Current Events > Zack Snyder: "DC is making the Batman irrelevant if he can't kill"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Antiyonder posted...

Not always. Sometimes it's about keeping a popular villain around and the only other alternative is a hero who is willing to kill, but is ineffectual at it. Kind of like Snyder's Batman who never did bump off his Joker.

You can have a "no kill" mandate at the editorial level and not make your hero look like a moron by equating the killing of serial killers (in defense of innocent people) with cold-blooded murder. >_>

Like, dropping the Joker off at Arkham isn't even a bad way to end a story. The threat has been neutralized. The people are saved. So long as Batman and other characters aren't having a conversation about why this is a one-hundred percent morally superior solution to putting a bullet in his brain, there's no issue. >_>

He also seems to be under the impression that Rebel Moon has been watched more than Barbie

"You think about Netflix, for instance, where you push a button," Snyder said. "'Rebel Moon,' right? Say right now it's almost at 90 million views, right? 80 or 90 million accounts turned it on, give or take. They assume two viewers per screening, right? That's the kind of math. So you think if that movie was in the theater as a distribution model, that's like 160,000,000 people supposedly watching based on that math. 160,000,000 people at $10 a ticket would bewhat is that math? I don't know. 160,000,000 times ten. That's 1.6 billion. So more people probably saw 'Rebel Moon' than saw 'Barbie' in the theater, right?"

"That's how crazy Netflix is," Snyder continued. "That's the distribution model that they've set up. I was at this thing the other day and we were talking about 'Rebel Moon 2.' And they were like, 'Well, talk about "Rebel Moon" the first one.' I'm like, 'No, go fucking watch it. I know you have it at your house.' It's not like a theater situation. You could turn it on your phone right now and watch it right here if you wanted. That's how crazy it is. This model, this machine they've built is really something else. It's really crazy if you think about it."

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Lol no. Its not even worthy enough to kiss the ass of the original.

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

Zack Snyder was the best possible pick for Watchmen.

Then for some reason he got to direct a Superman movie and the whole superhero genre died with a single film.

No he was a terrible choice for Watchmen. He was a great choice for any Frank Miller story but for an Alan Moore story? Nope he understands those as well as he understands the main DC universe. Not at all.

Watchmen worked because it was mostly a shot for shot recreation of the comics.

creativerealms posted...

No he was a terrible choice for Watchmen. He was a great choice for any Frank Miller story but for an Alan Moore story? Nope he understands those as well as he understands the main DC universe. Not at all.

Watchmen worked because it was mostly a shot for shot recreation of the comics.

And that was exactly what it needed to be.

creativerealms posted...

Watchmen worked because it was mostly a shot for shot recreation of the comics.

Really? I've heard comic readers hate on the movie for what they changed.

And considering the main change, what Veidt was gaslighting humanity on, I dunno how much stock I really put into their opinion. I'm having a real hard time accepting the "oooh giant space squids are coming to fuck you!" take as reasonable.

Snyder is completely right. In a real life situation people die from shrapnel. All the irl movies had him kill because HE HAS TO. Was he supposed to leave the poison chemicals unexploded? Tdk its just a loophole but I dont have to save you. Was batflec not supposed to throw the grenade back at the guy when he was surrounded?
movies arent cartoons. No killing isnt possible.

vegeta415 posted...

Snyder is completely right. In a real life situation people die from shrapnel. All the irl movies had him kill because HE HAS TO. Was he supposed to leave the poison chemicals unexploded? Tdk its just a loophole but I dont have to save you. Was batflec not supposed to throw the grenade back at the guy when he was surrounded?
movies arent cartoons. No killing isnt possible.

A billionaire using his money to be a superhero and nobody knows it's him isn't a real life situation and we manage to roll with it fine.

Punished_Blinx posted...

A billionaire using his money to be a superhero and nobody knows it's him isn't a real life situation and we manage to roll with it fine.

yes there are different levels of immersion. Its great to have the rule but how many people you reckon died in a random car chase in The Batman?

vegeta415 posted...

yes there are different levels of immersion. Its great to have the rule but how many people you reckon died in a random car chase in The Batman?

It's a movie. Unless they're t-boned by a truck while talking to a loved one nobody dies in a car crash in a movie.

And what about the other three examples where killing is necessary in the movies? You think jack nicholson couldve been redeemed? Or how about tdk, batman DIRECTLY killed harvey

argonautweakend posted...

I can't claim to know much of Batman lore, but I've always felt like it's funny that Batman could kill Joker but he doesn't.

It's like "hey Fred, yeah 6:00 PM next Tuesday works for you? cool!"

He has trauma dealing with his parents being murdered so he doesn't like even seeing someone else kill let alone himself.

Also he believes if he does it it will become easier to do it again and again.

Anyways I feel batman should be more he doesn't kill but for the love of God stop going out of the way to keep them alive. Like if they fall off the building let em fall.

PballDepot posted...

Nolan had no problem making some incredible Batman movies with the no kill philosophy

I don't know. His hypocrisy at totally 100% killing Ra's Al Ghul soured him for me in the first film. I don't care if "He's insane" or "That's the point." It just makes him someone who should not be cheered.

Instead of being a killer, he's a sanctimonious killer. How's that character development for a hero?

FortuneCookie posted...

I don't know. His hypocrisy at totally 100% killing Ra's Al Ghul soured him for me in the first film. I don't care if "He's insane" or "That's the point." It just makes him someone who should not be cheered.

