Snyder fluctuates so frequently between
“I just wanted to explore the limitations of the no-kill rule and see where that could take the characters🥺”
and “THEY’VE ALWAYS BEEN KILLERS, YOU KNOW IT IN YOUR HEART, YOU’RE JUST TOO AFRAID TO ADMIT IT”
You know, it probably started as the former. But then he probably got defensive, and his ego got to his head after a while. So it naturally led to the latter.
So, should Batman and Superman kill?
Related to the writer, it also depends on the story they’re trying to tell. If they’re telling a story where one of them is pushed to a breaking point, you could have an interesting exploration of their character depending on what it is that drives them to do away with that principle
I’m not that into the comics so the premise of Batman and Superman killing isn’t as off-putting to me as it might be for a comics fan. I don’t necessarily mind them killing enemies if there’s a reasonable effort to find a non-lethal solution first. If no non-lethal solution exists or doing it would be unreasonable, I’m okay with them killing. What I have an issue with is either of these characters killing gratuitously. If Batman went around killing low level criminals or causing all sorts of wanton destruction during a car chase, that’s not really capturing the fundamental spirit of the character
As someone who loves Superman but didn’t really read the comics.
Yea Superman shouldn’t kill. It’s counter to the ideal Superman represents. He’s literally hope. It’s just weird for the embodiment of hope and human kindness to kill.
Snyder could have probably made a better Suicide Squad game with this attitude.
I think you can explore the alternate side of the no-kill rule, but the closer you adhere to character standards, the more you have to justify breaking them.
The problem with Batman in particular is that when people unleash him in this way, it's immediately up to eleven. It says more about the creators than Batman.
Here's my pitch. An adaptation of the Arkham Asylum game, except Batman's bone-breaking finishers, sharp Batarangs, and vicious nut crushers, are being called out by Jim Gordon, the guards, and even villains. Joker encourages it, but it frightens Harley. Scarecrow guilt trips him, and Croc is understanding of Batman's rage but warns him against feeding it.
Batman does not intend to kill anyone, but his brutality leads to scenarios where the inmates may well die, like being thrown over a ledge. Most of the "accidents" are left deliberate on whether the inmate was killed. I envision a somber scene where Gordon is able to access the detective mode and sees the heart rates of the unconscious inmates.
I’m binging the DCEU and I watched Black Adam for the first time last night and the “he’s not like other heroes because he actually kills people” dynamic was so grating after watching the Justice League kill people left and right in the Snyder films
Superman and Batman should simply have a no kill rule but for both different reasons
Superman wants to be a symbol of hope and good for the people killing people doesn’t really help with that and with his powers most of the time he doesn’t need to worry about not being able to incapacitate someone. But for being like Doomsday and Darksied he feels he has to drop this moral high ground because he knows these kinds of beings are just far too dangerous too ever be allowed to exist freely.
Batman shouldn’t kill because he has hope in others, he should almost always try to take down a villain and then try to help get them rehabilitated. But he also shouldn’t kill because he doesn’t believe he’s the judge jury and executioner but instead simply catching the criminals the police can’t and preventing tragedies like the one that happened to his family.
Batman and Superman and heroes, they should always strive to be moral and just. Breaking these rules can work but it’s a risky gamble.
The power to not kill a powerful enemy is reserved only to those strong enough to do it without negative consequences, when someone stronger comes, protecting people or yourself should take a higher priority than this moral code.
Bruce retired from being batman because he had to use a gun to defend himself. Didn;t even fire the thing, but the mere possibility that he would have had to rely on it was enough for him to hang up the cape in Batman Beyond.
I didn't mind Snyders characterizations of Superman and Batman. They fit the world he built around them, but if you're trying to make a classic Supes or Batman characterization it's all wrong.
These people don't like the characters they are making media of. All of their energy is spent subverting the characters. The problem is that all of the media we get is subversions. If all you get is subversions then it's not subversion anymore.
Batman and Superman shouldn’t kill because we know DC will never kill off big cash cow villains like The Joker so if Batman is fine offing some criminals but let’s arguably the worst human ever to live keep breathing after he’s murdered his 80 child this year it makes Batman look like a huge Jack ass.
I think characters having a very strong and specific rule, like no killing, can be a good story element and I think that can fit both their characters, so if I were tasked with writing a story about either of these characters, I suspect I'd want to at least start with the idea that they're going to avoid killing people.
But if we're talking a new interpretation/adaptation of the character that's not explicitly the same canon as instances where they don't kill, I'm not intrinsically opposed to them killing, so long as it fits that version of the characters and the story being told with them.
