@BatmanOf-Zur-En-Arh
I dont think its as simple as that. Because the fandom has also been pretty supportive to other changes. I think it depends on what it is your changing about the particular character. Geoff Johns completely reinvented Aquaman with his run and it was widely accepted. Hickman did the same for the Fantastic Four.
In the heat of this discussion on “never kill”, it should be pointed out, at least in my view, that this is a never murder rule (be that anywhere from Murder 1-3) Is manslaughter (when one is blowing up/rolling over cars in a chase. That can be deemed as manslaughter, same for letting people be hoisted on their own petard. Leaving criminals in a build to die by the hand of their own explosive. It is murder, which has forethought, that breaks the psychological rule. As for different universes within the multiverse, we must know the specifics of his origin and psychology to make a call as to the actions of murder. Owlman, especially in his first iteration with the crime syndicate, that these are in fact doppelgangers. Only in latee versions was Owlman portrayed as Bruce’s brother and in some Bruce’s parents were never killed. In one, only his mother. One is left to wonder why DC felt compelled to make him someone different than Bruce. In the new 52, it is Alfred that killed Owlman’s parents.
If one wishes to give the character a different background and psychological trauma, than I can see where it is possible to make the character willing to commit murder. As I said, Batman’s no-kill(no-murder) rule is not based upon “morality” but trauma. Any story teller (writer, artist, director) who does not create a different psychological basis for this is merely taking a vigilante and putting them in a Bat suit. I don’t give a rats if it is Snyder, Miller, Moore, Morrison or fill_in_the_blank.
The Batman is (arguably) the most psychologically damaged of any character in comics (DC/Marvel/etc). He is the character that operates and is driven the most by his psychological damage. To ignore or not replace that damage, does the character a disservice. Also, over time, these murderous takes on Batman will be shelved in much the same way as “the rainbow Batman” and other such late 50’s-60’s versions were. History will eventually settle this debate. However, I strongly propose that The Batman will be judged in canon another 80 years from now, as having two fundamental characteristics. He doesn’t murder and he doesn’t use guns.
As for the neck snapping in The Killing Joke, I will disagree that the Batman kills The Joker, based on Jim G’s desire to have him brought in “by the book”. If anything, that moment, solidifies a rationale for Bats to not kill The Joker, even though he wants to, to honor the wishes of his friend and Bab’s father. Again, we are dealing with psychology.
We have heard from Snyder about “being real”. The biggest reality is that which drives a person psychologically.
If in fact Snyder is off to make a zombie movie, that seems only fitting. He is best suited to writing/directing mindless characters. At least he has something in common with them.
To add on, I think if your gonna change a character, for better or worse, you have to be ready to deal with the consequences. Snyder didnt even seem aware of what he was doing when he made Bat kill.
@MajorZuma I agree it’s not that simple, but as you said the perceived positive changes are rarer. Fandom seems to relish complaining and negativity more than celebration sometimes. I know it comes from passion. But for some, these changes do not break the character, but just provide another perspective on how to see the character and his place in a given context. I didn’t like Man of Steel or BvS at first, but once I watched them on their own terms, they gained a lot of merit. And, for me now, Man of Steel is one of the best comic book movies. The great thing is, all those other non-killy versions also still exist.
@Desade-acolyte I completely respect your disagreement with Snyder’s vision. But saying that he is mindless is not very productive, and it is just wholly inaccurate. He has marshalled some of the largest productions in history. His films are methodically developed and carry a very specific aesthetic that takes a significant amount of thought, communication, and inventiveness to execute on at such a high level. You may disagree with every single choice he makes. But he is definitely using his mind.
@BatmanOf-Zurr-En-Arrh
Heh, you’ll find no disagreement with me about how negative the fandom can be. Its fandoms in general, not just comics, they work like a negative hive-mind often times. Especially on something like Reddit.
As a comic book reader, it is definitely a huge problem in the communities, but on the other hand Im not sure what a solution is. It feels inevitable once a fandom reaches a certain level popularity the fans start to divide and turn on eachother or the material. Ive seen it with Star Wars, Game of Thrones, Comics, etc.
I think you made an interesting and good point to just enjoy Snyders movies as they take place in their own world instead of trying to take on the versions the fans know. Like their own elseworld.
