Why do people say Zack Snyder doesn't respect comics?

[SiegePerilous02]

It's not unclear. Nothing in Man of Steel would lead a reasonable view to conclude that Superman would kill a person so casually. Superman telling Lois he didn't kill anyone minutes later should remove all doubt.

It doesn't remove doubt though, it just confuses people. Because this film aims to have weightier consequences to violence, and Superman slamming that dude through walls would realistically kill him.

Again, I don't think he killed the man, but the execution is sloppy and it seems the film wants to have it both ways. Moving away from the escapist fantasy of superheroes, but also indulging in it when it's "cool." See also Batman needing to injure or even kill some thugs in fights because that would realistically happen, yet also hurling an extremely heavy crate from over his shoulder as if it weighed nothing. When he's pushing 50.

[manwhohaseverything]

It doesn't remove doubt though, it just confuses people. Because this film aims to have weightier consequences to violence, and Superman slamming that dude through walls would realistically kill him.

Again, I don't think he killed the man, but the execution is sloppy and it seems the film wants to have it both ways. Moving away from the escapist fantasy of superheroes, but also indulging in it when it's "cool." See also Batman needing to injure or even kill some thugs in fights because that would realistically happen, yet also hurling an extremely heavy crate from over his shoulder as if it weighed nothing. When he's pushing 50.

Again, this world is with flying aliens. Only emotional realism matters. As for weighing higher consequence on violence,You can't do that unless both protagonist and antagonist indulge in it and are guilty of it. Think about it, movie makes it clear that clark and bruce are cut from the same cloth. So, their fight wasn't really ideological. It was personal. And with bruce, it's always personal. With clark less so. They both get into the fight and end up in the situations because they themselves can't see that. Bruce needed a personal reason to stop. With clark lex and doomsday became more of priority.

violence can be cathartic and beautiful as well. Think of horror movies.So, movies can both indulge in escapism and move away from it. Snyder says he is honest about usage violence. He doesn't pull back punches regarding super heroes doing it. So, something from arkham games has brutal tendencies in bvs. Something from goldenage makes you uncomfortable. I still don't get what is sloppy about it.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Again, this world is with flying aliens. Only emotional realism matters. As for weighing higher consequence on violence,You can't do that unless both protagonist and antagonist indulge in it and are guilty of it. Think about it, movie makes it clear that clark and bruce are cut from the same cloth. So, their fight wasn't really ideological. It was personal. And with bruce, it's always personal. With clark less so. They both get into the fight and end up in the situations because they themselves can't see that. Bruce needed a personal reason to stop. With clark lex and doomsday became more of priority.

Expectations differ, and Snyder's got his own aesthetic going on and in his world suer-heroes are hard man making hard decisions and they're all edgy. What's "emotional realism"? Is that even a thing? A big reason why Superman fighting Batman fails in the movie is because it's not truly an ideological battle between the two, Batman does but he doesn't really get into arguments with Superman about it and Superman hasn't heard any of what he thinks so he has no opinion other than he thinks he's a jerk? Lex frames Batman for criminals getting murdered in prisons because they're marked by him but it's not like Superman brings that up when they meet and Superman is like whatever I have to fight you because Lex has his mother because Superman was too lazy to investigate the criminals Batman was fighting in act 1. He doesn't even know Lex is behind anything until he reveals himself and confesses out of nowhere, Superman would have been in real trouble if Lex had believed in staying in the shadows like a normal mob boss. The movie isn't clear about why Superman really wants him gone, when they have much in common but they don't really talk about it together or with other people. All of the above is juicy material to explore their moral boundaries and tactics, which is left on the shelf for this movie. Snyder should have come up with a strong reason to stop then what we got, I don't know how that got to the final cut without some asking Snyder about the audience who might meme it into a joke. Doomsday only became a priority after his battle with Batman was over, and he's not supposed to be the real Doomsday?

violence can be cathartic and beautiful as well. Think of horror movies.So, movies can both indulge in escapism and move away from it. Snyder says he is honest about usage violence. He doesn't pull back punches regarding super heroes doing it. So, something from arkham games has brutal tendencies in bvs. Something from goldenage makes you uncomfortable. I still don't get what is sloppy about it.

