios”, and was rewarded for doing so. The point being that any scenario is winnable when you think outside the box. If we go along with his Kobiyashi-Maru analogy, Superman should’ve never killed Zod, because he would’ve found some “outside-the-box” idea to beat him without killing him. Same goes for all those guys Batman killed. What’s more is that with his Dark Knight Returns example, he leaves out the context again, which is that by that point Bruce had not been Batman for years, was past his prime, out of shape, and still suffering from a few injuries from previous adventures. And TDKR is an Elseworlds tale, not part of the official DC canon.
He superimposes Ayn Rand's stupid ideas onto superheroes. To him, having exceptionally powerful beings flaunt the rules that apply to everyone else with impunity and imposing their will on average people makes sense...it's just reprehensible to anyone who believes that these characters ought to actually be better than the villains they fight and have a moral core.
Legitimately! I don't love the guys work but he should stick to more simplistic ideas and get a writer. A Punisher film with his aesthetic may actually be excellent! But, he still wouldn't get the character on the human level I feel.
Zach needs to understand the difference between needing and not needing to kill. He holds up one part of that story that was a no-win situation. As far as Batman was concerned, it was the child's life on the line, so he felt he had to. Not only did Zack not put his Batman in a situation like that, but he also ignored the rest of Miller’s story. Like when the mutants were broken and decided to become the sun's of Batman. He held up a rifle and broke it while telling them we don't use these weapons because they are clumsy and load. He told them he would teach them how to use his weapons. Or even when Batman had a chance to kill the joker but elected not to. Even after the Joker shot and stabbed him. Zach is making this weak attempt to sound deep to justify that crap he made. Sure, the hero will kill if there is no choice which is what Miller did. Even Superman has killed in the books as has WonderWoman but it was because they saw no other alternative. Zack had Batman kill just because.
Even when Zack Snyder is no longer working with WBD or DC, he still manages to get people talking. But honestly, beyond just ZSJL that was finally released on HBOmax, I really don’t care what happens him moving forward. I’m sure he’s a nice guy and I hope he does well with his career, but I’ve just exhausted my energy to care about him. I’m just so sick of the hot takes, the contrarian views, the punching down, the blind worship, the controversies, and the rumors we have heard about this guy for the last DECADE PLUS. I hate how no matter what you say about him, it brings out the crazy in everybody. Not just the ones who like him, but the ones that hate him as well. It just feeds into same tribalism bullshit that has plagued the comic book fandom, an issue that I honestly believe he was a major factor in causing.
Saying stupid sh*t to draw attention to one's stupid takes is not a great skill to have. Even idiots like Trump manage to get people talking about them and they got nothing worthwile to contribute to any conversation.
"Sometimes Batman is in a situation where he has to kill." It's FICTION. It's a story written by a writer. Don't write a story where Batman has to kill.
Well, that's silly. The entire point is that he doesn't kill. So, if you don't put him in tough situtions where killing is an option, then him not killing really loses all of it's meaning. Then it doesn't matter at all that he doesn't kill. And if that happens, he might as well kill.
There isn't always a situation like that though you can always come up with some silly ridiculous solution reason for why he wouldn't have to like Batman had gold plated underwear or something. But putting these characters in real true to life situations it makes it more relatable to adults. The whole Batman would never have to kill thing is great for a fantasy if you want to see things specifically from a fantasy world perspective.
dude made a movie with batman and superman, which were the 2 most iconic super heroes heroes in cinema for literal decades. and still wasnt able to break the 1b. even though, when anounced, people were discussing the real possiility of the movie being the first to break the 3b mark. that alone should be proof enough that he isnt as good as he think he is.
@@shindeanI get what you mean bro. But BvS made more than 3x its budget(250mil and made over 800mil) it was just disliked by most people who’ve seen it. But it was in no way a financial failure. Which is what, in movie speak, a flop means.