@MajorZuma My perspective on the quote that generated this thread is that Snyder did in fact know what he was doing when he made Bats kill. He’s saying that we no longer live in a world where our heroes are innocent. We live in a world where everyday, our real life heroes are revealed to be found wanting. Some are even found to be villains. He’s saying we can’t look at our legends through rose-colored glasses. We need to see them warts and all. We need to accept them or not for the evil and the good that they do, that we all do. Snyder clearly doesn’t believe we live in a world with Captain America. He doesn’t believe in untainted purity. He sees a darker reality in which we’re all a little dirty. It’s not that crazy a view in a predominantly Christian society, whereby most people believe we are born inherently sinful. I think he believed he was reflecting our society. We can debate the morality and pessimism/optimism, but I think Snyder offered a very clear, but interpretable vision. And that vision included a morally compromised Batman, because it’s the Batman he thought needed to be seen. It’s the Batman he thought he saw out there in our world. Not the Batman in the funny books. I’m still not convinced that movie didn’t do exactly what it needed to do in the grand scheme of things. I agree that it’s time for a new Batman in cinema, and you better believe I am excited for whatever Matt Reeves has coming. But I think Snyder’s version will always have a place in the conversation. I do think it was the appropriate Batman for the times.
I think he thought to himself, “BRO, y’know what’d be TOTALLY SICK? If Batman had, like, guns and was like PEWPEWPEW and the guys were like ARRRGH and then Batman was like HELL YEAHHH and then he totally slammed a Red Bull!!!”
It’s a very modern school of philosophy
@biff_pow
That’s funny, cuz it’s probably true.
I think JL would have been much more interesting with WW being “let’s kill” and Batman being “you’re right, but I can’t. I can’t bring myself to cross that line. If I do, I fear I will never come back.”
BvS was just an excuse to say “I really want to do that fight scene from DKR.” It was derivative, self-indulgent & limited in its thinking.
I think fan criticism is less about being negative and more around “create the reason for this change. Give me, through the character, a reason for this.” If you want to add to canon, fine. Just don’t half-ass it.”
@Desade-acolyte The reasons are provided, not through the character, because the character is different in this incarnation. It is not in continuity with previous iterations, so the character is what is presented in the movie. The reason is provided on a meta-contextual level, on a thematic level. Asking what the reason for the change is, is the point. You can dismiss it as dude-bro musings or you can choose to engage it with a modicum of respect, and maybe you will come away with something worthwhile.
I’ve just had it with Snyder’s pompous, condescending faux intellectualism. After the critical failure of BvS, either he or his wife/producer said “I guess people just don’t like to see heroes deconstructed.” PSHHHHHFFFTORK
“Batman hitting Superman a bunch was a metaphor for conflict, you ignorant philistines!”
Honestly the “Snyderverse” was doomed from the start, it was like they were trying to play catch up to the Avengers. I think if he was given the right situation Snyder could make a great Batman movie. But I never felt he was great fit for Superman, Supes is a symbol of Hope and optimism, Snyder’s movies are always dark and pessimistic, asking him to do a Superman movie is like asking the dumbest guy in the world to do a Sherlock Holmes movie.
@Zombedy I never said writers aren’t allowed to explore the moral conflict regarding Batman and killing.
What I have said, is that Snyder didn’t do much exploring, and he didn’t do it very well. I have argued (elsewhere, at least) that “Batman killed before” as an excuse for his slaughter in BvS is a poor argument. I have suggested his no-kill rule is important for several reasons, and perhaps more critical than squeezing the trigger on a machine gun as he barrels towards some hapless thugs. I am saying that exploring this conflict, does not necessitate him killing, nor does it make such a story better or more realistic.
The Zack/Dceu was an elsewhere story. It was never meant to be cannon. Also, stop crying about Batman killing!
Elseworld*
It’s my Batman and I’ll cry if I want to! Cry if I want too
In listening to interviews with him, I haven’t found him particularly pompous, condescending, or faux. Maybe, that makes me all those things. And maybe I am just a big dumb dude bro for seeing merit that appears clearly intentional in his artistic contributions. I don’t know. Never been accused of those things in the past. But this doesn’t really feel like a conversation anymore, so much as a bunch of people talking past one another. Snyder and his movies are clearly the “politics” of the DC fandom. I don’t feel particularly strongly about his films, but I think it is sad that everyone makes these sweeping dismissals. Anyways, have fun with the Snyder-bashing. I hope it brings you all great fulfillment.
I’m honestly tired of Snyder talk period. Whether you loved his DC movies or hated them. It’s been debated to death and it’s ok to be on either side of the fence. You’re probably not going to change the other side’s opinion.
DC have moved on. Kind of wish the fans would as well.
Apparently the only thing that makes Batman “Batman” is the name. I guess we can change literally anything about his character, right? Since we can’t even agree on what this character stands for, the answer might as well be “nothing”. Because it changes with each interpretation, and people will defend them all. Does Bruce Wayne have ANY solid personality traits? Or do those just not matter? As long as there’s ONE depiction of Batman that defies the others, we can defend its legitimacy I guess.
“Tell me kid, why do you like Batman?”
“I like him because he’s strong, smart, and puts bad guys in jail.”
“Oh yeah? Well I like him because he’s fat, stupid, and murders people.”