He's speaking to his fans, though, I don't see the harm.
DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
You can support your fans without tearing down or insulting everyone else.
While he's putting it pretty crassly, I don't think Snyder's comments were really targeted at anyone specific, more just expressing the worldview that he brings to those heroes. And it's not like he just brought it up out of nowhere. It was at a Q&A at a screening of the movie.
I'm pretty flexible with what interpretations of Batman I'm willing to accept. I think that Batman committing premeditated murder is going too far. But recklessly disregarding potential casualties while engaging in very violent fights with these goons is enough of a gray area for me to go with it. I mean, if we're going to get really puritanical with the whole Batman-doesn't-kill thing, I always felt that those fans were too lenient on Batman Begins with its technicalities of "It's a miracle no one was killed" and "I won't kill you but that doesn't mean I have to save you."
However, Snyder is very succinctly putting into words a big chunk of my problems with his version of Superman. I've been saying for years that the problem with Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman is that they're Superman movies made by someone who doesn't believe in Superman. The films are constantly giving side-eye to the notion that someone can be so powerful and also be so altruistic at the same time. And given Snyder's long term plans for Justice League sequels where Superman snaps and becomes a villain after the death of Lois Lane, it shows that he really doesn't understand the purpose of a Superman story at all.
It's interesting that he brought that Watchmen perspective to the DCEU given that he kinda missed the point of Watchmen by fetishizing the violence too much.
I'm pretty flexible with what interpretations of Batman I'm willing to accept. I think that Batman committing premeditated murder is going too far. But recklessly disregarding potential casualties while engaging in very violent fights with these goons is enough of a gray area for me to go with it. I mean, if we're going to get really puritanical with the whole Batman-doesn't-kill thing, I always felt that those fans were too lenient on Batman Begins with its technicalities of "It's a miracle no one was killed" and "I won't kill you but that doesn't mean I have to save you."
However, Snyder is very succinctly putting into words a big chunk of my problems with his version of Superman. I've been saying for years that the problem with Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman is that they're Superman movies made by someone who doesn't believe in Superman. The films are constantly giving side-eye to the notion that someone can be so powerful and also be so altruistic at the same time. And given Snyder's long term plans for Justice League sequels where Superman snaps and becomes a villain after the death of Lois Lane, it shows that he really doesn't understand the purpose of a Superman story at all.
It's interesting that he brought that Watchmen perspective to the DCEU given that he kinda missed the point of Watchmen by fetishizing the violence too much.
Yeah I agree with all this, but it was an interesting perspective on superheroes that we sometimes take for granted. For example a study of Superman as a real life god, or the fact that Bruce Wayne would probably be a psychopath to become Batman.
I'd be more comfortable with a deconstructionist Superman movie if I felt that we already had a definitive Superman movie that we could go back to. (Much as I love Christopher Reeve's portrayal of the character, his movies were never actually that satisfying.)
It's perfectly fine to say "This is the way I choose to portray the character." It is not fine to say "Anyone who sees the character differently is deluded." That's not expressing an opinion, that's saying you're better than people who have different opinions.
Is it likely that a real-life crimefighter might be unable to avoid killing sometimes? Sure. Does that mean they shouldn't even try? Hell, no. There's this mentality today (including among many real police officers, unfortunately) that going in guns blazing is a valid first resort. But I've heard it from military veterans that the rules of engagement in the military are to make every possible effort to avoid lethal force unless no other avenues are left to you. If you have an alternative to killing someone, then killing them is literally a crime under military law. And that's the military. If soldiers are trained to do everything possible to de-escalate a violent situation, then surely police officers and superheroes should be capable of making the same effort.
Besides, police and soldiers have the protection of state authority in cases where they employ lethal force. Vigilantes are private citizens without such protection, so if they killed in the course of their work, they'd be susceptible to murder charges and wrongful-death lawsuits. Even more reason to go to every possible length to avoid killing. Yes, realistically, you might fail to avoid it, but that should be portrayed as a failure, not a casual event.
I always have objected to those bits in Begins. The problem with doing superhero movies is that American moviemakers and audiences are conditioned to expect the hero of an action movie to kill the villains, so superhero movies have tended to be adapted to fit that trope, and often other standard action-movie tropes like the revenge narrative (e.g. making the Joker the Waynes' killer) or the protecting-one's-family narrative (as opposed to protecting the larger public). So they haven't always understood that superheroes are basically rescuers and protectors, not warriors. It's not just about fighting an enemy, it's about keeping people safe. That's an angle that too often gets neglected in these movies, and Snyder is as guilty of that as anyone.
I agree. But what's interesting is how well Superman himself manages to transcend that despite Snyder's attitude. His Superman may not be completely effective or entirely trusted (at least until he dies and is retconned into being someone everybody loved and relied on emotionally), but as a character, he feels throughout like someone unshakeably committed to helping people.