Instead of being a killer, he's a sanctimonious killer. How's that character development for a hero?

RAG is a special case who wanted to murder a whole city tho (not his first time either), so I don't see it as being hypocritical.

FortuneCookie posted...

I don't know. His hypocrisy at totally 100% killing Ra's Al Ghul soured him for me in the first film. I don't care if "He's insane" or "That's the point." It just makes him someone who should not be cheered.

Instead of being a killer, he's a sanctimonious killer. How's that character development for a hero?

"I'm not going to save you" was the worst part of the film especially since Ras could have just as easily refused to be saved.

FortuneCookie posted...

I don't know. His hypocrisy at totally 100% killing Ra's Al Ghul soured him for me in the first film. I don't care if "He's insane" or "That's the point." It just makes him someone who should not be cheered.

Instead of being a killer, he's a sanctimonious killer. How's that character development for a hero?

Antiheroes have been all the rage for decades tbh.

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

Antiheroes have been all the rage for decades tbh.

Yeah, but there's a matter of what defines anti.

I don't see a hypocrite who finds technicalities to break his own rules against killing as someone I would want to get behind.

You know how, when you're a teenager, you get to a point where you only like stuff when it's dark, "edgy" and "mature," before you eventually grow out of that mindset and can embrace other tastes?

I feel like Zack Snyder never got out of that mindset. Add the fact that he largely doesn't understand the material he's working with, and you can see the bulk of the reasons why many of his films simply don't work.

The whole "more people watched Rebel Moon than Barbie" claim from the same podcast is also filled with leaps in logic on par with Terrance Howard's "1 x 1 = 2" claim.

Kradek posted...

Really? I've heard comic readers hate on the movie for what they changed.

And considering the main change, what Veidt was gaslighting humanity on, I dunno how much stock I really put into their opinion. I'm having a real hard time accepting the "oooh giant space squids are coming to fuck you!" take as reasonable.

There was one pretty obvious change, yeah. Didn't really affect much though except being less stupid.

That aside, though, pretty much the entire movie is pretty much the comic book, just moving. I'm talking, the camera is in the same place, the motion is the same, they clearly went through panel by panel and figured out just how accurate of a shot they could turn it into.

In contrast to the typical adaptation, which is clearly just some director making the crappy film of his crappy dreams, and shoving in an existing IP as lazily and loosely as possible for the instant ticket sales.

FortuneCookie posted...

Yeah, but there's a matter of what defines anti.

I don't see a hypocrite who finds technicalities to break his own rules against killing as someone I would want to get behind.

I don't say that as a good thing. There are a handful of antiheroes that serve a decent point in their story, but for the most part it's literally just playing to some juvenile fantasies.

Dune Wars I barely remember and we watched weeks ago when it released on Netflix

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

There was one pretty obvious change, yeah. Didn't really affect much though except being less stupid.

That aside, though, pretty much the entire movie is pretty much the comic book, just moving. I'm talking, the camera is in the same place, the motion is the same, they clearly went through panel by panel and figured out just how accurate of a shot they could turn it into.

In contrast to the typical adaptation, which is clearly just some director making the crappy film of his crappy dreams, and shoving in an existing IP as lazily and loosely as possible for the instant ticket sales.

Thanks, I appreciate that insight.

vegeta415 posted...

Snyder is completely right. In a real life situation people die from shrapnel. All the irl movies had him kill because HE HAS TO. Was he supposed to leave the poison chemicals unexploded? Tdk its just a loophole but I dont have to save you. Was batflec not supposed to throw the grenade back at the guy when he was surrounded?
movies arent cartoons. No killing isnt possible.

Batman was killing people, with guns, left and right in Batman v Superman. There's like a part where he's chasing and gunning people down to such a degree he just seems straight up psychopathic.

Not killing doesn't seem to be the DCU's policy on their Batman anyways.

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

I don't say that as a good thing. There are a handful of antiheroes that serve a decent point in their story, but for the most part it's literally just playing to some juvenile fantasies.

lol, yeah. Bruce Wayne's survivor's guilt/depression/anguish in that film is really just teen angst. The target audience sees what he's going through, they can relate to it, and they think they're empathizing with something much deeper than what is actually there.

I hated that at the time 'cause I saw through it right away. With the benefit of hindsight, I have to give the filmmakers props on how they played their target audience like a Harp from Hell.

vegeta415 posted...

And what about the other three examples where killing is necessary in the movies? You think jack nicholson couldve been redeemed? Or how about tdk, batman DIRECTLY killed harvey

I'd say those were also problematic parts of their respective films, but the actual movies were good enough to overcome them.

Snyder's films aren't.

HOW are they problematic, they fit pretty well with the narrative? Imagine tdk ending with harvey alive, completely changes the point of that story. or if harvey just had memory loss, ugh.

Snyder is a bum, he made 300 and lived off that. Doesnt mean hes wrong in this case. Batman Returns is an objectively bad movie. That bomb scene was funny though and in a cartoon it wouldve been a non lethal bomb, yeah thats much better.

Y'all don't even remember the first movie when he tossed that dude down the bell tower.

Hayame_Zero posted...

I actually loled

Well, the Venn diagram of Joe Rogan and Snyder fans would be very close to a circle

Note this isn't is not even a 1/3 of his fans. But so many Snyder fans have been living up the the horrible stereotypes after went public. I am dawg dont help the ppl who gate you

The reason Batman doesnt kill is if he did he would become just another nut job in a costume running around killing people, instead of a nut job running around in a costume helping people.