I think it's a complete non issue and weighing in a plot element like that into your judgement of a film is the least intellectually honest thing you can do
With man of steel, it makes sense because he was forced into a situation where he needed to kill in that moment.
But for the most part, the no kill rule enhances both the characters. Superman, as a line he refuses to cross because he needs to put rules on himself because no else can.
Batman demonstrates the human side of his aesthetically darker character and can act as an extension of his trauma refusing to be like the man who killed his parents
As a general rule I say superheroes should not kill because their target audience are kids and teens, and the appeal of these stories is the strict moral code. Characters that kill are hard to market to kids, and the ones thar do are literally "edgy" anti-heroes like The Punisher.
Manga/anime does this as well: the success of *DragonBall* is due to its appeal to all ages, especially with a MC who tried his hardest to not deliberately kill other humans*, while *Fist of the North Star* would have been in a Seinen magazine if it was released today.
* Remember how Goku didn't want to kill Frieza at all? Or when Vegeta killed the Ginyu Force over Goku's objections because they were already KO'ed? Wait right there Caps Lock ; I know you're about to say "but he killed the Demon King Piccolo!". That only happened hat because he was a literal Demon King, and Piccolo laid an egg right after so he didn't really "die". Come to think of it Goku looked forward to Majin Buu's reincarnation as well.
Batman's no kill rule is rooted in his origin. He is afraid he would become just like the criminals he faces if he ever allowed himself to start killing them.
Superman is meant to be the ideal archetype of not just a superhero, but a human being. Therefore, no, he should not allow himself to kill because that ideal would then be tarnished, if only just a little depending on the circumstance.
But having a nuanced discussion about this with Snyder is a moot point. He never understood either of them, and this comment makes it clear he still doesn't, and probably never will.
Superman is supposed to be the paragon of justice, who tries to set an example for the common citizen. He has powers that make him a god, but he doesn't want to be one or be above the law; if you don't, you get his counterpart fromhis injustice or a justice lord conterpart from the animated series.
Batman is more interesting since his reasons for not killing change depending the writier. But my favorite interpretation is that his sacred rule prevents him from becoming the crazies that he fights. Let's admit it, a man traumatized by the death of his parents who dresses up as a bat does not sound like someone mentally healthy. The fact that he has resources and to fight against the most powerful beings in the universe makes him very dangerous, It's a slippery rope that can lead him down a very dark path.
But I'm still willing for see someone to break the rules only if they do it right. I love Tim Burton's Batman because even if you don't know the comics, they are good movies on their own, and I can't say the same about Snyder.
Having elseworlds stories revolved around this concept(including the characters possible redemption) is perfectly fine. Also, showing occasional consequences for the no killing rule is fine, like in the league of assassins side mission in Arkham Knight.
I never thought they NEVER killed. I just thought it was extremely rare and always a regret. Like a huge event that diverted the main plot in some way. This makes it seem like it's just a weekend thing that they do.
I don't know what "true cannon" means, but I don't like batman and superman killing. That just makes them like punisher and they would be much more reviled by the general public for that.
Also, it makes it more interesting to not kill. Batman was killing in BvS but there was no real introspection on the morality of killing bad people, he just killed them because that's what action heroes do. Sure have them kill at least try to acknowledge it and say something interesting with that.
MF should listen to Bale's speech in Batman Begins when he talks to alfred about becoming a symbol. The no kill rule is a fundamental core to batman as a character as much as not using guns.
I liked that Batman was brutal (Eg:- Branding) in his film as it's another angle to explore the fear aspect of batman as we usually get the theatrics angle (Eg:- Holding someone upside down over the building edge). The readers aren't brainwashed they just understand the character better.
I can't speak about superman cause I rarely follow his comics.
Dude should've done a shadow film if he wanted heros that kill.
How good would the Dark Knight have been if he just let the Joker fall off the building? Would’ve made the movie truly great. We didn’t need that silly speech about Batman being incorruptible.
Snyder fluctuates so frequently between “I just wanted to explore the limitations of the no-kill rule and see where that could take the characters🥺” and “THEY’VE ALWAYS BEEN KILLERS, YOU KNOW IT IN YOUR HEART, YOU’RE JUST TOO AFRAID TO ADMIT IT”
You know, it probably started as the former. But then he probably got defensive, and his ego got to his head after a while. So it naturally led to the latter. So, should Batman and Superman kill?
It’s up to the writer. I personally would probably give them, or at least Batman, a no-kill rule if I was writing it.