@SHANE_M_TAPIA budget was up to 325, so already you lied (and we know that's still not the true number and likely higher). But it's adorable that you think it's a success...as they kill off all the dceu properties 😂
You know what makes Batman such a fascinating character? It’s not his wealth or fighting skills or intelligence it’s his self control. He goes up against some of the most depraved sociopathic serial killers out there yet instead of taking the easy way out and just killing them all he realizes that this would just make him as bad as them. Under the RedHood had an amazing interaction between Red hood and Batman over why he hasn’t killed the joker and when pressed Batman responds with “it’s not that it would be too hard the opposite it would be to easy” he realizes that by killing his villains he would just sink to there level and become something even worse.
ask a batman fan what his favourite thing about batman was before the nolan films, most would say because he was so dark. literally no one even cared. the only version that never killed was the animated version and thats because they was for little kids., you all literally hype over the most watered down version of batman that is made for children as being some ultimate superior character who can do no wrong
That is such a fucking loaded question. Which batman? There are like 50 incarnations of the mofo. And btw: “But i dont have to save you” was such a fucking cop-out.
Agreed 60s batman and kid cartoon versions should not but Michael Keatens batman & Afleck Batman would have to because people dying in combat is the reality of those worlds.
@@dmaxwell9827 I think most shouldn't, he should only kill if its a point in the story like how Afflecks stops killing after he stops being a miserable sack. Ironic considering a lot of those cartoon versions are more mature then Keatons lol.
Part of the reason people don't care is because he probably couldn't save him anyway. lol. Batman only escaped moments before the train crashed and I'm not sure he could do that holding onto Ra's al Ghul. The suit isn't hi-tech. He has to stretch out his arms like a bat for it to work. In the Dark Knight when he saves Rachel after Joker throws her from the building, he has poor control and smashes into a car.
Zack Snyder telling you about a small paper cut he got the other day: "Well, let me start with the invention of parchment". I got a few members of my family who are like that, unsurprisingly most are elderly.
It's ironic that Snyder keeps using the Kobayashi Maru as an example but the main character, Captain Kirk actually cheats on the test because he doesn't believe in it.
To me, what keeps Batman as a hero and not an anti hero is his moral code to not kill and become like those that killed his parents. If Batman kills then he's just The Punisher.
Firstly comparing batman to a god is a wild take, secondly Batman's no kill rule is basically part of his foundation. Seeing that snyder clip probably made me realize why i dislike Batfleck. Batfleck is just a springboard for Zach's ideas. He was never really a Batman in my eyes. Also i do agree with the many comments that he could've adapted other versions of Batman that harm others and that its bad/lazy writing for him to just kill his way out. I mean hes the worlds greatest detective for christ's sake. If anything he'd use any other gadget at his disposal before killing people indiscriminately.
It takes creativity to write a situation with moral constraints. It just sounds like he doesn't have it. EDIT--Or more likely, he just has a desire to see him do it. Dude, if you want that, make an Expendables movie, or pitch a Punisher to Marvel or something
@@danieltobin4498 I'm sure you're right. I guess I'm just saying, those are the types of shoot-em-all characters he seems to want to work with... Better to stick with those types than to try to turn Batman (or Superman) into that
@@nilesstark I mean that’s fine but that’s Jason Todd the biggest problem is Batman wouldn’t have a rogues gallery if he killed and many iconic characters won’t work
I get what he's saying, but his interpretation of Batman is "shoot first, ask question never", which shows that he understands NOTHING about superheroes in general.
Dude, make a Deadshot or Deathstroke movie if you want an excuse to have the main character kill. The whole point of Batman is he refusez to cross the line which keeps him from being a villain. Snyder just fundamentally misunderstands DC heroes.
Someone should have sat Zack down and explained to him we already have Flashpoint Batman and Jason Todd. Also (to a lesser degree) Night Owl. A 'killer Batman ' is not an original concept.
Someone please tell Snyder Batman isn't the Punisher. It seems like Snyder doesn't read the comics and just skims through the pages and says, "oh that looks cool."
