BvS The Official Zack Snyder Directs Everything Thread

[MrsKent26]

I actually think the no-kill rule makes more sense for batman than it does for superman.

 

[DA_Champion]

Superman shouldn't kill humans.

 

[MrsKent26]

No, he shouldn't kill humans, but I'm not offended by him killing super villains.

Actually, in Adventures of Superman (my favourite comic at the moment), superman says something to the Joker that I liked. It was something like "I have no rules, but I try not to kill." They didn't make a big preachy tale out of it, but he still came off like a good man without being a pushover. The joker thought he would have a rule and be simple to deal with.

 

[D.P.]

Snyder speaking dat truth.

Your nostalgia:

 

[Masone]

Snyder speaking dat truth.

Your nostalgia:

There were pillows made of marshmallows down there!

 

[Sterling Archer]

Part of me wishes they'd just abandon the "no kill rule" for Superman and Batman in the movies. Because it just creates problems anyway. I love Nolan's Bat-trilogy, don't get me wrong... but it almost seemed silly to establish the no-kill rule there because it just creates goofy scenarios. Batman won't kill Ra's, but he'll leave him to die on a train that's about to crash because of things that HE set in motion (which, if you ask me, is pretty much the same thing as killing him). Batman won't kill the Joker, but he'll kill Harvey Dent in the next scene (yeah, it was an accident but still... he had the presence of mind to save the Joker's life, but not Harvey's?). Bruce wouldn't kill that farmer to appease the League of Shadows, but he destroyed their lair, killing most of them and probably killing the farmer anyway.

Now, I'm not saying that they should go the Tim Burton route and just have Batman kill EVERYONE he comes in contact with but maybe relaxing the no-kill rule a bit would be the character's benefit, I don't know.

All of those examples you mentioned are problems with inconsistent writing, not with the fact Batman won't kill, and are some of my biggest problem with the Nolan movies. The no-kill rule is a big part of what makes the character great, they can't just ignore it just because they are too lazy to write him properly.

 

[snpklsdmbldr]

here comes the Superman killing Zod arguments again.

let's all remember that he literally just turned into Superman in a day (plus he's inexperienced and untrained) he's not the God like Superman everyone thinks that can save everyone. plus killing Zod is the only way of preventing a worldwide genocide! will you even find other means of restraining Zod when literally the whole planet is at stake? (besides fighting endlessly and causing more damage)

 

[shallbecomeabat]

And batman letting ra's to die, shooting talia's driver, and driving talia into her fatal accident, what are the story reasons for those?

You are all taking that rule too seriously. The rule is born out of the Comics Code and in an attempt to make Batman more kid friendly.

Don't get me wrong, I love that batman doesn't kill, BUT I actually like what Nolan did with the rule much more than what the comics do.

In the comics, Batmans rule is unbreakable. Sometimes thats just lazy storytelling, for example after Jokers recent attack against all people Bruce loves in Death of the Family. That attack was so close and so personal, that this should have been the moment where Bruce finally says "Enough" and at least attempts to kill him. Throws him down that cliff. Then you could follow that up up with Bruce having actual feelings about what he did and dealing with that in dramatic ways. Then when Joker comes back, you could do an entire story about how Joker reacts to a Batman who tried to kill him.
That Bruce still doesn't even try to kill that monster after something huge like that is just weak storytelling and childish.

What Nolan did was brilliant in my mind. He showed a Batman who has that rule (as he should have), but who is not chained by it.
Example, Harvey Dent. He didn't try to kill Harvey, he tried to save the boy and was unable to save Harvey in the process.

Example Talias driver and Talia: I mean, come on. He has only a few minutes left to save the entire city from a nuclear explosion and you expect him to throw pillows at them? I LOVE that he threw everything that he got, because saving 6 million people is more important than his "one rule" and saving two people who try to murder millions. If he had more time, he would've found a way to stop them another way. Also he didn't kill them directly, because he didn't shot at them. He shot in front of the truck, to make them turn around, or at the engine block to make it stop. That accidently kills them and its completely fine with me.

Again, I like that pragmatic Nolan version of the rule a lot more than a Batman who doesn't even have a human emotion after his whole family and friends got tortured and almost killed. I don't want Batman to be a murderer, but I want him to question and bend that rule if it is to save lifes that are otherwise lost. Like he did in the comics in Final Crisis, when he shot Darkseid with a gun, to save the world. He broke his no killing rule to save millions and thats cool. He also kills Joker in Killing joke (at least in how i read that story) and that was great too. Just sad that noone really followed up on that.

 

[bluerayer]

Snyder speaking dat truth.

Your nostalgia:

He went to a happier place!

 

[DA_Champion]

Re: Superman II,

Superman is clearly killing Zod, but the movie doesn't dwell on it. Everybody is smiling and Superman is not agonising. So when the audience sees it, they smile, and they don't agonise.

 

[teagone]

Re: Superman II,

Superman is clearly killing Zod, but the movie doesn't dwell on it. Everybody is smiling and Superman is not agonising. So when the audience sees it, they smile, and they don't agonise.