I agree that the Reeve movies were imperfect in a number of ways, but even if they had been much better, they're from another era and another continuity. If WB wanted to start a new Superman film universe from scratch, then they should've started with building it up before they got around to deconstructing it.
Up until the time changing ending, which leads to the question of "why doesn't he just do that all the time"
Superman '78 is sublimely satisfying.
That ending works perfectly -- dramatically, thematically, and emotionally -- in the context of the film. I'm not particularly interested in noodling over its implications beyond that.
Ehhhh, we're nerds. We have to overthink things.
Superman '78 is sublimely satisfying.
Until Luthor shows up, then it devolves into an overindulgence of camp.
Sorry, no.
I will countenance no criticisms of Superman '78 that do not include the words, "Can You Read My Mind." And maybe not even then.
Batman Begins, understandably, got a lot of goodwill for finally telling Batman's origin story and, heck, finally focusing much more and being much more about Batman than the (celebrity) villains. But yeah, even that version of the character, the version finally done right (or finally done right aside from the earlier animation), was not flawless or uncompromising in applying his code.
Last edited:
Well it's hard to not feel underwhelmed by ending with a supervillain just going to jail, especially when (if they're well-done) the audience thinks they'll pretty easily and quickly break out (and even casual viewers know that is what happens in other/past versions, in the comics and television).
We just think that because we're used to movies ending in death. There is nothing "underwhelming" about an ending where the hero wins the villain over through compassion, say. The ending of Spider-Man: Homecoming wasn't underwhelming at all. The ending of Spider-Man 2 was powerful because Spidey redeemed Doc Ock, even though Ock sacrificed himself.
And there are plenty of satisfying ways for heroes to catch villains without killing them. The ending of Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation was hugely satisfying because of the way the team outsmarted the villain and Ethan got to pay back the look of triumph the villain had given him earlier in the movie -- a moment of personal triumph that would've been impossible if the villain hadn't been alive to see it and feel his defeat. This is a franchise where the villains usually do die at the end, but the one where the villain was taken alive was one of the most satisfying and clever endings in the entire film series. For that matter, possibly the most satisfying ending in any episode of the original Mission: Impossible TV series was the ending of "Submarine," where the team allows the Nazi they've helped to "escape" (so they can find some vital information) to be recaptured alive by his longtime Iron Curtain warden, who laughs long and hard when he realizes how the Americans have tricked and humiliated his old adversary. Killing the bad guy is the obvious, lazy, immensely cliched way to go. There are much more creative and interesting options.
That applies in ongoing series for obvious narrative reasons. There's no reason to assume the same would be true in a movie adaptation where the number of installments is much smaller and return appearances are less likely.
Besides, how the hero defeats the villain is not about the villain. It's about the hero, about who they are and what they believe in.
There've been a number of popular superhero movies even just going from the turn of the century in which the main villain survived the end. X-Men, The Dark Knight, Thor, The Avengers, CA Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming (as @Christopher mentioned), Ant-Man & the Wasp, and just recently in Aquaman.
I would prefer jail to the hero always needing to kill. That isn't underwhelming to me.
Agreed. I'm not sure how much of the credit for that goes to Henry Cavill's performance and how much just to the fact that Superman is so ingrained in the culture that it's really difficult to completely botch it up.
It's reminding me of Peter Capaldi's first season on Doctor Who, when it often felt like the actor knew what he was doing but kept fighting against attempts by the writers to make the character "darker & edgier."
You're probably right. Still, I think we can culturally tolerate more deconstructionist takes on Batman in movies like Batman v. Superman & The Lego Batman Movie because we can still point to the Tim Burton & Christopher Nolan movies as being solid, near-definitive portrayals of the character. (I suppose my personal definitive Batman is some kind of mental fusion between Batman Begins, the Tim Burton movies, the 1990s cartoon, & the Adam West TV show.)
But while I can look past the dated FX of Superman (1978), I can't get past the notion that it's less a movie and more a collection of vignettes that only sorta culminate in a climax. (Granted, the Bible's kinda like that too... Man, this space-Jesus allegory really does write itself!
)I figure that he was only able to do it that one time because he was so fueled by rage & grief after Lois Lane's death. I don't think he'd be able to do it again if he tried. He wouldn't be able to muster up enough speed or energy if he really thought about it.
I especially liked how it was handled in Captain America: Civil War. A lesser movie would have let Zemo kill himself but I like the way that he's thwarted. "The living are not done with you yet."
I would also add Daredevil to the list where they go to jail.
I'd thought of "Daredevil", as well as BvS btw (Lex survives that movie) and some others, but while I personally liked them (and am on record on this board as doing so), I thought they were generally not well regarded enough to qualify as popular superhero movies.