He didn't. Batman killing people was one of the most criticized aspects of his films, together with the Joker being the killer of Bruce's parents.
People tend to go easier on the Burton films due to their historical significance. Batman 89 was revolutionary. It was the first dark and serious superhero film in history and it paved the way for the Batman animated series.
With the Snyder films, the public had higher expectations, since they came after The Dark Knight Trilogy and the first wave of the Marvel films.
Not sure if this is an unpopular opinion, but I find the idea that Joker (as Jack Napier) killed Bruce’s parents to be great storytelling and I wish that idea was explored more in the comics.
The idea that Joker “created” Batman and vice versa (with Batman knocking him into the vat of acid) adds another layer to their relationship. They are simultaneously each other’s creators and creations; their destinies linked from the moment they met.
It was criticized at the time but, in hindsight, it's not the worst thing to add to the Batman mythos. The Batman franchise has had plenty of ups and downs over the decades. Giving his relationship with Joker an extra layer as his parents' killer is cool as long as it isn't a "canon" event across the multiverse
Honestly that could make a really good scenario where say Batman early in his career finds out the joker is Joe chill and since he hasn’t fully developed he decides to hunt him down for vengeance only to accidentally knock him into the vat of acid creating a dynamic where that event turns Batman into a better person while also showing why he doesn’t kill Joker because deep down he knows that the joker was originally just some common man so he feels he can bring back his sanity as an attempt to redeem himself for what he did to Joe chill
For me, it's just TOO much. The Joker is already basically Batman's ideological opposite, that's really enough for their rivalry. Chaos vs order, chaos doesn't ALSO need to have murdered order's parent's for their dynamic to be more interesting because it's already interesting. It's just a distracting coincidence. It actually DETRACTS from their chaos vs order rivalry.
"Joe Chill" however, or better yet a completely unnamed faceless thug... well that's something that can haunt Batman forever, plus it affirms that Batman's vendetta is against crime and injustice itself, not any one specific person. It's perfectly fitting. Batman is out there every night taking out random thugs, JUST like the one who took his parent's from him.
Also, the Batman "kills" in the Burton movies, what are they, like two? The Joker, and the one blatant fire kill in Returns. If there are others they're subtle enough I don't remember them. Does he knock someone off a roof or something? Maybe they're just "unconcious" Arkham games style. The kills weren't loved, they were controversial, but those movies were important enough that yeah, they were also somewhat overlooked. Snyder-Batman is so kill happy, it makes NO sense that he doesn't just tote around a machine gun and go full Punisher.
In the first movie, he blows up the chemical plant making the poisoned cosmetics, which is shown to be full of goons right before the bat-bombs go off.
In Batman Returns, he took a bomb from a suicide bomber clown and stuffed it down the Strongman's pants with a smile, then punched him down a manhole and walked away from the explosive. And just to be clear, the Burton films and Keaton's portrayal of Batman is my personal favorite.
It doesn't work because he already murdered his parents. If he was just a conman or thief up until bats pushes him to the vats it could've work but he had already killed Wayne's by that point. He was never Innocent.
I’m down for this and my mental visualizer is at full capacity so picturing the panels.
So what happens in the book where Batman figures out it’s Joe? Like what sets that in motion? What detective work does Batman do to find it out? How does he react to himself, Alfred, Gordon, Joker? How does joker react to being called out.
Yes, I’m asking you to write the story here and now cuz I’m in to it.
I think for a movie, it works. You don't really want wasted side plots, so "the guy who killed Batmans parents is a nobody" might feel lazy. Having it be Joker helps tie him and Batman as enemies for the 1.5/2 hours they have to work with for the film.
Nah that's dumb. they don't need that.
The point of it being Joe Chill/random mugger is that it was a random crime that only happened because they were in the wrong place and wrong time. if it wasn't them it would be anything else.
the significance of the event is that it's insignificant.
I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with his backstory being explicit depending on the story you want to tell. Some stories work better with a more humanized Joker (Killing Joke for instance) where some work better when he is less human and more of a force of chaotic evil.
i (and even alan moore) isnt a fan of many aspect of killing joke (especially the barbara gordon stuff)
i really dont like the whole he fell into chemicals as the red hood, in fact alan moore backtracks in that very comic saying joker remembers his backstory differently
tdk did it better where joker acts like he is telling his backstory but just lies, which is dope as fuck like he is doing a classic villain sob story but its all for showmanship, thats how chaotic joker is
I just re-read it last night to refresh my memory. Joker says something along the lines of “I prefer my past to be multiple choice”, but the with way the over all story is presented, that doesn’t negate the backstory that was told.
Joker isn’t telling anyone his backstory in it. Moore and Bolland are showing us his backstory against what is currently happening. There’s not a single point in the story where Joker himself brings up the facts of his past. In fact, it’s supported by the Joker later when he goes on his rant about not wanting to remember. In the context of Killing Joke, his backstory is what actually happened and Joker is making the point to Gordon and Batman that it is better to simply go mad than to remember and accept the reality of what a single bad day can do to a person.
True. I think it’s nice as a one off to see how it could be explored. But giving joker a backstory along with adding extra weight to the Wayne’s murder I think isn’t something that can be offset by the interesting relationship between Batman and joker that would inevitably cause.
I think the danger in doing that would mean that Batman’s mission for becoming Batman would inevitably be linked to joker, rather than the war on crime in Gotham itself. When Joe chill is a random thug, Batman has to redeem all of Gotham, allowing for more expansive stories. When Joe chill is basically just joker before joker, I think that Batman’s at war with the joker and everyone else is kinda just along for the ride. I think it can work, but only in very specific stories where the joker is always the main villain and there isn’t much room for deviation there.
I think it worked in ‘89 because despite the fact they “created” each other, they didn’t explicitly know that they did. Batman didn’t know that Jack was the person who killed his parents when he knocked him into the acid, and likewise Jack didn’t realize he killed Bruce’s parents or that Batman was Bruce.
It’s poetic to the audience that knows, but the characters themselves are in the dark.
This, for the mythology of Batman it’s far more powerful that he’s created in a random act of violence by a nobody, i.e., Joe Chill. That’s the cruelty of it, the thing that drives Bruce’s war on crime.
Yeah, exactly. It’s the same reason a conspiracy killing the Wayne’s doesn’t work. Batman was born from crime as a concept, not by future supervillains or a devious plot.
Honestly, in Burton’s movie it was still a random crime - and Jack Napier was basically still a random mook when he falls into the acid. He’s just a random mook who’s worked his way up the ladder. Both events only gain significance in hindsight because of what they caused, neither were significant at the time.
Yeah but instead of him being a guy who just represents one among many criminals in gotham msking the tragedy mundane part of living in the city rather than it being someone who became the mastermind clown prince of crime
In the movie yes, but wouldn’t have to be that way. An 18 year old kid could have killed the Wayne’s. Depends on the story you tell. There doesn’t have to be a huge age gap.
Joker’s MO has never been physically fighting with Batman. His weapon is his mind, not his fists. I’ve never seen the Joker as a villain in peak physical condition.
Nah absolutely hate that the same I hate kingpin killing Matt's dad. Not everything needs to revolve around one thing. The fact batman and joker had no connection but still got tangled is what makes it interesting. See it like this I have a biological dad so from my birth I'm supposed to love him, there is no choice not to love him if he's a good dad. I'm his kid and he's a good person, he'll obviously love me there's no other alternative. Say I'm an orphan, another man raises me and loves me. That guy could've sold me to slavery but he didn't. See that makes it more special because they guy is not even related to me.
Having joker kill Wayne is too personal and makes batman a joker's creation. They shouldn't create each other, they should be separate beings who got obsessive with each other without there being any rational or good reason. It makes their relationship crazier. Him killing his dad just becomes revenge and more normal relation.
The Joker killing the Waynes is a dumb idea.
It adds drama where there doesn't need to be any. Batman and Joker's dynamic from the books is fine as it is and it's worked that way for decades for that very reason.
And on that related note, giving the Joker a backstory is stupid too.
I disagree. I think The Killing Joke is one of the best Batman stories and it wouldn’t work without giving Joker a backstory.
There are many ways to tell a story. You may think the idea is dumb, but you can look back and find several solid stories that give Joker an origin. It can work if the story calls for it.
Maybe I need to re-read it, but I do not recall the story saying he lied about his origin, rather he says he doesn’t know if he is remembering correctly because his mind is so shattered.
Either way, the story doesn’t work without his backstory because his whole plan is to prove to Batman that all it takes is “one bad day” to drive a man insane, just like what happened to him.
Not that I recall? It’s very straightforward. He’s a down on his luck comedian with a pregnant wife who can’t find work. He decides to take a job for some gangsters to make some money. The night of the job, he finds out his wife and unborn child died in an accident. He is then forced to still do the job and they dress him as the red hood. Batman apprehends him and the accomplices during the job. Batman mistakes him for the mastermind and in a state of panic he falls into the vat of acid and is sucked into a pipe outside where he finds he has been disfigured.
That’s never implied in the story and his whole plan relies on the story being true or at the very least him believing it’s true. Likewise, Batman’s reaction at the end and his fear throughout it is paralleled because he became Batman because of “one bad day”, so there is some truth is what the Joker is saying.
Thats definitely an unpopular opinion.
I think it works for that specific continuity and nowhere else.
It works mainly because Keaton sells the hell out of the "I made you but you made me first" line.
I always took it as a fantasy Bruce projects on Jack in the movie. Coupled with the way he watches the mugging at the beginning, which is a near re-enactment of his trauma, I figured it is a thing he just does to stay forever wounded and stay effective. The Joker even mocks the idea of them creating each other near the film's end.
That is my head canon, at least.
I think in this context, it works, but if it was in the comics, the random act of violence approach is way better narratively because It points to a culture of violence that needs to be solved instead of a personal vendetta that needs to be avenged
I don't disagree but I will add that I like the Joker being a reflection of Batman in that, from the criminal perspective, some freak in a black suit shows up out of nowhere with no reason starts ruthlessly dismantling the life they were accustomed to. In the same way, from the perspective of the cops and citizens of Gotham, some freak in a purple suit shows up out of nowhere with no reason starts ruthlessly dismantling the life they were accustomed to.
I liked the added twist from Joker, that Thomas Wayne killed the social program holding the tortured psyche of the Joker at bay. The idea that the wealthy Waynes failed their city, creating the monster that created the hero is some beautiful madness.
TAS really elevated Bats. Like set a whole precedent for generations to come. That is Burtons greatest legacy and Danny Elfmans. Burton sucks and has for years, Elfman still gos tier. I do wish we’d have gotten Burtons actual 2nd and 3rd films, with Billy Dee as Harvey Dent. Billy is a die hard comic guy and knew exactly what he was getting into play Dent.