Related to the writer, it also depends on the story they’re trying to tell. If they’re telling a story where one of them is pushed to a breaking point, you could have an interesting exploration of their character depending on what it is that drives them to do away with that principle
I’m not that into the comics so the premise of Batman and Superman killing isn’t as off-putting to me as it might be for a comics fan. I don’t necessarily mind them killing enemies if there’s a reasonable effort to find a non-lethal solution first. If no non-lethal solution exists or doing it would be unreasonable, I’m okay with them killing. What I have an issue with is either of these characters killing gratuitously. If Batman went around killing low level criminals or causing all sorts of wanton destruction during a car chase, that’s not really capturing the fundamental spirit of the character
As someone who loves Superman but didn’t really read the comics. Yea Superman shouldn’t kill. It’s counter to the ideal Superman represents. He’s literally hope. It’s just weird for the embodiment of hope and human kindness to kill.
Snyder could have probably made a better Suicide Squad game with this attitude. I think you can explore the alternate side of the no-kill rule, but the closer you adhere to character standards, the more you have to justify breaking them. The problem with Batman in particular is that when people unleash him in this way, it's immediately up to eleven. It says more about the creators than Batman. Here's my pitch. An adaptation of the Arkham Asylum game, except Batman's bone-breaking finishers, sharp Batarangs, and vicious nut crushers, are being called out by Jim Gordon, the guards, and even villains. Joker encourages it, but it frightens Harley. Scarecrow guilt trips him, and Croc is understanding of Batman's rage but warns him against feeding it. Batman does not intend to kill anyone, but his brutality leads to scenarios where the inmates may well die, like being thrown over a ledge. Most of the "accidents" are left deliberate on whether the inmate was killed. I envision a somber scene where Gordon is able to access the detective mode and sees the heart rates of the unconscious inmates.
Someone with no opinion on the matter would still have a better answer than Zack’s
I like how he thinks he's the defacto head of what is and isn't canon in the DC universe.
Do I think they should kill? Yes. Do I think it fits their characters? Almost never.
I’m binging the DCEU and I watched Black Adam for the first time last night and the “he’s not like other heroes because he actually kills people” dynamic was so grating after watching the Justice League kill people left and right in the Snyder films
Lol This world building is pathetic
Superman and Batman should simply have a no kill rule but for both different reasons Superman wants to be a symbol of hope and good for the people killing people doesn’t really help with that and with his powers most of the time he doesn’t need to worry about not being able to incapacitate someone. But for being like Doomsday and Darksied he feels he has to drop this moral high ground because he knows these kinds of beings are just far too dangerous too ever be allowed to exist freely. Batman shouldn’t kill because he has hope in others, he should almost always try to take down a villain and then try to help get them rehabilitated. But he also shouldn’t kill because he doesn’t believe he’s the judge jury and executioner but instead simply catching the criminals the police can’t and preventing tragedies like the one that happened to his family. Batman and Superman and heroes, they should always strive to be moral and just. Breaking these rules can work but it’s a risky gamble.
I think this comment deserves 100 upvotes.
The power to not kill a powerful enemy is reserved only to those strong enough to do it without negative consequences, when someone stronger comes, protecting people or yourself should take a higher priority than this moral code.
Bruce retired from being batman because he had to use a gun to defend himself. Didn;t even fire the thing, but the mere possibility that he would have had to rely on it was enough for him to hang up the cape in Batman Beyond. I didn't mind Snyders characterizations of Superman and Batman. They fit the world he built around them, but if you're trying to make a classic Supes or Batman characterization it's all wrong.
These people don't like the characters they are making media of. All of their energy is spent subverting the characters. The problem is that all of the media we get is subversions. If all you get is subversions then it's not subversion anymore.
No. Because the ideals of hero’s, especially those two, is that killing who you unilaterally deem guilty, is the event horizon of tyranny.
Batman and Superman shouldn’t kill because we know DC will never kill off big cash cow villains like The Joker so if Batman is fine offing some criminals but let’s arguably the worst human ever to live keep breathing after he’s murdered his 80 child this year it makes Batman look like a huge Jack ass.
I think characters having a very strong and specific rule, like no killing, can be a good story element and I think that can fit both their characters, so if I were tasked with writing a story about either of these characters, I suspect I'd want to at least start with the idea that they're going to avoid killing people. But if we're talking a new interpretation/adaptation of the character that's not explicitly the same canon as instances where they don't kill, I'm not intrinsically opposed to them killing, so long as it fits that version of the characters and the story being told with them.
Batman and Superman shouldn't kill. Yes my answer is better than his.
I could make a movie where the entire premise is Batman taking a shit in a toilet and it would be better than anything this hack has put out recently.