For me, it's not so much that Batman doesn't kill [not ideal but no a deal breaker]; but it's the main fact [again for me] Batman would NEVER pick up a Gun... there's a reason he's known for grappling hooks and batterangs
Like Kevin Smith said " It like zack snyder didn't read a bunch of comics. Only read Dark Knight Returns & his favorite part was Batman & Superman fighting".
Zach Snyder just doesn't have the writing talent to pull it off. There's Frank Millars batman, tim burtons batman and the batman who laughs (Some would argue this batman also sucks). So a batman that kills isn't an entirely new concept; Snyder is the deciding factor here. He should've been paired with stronger writers who handled the characters and all he needed to do was the technical operations and give the overarching narrative.
When Keaton’s Batman killed, one of his victims was the Joker. When Snyder’s Batman killed, his Joker is spared. He also spares Lex Luthor after the Death of Superman. Snyder’s Batman is an idiot. Why would a murderous version of Batman spare the Joker even after he killed Jason Todd as they implied in BvS? Why would he spare both Lex and the Joker, two dangerous men who would be later revealed to know his identity? The creative decisions are too dumb for me.
I don't mind if Batman kills, as long as that version works for the story being told. But even then, what are you saying by having a Batman that kills? Is it to show that this is what happens when Batman is unleashed and we should be grateful he holds himself to the no killing code? Or is it to make the point that Batman should kill? Or you just having him kill because you want to be gritty and violent, killing for the sake of killing? Anyone who attempts to write a Batman story should ask themselves this.
Zack Snyders comment about Barbie is what happens when you get high off of the praise and admiration people gave him. 🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️. He needs a reality check. Maybe we don’t need the snyderverse after all.
I said it once, and I’ll say it again. Zack Snyder is the living example of “Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say. But nothing comes out when they move their lips, just a bunch of gibberish.”
If your default is always "Batman needs to (or should) kill" then you clearly don't know how to write an interesting Batman. There's countless other Anti-heroes you could adapt them. Batman is a Super-hero first. Be more than your typical person.
I didn't like Batman V Superman movie when it came out and of course, Zack Snyder tried so hard to cram much shit in it. The only best part of the movie is Batman in the warehouse scene. Wonder Women. And Batman and Superman actually fights each other.
AND use rubber bullets. I love how the animated film of The Dark Knight Returns, on initial viewing, conjures a wtf moment when we think Batman gave in to using guns. Only to be revealed it's rubber bullets.
uses rubber bullets.. so he does shoot them then? what is actually wrong with your guys heads? also batman has shot countless types of guns in his comic runs@@Paranormal718
Also, with Netflix being a worldwide film, why would it be unrealistic? It's streaming so people can easily sit down and watch it? It's promoted in your face on Netflix just as Barbie was promoted in your face with tv spots and commercials and social media ads.
He wasn't Batman yet, he chose life in that situation, the league wanted him to kill a man. If he was cool with killing, he would have just done that. That scene had a point. you also forgot to mention he said Ras life in that very scene. He didn't save Ras at the end, but he didn't kill him either. Many love trying to say things to give crap Snyder a pass. He turned Batman into the Punisher, had him branding criminals. Thomas Wayne in Flash point was like that but not Bruce Wayne Batman.
a batman who kills isnt batman, period. "but what if he has no choice" hes smart enough to find a way not to. every. single. time. just because zack isnt is not an excuse.
Batman is a lot like James Kirk in that way: he doesnt believe in a no-win scenario, so he'll do everything within his power to avoid killing if he can. I saw BvS in theaters with two of my DC Comic fan friends .... both of them were extremely disappointed in Snyder's take on him. Dark? Check. Broods a lot? Check. Has demons? Check. Kills his enemies without discrimination? Wait, WHAT?!? Seriously, that was their reaction, they nearly walked out of the theater in disgust, and I almost followed them. HIlarious in hindsight, but were were all disappointed in the Snyderverse after Man Of Steel .... and nothing took that disappointment away until James Gunn said "Okay, I'll have a go at it. Maybe we can salvage this whole thing!"
Batman doesn't need to kill, but it doesn't mean he should never kill either. You can make a good story with either types of Batman and that is okay. Directors should be able to do whatever they woth whatever fictional story they get.