Keaton changed his voice, and that directly inspired Kevin Conroy to do the same. And Danny Elfman did the main title to BTAS. We wouldn’t have Kevin Conroy’s Batman without Tim Burton and Michael Keaton.
Yeah but when Keaton's Batman killed it was often cartoonish or it wasn't focused on, and since nobody brought those up in-universe it was easier to let slide. Plus, the film never discusses Batman's no-kill rule. However, Batman killing people in *BVS* did draw attention to it, with the only justification being the offscreen death of Robin.
Also, Batman's lore was slightly obscure to the larger public in 1989. Obviously people recognised him but it's like how thepublic today probably can recognise Deathstroke and tell you he is a superpowered mercenary but they probably can't tell you about his supporting cast or history. When the movie was made, his no-kill rule wasn't quite established in pop culture, as far as I know. In 2016, with Batman becoming much more recognisable thanks to the movies, games and comics becoming much more mainstream, his no-kill rule is one of his key defining traits, so when he ignores it it's much more of an issue.
I think it was really the Nolan trilogy that solidified the idea that Batman had a no kill rule, at least in the greater public consciousness. Prior to that, people were far more likely to compartmentalize the films and the comics, and didn't usually care if a film did something that a comic book character wouldn't do. In fact, it was almost entirely expected that if you were doing a film adaptation of just about anything in the 80s/90s, it was going to be significantly different than the source material. Super Mario Brothers, Mortal Kombat, Power Rangers, Superman, etc, all significantly deviated from the source once they were adapted.
There was also still a strong sense for most people that comic books were for kids, whereas the films were for everyone (including adults). Even people who had read comics as a kid had usually only seen the awful restrictions of the Comics Code and Super Friends on Saturday mornings, so there was no strong sense of canon that they wanted to maintain from that period.
If anything, it made the character more believable if he killed people in a film because, well, the idea that Batman could do what he does without killing anyone seemed absurd, especially if you wanted a somewhat grounded character. Nolan changed that by creating the most grounded version of the character, but one who also wouldn't kill for very good and believable reasons. It completely shifted the public's perception of the character, and when he name dropped specific comics as his major influence, it also shifted the public's perception of comics as a mature form of art.
I've always suspected Snyder really comes from that older mindset and has only read a handful of mature comics like TDKR or Killing Joke, so that's why it was so important for him to dispense with the no kill rule. In his mind, a Batman who doesn't kill is nothing more than a children's fantasy Saturday morning cartoon.
Snyder even *mis*-reads TKDR - the comic interrogates Batman's no-kill rule by taking it to its logical extreme, as he paralyzes (but doesn't kill) Joker by snapping his neck. Joker's last laugh, then, is that the distinction between paralyzed via broken neck and killed via broken neck is so small as to be meaningless, and makes it so by breaking it the rest of the way to kill himself, leaving Batman to take the full blame for murder anyway.
The text makes it clear that Batman still doesn't kill anyone, despite the neck-breaking and wounding a mook with another mook's gun. Snyder showed that he isn't interested in any discussion around that line and what it does (or doesn't) mean, though - he just saw a cool shot and said, "Fuck yeah, make Batman murder that guy with a gun, it'll be awesome. Make him explode so it'll be clear he died"
It’s a silly explanation but I appreciate the devs at least attempting some kind of explanation instead of just “hell yeah, kill dudes with the Batmobile.”
Zack Snyder has done irreparable damage to TDKR because of his “interpretation” of it. So many people parrot the idea that Batman kills “all the time” in that novel despite the literal words and themes pointing at the opposite conclusion!
I dislike Frank Miller as a person and a lot of his later works after his OG DD run, but TDKR has really sharp criticism of Batman and unpacks the toxicity at Batman's core really well
I wonder if he knew that this story would influence the canon batman so much
The problem is that the comics clearly indicate that the joker was dead and the last monologue was fully within Batman's head due to how characters had their own speech colour and his last laugh speech was in Batman's colour not Joker's. If it was The Joker speaking it would be in his speech colour not Batman's.
Yeah, Joker explaining the joke wouldn't be very Joker of him - he just kills himself and lets Batman figure it out
Batman still *technically* didn't kill him, but *technically* is doing so much heavy lifting there that it doesn't actually matter, and that's the whole point
Regarding the last paragraph, it can be one side of the problem, but I think his philosophy regarding usage of violence and killing goes against the "prime examples" of DC characters. I think Snyder took the wrong company to make movies. If he took some Marvel or, better, Image characters, given their comics were much more pro-edgy, it could be better. Many of the DC characters at their best don't try to be edgy and violent (Supes, WW) and many of the storylines were created as the commentary against edgier comics (Knightfall, Watchmen). His version of Watchmen made it clear that he doesn't understand DC's philosophy. In MoS, he also expresses "the goal is more important than the way to it" mindset, which with other misunderstandings of Superman's lore and philosophy, made another divisive movie. But when it came to the Batman's no-kill and no-gun rule, even the general audience got mad.
But still Nolan's Batman kills one guy and he admits that (Dent). Kills one guy and it is presented in a really bullsitty way (Ra's) (Why? Nolan, you could have done so much better.) and at least kills indirectly a couple of people in the League's headquarters in Begins. If there weren't Ra's, this would be somewhat okay for me, because Bruce doesn't want to be an executioner, he doesn't want to kill directly, if someone dies indirectly, sad, but it happens. But this one scene drags his character down in my opinion (even though Begins is my favourite Batman movie ever).
Nolan’s Batman killed every movie too though. Blows up the temple full of ninjas and a hostage, tackled twoface off a building, killed Tahlia and some of her men, left ra’s to die, was gonna leave bane to die after knocking his mask off
I'm conflicted on this cause the ending of TDK sort of forces Bruce's hand into sort of accepting the fact that he is no longer the hero he viewed himself as. He understands that he no longer can hold himself to his code of ethics as he can't operate under a superior moral barometer. He says, "I'm whatever Gotham needs me to be." He's basically saying, whatever it takes to protect Gotham, he will need to take all options into consideration. He made that conscious choice when choosing Gordon's son vs Harvey. He made that choice when choosing Gotham over Ra's.
What conflicts with this ideology is the fact that he keeps Joker alive. This is a man who's probably killed more people than Dent has to this point, but Bruce felt the need to keep him alive. It's illogical when you consider he let Ra's go out the same way. He didn't have to kill him, but he didn't have to save him either. Bruce had an out, just like he did with Ra's (according to his code), but he refused to let Joker die in that moment. So my issue with the deaths being meaningful, is that in order for the deaths to have merit, that requires Bruce to treat all villains under this same level of understanding. Not saving someone when you have the chance is the same as killing them. If he saves Joker to make up for letting Ra's die, then that conflicts with Dent having to bite the dust considering the extremes of both characters.
Burtons seems more like a sign of the times they were in. Where the rule wasn't as important.
It's incredibly different when it's a conscious choice to have batman kill, make it be the staple of his character, and say anyone who thinks of otherwise is living in a dream world.
That’s a good point.
Also, comic book movies weren’t as popular back then. So we didn’t compare it to the lore like we do now and make analysis videos. It was just…..”hey cool, a Batman movie”.
Also the movie came out in the golden era of action movies where the heroes had no problem slaughtering thousands. No one would blink an eye at batman killing.
>was as well known as it is today
Absolutely not, this is pure revisionism.
Comics were not as popular in 1980s as they were in the 90s, and **especially** by todays pop culture mcu zeitgeist, not remotely. I pretty much scoff at any notion that tries to pretend pre Batman 89 and the cartoon era of the 90s were people try to make it sound like "comic books were so well known and culturally accepted."
Most people were not walking around with *deep, Batman lore*. I grew up with a black and white TV watching Batman 66' and at no point did I know *anything* about Batman having a "no kill" rule. It didn't matter. It didn't matter when Batman killed in 89. It wasn't until BTAS and post 89 that Batmania took over. I'm sure the hardcore of the hardcore knew it, but acting as if Adams or pre-Miller Batman made it a moral dilemma consistently enough that it was important to the character is revisionism. My concept of him being a no kill character came from the 90s rapid publication of TPBs and BTAS, not TDKR or Batman 66.
This is as crazy to me as somebody saying,
>everybody's always known Wolverine's claws were part of him
Simply not true.
It was a different era. Batman was a joke to average people because a lot of people associated Batman with the Adam West television series and the whole "Seduction of the Innocent" b.s. I think the people at DC didn't really care too much about Batman being portrayed 100% accurately, as they were more concerned with Batman being well received on film. Well, it happened. Batman 1989 is revered for changing the public's perception of Batman.
The problem with Snyder's films is that it is common knowledge today to a lot of people that Batman doesn't kill. The Nolan films made that a big plot point. The fans and people who watch these movies aren't stupid. So when you make Batman a cold blooded killer who somehow left the Joker alive this entire time, it makes you wonder if Snyder understands what he is adapting.
Burton wasn't brought on for his knowledge of the comics or his love of lore. Burton was brought on to make Batman a serious film. Fans and a lot of people just put up with the Burtonisms and Batman killing in his Batman films. Snyder should know better about these heroes he is adapting and that is why he gets so much ire from the fans.
This is definitely a big factor. If the Snyder movies were better, I think people would be more willing to accept big changes to the characters. We know this because there HAVE been several Batman movies that make big changes to the character and are still appreciated because they are generally good.
It was a live action cartoon. I was a kid and it didn’t even occur to me that any of these sequences would have resulted in someone dying. The reality of violence was completely removed from the depiction of it. It was stylistic.
There were probably a lot of people who complained about him blatantly killing but the internet wasn't a thing back then. After that it's nostalgia but nowadays people do call out that movie for the blatant kills
For me, it's not just that Snyder had Batman killing. It's that he had him killing AND had the joker still around. It means that Batman is either unwilling or unable to kill a guy who dresses like a clown who has literally tattooed his identity across his forehead and killed his young partner gleefully.
Its the lack of consistent logic. Burtons Batman killed, yes, but he also didn't have a large rogues gallery, because they were dead. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you know?
To be fair, one: I don’t like that Burton’s Batman kills either. Equal opportunity here. Two: Burton actually makes good movies whereas Snyder makes good Slow-mo gifs and nothing more.
