Justice League Zack Snyder Directing Justice League - Part 6

[FunkMiller]

At this point in most of these character's stages, almost none of us are fans of the original iteration by the creator(s), so this whole source fidelity argument is a bit of a sham.

Our personal irreplaceable hallmarks are likely additions and/or retcons from artists who don't claim ownership to the IP and owe their knowledge to several generations of writers who themselves have put their own distinctive stamp on the property.

It would be hypocritical at this point to single out any given element as defining lore.

Sorry. Can’t agree with that. There are certain intrinsic aspects of Batman for me that are hard baked into my consciousness, and I’d argue the consciousness of most Batman fans. This is true of any character, in any form of fiction. There has to be a place where a line is drawn in terms of changes to the character, and Snyder repeatedly and badly steps over that line, to the detriment of Batman as portrayed in the DCEU.

You can’t make the argument that fidelity to the source is a sham, because otherwise, why not make Batman a wise-cracking, humorous superhero who smiles all the time? Why not do away with his parent’s murder, and have them fight crime beside him? Why not make Superman a dwarf, and make Black Panther a white dude?

These are farcical suggestions of course, but if you’re arguing that sticking close to source material is a sham, then they are the logical conclusion of that position.

It’s far more accurate to say that you just don’t care about the changes that have been made to defining elements, because you’re not that invested in the character as it is widely regarded by fandom and the public.

 

[misslane38]

Okay. That’s fair enough. I struggle to see how anyone can be that invested in Batman if they’re not a big fan of the comics, but as you say, different takes. To me, Snyder simply takes too many liberties with the character I’ve been reading for thirty years, and the changes he does make show a marked lack of understanding and knowledge of Batman. However, I also cheerfully accept others do not see it the same way.

Since I can't think of a single precedent in comics for the story told in BvS, I am at a loss as to what changes and lack of understanding of the character could have occurred. With your thirty years of comics knowledge, can you tell me what comics featured a Batman who was two decades into his vigilante crusade, had recently lost a Robin, and experienced a trauma in the form of the world's introduction to Superman through a violent "War of the Worlds" situation? How does you knowledge account for that context? Additionally, before Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, did Batman comics account for or otherwise explain his take on the character? How does Nolan's take reconcile with the Adam West version?

A lot of what you're saying reminds me of the hardliners who were adamantly opposed to the 2005 reboot of Doctor Who. There was a lot of The Doctor would never do that, could never have done this, couldn't love this person, etc. It was very silly.

 

[chintai80]

nolan played loose with the source material just as much as snyder did.

they just emphasized different things.

let's not kid ourselves about this.

 

[misslane38]

why not make Batman a wise-cracking, humorous superhero who smiles all the time?

 

[Da-Scribe]

“You’re okay with vacuous, ill-conceived changes which negatively impact Batman’s characterisation... that I didn’t like.” ...would be more accurate.

You keep saying that as if it's an objective observation. Until you can accept that not everyone, even the diehard comic fan, views these changes as such, you're going to continue to fall in the fantrap pissing contest of who loves so-and-so character more.

I'm a fan of of these characters and have been for decades. I don't need every iteration to maintain this familiar through line though. I'm fine with changes, because I like to see artists express themselves freely. Like I love TAS Batman, but I also feel there's room for a lavender tutu wearing Batman that sports bedazzled weaponry. There's room for everything. And like, being a comic fan doesn't mean you have to reject everything else.

 

[misslane38]

An illustration of gatekeeping in the Harry Potter fandom (books versus movies):

 

[FunkMiller]

Since I can't think of a single precedent in comics for the story told in BvS, I am at a loss as to what changes and lack of understanding of the character could have occurred. With your thirty years of comics knowledge, can you tell me what comics featured a Batman who was two decades into his vigilante crusade, had recently lost a Robin, and experienced a trauma in the form of the world's introduction to Superman through a violent "War of the Worlds" situation? How does you knowledge account for that context? Additionally, before Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, did Batman comics account for or otherwise explain his take on the character? How does Nolan's take reconcile with the Adam West version?