More often than not, I'd rather a film deal with violence (especially the act of taking life) in a serious matter as opposed to a milquetoast representation of it. It all really depends on the tone of the film though.

 

[D.P.]

Re: Superman II,

Superman is clearly killing Zod, but the movie doesn't dwell on it. Everybody is smiling and Superman is not agonising. So when the audience sees it, they smile, and they don't agonise.

I respect your views and you're one of the best posters here, but I can't help but think you're trying to rationalize it.

More often than not, I'd rather a film deal with violence (especially the act of taking life) in a serious matter as opposed to a milquetoast representation of it. It all really depends on the tone of the film though.

If we're gonna give a filmmaker crap for having Superman kill, do it across the board. Not just selectively because it holds a special place in your heart.

Treating death as a wacky Looney Tunes gag is pretty cringeworthy in it of itself, regardless of tone IMO.

 

[DA_Champion]

I respect your views and you're one of the best posters here, but I can't help but think you're trying to rationalize it.

Thanks

I'm not justifying the hypocrisy, or whatever. I'm using it as an explanation. Human beings and general audiences are fickle, impatient, hypocritical, biased, etc. Beyond being good or bad, it simply is.

 

[D.P.]

Thanks

I'm not justifying the hypocrisy, or whatever. I'm using it as an explanation. Human beings and general audiences are fickle, impatient, hypocritical, biased, etc. Beyond being good or bad, it simply is.

Agreed. It's a pet peeve of mine though and I can't help but to point it out lol.

 

[MrsKent26]

Agreed. It's a pet peeve of mine though and I can't help but to point it out lol.

It's a pet peeve of mine too and every time I point it out, someone acts like I'm saying there are no reasonable complaints about this movie. That's not it at all. I just think some complaints are more reasonable than others.

 

[Lord]

It's not clearly visible, but they were taken by the Artic Police

[YT]tLLPSN5z34I&noredirect=1[/YT]

Superman didn't kill them.

And i disagree about Zack Snyder showing people realities that they don't want to see. There are so many good film Directors with skill in doing that, yet you guys point at the lowest denominator.

 

[D.P.]

And i disagree about Zack Snyder showing people realities that they don't want to see. There are so many good film Directors with skill in doing that, yet you guys point at the lowest denominator.

Well if your mind is made up about Snyder, that's that then.

 

[Lord]

Not really, i enjoy most of his films, but he's good at entertaining, stating he's doing something deep that other filmmakers don't? I'm sorry, but that's just insulting for superior Directors that are working their asses off in films that don't give them millions and millions of Dollars.

 

[D.P.]

I missed the part where he or anybody else said he was doing something deeper than other filmmakers. He did say he felt he brought depth and realism to Superman that wasn't there before in live action interpretations, and who can really objectively argue that he didn't?

Because even if you didn't like it, he unquestionably did.

 

[Lord]

It wasn0t difficult, considering Superman movies were lacking there at the point, and he didn't do anything deeper or more complex that the comics or other superhero films hadn't already done at the point. He was pretty much catching the wave.

 

[MrsKent26]

It's not clearly visible, but they were taken by the Artic Police

[YT]tLLPSN5z34I&noredirect=1[/YT]

Superman didn't kill them.

And i disagree about Zack Snyder showing people realities that they don't want to see. There are so many good film Directors with skill in doing that, yet you guys point at the lowest denominator.

Again, he killed them in the version I saw on cable TV just a couple months ago.

And the "lowest denominator"? Wow. I don't think he's that bad, but there's really no point in arguing with someone who thinks that poorly of the man.

 

[Lord]

No he didn't, Zod and friends are very easy to miss in that scene, but it's still there.

Considering all the brilliant filmmakers around, yes he's kind of the lowest denominator, not near as low as people like Ratner or even the likes of Uwe Boll or the Resident Evil films directors, as in least he's entertaining and has done some good movies.

 

[MrsKent26]

No he didn't, Zod and friends are very easy to miss in that scene, but it's still there.

Considering all the brilliant filmmakers around, yes he's kind of the lowest denominator, not near as low as people like Ratner or even the likes of Uwe Boll or the Resident Evil films directors, as in least he's entertaining and has done some good movies.

This doesn't even make sense.

He did kill them in the version I saw on TV. I'm not talking about what you posted. He dropped them into the pit in the version I saw. I'm not the only one who's seen this version either. Others claim the same thing, so I don't know why you keep going on about this. It's not something I made up.

You say he's the lowest, but then list people that are worse than him. Ok then...

 

[Lord]

Lowest Denominator can't be a spot shared?

He drops Zod in the pit in every single version, that doesn't stop him from being taken by the Artic Police soon after. It's not completelly easily visible, but it's still there.

 

[D.P.]

Well, like I said, your mind is made up. I'm not here to change it.

No matter what I say, you will find a way to retort in a manner that downplays or diminshes Snyder.

It's fine that you and others hold that opinion of him. It will just be an endless circle of debate over preference.