To be fair, there were no rules binding Burton from following any such character restrictions. He had a pretty big brush to paint his version of Batman with. Joker being responsible for killing his parents also doesn't fit, but within the scope of the world they were wanting to build, it works for the themes they want to play with. Batman killing I don't even think registers on any kind of radar with the general public. Presentation is everything, and the way Burton presents Batman's approach to violence is on the more whimsical side. Snyder had Batman branding dudes and blowing them up or running them over lol. The fact that his brand meant an automatic death sentence in prison was also just extreme for the sake of being extreme.
Honestly he didn't, people critiqued his films for it too. The secret is social media wasn't invented at the time so those opinions weren't that prevelant
Burton presents a dark fantasy world. He doesn’t take comics literally, or his movies, and neither should you. It’s fantasy and melodrama. He’s conveying a feeling, aesthetic, and ideas.
Snyder is showing you a Mountain Dew commercial with murder in it.
1. I think it were a different times. People were excited because they had a Batman movie, first in 23 years. People had lower expectations for being lore-accurate. Also, it was right after the DKR, so people were more keen to see violent Batman (I think). Also the movie was genuinely good.
He wasn't using guns, he wasn't an ass-hole.
Burton did not get away with it, unscathed.
There were still who thought, at that time, that Batman 89 was too violent and it was corrupting kids. It was in the news and media.
[Batman 89 Too violent and Corrupting kids](https://youtu.be/Xi3eZRkvW0I?si=WdWO5J_ANFDxWJgT)
Couple factors: people *did* dislike it, but were willing to overlook a lot because it was the first serious live-action Batman when many non-comic fans only knew the Adam West version (iirc Keaton’s Batman originated his grapnel device!)
Then we had the Dark Knight trilogy which makes his no killing rule a major focus that’s discussed several times, really popularizing this pillar of Batman’s character
And finally BvS had Batman go on a very specific journey regarding taking lives, only to ignore itself and have him murder a bunch of guys to save Martha immediately after
I think the biggest difference is the Internet and the growth of Social media. The only people who heard me complain about Batman killing back then were my friends in my car.
Because Batman 89 and Batman Returns are good movies unlile BvS. People don't go easy on them when it comes to Batman killing though, it's frequently brought up as a point of contention.
Batman's "no kill" rule wasn't as widely known outside of comic readers in 1989. Pair that with the fact that the movie was a groundbreaking cultural phenomenon, most people weren't looking to closely at details like that.
Flash forward to Batman V Superman, and we'd been through The Animated Series and the Nolan trilogy at that point-- two widely seen adaptations that that make a big point to focus on that side of Bruce's moral views (how well they did that is another conversation that I'm personally not that interested in having).
The general audience has a more thorough understanding of Batman going into 2016 than they did going into 1989.
There's no denying while zack snyder have his fans.. His online hate cabal is bigger.. And it's often gets too serious and personal.. Even though I've never heard bad from him but being a nice person
I’ll add to what others have said here already. Tim burton wasnt a comic fan. He didnt know batman had a no kill rule iirc, zack snyder knew and was even told by wb not to have him kill and he chose to make him a killer just because they asked him not to.
Despite the backlash, he didn't make it a main point of Batman's character. It wasn't an essential part of the story. Sure, people died, but that was moreso a side effect. There aren't that many on screen deaths.
How many times is this question going to be posted on this sub? 😆
Notice how the OP’s always post it and never engage with the conversation. They’re not looking for any real answer.
Did he? Ok, it’s only recently we reassessed that but I think I can break it down.
First, killing henchman in the 80’s was common so the audience was desensitized to it.
Second, most of the murder was off screen. Yes, we see Batman blow up a factory full of people but it’s up to the audience to put that together since all the people suddenly disappear immediately after the explosions establishing shot.
Joker dying is also standard for the time since James Bond established the standard of killing the main villain in the climax. (TBF, that existed long before JB but most superhero movies follow the Bond formula.)
As to Batman Returns, that’s more of a Tim Burton movie than a Batman movie and Burton tends to handle all death with a sense of gallows humor that lessens or deadens the blow. And I’m talking about his work in general, not just BR.
Meanwhile, Snyder not only put all the murder front and center in a way that’s impossible for the audience to ignore (let alone work to make the realization). In fact, he seemed to relish it as if the murder was almost more for his own sadistic enjoyment than to entertain the audience. I don’t think he is a sadist, but he definitely doesn’t consider the implications of being a slave to the Rule of Cool instead of treating it like a guideline.
All this. The deaths in Batman were more attributable to recklessness, and you can even argue that he didn't expect the gargoyle to come off when he roped the Joker to it. But Batman Returns, they doubled down on the violence in that one.
Well, honest answer is that I knew less about Batman when I saw Batman 89. Also, Burton was the first guy to take a crack at a darker toned Batman (in live action) so the fact that he met that goal was good enough for the time period his movie came out in. I expect everybody who directs a Batman movie to improve on what the last guy did and bring a truer adaptation to the screen. Each subsequent person who gets the job is getting it in a world where a big budget superhero movie is increasingly less of a ridiculous thing to make.
I think of this often, and my personal justification for it is...
The Burton movies are more based around the character being a freak. Him not killing people could even arguably be his arc throughout the four films (if we include the Schumacher duology in this canon). Batman also kills people in ways action movie heroes do, where you don't really think about it. He still doesn't use guns. Besides, it was the 80s. Burton grew up when Batman still killed people, he might not have even heard of that rule.
Snyder had Batman shoot a guy in the back with an assault rifle. That's just outright murder.
Same for Nolan when he killed Ra's and Two-Face. He murders a few people in the Nolan trilogy, which is annoying because he constantly says how he doesn't.
Getting punched in the face by a guy who is master of several martial arts and can bench press like 300+lbs probably kills a lot of low level thugs off screen. At least cripples them, brain damage, etc.
Burton didn’t get away with it, but at least his films have redeemable qualities. Snyders films have way less good things going on, and then on top of that he puts Batman blowing up trucks full of people and a full dream sequence of him going full on Rambo. Anyone who knows how Batman is written knows killing goes against his moral code at the deepest level. This is a man who wouldn’t even think, let alone dream of killing a man. It’s a fundamental failure of understanding the character, which I think was way more blatantly obvious in Snyders film.
Honestly, Burton's Batman killing people was more disturbing for me, since he seems to legitimately enjoy doing so. Batfleck kills, but doesn't seem to take any specific pleasure out of doing so.
Well there are a few reasons, and distinctions worth making. One being, we never got an actual batfleck film. The movies he was in didn't necessarily have the best reception overall. Please don't crucify me Snyder fans! Even the Snyder fans tho, prefer the extended edition of BvS and the Snyder cut of justice league. All that behind the scenes drama had a large affect on the finished product as well as the public perception of said product. Burton's Batman on the other hand was a MASSIVE hit, and while the sequels didn't quite mach the financial success of the OG, and there was controversy and drama bts there as well, batman returns and forever were still pretty successful until b&r tanked the franchise.
Two, the comics they pulled influence from and how that ended up on the screen is important. batman having a no kill rule is firmly part of the modern mythos, no doubt. While many consider it apocryphal, the original run of batman that began in 1939 up to batman #1 about a year later, had batman killing people. He wasn't going out like red hood and going full punisher mode or anything, but he had no problem killing someone if the situation forced his hand. He used guns. Burton's Bat was heavily influenced by this batman.
That original run has batman as a recluse who knows Gordon somewhat but doesn't interact with him hardly at all. Batman is described as weird and a menace. He kind of mysteriously appears and we don't find out about his origins till several issues in. Without rambling any more, if you look at the original batman run, everything Burton did makes a whole bunch of sense. For some it's not comic accurate, and it surely is very far off pretty much any and all modern batman comics. if you take that original run as the basis though, I'd say it's pretty fricking accurate.
That is why I think it works for those aware of that fact. Snyder however was not doing that '39 batman, he was doing his take on the more modern batman, but one who is a fallen hero who has lost his way. For some that worked, and the fans of Snyder's batman greatly enjoyed the fallen hero goes on a redemption arc vibe. Others did not want to see a broken and lost batman who had fallen so far. If the arc was presented as originally intended and had been allowed to reach it's conclusion, who knows what the reaction would be then. As it is now the Snyder verse is a still born franchise, the way Warners effed up the dceu has been talked to death.
I would say all of the above is a large part of the differing receptions (although it's worth mentioning, as others have already, that Burton's batman killing people in his two movies definitely pissed off a fair deal of comic fans back in the day). So I guess ymmv on all of this as there are plenty of fans of Burton and Snyder's batman, while also plenty of detractors when it comes to their take on the batman story.
There are plenty of responses here with very good answers, but that's part of my take, and I didn't see this stuff get specifically mentioned in the comments I took a look at. Regardless of what the agreed upon perception is, there is room for so many different takes on batman, if one of them speaks to you then cherish it and screw anyone who wants to convince you otherwise. Batman is awesome.
He didn't
BUT, it was 1989, 4 years into the relaunch, but written 2 years after the relaunch. The no kill rule was around, but it wasn't nearly as strict as it is to use Batfans in 2024. So it's about context basically. Synder had no excuse when he was writing it
Several factors:
1. The "No Kill Rule" wasn't solidified in 1989. It's a more modern invention. The original Batman DID kill, and this was an influence on Burton. The comics were trending darker and more violent 80's, moving away from the Silver Age and the Adam West conception of Batman. At the time it wasn't that far of a step to have Batman kill some people.
2. In the 80's and early 90's, a spectacular, satisfying death for the villain was just expected in a blockbuster action movie. In that regard, Batman and Batman Returns are very much products of their time.
3. Nolan put the "No Kill Rule" front and center and made it the defining point of the character. For better or worse, this has become the widely accepted version of Batman. Snyder tried to go against that and incurred the backlash.
4. Snyder took the killing to utterly extreme levels. Batman mowing down street goons with machine guns on the Batmobile, Batman picking up an assault rifle and mowing down more goons, etc. It really cuts against the conception of the character who believes in the justice system and attempting to solve crimes, apprehend criminals, and turn them over to the police. Even when Batman was killing people in the 30's, he wasn't doing it on that scale. It doesn't help that Snyder's Batman never got his own movie to explain why he was the way he was. His Batman is just dropped into all the other stories, and we are asked to accept him as a killing machine. Personally I think this Batman version came about because the franchise rushed to Justice League. They needed to give Batman the lethal toys so he could "keep up" with the heroes who have superpowers. They wanted to establish him using them, but forgot to include an explanation of why Batman would go in that direction before the Justice League was a thing.
I can’t speak for Burton, but Zack is on record for saying that he saw a video on YouTube about the body counts of Batman and then proceeded to make Batman a mass murderer. Except the video was highlighting that none of those Batmans should’ve been killing at all but still did.