Honestly I’d be fine with Batman killing. But my question is if Batman kills why the hell is Joker still alive?! I feel like if Batman decided to kill he’d be the first to go!
This is exactly what kills the Snyder-verse. Zach's doing everything with a cool looking edge but none of the world building. It makes no sense for Joker to be running around night clubs when it's implied he killed a robin.
It doesn’t shock me seeing all the Batman fans calling this out. But I’m surprised more people are supporting his point, bc over the last few years I’ve seen a lot of growing criticism towards Batman’s character. People always criticized his no kill rule. But I feel like lately it ramped up a lot (maybe it’s just my algorithm) I’ve seen people say he’s the worst superhero, say he’s actually hurting Gotham more than helping. I’ve seen people say all the worst things about Batman’s character all bc he doesn’t kill….so I’m surprised more DC fans aren’t supporting Snyder opinion rn since a lot of y’all seem to want Batman to become a serial killer.
@@priztune381 Facts, another problem is people comparing comics to real life too much. You can make any comic character look terrible if you do that. Not to mention there is a very valid reason why Batman doesn’t kill. He’s literally a traumatized individual with all types of mental issues like PTSD and shit like that. So if he were to kill even one villain he could easily snap and end up becoming one of his evil variants. We’re talking about a guy that watched his own parents die and never fully got over it. He’s such a complex character and people act like he’s just some rich douchebag that likes to beat ppl up in a batsuit.
@@RickytickyBobbywobbin-jl5oyfacts this is why they need to start doing DIRECT adaptations so these ppl see who Batman really is tho The Batman has done a great job so far
From what I could see it's sadly often people who don't see criminals as human beings with rights who support the idea of batman just murdering the villains. They don't want to bother having to think about rehabilitating criminals because that takes time and hard work and they can't be bothered. It's easier to have no principles in their minds.
I've defended Zack and his vision for the DCEU but this is a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of the character of Batman. His super power is his brain and his ability to think his way out of situations. His no kill rule is what separates him from his enemies. It his oath and his purpose. He is not the law. He is justice and justice is not just for the ppl we like
if batman kills than his "ROGUE GALLERY" would be a million times worst, if batman kills than joker would just be a one off story, do you see how dumb zack snyder argument is now?
Dude found out that his "masterpiece" was mentioned in Barbie and even though he said he's fine with that, he continues with saying that Rebel Moon is somehow bigger than Barbie, yea right Zackie😅
Thank heavens hes not working on these properties now. This guy just shows how little he understands these characters, let alone how to make a coherent movie.
There are ways to justify Batman killing people in certain scenarios, but Zack Snyder put it in his movie because he thinks it’s cool. That’s the issue. Just like Watchmen, he always misses the point.
I’m still a Zack Snyder fan but Batman does not need to kill. Yes, sometimes it’s frustrating reading these characters and their enemies continue to pop up, but that is the nature of western comics. There is no end. Batman’s moral code is what keeps him sane in a city filled with the insane and individuals who care less about having a code of honor.
@@uncle_ben_rices_nephew Other characters can kill without going insane, so DC/Batman have no excuse. Just because it's a comic doesn't mean it has to be idiotic, it can have real world thinking. Punisher, Winter Soldier, Spawn, Wolverine, Cable, Red Hood, Grifter, Black Panther, War Machine, Blade, Iron Man, Nick Fury, Guardians of of Galaxy etc. All kill and they're all still sane, Batman's a coward.
@@theoutlawking9123punisher is insane Idc what anyone says. Winter soldier is not a hero, spawn is not a hero, who cares about grifter other than his design lol. Why don't we ask the question of spiderman killing why is it all whys Batman the one we question
@@BlueCheeseLucci 1. Spiderman is just as much as a coward as Batman they're the two dumbest "heroes" in comics. The amount of innocents they have let die just to defend their so-called moral code is atrocious. 2. All the characters you just described are far more sane than the Grown ass man who thinks it's okay to dress like a Bat everyday, you seriously can't see how NOT NORMAL that is?