How violence is shown changes how the audience will view the character. Villains don't hold back, they're brutal because they have no conscience or they're apathetic to the suffering of others - super-heroes are supposed to be above this, unless they're anti-heroes like the Punisher. Batman is a hero who blurs the line but he's not meant to cross it, otherwise he just becomes a Shadow knock-off. The Arkham games are brutal but they're lighter in tone than B vs S, and knows it's a silly comic book adaption. The sloppiness comes from Siege explaining how Batman is both supposed to be in a realistic setting while also throwing around crates like he's Captain America - that's the contradiction.

Edit: In the Arkham games Batman saves Joker from dying in a trap where his electric chair is connected to bane's heartbeat while Bane tries to kill him, and he doesn't try to kill Bane. He brings him to life ASAP.

[manwhohaseverything]

Expectations differ, and Snyder's got his own aesthetic going on and in his world suer-heroes are hard man making hard decisions and they're all edgy. What's "emotional realism"? Is that even a thing? A big reason why Superman fighting Batman fails in the movie is because it's not truly an ideological battle between the two, Batman does but he doesn't really get into arguments with Superman about it and Superman hasn't heard any of what he thinks so he has no opinion other than he thinks he's a jerk? Lex frames Batman for criminals getting murdered in prisons because they're marked by him but it's not like Superman brings that up when they meet and Superman is like whatever I have to fight you because Lex has his mother because Superman was too lazy to investigate the criminals Batman was fighting in act 1. He doesn't even know Lex is behind anything until he reveals himself and confesses out of nowhere, Superman would have been in real trouble if Lex had believed in staying in the shadows like a normal mob boss. The movie isn't clear about why Superman really wants him gone, when they have much in common but they don't really talk about it together or with other people. All of the above is juicy material to explore their moral boundaries and tactics, which is left on the shelf for this movie. Snyder should have come up with a strong reason to stop then what we got, I don't know how that got to the final cut without some asking Snyder about the audience who might meme it into a joke. Doomsday only became a priority after his battle with Batman was over, and he's not supposed to be the real Doomsday?



How violence is shown changes how the audience will view the character. Villains don't hold back, they're brutal because they have no conscience or they're apathetic to the suffering of others - super-heroes are supposed to be above this, unless they're anti-heroes like the Punisher. Batman is a hero who blurs the line but he's not meant to cross it, otherwise he just becomes a Shadow knock-off. The Arkham games are brutal but they're lighter in tone than B vs S, and knows it's a silly comic book adaption. The sloppiness comes from Siege explaining how Batman is both supposed to be in a realistic setting while also throwing around crates like he's Captain America - that's the contradiction.

Edit: In the Arkham games Batman saves Joker from dying in a trap where his electric chair is connected to bane's heartbeat while Bane tries to kill him, and he doesn't try to kill Bane. He brings him to life ASAP.

Dude, what the hell are you on about? Bruce's war on crime is personal. His entire story is personal. Mate, just type the word in google and you will get what's emotional realism is. How does the movie fail just because it isn't ideological battle and instead personal ? Batman exists because of personal reasons.Moreover,there are many battles that are fought with ideological coating, but truly are personal.

Mate, the batman and superman are vigilantes. A superhero is a term given to vigilantes with extraordinary skillset, double life.. Etc. They are criminals from the get go. The only difference between batman and joker, superman and lex is that.
Superman commits crimes to protect the weak from the corrupt.
Lex commits crimes to dominate the weak.
Joker commits crimes because of madness and nihilism.
Batman commits crimes to because of sense of innate justice beyond the law and his existentialist struggle.
That's it.
Essentially, they all are guilty of violence. The reason batman, superman.. Etc are forgiven is because their societies is corrupt to the core. That's the only reason their vigilante existence is forgiven. These two actually bring some relief to their world. Batman was always brutal. Batman would always break bones, at the very least. Superman can be called an anarchist who can be destructive like monkey d luffy(atleast in the goldenage) .as for game, big whoop! Batman saving joker is to show him as "hero". That's not really what i am talking about. Games have crate throws, high impact kicking and punching... Etc. The games and many superhero portrayals including the goldenage desensitises violence. Mcu does this as well. Violence is bad and uncontrollable. Snyder doesn't do that. Protagonists may indulge in that. but, it isn't right. Snyder makes it a point to make you uncomfortable with the violence of vigilantes. Punching and kicking shouldn't be seen as an option for anyone. But, it can be cathartic like i said.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Dude, what the hell are you on about? Bruce's war on crime is personal. His entire story is personal. Mate, just type the word in google and you will get what's emotional realism is. How does the movie fail just because it isn't ideological battle and instead personal ? Batman exists because of personal reasons.Moreover,there are many battles that are fought with ideological coating, but truly are personal.