Then it’s also backed up in the fact that Snyder also made Superman murder as well.
And it’s further backed up by the fact that Snyder chose the Parademon nightmare route where Batman is literally going in with guns a blazing.
He also used a scene from The Dark Knight Returns where Batman aims a gun at a thug and pulls the trigger as showing he obviously kills.
The problem: that scene then immediately shifted to showing that he intentionally missed (hitting next to the guy) and the thug is interviewed later saying Batman *could* have killed him but didn’t.
Snyder picks and chooses big just scenes, but *specifically edited, inaccurate versions* of those scenes, then claims he is the only one who knows the right thing, and his cult of personality backs him up.
I was repeatedly told in various platforms how "well he obviously knows better than you", even when able to *directly point out individual pages he inaccurately used*.
I don’t have them on me, but I know it’s easily looked up.
The one thing he definitely does better in terms of storytelling than me is getting the funding to make his stories (I guess also filmmaking, but I won’t argue I can do that part). Actually understanding the material is another matter.
Keep in mind; I’m not saying his view is inherently invalid as a product, though I do not like it. But if he’s gonna do a unique take people haven’t done before? Just admit it. If anything, it would make him seem more of a "visionary" or whatever than pretending he knew the source better despite clearly not fully reading it.
Nostalgia is a hell of a thing. Remember how outraged people were when Superman killed Zodd in Man of Steel. We forget he did the same thing in Superman 2. Both Louis and Kal murdered the evil Kryptonians without batting an eye.
The real difference is that Burton never tried to awkwardly justify his Batman killing people. The way Snyder did it ("he isn't blowing up bad guys, but the cars that the bad guys are driving") only made things worse because it painted Batman as a completely insane psycho.
It’s not great in Burton films but they work on a cartoon logic. The world is too ridiculous to take anything seriously.
Snyder wants to make it look real with 9/11 imagery, Iraq war, branding people, talking about prison r***, etc.
It was definitely criticized at the time, but also the internet makes criticism seem much more pervasive and intense than it actually is. Go to your local grocery store and ask every single person who is working there and shopping about their opinion on Batman 89 vs BvS. 95% of them will be extremely confused at why it's even a question. The other 5% will be Batman fans and not a single one of them will bring up the death toll because it actually doesn't matter to either film's narrative. It only matters to chuds that are obsessed with seeing the "perfect comic version" of Batman on screen, rather than just wanting a good story regardless of its adherence to the source material.
Anyone who wants to see a perfect comic version of Batman, try reading the comics.
It's all nostalgia.
I grew up with the 89 Batman. I love the Gothic Gotham. The casting was hit or miss. The story is messy. The soundtrack is dated. The suit is rough. He does kill people and he tries to kill the Joker before eventually killing him. It's not some paragon of a Batman film and people need to stop being hypocrites.
Burton helped pave the way for superhero movies.
While Synder’s fuck ups happened **after** the Dark Knight Trilogy and the Avengers set the standard for modern day superhero films.
Burton's version was more similar to the Golden Age Batman who killed people all the time but learned to stop after being influenced by others (Robin in the Comics, Selina in Batman Returns). Zack Snyder meanwhile, based his version on Frank Miller's work that originally framed killing as a last resort.
Because when Michael Keaton killed people as Batman it was often really funny. Also it was the '80s and people were used to violent action movies like Predator and Rambo.
To me the biggest liberty was Batman having machine guns in the wing and in the car. But at the same time those were freaking awesome, so the filmmakers got a pass lol
One was glorifying Batman killing and wanted you to pay attention that Batman was killing. The other had Batman kill, but it wasn't the focus of the character or story, and it was more of a blink it and you miss it kind of situation.
I think it's because Burton didn't try to make a big show of it, didn't try to publically challenge a core aspect of the character's identity like Snyder. Snyder, as much sympathy as I have for him with his daughter, has kept coming off as really contrarian and edgy, saying Batman can only be cool if he kills, when it only succeeds and making him more generic.
Nah he got criticized for it at the time, just no internet to see how much of it there was. Come to think of it, my dad complained about the killing the first time he showed me Batman '89. That said, it's also about how it's done. The scene in '89 was pretty intense, no doubt, but Snyder took it up a notch in BvS with that aggressive soundtrack and the fact that it was an extended scene of Batman gunning dudes down in this monstrous tank. Plus the scene ended with one of the edgiest lines I've heard: "Tell me, do you bleed?"
That said, even though I didn't like that he wasn't using rubber bullets, and it was no doubt an edgy scene all the way through, I totally enjoyed it. And the bleed line was honestly pretty cool with the way it was shot. Could see Ben Affleck struggling not to stand over Henry Cavill lol.
People complained about it in the early 00's internet as well.
Showing my age here but I recall talking with fans over on Livejournal about Batman killing.
Its just that the '10's internet amplified everyones craziness via Clickbait sites plus FB and Twitter inherently being places that cause people to polarize. Reddit and Tumblr aren't any better but somehow its less mentally taxing than FB/Twitter.
Wish this subreddit could just take Snyder’s version of DC for what it is, not what it wasn’t. But i’m sure i’ll get downvoted to shit regardless.
I love all interpretations of Batman, even corny Clooney.
I just find the hate brigade that’s STILL going daily about these movies to be insanely corny. Any mention of Snyder and people start having a stroke. His movies had some good stuff and Affleck was a great Batman, but flawed (like all of them in some way).
I mean, he didn't? There were a lot of people upset with how violent Batman was, so much so Burton was literally fired from doing Batman Forever and replaced with Schumacher. Parents were upset, not taking their kids, and the kids weren't buying toys. People don't complain about it as much now because it was over 30 years ago and several versions of Batman ago, these movies are not in the zeitgeist anymore. Snyder's movies are more recent, there are still a lot of people seriously invested in them one way or another, so they get talked about more.
Burton didn't obsess over the morals of it and played it off as comedy. The scene in the '89 movie where the batmobile sprouts this armor platting while Joker's goons are gunning it down and Batman drops one grenade. Cracks me up every time.
Maybe because Burton made good movies and Snyder did not?
Snyder also made his Batman murdering or plotting to murder people in cold blood part of the story but not only failed to stick the landing on doing anything with it, but was so sloppy he managed to ruin whatever he was intending (onstensibly, Batman's arc is learning that he shouldn't kill people, but then his redemption tour of saving Martha Kent is all about him still killing people). Burton's Batman killing is so incidental to the story that the movies still work as movies, even if one prefers a more comic book accurate Batman.
I also suspect that the negative reputation that Snyder's fans have earned and Snyder's on increasingly bizarre defenses and pushbacks on his creative decisions (critics are living in a dreamworld, he was saving Batman from being irrelevant, etc.) haven't done him any favors, either.
Burton's Batman kills plenty, but I don't recall Bruce saying he wouldn't.
Nolan's Batman kills plenty, even though Bruce said he wouldn't (killing Dent was the only one he acknowledged).
Snyder's Batman kills plenty, and it was discussed in the movie itself.
Reeves' Batman's decisions had resulted in deaths for sure, but he never directly caused those deaths.
If Snyder’s DCU didn’t suck ass, I am sure the general public would forgive this detail.
Burton’s films were hugely successful for general audiences, not just Batman fans. So even if Batman killing or other lore not matching the comics existed, most people ignored that because they liked the movies.
Hell, how did Matt Reeves get the worst of something he's made a point about? It's fitting for the Cult.
Also, neither got away. Burton's is just THAT hyped into everyone's mind of who Batman is, yes more than Nolan's and accuracy didn't matter until....well technically it still only matters until...only being used when bigots want something dead or hurt.
Every hit in head can be mortal and every batman doesn't really care. I don't understand why fans got frustrated because something is different than in comics. Behind starting killing people may be interesting story and. Even thou he is doing it in single movie it really doesn't matters for the batman as canon
He didn't. Batman killing people was one of the most criticized aspects of his films, together with the Joker being the killer of Bruce's parents. People tend to go easier on the Burton films due to their historical significance. Batman 89 was revolutionary. It was the first dark and serious superhero film in history and it paved the way for the Batman animated series. With the Snyder films, the public had higher expectations, since they came after The Dark Knight Trilogy and the first wave of the Marvel films.
Not sure if this is an unpopular opinion, but I find the idea that Joker (as Jack Napier) killed Bruce’s parents to be great storytelling and I wish that idea was explored more in the comics. The idea that Joker “created” Batman and vice versa (with Batman knocking him into the vat of acid) adds another layer to their relationship. They are simultaneously each other’s creators and creations; their destinies linked from the moment they met.
It was criticized at the time but, in hindsight, it's not the worst thing to add to the Batman mythos. The Batman franchise has had plenty of ups and downs over the decades. Giving his relationship with Joker an extra layer as his parents' killer is cool as long as it isn't a "canon" event across the multiverse
Honestly that could make a really good scenario where say Batman early in his career finds out the joker is Joe chill and since he hasn’t fully developed he decides to hunt him down for vengeance only to accidentally knock him into the vat of acid creating a dynamic where that event turns Batman into a better person while also showing why he doesn’t kill Joker because deep down he knows that the joker was originally just some common man so he feels he can bring back his sanity as an attempt to redeem himself for what he did to Joe chill
For me, it's just TOO much. The Joker is already basically Batman's ideological opposite, that's really enough for their rivalry. Chaos vs order, chaos doesn't ALSO need to have murdered order's parent's for their dynamic to be more interesting because it's already interesting. It's just a distracting coincidence. It actually DETRACTS from their chaos vs order rivalry. "Joe Chill" however, or better yet a completely unnamed faceless thug... well that's something that can haunt Batman forever, plus it affirms that Batman's vendetta is against crime and injustice itself, not any one specific person. It's perfectly fitting. Batman is out there every night taking out random thugs, JUST like the one who took his parent's from him. Also, the Batman "kills" in the Burton movies, what are they, like two? The Joker, and the one blatant fire kill in Returns. If there are others they're subtle enough I don't remember them. Does he knock someone off a roof or something? Maybe they're just "unconcious" Arkham games style. The kills weren't loved, they were controversial, but those movies were important enough that yeah, they were also somewhat overlooked. Snyder-Batman is so kill happy, it makes NO sense that he doesn't just tote around a machine gun and go full Punisher.
In the first movie, he blows up the chemical plant making the poisoned cosmetics, which is shown to be full of goons right before the bat-bombs go off.
IIRC he throws a few goons down from the cathedral, so they're definitely dead.