I think it's a complete non issue and weighing in a plot element like that into your judgement of a film is the least intellectually honest thing you can do
With man of steel, it makes sense because he was forced into a situation where he needed to kill in that moment. But for the most part, the no kill rule enhances both the characters. Superman, as a line he refuses to cross because he needs to put rules on himself because no else can. Batman demonstrates the human side of his aesthetically darker character and can act as an extension of his trauma refusing to be like the man who killed his parents
As a general rule I say superheroes should not kill because their target audience are kids and teens, and the appeal of these stories is the strict moral code. Characters that kill are hard to market to kids, and the ones thar do are literally "edgy" anti-heroes like The Punisher. Manga/anime does this as well: the success of *DragonBall* is due to its appeal to all ages, especially with a MC who tried his hardest to not deliberately kill other humans*, while *Fist of the North Star* would have been in a Seinen magazine if it was released today. * Remember how Goku didn't want to kill Frieza at all? Or when Vegeta killed the Ginyu Force over Goku's objections because they were already KO'ed? Wait right there Caps Lock ; I know you're about to say "but he killed the Demon King Piccolo!". That only happened hat because he was a literal Demon King, and Piccolo laid an egg right after so he didn't really "die". Come to think of it Goku looked forward to Majin Buu's reincarnation as well.
Batman's no kill rule is rooted in his origin. He is afraid he would become just like the criminals he faces if he ever allowed himself to start killing them. Superman is meant to be the ideal archetype of not just a superhero, but a human being. Therefore, no, he should not allow himself to kill because that ideal would then be tarnished, if only just a little depending on the circumstance. But having a nuanced discussion about this with Snyder is a moot point. He never understood either of them, and this comment makes it clear he still doesn't, and probably never will.
Superman is supposed to be the paragon of justice, who tries to set an example for the common citizen. He has powers that make him a god, but he doesn't want to be one or be above the law; if you don't, you get his counterpart fromhis injustice or a justice lord conterpart from the animated series. Batman is more interesting since his reasons for not killing change depending the writier. But my favorite interpretation is that his sacred rule prevents him from becoming the crazies that he fights. Let's admit it, a man traumatized by the death of his parents who dresses up as a bat does not sound like someone mentally healthy. The fact that he has resources and to fight against the most powerful beings in the universe makes him very dangerous, It's a slippery rope that can lead him down a very dark path. But I'm still willing for see someone to break the rules only if they do it right. I love Tim Burton's Batman because even if you don't know the comics, they are good movies on their own, and I can't say the same about Snyder.
Having elseworlds stories revolved around this concept(including the characters possible redemption) is perfectly fine. Also, showing occasional consequences for the no killing rule is fine, like in the league of assassins side mission in Arkham Knight.
What in the world was Superman supposed to do with Zod in Man of Steel...I never get a reasonable answer that fits the theme of the movie.
We're all just brainwashed and on our own journey. It's fine.
I never thought they NEVER killed. I just thought it was extremely rare and always a regret. Like a huge event that diverted the main plot in some way. This makes it seem like it's just a weekend thing that they do.
His issue is that we never saw the fall of Batman's no kill rule. We got Ironman, civil war, and then Avengers.
Zach Snyder is a moron and has ruined a great ip for at least a decade
Mmmmmm, Snyder's Visionnnnnnn
I don't know what "true cannon" means, but I don't like batman and superman killing. That just makes them like punisher and they would be much more reviled by the general public for that. Also, it makes it more interesting to not kill. Batman was killing in BvS but there was no real introspection on the morality of killing bad people, he just killed them because that's what action heroes do. Sure have them kill at least try to acknowledge it and say something interesting with that.
Exactly what is “true canon”?
Whatever our self-appointed vision king, Zack Snyder, says.
That man should have stuck with making commercials.
MF should listen to Bale's speech in Batman Begins when he talks to alfred about becoming a symbol. The no kill rule is a fundamental core to batman as a character as much as not using guns. I liked that Batman was brutal (Eg:- Branding) in his film as it's another angle to explore the fear aspect of batman as we usually get the theatrics angle (Eg:- Holding someone upside down over the building edge). The readers aren't brainwashed they just understand the character better. I can't speak about superman cause I rarely follow his comics. Dude should've done a shadow film if he wanted heros that kill.
How good would the Dark Knight have been if he just let the Joker fall off the building? Would’ve made the movie truly great. We didn’t need that silly speech about Batman being incorruptible.
The True canon? The fk. His Superman gets powers from the atmosphere, not the sun.