I’m fine with Batman having to do what needs to be done. The ‘no kill’ rule came in when America was censoring the crap out of everything. Original storylines had Batman snap necks and shoot to kill when necessary. In fact, the first edition had him wearing a sidearm.
@ItsNotUnusual-mp5qd well, there are a few versions of the story. But the consistency remains that, only until people got squeamish did they create the no kill rule.
@@Rimas5967 Yeah golden age batman wasn't all that good he was just a knockoff of the shadow. Superman couldnt fly initially either, these characters are completely different now
I disagree with your framing that it "needs to be done". That's only you saying that. If some vigilante said that some random guy on the street was to blame for some problem in tha vigilante's mind and he decided lethal force was justified you wouldn't call that justice.
My personal take for Zack Snyder. Batman has been in existence since 1939 and for the most part he has had the “no kill rule” for majority of the time (except when he first started back in the day he carried a gun and killed but that did not last long). My argument for Zack Snyders Batman in general is that you have had 90 years plus to tell different stories in different mediums (comic books, novels, cartoons, movies) under the specific guidelines of “no killing”.. It is gonna get stale and you’re gonna lose sales and interest in the public. “Familiarity breeds contempt”. I would say its ok to take the Batman character and pull him away from the rigid “no kill rule” if it makes sense to the story. Zack Snyder is bringing an older Batman that is worn down and witnessed the death of Robin which led him down his dark path. Don’t get me wrong, I prefer that Batman DOES NOT KILL… BUT, I did enjoy Zack Snyders version of Batman. Ben Affleck is my favorite Batman (Only in Zack Snyders Batman V Superman and ZS Justice League - The other movies with him in it I do not care for ). I did enjoy his one line in The Flash movie.. but that was it. “ Barry, these scars we have... make us who we are. We're not meant to go back and fix them. And there's nothing broken with you that needs to be fixed. Take it from an old guy whose made a lot of mistakes. Don't live your past, live your life. Don't let tragedy define you.” How many times can you watch Superman play the same “boy scout” smiling and saving kittens out of trees day in and day out with little to no variation. I feel it’s fine to take characters you love and give them a different spin especially if it’s been damn near 100 years. I get majority of people dislike Zack Snyders work but I do appreciate him taking chance on the characters and give them a bit of edge and giving a different perspective. I hope everyone gets what they want with the new DC regime under James Gunn and they go back to the same old formula that everyone wants with Batman and Superman. (I thought Pattinsons Batman was ok..)
Short answer: Yes. My Batman has and needs a no kill rule. And he does not carry a gun. Because he doesn't need to. Bazookas, rocket launchers, explosives, sure. He needs heavy artillery, sometimes. But not a handgun. Because he can whip @$$ too well to need one. And he only uses the serious stuff against supervillains who, in the comics universe, never die. Its freaking Batman. Its not a war movie!
Heres my take i understand peoole grew up with BTAS and all the other current versions of Batman but lets not act like Batman hasnt killed before because he has on multiple occasiins he shot Darkseid with a radion bullet. If you had a problem with how a character is being potrayed in other medua these are the same fans that'll say "the writers can do whatever they want"
Comic book fans complained about Michael Keaton’s Batman killing- there was no internet back then so the complaints weren’t widespread, but they were there. Same with Christian Bale in Batman Begins. I remember being on comic book message boards where people were up in arms about him leaving Ras Al Ghul to die on the train, so this argument is false.
He'll misunderstand the books and show the Messiah doing a genocide and become supreme leader is actually a good thing. Same happened with Watchman adaptation
Since when has Hack Snyder had anything genuinely intelligent or insightful to say? The man has no original ideas. All of his popular movies are weak adaptations of someone else's hard work and his attempts at original movies are all garbage. Stop giving this guy a platform and let him fade into obscurity with all the other hacks.
The whole point of Batman is that he feels that even the worst criminal is redeemable. That's why he doesn't kill anyone. He also knows that if he ever decided to kill his opponents, there is nothing that could stop him from taking things too far. Hence, the "No Killing Rule". That rule protects himself from others more deserving of a final solution.