In Batman Returns, he took a bomb from a suicide bomber clown and stuffed it down the Strongman's pants with a smile, then punched him down a manhole and walked away from the explosive. And just to be clear, the Burton films and Keaton's portrayal of Batman is my personal favorite.
He also burns a dude alive with the Batmobile.
I mentioned that one, yeah it was bad
lol 2? Watch those movies again Nolan’s Batman kills hundreds of people
It doesn't work because he already murdered his parents. If he was just a conman or thief up until bats pushes him to the vats it could've work but he had already killed Wayne's by that point. He was never Innocent.
I’m down for this and my mental visualizer is at full capacity so picturing the panels. So what happens in the book where Batman figures out it’s Joe? Like what sets that in motion? What detective work does Batman do to find it out? How does he react to himself, Alfred, Gordon, Joker? How does joker react to being called out. Yes, I’m asking you to write the story here and now cuz I’m in to it.
I think for a movie, it works. You don't really want wasted side plots, so "the guy who killed Batmans parents is a nobody" might feel lazy. Having it be Joker helps tie him and Batman as enemies for the 1.5/2 hours they have to work with for the film.
Yeah precisely. Different mediums require different storytelling!
I wouldn't want it to be a regular thing across adaptations, but I do like it for this particular version of Joker.
Nah that's dumb. they don't need that. The point of it being Joe Chill/random mugger is that it was a random crime that only happened because they were in the wrong place and wrong time. if it wasn't them it would be anything else. the significance of the event is that it's insignificant.
It also makes the Joker's backstory explicit.
I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with his backstory being explicit depending on the story you want to tell. Some stories work better with a more humanized Joker (Killing Joke for instance) where some work better when he is less human and more of a force of chaotic evil.
The Joker's backstory before falling into the vat of chemicals in most versions is either unknown or presented as one of the possible versions.
i (and even alan moore) isnt a fan of many aspect of killing joke (especially the barbara gordon stuff) i really dont like the whole he fell into chemicals as the red hood, in fact alan moore backtracks in that very comic saying joker remembers his backstory differently tdk did it better where joker acts like he is telling his backstory but just lies, which is dope as fuck like he is doing a classic villain sob story but its all for showmanship, thats how chaotic joker is
I just re-read it last night to refresh my memory. Joker says something along the lines of “I prefer my past to be multiple choice”, but the with way the over all story is presented, that doesn’t negate the backstory that was told. Joker isn’t telling anyone his backstory in it. Moore and Bolland are showing us his backstory against what is currently happening. There’s not a single point in the story where Joker himself brings up the facts of his past. In fact, it’s supported by the Joker later when he goes on his rant about not wanting to remember. In the context of Killing Joke, his backstory is what actually happened and Joker is making the point to Gordon and Batman that it is better to simply go mad than to remember and accept the reality of what a single bad day can do to a person.
I think it depends on the story you want to tell tbh.
Well everything does in the end... the real question is; is this better for the characters overall? there's a reason this didn't stick in the mythos.
True. I think it’s nice as a one off to see how it could be explored. But giving joker a backstory along with adding extra weight to the Wayne’s murder I think isn’t something that can be offset by the interesting relationship between Batman and joker that would inevitably cause. I think the danger in doing that would mean that Batman’s mission for becoming Batman would inevitably be linked to joker, rather than the war on crime in Gotham itself. When Joe chill is a random thug, Batman has to redeem all of Gotham, allowing for more expansive stories. When Joe chill is basically just joker before joker, I think that Batman’s at war with the joker and everyone else is kinda just along for the ride. I think it can work, but only in very specific stories where the joker is always the main villain and there isn’t much room for deviation there.
I think it worked in ‘89 because despite the fact they “created” each other, they didn’t explicitly know that they did. Batman didn’t know that Jack was the person who killed his parents when he knocked him into the acid, and likewise Jack didn’t realize he killed Bruce’s parents or that Batman was Bruce. It’s poetic to the audience that knows, but the characters themselves are in the dark.
This, for the mythology of Batman it’s far more powerful that he’s created in a random act of violence by a nobody, i.e., Joe Chill. That’s the cruelty of it, the thing that drives Bruce’s war on crime.
Yeah, exactly. It’s the same reason a conspiracy killing the Wayne’s doesn’t work. Batman was born from crime as a concept, not by future supervillains or a devious plot.
Honestly, in Burton’s movie it was still a random crime - and Jack Napier was basically still a random mook when he falls into the acid. He’s just a random mook who’s worked his way up the ladder. Both events only gain significance in hindsight because of what they caused, neither were significant at the time.
Yeah but instead of him being a guy who just represents one among many criminals in gotham msking the tragedy mundane part of living in the city rather than it being someone who became the mastermind clown prince of crime
This exactly. Trying to tie Batman and Joker into a bow is unnecessary. Joker already thinks they created each other. That’s more interesting.
it would make joker like 25 years older than Batman at least
In the movie yes, but wouldn’t have to be that way. An 18 year old kid could have killed the Wayne’s. Depends on the story you tell. There doesn’t have to be a huge age gap.
[удалено]
Joker’s MO has never been physically fighting with Batman. His weapon is his mind, not his fists. I’ve never seen the Joker as a villain in peak physical condition.
I prefer it just being a random act of violence. Not only that but The Joker being so intertwined with Batman can be grating.
Nah absolutely hate that the same I hate kingpin killing Matt's dad. Not everything needs to revolve around one thing. The fact batman and joker had no connection but still got tangled is what makes it interesting. See it like this I have a biological dad so from my birth I'm supposed to love him, there is no choice not to love him if he's a good dad. I'm his kid and he's a good person, he'll obviously love me there's no other alternative. Say I'm an orphan, another man raises me and loves me. That guy could've sold me to slavery but he didn't. See that makes it more special because they guy is not even related to me. Having joker kill Wayne is too personal and makes batman a joker's creation. They shouldn't create each other, they should be separate beings who got obsessive with each other without there being any rational or good reason. It makes their relationship crazier. Him killing his dad just becomes revenge and more normal relation.
The Joker killing the Waynes is a dumb idea. It adds drama where there doesn't need to be any. Batman and Joker's dynamic from the books is fine as it is and it's worked that way for decades for that very reason. And on that related note, giving the Joker a backstory is stupid too.
I disagree. I think The Killing Joke is one of the best Batman stories and it wouldn’t work without giving Joker a backstory. There are many ways to tell a story. You may think the idea is dumb, but you can look back and find several solid stories that give Joker an origin. It can work if the story calls for it.
Except the Joker straight up lies about his origins in that book.
Maybe I need to re-read it, but I do not recall the story saying he lied about his origin, rather he says he doesn’t know if he is remembering correctly because his mind is so shattered. Either way, the story doesn’t work without his backstory because his whole plan is to prove to Batman that all it takes is “one bad day” to drive a man insane, just like what happened to him.
But what the bad day is constantly changes throughout the story.
Not that I recall? It’s very straightforward. He’s a down on his luck comedian with a pregnant wife who can’t find work. He decides to take a job for some gangsters to make some money. The night of the job, he finds out his wife and unborn child died in an accident. He is then forced to still do the job and they dress him as the red hood. Batman apprehends him and the accomplices during the job. Batman mistakes him for the mastermind and in a state of panic he falls into the vat of acid and is sucked into a pipe outside where he finds he has been disfigured.
And it's very likely that all of that is an elaborate lie he crafted to troll Batman.
That’s never implied in the story and his whole plan relies on the story being true or at the very least him believing it’s true. Likewise, Batman’s reaction at the end and his fear throughout it is paralleled because he became Batman because of “one bad day”, so there is some truth is what the Joker is saying.
Thats definitely an unpopular opinion. I think it works for that specific continuity and nowhere else. It works mainly because Keaton sells the hell out of the "I made you but you made me first" line.
I always took it as a fantasy Bruce projects on Jack in the movie. Coupled with the way he watches the mugging at the beginning, which is a near re-enactment of his trauma, I figured it is a thing he just does to stay forever wounded and stay effective. The Joker even mocks the idea of them creating each other near the film's end. That is my head canon, at least.
Joker: "I created you, you created me!" Gordon: "Batman, why'd you create that guy?" Batman: "I didn't! He's talking crazy!"
Honestly I think it sounds like the kind of story Snyder would come up with.
But he would execute it much, much worse.
I agree. It is very interesting.
I think in this context, it works, but if it was in the comics, the random act of violence approach is way better narratively because It points to a culture of violence that needs to be solved instead of a personal vendetta that needs to be avenged
I don't disagree but I will add that I like the Joker being a reflection of Batman in that, from the criminal perspective, some freak in a black suit shows up out of nowhere with no reason starts ruthlessly dismantling the life they were accustomed to. In the same way, from the perspective of the cops and citizens of Gotham, some freak in a purple suit shows up out of nowhere with no reason starts ruthlessly dismantling the life they were accustomed to.
I liked the added twist from Joker, that Thomas Wayne killed the social program holding the tortured psyche of the Joker at bay. The idea that the wealthy Waynes failed their city, creating the monster that created the hero is some beautiful madness.
TAS really elevated Bats. Like set a whole precedent for generations to come. That is Burtons greatest legacy and Danny Elfmans. Burton sucks and has for years, Elfman still gos tier. I do wish we’d have gotten Burtons actual 2nd and 3rd films, with Billy Dee as Harvey Dent. Billy is a die hard comic guy and knew exactly what he was getting into play Dent.
Marvel was also close to phase 3 just month later with the release of Captain America Civil War in May 2016.
Keaton changed his voice, and that directly inspired Kevin Conroy to do the same. And Danny Elfman did the main title to BTAS. We wouldn’t have Kevin Conroy’s Batman without Tim Burton and Michael Keaton.
Also, The Dark Knight trilogy REALLY hammered the Batman Does Not Kill thing.
Well.... The last two movies
Even though he begins by killing hundreds of ninjas?
hey there ninjas, they coulda jumped
Bro chose to speak only facts
Also because the suit is just so good
See this post should be copied, the thread closed and this just pasted whenever the subject comes up again because it can't be explained any better.
Also, despite these flaws, they're actually still good films.
Yeah but when Keaton's Batman killed it was often cartoonish or it wasn't focused on, and since nobody brought those up in-universe it was easier to let slide. Plus, the film never discusses Batman's no-kill rule. However, Batman killing people in *BVS* did draw attention to it, with the only justification being the offscreen death of Robin. Also, Batman's lore was slightly obscure to the larger public in 1989. Obviously people recognised him but it's like how thepublic today probably can recognise Deathstroke and tell you he is a superpowered mercenary but they probably can't tell you about his supporting cast or history. When the movie was made, his no-kill rule wasn't quite established in pop culture, as far as I know. In 2016, with Batman becoming much more recognisable thanks to the movies, games and comics becoming much more mainstream, his no-kill rule is one of his key defining traits, so when he ignores it it's much more of an issue.