Your argument here is essentially: what Snyder does with Batman in Batman V Superman is okay... because he made Batman V Superman. You’re literally trying to make the case that the changes to Batman from the source material are fine, because those changes fit Zack Snyder’s story. If you can’t see the problem with that argument, then I don’t know what to say.

I have zero problem with you putting Zack Snyder’s Batman on the same footing as Adam West’s.

 

[chintai80]

the stuff with batman in bvs is in the comics, if you look for it.

it's just spread out over the years in different depictions.

 

[FunkMiller]

nolan played loose with the source material just as much as snyder did.

they just emphasized different things.

let's not kid ourselves about this.

I’d say Nolan was by and large far more successful at translating the Batman from the comics - in his first two movies, anyway. TDKR has a whole series of issues I won’t rehash yet again here.

 

[misslane38]

Your argument here is essentially: what Snyder does with Batman in Batman V Superman is okay... because he made Batman V Superman. You’re literally trying to make the case that the changes to Batman from the source material are fine, because those changes fit Zack Snyder’s story. If you can’t see the problem with that argument, then I don’t know what to say.

If you don't see the problem with claiming thirty years of comics gives you all of the answers to every scenario Batman could encounter, then I don't know what to say. Using precedent to decide which changes are okay and which ones are not only makes sense when you have precedents upon which to refer. You cannot say, "Batman wouldn't do this," when you don't have sufficient enough context -- even with 30 years of comics -- to draw such a conclusion. So if you think comics 100 percent precludes Snyder's take on the character, then what source material provides you with that degree of certainty? How do you know Batman would not respond the way DCEU Batman responded to the events that unfolded in his life? What comics tell you that a midlife crisis Batman in the midst of grief wouldn't respond the way he did to the Black Zero Event?

 

[FunkMiller]

If you don't see the problem with claiming thirty years of comics gives you all of the answers to every scenario Batman could encounter, then I don't know what to say. Using precedent to decide which changes are okay and which ones are not only makes sense when you have precedents upon which to refer. You cannot say, "Batman wouldn't do this," when you don't have sufficient enough context -- even with 30 years of comics -- to draw such a conclusion.

So if you think comics 100 percent precludes Snyder's take on the character, then what source material provides you with that degree of certainty. How do you know Batman would not respond the way DCEU Batman responded to the events that unfolded in his life?

Again... “this Batman is fine, because of the stuff that happens in this movie”.

That’s rather like saying it would have been fine for Batfleck to run around in a pink Batsuit, if the movie had given us a reason for him to run around in a pink Batsuit.

 

[Jekecy]

Sorry. Can’t agree with that. There are certain intrinsic aspects of Batman for me that are hard baked into my consciousness, and I’d argue the consciousness of most Batman fans. This is true of any character, in any form of fiction. There has to be a place where a line is drawn in terms of changes to the character, and Snyder repeatedly and badly steps over that line, to the detriment of Batman as portrayed in the DCEU.

You can’t make the argument that fidelity to the source is a sham, because otherwise, why not make Batman a wise-cracking, humorous superhero who smiles all the time? Why not do away with his parent’s murder, and have them fight crime beside him? Why not make Superman a dwarf, and make Black Panther a white dude?

These are farcical suggestions of course, but if you’re arguing that sticking close to source material is a sham, then they are the logical conclusion of that position.

It’s far more accurate to say that you just don’t care about the changes that have been made to defining elements, because you’re not that invested in the character as it is widely regarded by fandom and the public.

There’s not a single fan here who doesn’t give a pass to a creator every once in a while when they decide to shake things up. If you’ve been a fan for as long as you have, then you’ve experienced this a dozen times over.

Batman belongs to the community, and ultimately changes only really survive and last based on the consensus to let it slide into the lore. That’s precisely why 2018 Batman does not resemble 1939 Batman. It’s all gradual until one day you notice A LOT has changed.