You guys have done good points but I did enjoy this podcast with Zack Snyder and idk seems chill with the complaints ppl have and got to hear his side and process with some of his older films.
Technically more people did watch Rebel Moon than Barbie. Household to Household. However Barbie is clearly more in the culture zeitgeist. The difference is how long did they watch Rebel Moon before they turned it off??😅😅
I think look no further than how he did Superman, stoic and quiet and brooding as all get out. A statue. Not a genuinely happy and polite man with the weight of the world on his shoulders. Zac only got that very last part.
I'm not a Batmam fan but even i know from a lifetime of comic book reading that Batman won't kill because he doesnt want anyone, not even criminals, to lose what he lost when his parents died. If you have Batman kill criminals, then he's turned the children of those thugs into orphans just like he was. That's why he has his code. No one will suffer what he suffered.
after a lifetime of comic book reading you should know batman has never had a problem with killing and the no kill rule was only introduced as a way to sell the character to children, which ended up making him even more popular.
I dont even need to watch the whole video, i just want to point out that the beginning of this video points out who Zack Snyder is as a person and a director and illustrates why so many of his films seem like they are longer than they should be.
When it comes to Snyder's comments, I can kiiinda agree in the sense that you wanna test the morality of the character. To his credit, Snyder did establish his version of Batman was a 20+ year veteran of the crime fighting, had lost a Robin, and had admittedly become very jaded and cynical about what he was doing; to the point where yes: he does kill. While that's not a version I personally identify with, as I ride for the Batman who doesn't kill; I can ride with THIS particular version because of the back-story they gave him. Where he lost me though was that he never really changes that, even after "seeing the light" in Superman, and realizing the error of his ways. For me personally, Snyder’s take is an Elseworlds tale. If this was presented as Zack Snyder's DC Universe, then okay we can more easily accept it as its own thing. But since it was presented as DC's answer to the MCU, which very much was trying to create the definitive versions of these characters on screen, then yes, there's a problem. That being said, the backlash to Snyder having a Batman who kills was still somewhat overblown to me. Why doesn't anyone level criticism to Tim Burton and his version of Batman, who straight up murdered people in those first two movies, and did so with a smile on his face. This Batman strapped a bomb to a clown, smiled at him, punched the clown into a hole, and walked away as the bomb explodes. And yet 30 years later, Burton's Batman is "the definitive" Batman. Yeah, you can say it's the 90s and no one cared, but Batman's no-kill policy has been a staple for a long time. Maybe Nolan helped popularize it because his movies eventually became definitive in their own right, I can't possibly fault Snyder for wanting to do something different with Batman, when Burton is celebrated for having a Batman who kills, a Joker who killed the Waynes, a Penguin who's literally a bird man, and a Catwoman who was brought to life by cats. I don't think Snyder was the right guy to shepherd a definitive on-screen Superman, let alone an on-screen DC Universe, but I do feel that he got shat on for some pretty hypocritical reasons when it came to Batman.
Nolans Batman kills a monastery full of ninjas. Snyders Batman doesn't kill after Supermans sacrifice (unless you count the parademons in the Snyder cut)
@@mudbutt234Nolan’s Batman begin scene with him killing the Ninja’s to escape Ras temple is justified because Bruce Wayne isn’t Batman yet its literally the only first half of the movie when Ras trying to recruit Bruce as part of the League of Shadows and Ras want Bruce to kill the prisoner but he doesn’t want to he’s not even Batman at that point yet he’s became Batman when he finally put on the mask. After the first Batman fight with Falcone thugs.Snyder killing people in Bvs isn’t just killing he murdering those people even in the warehouse scene thats not Batman thats the Punisher.Even Batman in the Snyderverse trying to kill Superman without doing the detective work that Lex manipulate them to fight each other Batman in Snyder isn’t even that smart that version is just full of anger.
Batman doesn't kill because he knows he is an unstable lunatic that is barely holding it together. Batman is aware he is just 1 bad day away from being a serial killer and best friends with Joker.