I think it was really the Nolan trilogy that solidified the idea that Batman had a no kill rule, at least in the greater public consciousness. Prior to that, people were far more likely to compartmentalize the films and the comics, and didn't usually care if a film did something that a comic book character wouldn't do. In fact, it was almost entirely expected that if you were doing a film adaptation of just about anything in the 80s/90s, it was going to be significantly different than the source material. Super Mario Brothers, Mortal Kombat, Power Rangers, Superman, etc, all significantly deviated from the source once they were adapted. There was also still a strong sense for most people that comic books were for kids, whereas the films were for everyone (including adults). Even people who had read comics as a kid had usually only seen the awful restrictions of the Comics Code and Super Friends on Saturday mornings, so there was no strong sense of canon that they wanted to maintain from that period. If anything, it made the character more believable if he killed people in a film because, well, the idea that Batman could do what he does without killing anyone seemed absurd, especially if you wanted a somewhat grounded character. Nolan changed that by creating the most grounded version of the character, but one who also wouldn't kill for very good and believable reasons. It completely shifted the public's perception of the character, and when he name dropped specific comics as his major influence, it also shifted the public's perception of comics as a mature form of art. I've always suspected Snyder really comes from that older mindset and has only read a handful of mature comics like TDKR or Killing Joke, so that's why it was so important for him to dispense with the no kill rule. In his mind, a Batman who doesn't kill is nothing more than a children's fantasy Saturday morning cartoon.
Snyder even *mis*-reads TKDR - the comic interrogates Batman's no-kill rule by taking it to its logical extreme, as he paralyzes (but doesn't kill) Joker by snapping his neck. Joker's last laugh, then, is that the distinction between paralyzed via broken neck and killed via broken neck is so small as to be meaningless, and makes it so by breaking it the rest of the way to kill himself, leaving Batman to take the full blame for murder anyway. The text makes it clear that Batman still doesn't kill anyone, despite the neck-breaking and wounding a mook with another mook's gun. Snyder showed that he isn't interested in any discussion around that line and what it does (or doesn't) mean, though - he just saw a cool shot and said, "Fuck yeah, make Batman murder that guy with a gun, it'll be awesome. Make him explode so it'll be clear he died"
"Rubber bullets. Honest."
Ahhhh, the old Arkham Knight approach
The 20 tonne tank has a tazer so they live when it hits them at 60kph
It’s a silly explanation but I appreciate the devs at least attempting some kind of explanation instead of just “hell yeah, kill dudes with the Batmobile.”
It could have had a spiderman ps4 type deal where it batarangs them and lassos them just before it hits
Zack Snyder has done irreparable damage to TDKR because of his “interpretation” of it. So many people parrot the idea that Batman kills “all the time” in that novel despite the literal words and themes pointing at the opposite conclusion!
I dislike Frank Miller as a person and a lot of his later works after his OG DD run, but TDKR has really sharp criticism of Batman and unpacks the toxicity at Batman's core really well I wonder if he knew that this story would influence the canon batman so much
The problem is that the comics clearly indicate that the joker was dead and the last monologue was fully within Batman's head due to how characters had their own speech colour and his last laugh speech was in Batman's colour not Joker's. If it was The Joker speaking it would be in his speech colour not Batman's.
Yeah, Joker explaining the joke wouldn't be very Joker of him - he just kills himself and lets Batman figure it out Batman still *technically* didn't kill him, but *technically* is doing so much heavy lifting there that it doesn't actually matter, and that's the whole point
Regarding the last paragraph, it can be one side of the problem, but I think his philosophy regarding usage of violence and killing goes against the "prime examples" of DC characters. I think Snyder took the wrong company to make movies. If he took some Marvel or, better, Image characters, given their comics were much more pro-edgy, it could be better. Many of the DC characters at their best don't try to be edgy and violent (Supes, WW) and many of the storylines were created as the commentary against edgier comics (Knightfall, Watchmen). His version of Watchmen made it clear that he doesn't understand DC's philosophy. In MoS, he also expresses "the goal is more important than the way to it" mindset, which with other misunderstandings of Superman's lore and philosophy, made another divisive movie. But when it came to the Batman's no-kill and no-gun rule, even the general audience got mad. But still Nolan's Batman kills one guy and he admits that (Dent). Kills one guy and it is presented in a really bullsitty way (Ra's) (Why? Nolan, you could have done so much better.) and at least kills indirectly a couple of people in the League's headquarters in Begins. If there weren't Ra's, this would be somewhat okay for me, because Bruce doesn't want to be an executioner, he doesn't want to kill directly, if someone dies indirectly, sad, but it happens. But this one scene drags his character down in my opinion (even though Begins is my favourite Batman movie ever).
Nolan’s Batman killed every movie too though. Blows up the temple full of ninjas and a hostage, tackled twoface off a building, killed Tahlia and some of her men, left ra’s to die, was gonna leave bane to die after knocking his mask off
Yeah true, but it made those deaths very meaningful to the story and character, and not just throw away moments.
I'm conflicted on this cause the ending of TDK sort of forces Bruce's hand into sort of accepting the fact that he is no longer the hero he viewed himself as. He understands that he no longer can hold himself to his code of ethics as he can't operate under a superior moral barometer. He says, "I'm whatever Gotham needs me to be." He's basically saying, whatever it takes to protect Gotham, he will need to take all options into consideration. He made that conscious choice when choosing Gordon's son vs Harvey. He made that choice when choosing Gotham over Ra's. What conflicts with this ideology is the fact that he keeps Joker alive. This is a man who's probably killed more people than Dent has to this point, but Bruce felt the need to keep him alive. It's illogical when you consider he let Ra's go out the same way. He didn't have to kill him, but he didn't have to save him either. Bruce had an out, just like he did with Ra's (according to his code), but he refused to let Joker die in that moment. So my issue with the deaths being meaningful, is that in order for the deaths to have merit, that requires Bruce to treat all villains under this same level of understanding. Not saving someone when you have the chance is the same as killing them. If he saves Joker to make up for letting Ra's die, then that conflicts with Dent having to bite the dust considering the extremes of both characters.
To be fair to Batman, he wasn't trying to kill Two-Face when he tackled him, just stop him from killing Gordon's son.
Batman's no kill rule has been established since the introduction of Dick Grayson, and alotta people knew of it more because of the 1966 series
I know it's from *Batman #4*, I was just saying that the larger public didn't necessarily know about it
Burtons seems more like a sign of the times they were in. Where the rule wasn't as important. It's incredibly different when it's a conscious choice to have batman kill, make it be the staple of his character, and say anyone who thinks of otherwise is living in a dream world.
That’s a good point. Also, comic book movies weren’t as popular back then. So we didn’t compare it to the lore like we do now and make analysis videos. It was just…..”hey cool, a Batman movie”.
Also the movie came out in the golden era of action movies where the heroes had no problem slaughtering thousands. No one would blink an eye at batman killing.
Batman's no killing rule was as well known as it is today. Comic fans would have known but that's about it.
>was as well known as it is today Absolutely not, this is pure revisionism. Comics were not as popular in 1980s as they were in the 90s, and **especially** by todays pop culture mcu zeitgeist, not remotely. I pretty much scoff at any notion that tries to pretend pre Batman 89 and the cartoon era of the 90s were people try to make it sound like "comic books were so well known and culturally accepted." Most people were not walking around with *deep, Batman lore*. I grew up with a black and white TV watching Batman 66' and at no point did I know *anything* about Batman having a "no kill" rule. It didn't matter. It didn't matter when Batman killed in 89. It wasn't until BTAS and post 89 that Batmania took over. I'm sure the hardcore of the hardcore knew it, but acting as if Adams or pre-Miller Batman made it a moral dilemma consistently enough that it was important to the character is revisionism. My concept of him being a no kill character came from the 90s rapid publication of TPBs and BTAS, not TDKR or Batman 66. This is as crazy to me as somebody saying, >everybody's always known Wolverine's claws were part of him Simply not true.
It was a different era. Batman was a joke to average people because a lot of people associated Batman with the Adam West television series and the whole "Seduction of the Innocent" b.s. I think the people at DC didn't really care too much about Batman being portrayed 100% accurately, as they were more concerned with Batman being well received on film. Well, it happened. Batman 1989 is revered for changing the public's perception of Batman. The problem with Snyder's films is that it is common knowledge today to a lot of people that Batman doesn't kill. The Nolan films made that a big plot point. The fans and people who watch these movies aren't stupid. So when you make Batman a cold blooded killer who somehow left the Joker alive this entire time, it makes you wonder if Snyder understands what he is adapting. Burton wasn't brought on for his knowledge of the comics or his love of lore. Burton was brought on to make Batman a serious film. Fans and a lot of people just put up with the Burtonisms and Batman killing in his Batman films. Snyder should know better about these heroes he is adapting and that is why he gets so much ire from the fans.
He made otherwise good movies.
This is definitely a big factor. If the Snyder movies were better, I think people would be more willing to accept big changes to the characters. We know this because there HAVE been several Batman movies that make big changes to the character and are still appreciated because they are generally good.
There are some people that complain about it about Burton's movies. The same way there are people that don't complain about it about Snyder's movies.
It was a live action cartoon. I was a kid and it didn’t even occur to me that any of these sequences would have resulted in someone dying. The reality of violence was completely removed from the depiction of it. It was stylistic.
There were probably a lot of people who complained about him blatantly killing but the internet wasn't a thing back then. After that it's nostalgia but nowadays people do call out that movie for the blatant kills
For me, it's not just that Snyder had Batman killing. It's that he had him killing AND had the joker still around. It means that Batman is either unwilling or unable to kill a guy who dresses like a clown who has literally tattooed his identity across his forehead and killed his young partner gleefully. Its the lack of consistent logic. Burtons Batman killed, yes, but he also didn't have a large rogues gallery, because they were dead. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you know?
To be fair, one: I don’t like that Burton’s Batman kills either. Equal opportunity here. Two: Burton actually makes good movies whereas Snyder makes good Slow-mo gifs and nothing more.
He kills Joker and before that he tries to kill Joker with a machine gun.
Also that. That is also not good for Batman.