If you could divide the bat-community into teams based on a singular iteration deemed as the ideal characterization to live up to, you could probably create a whole league. BTAS is considered the GOAT by many of this generation, and they took several liberties across their seasons.

The whole, “well they have may have changed things but they stuck to the spirit…” is absolute malarkey. Let’s call it for what it really is: a free pass. And how does one determine a free pass? Individual sensitivities to source fidelity. That can’t be quantified, so good luck trying to create an indestructible blueprint for adaptations.

For the record, I actually do resent many of the new revelations Snyder had planned for Batman. But looking back at MY own fandom and what I’d gravitated to, I’m hardly innocent of disregarding previously established lore. I’m quite certain you’re guilty of the same. We all are.

 

[chintai80]

I’d say Nolan was by and large far more successful at translating the Batman from the comics - in his first two movies, anyway. TDKR has a whole series of issues I won’t rehash yet again here.

i liked nolan's take more overall - his batman is more of the 1970s-1990s version - more noble, etc.

snyder's is more the miller version + 1990s-2000s and some 1939-1940 sprinkled here and there. more broken.

burton's batman is just the 1939 version - cuz burton didn't bother reading anything outside of that one. lol.

 

[misslane38]

Again... “this Batman is fine, because of the stuff that happens in this movie”.

That’s rather like saying it would have been fine for Batfleck to run around in a pink Batsuit, if the movie had given us a reason for him to run around in a pink Batsuit.

Stop sidestepping the question. How do you know that Snyder's take is unequivocally at odds with three decades of Batman canon rather than just at odds with your preferences?

 

[FunkMiller]

For the record, I actually do resent many of the new revelations Snyder had planned for Batman. But looking back at MY own fandom and what I’d gravitated to, I’m hardly innocent of disregarding previously established lore. I’m quite certain you’re guilty of the same. We all are.

Indeed. So what it boils down to is whether those changes to established lore improve upon, or further the character in some positive way. Nothing Snyder has done has accomplished that. Quite the reverse. Hence my argument against his changes.

 

[misslane38]

I’d say Nolan was by and large far more successful at translating the Batman from the comics - in his first two movies, anyway. TDKR has a whole series of issues I won’t rehash yet again here.

How so?

 

[Da-Scribe]

I mean Batman is not real. He can react to situations in whatever way a creator deems necessary for the story. I know I will now be deemed less of a fan for saying that, but this is my general feeling on every fictional character. That doesn't mean I'll like every change that's made, but I firmly believe every artist has the right to experiment and such experiments should be judged on their own merits.

 

[chintai80]

all u fake fans here with ur endless debates.

lemme school u hoes:

i been reading this stuff since 1987.

most depictions of batman don't kill, don't drink alcohol, or smash chicks.

BUT....

1970s hairy-chested love-god batman totally smashing chicks all the time.

and frank miller's bruce wayne was drankin all day, up until he returned to the cowl.

i already brought up original bob kane batman killing.
but 1970s batman would let criminals fall to their death sometimes.

and 1980s batman buried kgbeast alive under the sewers to save president reagan ( i know that got retconned so that kgbeast lived - but jim starlin's original idea was batman essentially killed kgbeast).

"i won't kill you...but i don't have to save you."

^ snyder just threw all that in a blender and that's what we got in bvs.

 

[Jekecy]

Indeed. So what it boils down to is whether those changes to established lore improve upon, or further the character in some positive way. Nothing Snyder has done has accomplished that. Quite the reverse. Hence my argument against his changes.

I’m only mildly involved within this discussion, but I don’t think anyone was disagreeing with your (and my) right to that position. They just didn’t appreciate their fandom being questioned as a result of their personal belief those said alterations were within the area of “allowed” creative liberty. If that’s the case, I fully support them defending that.

They’re all probably dead, but I’m sure there are several generations of bat-fans who’d shake their heads at what we’ve allowed into the lore too. In my younger days I had a friend’s grandpa who we could not budge at reading the (then) modern comics. It was too far removed from what he grew up on. Can’t fault him for that. One day, we’ll be in that position.