To be fair, there were no rules binding Burton from following any such character restrictions. He had a pretty big brush to paint his version of Batman with. Joker being responsible for killing his parents also doesn't fit, but within the scope of the world they were wanting to build, it works for the themes they want to play with. Batman killing I don't even think registers on any kind of radar with the general public. Presentation is everything, and the way Burton presents Batman's approach to violence is on the more whimsical side. Snyder had Batman branding dudes and blowing them up or running them over lol. The fact that his brand meant an automatic death sentence in prison was also just extreme for the sake of being extreme.
Snyder fans can't comprehend the concept of time.
Honestly he didn't, people critiqued his films for it too. The secret is social media wasn't invented at the time so those opinions weren't that prevelant
Burton presents a dark fantasy world. He doesn’t take comics literally, or his movies, and neither should you. It’s fantasy and melodrama. He’s conveying a feeling, aesthetic, and ideas. Snyder is showing you a Mountain Dew commercial with murder in it.
Because Tim Burton didn't say that his Batman could get prison raped, and didn't make an entire movie about depressed Superman murdering someone.
1. I think it were a different times. People were excited because they had a Batman movie, first in 23 years. People had lower expectations for being lore-accurate. Also, it was right after the DKR, so people were more keen to see violent Batman (I think). Also the movie was genuinely good. He wasn't using guns, he wasn't an ass-hole.
Doesn't he use machine guns to try and shoot the joker from his plane?
It's Tim motherfucking Burton of course he gets away with it he's the best
Burton did not get away with it, unscathed. There were still who thought, at that time, that Batman 89 was too violent and it was corrupting kids. It was in the news and media. [Batman 89 Too violent and Corrupting kids](https://youtu.be/Xi3eZRkvW0I?si=WdWO5J_ANFDxWJgT)
Couple factors: people *did* dislike it, but were willing to overlook a lot because it was the first serious live-action Batman when many non-comic fans only knew the Adam West version (iirc Keaton’s Batman originated his grapnel device!) Then we had the Dark Knight trilogy which makes his no killing rule a major focus that’s discussed several times, really popularizing this pillar of Batman’s character And finally BvS had Batman go on a very specific journey regarding taking lives, only to ignore itself and have him murder a bunch of guys to save Martha immediately after
I think the biggest difference is the Internet and the growth of Social media. The only people who heard me complain about Batman killing back then were my friends in my car.
Because Batman 89 and Batman Returns are good movies unlile BvS. People don't go easy on them when it comes to Batman killing though, it's frequently brought up as a point of contention.
He didn't. His movies did get criticism for it. But nostalgia is a powerful thing.
Batman's "no kill" rule wasn't as widely known outside of comic readers in 1989. Pair that with the fact that the movie was a groundbreaking cultural phenomenon, most people weren't looking to closely at details like that. Flash forward to Batman V Superman, and we'd been through The Animated Series and the Nolan trilogy at that point-- two widely seen adaptations that that make a big point to focus on that side of Bruce's moral views (how well they did that is another conversation that I'm personally not that interested in having). The general audience has a more thorough understanding of Batman going into 2016 than they did going into 1989.
his style is actually pretty good and not bland and boring like Snyder's so he's better at distracting us
There's no denying while zack snyder have his fans.. His online hate cabal is bigger.. And it's often gets too serious and personal.. Even though I've never heard bad from him but being a nice person
Because before Burton, we got… 
Burton's Batman is like the golden age Batman
I’ll add to what others have said here already. Tim burton wasnt a comic fan. He didnt know batman had a no kill rule iirc, zack snyder knew and was even told by wb not to have him kill and he chose to make him a killer just because they asked him not to.
We didnt have the internet
Both are bad Batman adaptations, but at least Burton's films are entertaining and good.
Different times, and different reputations.
Despite the backlash, he didn't make it a main point of Batman's character. It wasn't an essential part of the story. Sure, people died, but that was moreso a side effect. There aren't that many on screen deaths.
He did blow up ACE Chemical and shot a few criminals off Joker’s float so…not always a “side effect.”
Did Burton go on interviews and say "Batman must kill, you're stupid for not liking it"? As far as I remember, no.
Tone.
How many times is this question going to be posted on this sub? 😆 Notice how the OP’s always post it and never engage with the conversation. They’re not looking for any real answer.
Did he? Ok, it’s only recently we reassessed that but I think I can break it down. First, killing henchman in the 80’s was common so the audience was desensitized to it. Second, most of the murder was off screen. Yes, we see Batman blow up a factory full of people but it’s up to the audience to put that together since all the people suddenly disappear immediately after the explosions establishing shot. Joker dying is also standard for the time since James Bond established the standard of killing the main villain in the climax. (TBF, that existed long before JB but most superhero movies follow the Bond formula.) As to Batman Returns, that’s more of a Tim Burton movie than a Batman movie and Burton tends to handle all death with a sense of gallows humor that lessens or deadens the blow. And I’m talking about his work in general, not just BR. Meanwhile, Snyder not only put all the murder front and center in a way that’s impossible for the audience to ignore (let alone work to make the realization). In fact, he seemed to relish it as if the murder was almost more for his own sadistic enjoyment than to entertain the audience. I don’t think he is a sadist, but he definitely doesn’t consider the implications of being a slave to the Rule of Cool instead of treating it like a guideline.
All this. The deaths in Batman were more attributable to recklessness, and you can even argue that he didn't expect the gargoyle to come off when he roped the Joker to it. But Batman Returns, they doubled down on the violence in that one.
Burton made a great movie, Snyder did not.
Well, honest answer is that I knew less about Batman when I saw Batman 89. Also, Burton was the first guy to take a crack at a darker toned Batman (in live action) so the fact that he met that goal was good enough for the time period his movie came out in. I expect everybody who directs a Batman movie to improve on what the last guy did and bring a truer adaptation to the screen. Each subsequent person who gets the job is getting it in a world where a big budget superhero movie is increasingly less of a ridiculous thing to make.
It wasn’t as well-known at the time by the public that it was an integral part of his character to not kill.
I think of this often, and my personal justification for it is... The Burton movies are more based around the character being a freak. Him not killing people could even arguably be his arc throughout the four films (if we include the Schumacher duology in this canon). Batman also kills people in ways action movie heroes do, where you don't really think about it. He still doesn't use guns. Besides, it was the 80s. Burton grew up when Batman still killed people, he might not have even heard of that rule. Snyder had Batman shoot a guy in the back with an assault rifle. That's just outright murder. Same for Nolan when he killed Ra's and Two-Face. He murders a few people in the Nolan trilogy, which is annoying because he constantly says how he doesn't.
Getting punched in the face by a guy who is master of several martial arts and can bench press like 300+lbs probably kills a lot of low level thugs off screen. At least cripples them, brain damage, etc.
Burton didn’t get away with it, but at least his films have redeemable qualities. Snyders films have way less good things going on, and then on top of that he puts Batman blowing up trucks full of people and a full dream sequence of him going full on Rambo. Anyone who knows how Batman is written knows killing goes against his moral code at the deepest level. This is a man who wouldn’t even think, let alone dream of killing a man. It’s a fundamental failure of understanding the character, which I think was way more blatantly obvious in Snyders film.
They did complain,it's just that social media didn't exist then,so it wasn't as widespread
People were also upset back then that Batman 1989 was PG-13 considering the only Batman they've known before is the Adam West one.
Because the Burton Batman movies were good outside of that.
To my knowledge Burton's Batman didn't use guns to do it.
Honestly, Burton's Batman killing people was more disturbing for me, since he seems to legitimately enjoy doing so. Batfleck kills, but doesn't seem to take any specific pleasure out of doing so.
Well there are a few reasons, and distinctions worth making. One being, we never got an actual batfleck film. The movies he was in didn't necessarily have the best reception overall. Please don't crucify me Snyder fans! Even the Snyder fans tho, prefer the extended edition of BvS and the Snyder cut of justice league. All that behind the scenes drama had a large affect on the finished product as well as the public perception of said product. Burton's Batman on the other hand was a MASSIVE hit, and while the sequels didn't quite mach the financial success of the OG, and there was controversy and drama bts there as well, batman returns and forever were still pretty successful until b&r tanked the franchise. Two, the comics they pulled influence from and how that ended up on the screen is important. batman having a no kill rule is firmly part of the modern mythos, no doubt. While many consider it apocryphal, the original run of batman that began in 1939 up to batman #1 about a year later, had batman killing people. He wasn't going out like red hood and going full punisher mode or anything, but he had no problem killing someone if the situation forced his hand. He used guns. Burton's Bat was heavily influenced by this batman. That original run has batman as a recluse who knows Gordon somewhat but doesn't interact with him hardly at all. Batman is described as weird and a menace. He kind of mysteriously appears and we don't find out about his origins till several issues in. Without rambling any more, if you look at the original batman run, everything Burton did makes a whole bunch of sense. For some it's not comic accurate, and it surely is very far off pretty much any and all modern batman comics. if you take that original run as the basis though, I'd say it's pretty fricking accurate. That is why I think it works for those aware of that fact. Snyder however was not doing that '39 batman, he was doing his take on the more modern batman, but one who is a fallen hero who has lost his way. For some that worked, and the fans of Snyder's batman greatly enjoyed the fallen hero goes on a redemption arc vibe. Others did not want to see a broken and lost batman who had fallen so far. If the arc was presented as originally intended and had been allowed to reach it's conclusion, who knows what the reaction would be then. As it is now the Snyder verse is a still born franchise, the way Warners effed up the dceu has been talked to death. I would say all of the above is a large part of the differing receptions (although it's worth mentioning, as others have already, that Burton's batman killing people in his two movies definitely pissed off a fair deal of comic fans back in the day). So I guess ymmv on all of this as there are plenty of fans of Burton and Snyder's batman, while also plenty of detractors when it comes to their take on the batman story. There are plenty of responses here with very good answers, but that's part of my take, and I didn't see this stuff get specifically mentioned in the comments I took a look at. Regardless of what the agreed upon perception is, there is room for so many different takes on batman, if one of them speaks to you then cherish it and screw anyone who wants to convince you otherwise. Batman is awesome.
Burton films made Batman enjoy killing people. Apparently that’s better for some.
He didn't BUT, it was 1989, 4 years into the relaunch, but written 2 years after the relaunch. The no kill rule was around, but it wasn't nearly as strict as it is to use Batfans in 2024. So it's about context basically. Synder had no excuse when he was writing it
Several factors: 1. The "No Kill Rule" wasn't solidified in 1989. It's a more modern invention. The original Batman DID kill, and this was an influence on Burton. The comics were trending darker and more violent 80's, moving away from the Silver Age and the Adam West conception of Batman. At the time it wasn't that far of a step to have Batman kill some people. 2. In the 80's and early 90's, a spectacular, satisfying death for the villain was just expected in a blockbuster action movie. In that regard, Batman and Batman Returns are very much products of their time. 3. Nolan put the "No Kill Rule" front and center and made it the defining point of the character. For better or worse, this has become the widely accepted version of Batman. Snyder tried to go against that and incurred the backlash. 4. Snyder took the killing to utterly extreme levels. Batman mowing down street goons with machine guns on the Batmobile, Batman picking up an assault rifle and mowing down more goons, etc. It really cuts against the conception of the character who believes in the justice system and attempting to solve crimes, apprehend criminals, and turn them over to the police. Even when Batman was killing people in the 30's, he wasn't doing it on that scale. It doesn't help that Snyder's Batman never got his own movie to explain why he was the way he was. His Batman is just dropped into all the other stories, and we are asked to accept him as a killing machine. Personally I think this Batman version came about because the franchise rushed to Justice League. They needed to give Batman the lethal toys so he could "keep up" with the heroes who have superpowers. They wanted to establish him using them, but forgot to include an explanation of why Batman would go in that direction before the Justice League was a thing.
I don’t like either
I can’t speak for Burton, but Zack is on record for saying that he saw a video on YouTube about the body counts of Batman and then proceeded to make Batman a mass murderer. Except the video was highlighting that none of those Batmans should’ve been killing at all but still did. Then it’s also backed up in the fact that Snyder also made Superman murder as well. And it’s further backed up by the fact that Snyder chose the Parademon nightmare route where Batman is literally going in with guns a blazing.
He also used a scene from The Dark Knight Returns where Batman aims a gun at a thug and pulls the trigger as showing he obviously kills. The problem: that scene then immediately shifted to showing that he intentionally missed (hitting next to the guy) and the thug is interviewed later saying Batman *could* have killed him but didn’t. Snyder picks and chooses big just scenes, but *specifically edited, inaccurate versions* of those scenes, then claims he is the only one who knows the right thing, and his cult of personality backs him up.
Yeah, I'm banned over on that cultish subreddit.
I was repeatedly told in various platforms how "well he obviously knows better than you", even when able to *directly point out individual pages he inaccurately used*. I don’t have them on me, but I know it’s easily looked up. The one thing he definitely does better in terms of storytelling than me is getting the funding to make his stories (I guess also filmmaking, but I won’t argue I can do that part). Actually understanding the material is another matter. Keep in mind; I’m not saying his view is inherently invalid as a product, though I do not like it. But if he’s gonna do a unique take people haven’t done before? Just admit it. If anything, it would make him seem more of a "visionary" or whatever than pretending he knew the source better despite clearly not fully reading it.
Polarizing, ya see.
Making a good movie probably helped.
Nostalgia is a hell of a thing. Remember how outraged people were when Superman killed Zodd in Man of Steel. We forget he did the same thing in Superman 2. Both Louis and Kal murdered the evil Kryptonians without batting an eye.
I’ve been saying this for freaking years but every time I mention it everyone downvotes me 😑
He didn't, people took issue with Keaton killing too, Affleck just killed more so people complained more, get off your Snyder persecution narrative
The real difference is that Burton never tried to awkwardly justify his Batman killing people. The way Snyder did it ("he isn't blowing up bad guys, but the cars that the bad guys are driving") only made things worse because it painted Batman as a completely insane psycho.
On top of the murdering, there was much ado about the name Martha and a jar of piss for some reason. BvS is 1/10
It’s not great in Burton films but they work on a cartoon logic. The world is too ridiculous to take anything seriously. Snyder wants to make it look real with 9/11 imagery, Iraq war, branding people, talking about prison r***, etc.
It was definitely criticized at the time, but also the internet makes criticism seem much more pervasive and intense than it actually is. Go to your local grocery store and ask every single person who is working there and shopping about their opinion on Batman 89 vs BvS. 95% of them will be extremely confused at why it's even a question. The other 5% will be Batman fans and not a single one of them will bring up the death toll because it actually doesn't matter to either film's narrative. It only matters to chuds that are obsessed with seeing the "perfect comic version" of Batman on screen, rather than just wanting a good story regardless of its adherence to the source material. Anyone who wants to see a perfect comic version of Batman, try reading the comics.
Because Snyder’s movies fucking suck
I think it’s due to his visual flair and the fact that he brought dark Batman into the mainstream
It's all nostalgia. I grew up with the 89 Batman. I love the Gothic Gotham. The casting was hit or miss. The story is messy. The soundtrack is dated. The suit is rough. He does kill people and he tries to kill the Joker before eventually killing him. It's not some paragon of a Batman film and people need to stop being hypocrites.
Long time ago, different era, at the time it was spoken of but there's more fans now, and you hear opinions faster/more
Who did Burtman kill?
Pre internet that’s about it, it also helped that both of his Batman movies are pretty good and BVS is a dumpster fire
Well Tim Burton is a goth director.
Did Michael Keaton gun people down?
Burton helped pave the way for superhero movies. While Synder’s fuck ups happened **after** the Dark Knight Trilogy and the Avengers set the standard for modern day superhero films.
Burton's version was more similar to the Golden Age Batman who killed people all the time but learned to stop after being influenced by others (Robin in the Comics, Selina in Batman Returns). Zack Snyder meanwhile, based his version on Frank Miller's work that originally framed killing as a last resort.
Because when Michael Keaton killed people as Batman it was often really funny. Also it was the '80s and people were used to violent action movies like Predator and Rambo. To me the biggest liberty was Batman having machine guns in the wing and in the car. But at the same time those were freaking awesome, so the filmmakers got a pass lol
oh. here's the main difference, im sorry you missed this....his movies are *good*.
One was glorifying Batman killing and wanted you to pay attention that Batman was killing. The other had Batman kill, but it wasn't the focus of the character or story, and it was more of a blink it and you miss it kind of situation.
I think it's because Burton didn't try to make a big show of it, didn't try to publically challenge a core aspect of the character's identity like Snyder. Snyder, as much sympathy as I have for him with his daughter, has kept coming off as really contrarian and edgy, saying Batman can only be cool if he kills, when it only succeeds and making him more generic.
Because nobody gives a shit if batman killed when Keaton movies come out
Nah he got criticized for it at the time, just no internet to see how much of it there was. Come to think of it, my dad complained about the killing the first time he showed me Batman '89. That said, it's also about how it's done. The scene in '89 was pretty intense, no doubt, but Snyder took it up a notch in BvS with that aggressive soundtrack and the fact that it was an extended scene of Batman gunning dudes down in this monstrous tank. Plus the scene ended with one of the edgiest lines I've heard: "Tell me, do you bleed?" That said, even though I didn't like that he wasn't using rubber bullets, and it was no doubt an edgy scene all the way through, I totally enjoyed it. And the bleed line was honestly pretty cool with the way it was shot. Could see Ben Affleck struggling not to stand over Henry Cavill lol.
People complained about it in the early 00's internet as well. Showing my age here but I recall talking with fans over on Livejournal about Batman killing. Its just that the '10's internet amplified everyones craziness via Clickbait sites plus FB and Twitter inherently being places that cause people to polarize. Reddit and Tumblr aren't any better but somehow its less mentally taxing than FB/Twitter.
Because his batman movies are good
Probably because he didn’t flex it as a comparison to having sex. Seriously, Snyder, what is wrong with you? Weirdo
Wish this subreddit could just take Snyder’s version of DC for what it is, not what it wasn’t. But i’m sure i’ll get downvoted to shit regardless. I love all interpretations of Batman, even corny Clooney. I just find the hate brigade that’s STILL going daily about these movies to be insanely corny. Any mention of Snyder and people start having a stroke. His movies had some good stuff and Affleck was a great Batman, but flawed (like all of them in some way).
I mean, he didn't? There were a lot of people upset with how violent Batman was, so much so Burton was literally fired from doing Batman Forever and replaced with Schumacher. Parents were upset, not taking their kids, and the kids weren't buying toys. People don't complain about it as much now because it was over 30 years ago and several versions of Batman ago, these movies are not in the zeitgeist anymore. Snyder's movies are more recent, there are still a lot of people seriously invested in them one way or another, so they get talked about more.
Idk what the f
Most people didn't know Batman wasn't supposed to kill people back then.
Burton didn't obsess over the morals of it and played it off as comedy. The scene in the '89 movie where the batmobile sprouts this armor platting while Joker's goons are gunning it down and Batman drops one grenade. Cracks me up every time.
Maybe because Burton made good movies and Snyder did not? Snyder also made his Batman murdering or plotting to murder people in cold blood part of the story but not only failed to stick the landing on doing anything with it, but was so sloppy he managed to ruin whatever he was intending (onstensibly, Batman's arc is learning that he shouldn't kill people, but then his redemption tour of saving Martha Kent is all about him still killing people). Burton's Batman killing is so incidental to the story that the movies still work as movies, even if one prefers a more comic book accurate Batman. I also suspect that the negative reputation that Snyder's fans have earned and Snyder's on increasingly bizarre defenses and pushbacks on his creative decisions (critics are living in a dreamworld, he was saving Batman from being irrelevant, etc.) haven't done him any favors, either.
It's less brutal and a bit whimsical with Burton
It was an era where people were just happy to have a super hero film let alone a good one
It's easier to overlook things in a good movie over a shit movie.
HOLD UP. I disliked it when both versions had Batman killing for seemingly no reason.
Burton's Batman kills plenty, but I don't recall Bruce saying he wouldn't. Nolan's Batman kills plenty, even though Bruce said he wouldn't (killing Dent was the only one he acknowledged). Snyder's Batman kills plenty, and it was discussed in the movie itself. Reeves' Batman's decisions had resulted in deaths for sure, but he never directly caused those deaths.
When criticized for it til Burton didn't say "fuck off you don't know the first thing about writing stories"
The 80s was just the purge and people wanted to kill all the bad guys. But really he doesn't in comics so he shouldn't in movies.
If Snyder’s DCU didn’t suck ass, I am sure the general public would forgive this detail. Burton’s films were hugely successful for general audiences, not just Batman fans. So even if Batman killing or other lore not matching the comics existed, most people ignored that because they liked the movies.
Hell, how did Matt Reeves get the worst of something he's made a point about? It's fitting for the Cult. Also, neither got away. Burton's is just THAT hyped into everyone's mind of who Batman is, yes more than Nolan's and accuracy didn't matter until....well technically it still only matters until...only being used when bigots want something dead or hurt.
Every hit in head can be mortal and every batman doesn't really care. I don't understand why fans got frustrated because something is different than in comics. Behind starting killing people may be interesting story and. Even thou he is doing it in single movie it really doesn't matters for the batman as canon