 

[FunkMiller]

Stop sidestepping the question. How do you know that Snyder's take is unequivocally at odds with three decades of Batman canon rather than just at odds with your preferences?

I’m not side stepping anything. I’m just saying that Snyder moves Batman too far away from his intrinsic elements, which is of detriment to the character. I know you’ll argue against that, and neither of us will change our minds, so let’s save us both lots of typing time, eh?

 

[FunkMiller]

all u fake fans here with ur endless debates.

lemme school u hoes:

i been reading this stuff since 1987.

most depictions of batman don't kill, don't drink alcohol, or smash chicks.

BUT....

1970s hairy-chested love-god batman totally smashing chicks all the time.

and miller's batman was drankin all day, up until he returned to the cowl.

i already brought up original bob kane batman killing.
but 1970s batman would let criminals fall to their death sometimes.

and 1980s batman buried kgbeast alive under the sewers to save president reagan ( i know that got retconned so that kgbeast lived - but jim starlin's original idea was batman essentially killed kgbeast).

"i won't kill you...but i don't have to save you."

All true. But you’re pulling out a small number of instances and storylines across 80 years of material.

Batman also wore a multi-coloured Batsuit, and fought an interdimensional space imp.

So I guess you’ll be fine with the next movie when Batfleck runs across a giant typewriter, looking like a rainbow, and punching Batmite.

 

[misslane38]

Indeed. So what it boils down to is whether those changes to established lore improve upon, or further the character in some positive way. Nothing Snyder has done has accomplished that. Quite the reverse. Hence my argument against his changes.

That's subjective, though. Whether or not he accomplished constructive changes, I mean, especially when some of those "changes" were acknowledged as changes from which his Batman needed to evolve out of in order to become something that is closer to the status quo. It was a decon-recon, and it highlighted some of the core aspects and themes embedded in the character.

 

[chintai80]

All true. But you’re pulling out a small number of instances and storylines across 80 years of material.

Batman also wore a multi-coloured Batsuit, and fought an interdimensional space imp.

So I guess you’ll be fine with the next movie when Batfleck runs across a giant typewriter, looking like a rainbow, and punching Batmite.

not batfleck.

but i'm fine when they did that with another depiction on tv - aka diedrich bader's batman.

but what batfleck did in bvs fit in line with the story snyder was trying to tell - there's a logic to it. i'm ok with it.
some people aren't. that's all there is to it.

 

[Da-Scribe]

All true. But you’re pulling out a small number of instances and storylines across 80 years of material.

Batman also wore a multi-coloured Batsuit, and fought an interdimensional space imp.

So I guess you’ll be fine with the next movie when Batfleck runs across a giant typewriter, looking like a rainbow, and punching Batmite.

I'd love to see that.

It's weird though that even when there's precedent in the comics, it's still not okay because it didn't happen enough times.

 

[misslane38]

I’m not side stepping anything. I’m just saying that Snyder moves Batman too far away from his intrinsic elements, which is of detriment to the character. I know you’ll argue against that, and neither of us will change our minds, so let’s save us both lots of typing time, eh?

Snyder's Batman is a Batman who is characterized as having moved too far away from his intrinsic elements; your complaint is one shared by the narrative and acknowledged in the text, thus upholding the values you cherish as the ideal. It's a story about how his PTSD was triggered by the BZE, how Batman failed him as a coping mechanism in that moment, and reaching a point of no return where he could either "Save Martha" and be Batman or lose himself forever. He chooses to be Batman, to pull back from his errant behavior, and move forward with hope. What "intrinsic elements" in the vast Batman mythology suggest such a story is canonically out of bounds? If the story's intent is to reaffirm what is most intrinsic in Batman (e.g. saving innocents from criminals, pursuing justice, seeing men as still good) by essentially restarting Batman's origin with the BZE, then how has Snyder's take on the character kicked aside what makes Batman...Batman?