B vs S isn't about Batman's war on crime it's about Batman's war on Superman. I looked it up but why didn't you simply explain when I asked you? A movie can fail for many, many reasons and that's just one reason it fails. Ideological battles are engrossing, it's what makes great stories between protagonists and antagonists. It's a raison why Nolan's Batman trilogy is beloved, every film Bruce's ideology is confronted with its opposite. The problem is Snyder implies rather then talks about the struggles, sometimes he gets into it but then does nothing with it. He's got loads of material to explore in B vs S with ideologies and he fails at truly exploring them where Nolan would cover every inch of it to milk the drama.

Compare this with what Nolan did with Batman Begins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiaRYQlsjy4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J4yJXYPJDw

There are other scenes, but this should be sufficient.

Mate, the batman and superman are vigilantes. A superhero is a term given to vigilantes with extraordinary skillset, double life.. Etc. They are criminals from the get go. The only difference between batman and joker, superman and lex is that.
Superman commits crimes to protect the weak from the corrupt.
Lex commits crimes to dominate the weak.
Joker commits crimes because of madness and nihilism.
Batman commits crimes to because of sense of innate justice beyond the law and his existentialist struggle.
That's it.

That's surface detail. And Snyder's Superman's idea of "protecting the weak" is by being apathetic about people dying when he rams himself through buildings with super-powered aliens (man of Steel), doesn't care when heavily armed thugs fight Batman like they're in a war zone (B vs S), and doesn't fight crime in the DCEU. This is why he's caught off-guard by Lex, despite the fact he had the people who would killed his mother in his sights if he hadn't simply focused on Batman - it's like an unintentional Uncle Ben moment which Superman never connects. He will put anyone who endangers Lois through walls or threaten to burn them alive with his health vision when they threaten his mother, though. Batman's obsessed with killing Superman because of the Battle of Metropolis.

Essentially, they all are guilty of violence. The reason batman, superman.. Etc are forgiven is because their societies is corrupt to the core. That's the only reason their vigilante existence is forgiven. These two actually bring some relief to their world. Batman was always brutal. Batman would always break bones, at the very least. Superman can be called an anarchist who can be destructive like monkey d luffy(atleast in the goldenage) .as for game, big whoop! Batman saving joker is to show him as "hero". That's not really what i am talking about. Games have crate throws, high impact kicking and punching... Etc. The games and many superhero portrayals including the goldenage desensitises violence. Mcu does this as well. Violence is bad and uncontrollable. Snyder doesn't do that. Protagonists may indulge in that. but, it isn't right. Snyder makes it a point to make you uncomfortable with the violence of vigilantes. Punching and kicking shouldn't be seen as an option for anyone. But, it can be cathartic like i said.

There is no "forgiven" scenes in those movies, I don't know whee you're getting at. Police are afraid of Batman, while Superman is controversial and that's not gone into much - the Battle of Metropolis isn't bought up aside from the memorial. Snyder brings up society being impacted by Superman and wants us to question it but that goes nowhere because of the court hearing explodes and the montage just ends with "Superman is." He's afraid to put his Superman really under a microscope, except when he's pouting. The films have contradictory messages about his impact and don't go into it as mochas they should and it's retconned entirely by Justice League he may as well be a new character in Whedon's movie. We get the funeral in B vs S, but its unearned. He's hasn't been Superman for long and he's isolated from the public and when he did go to court it got permanently sidelined by the explosion, which he's blamed for. The funeral is like what classic Superman would get after spending years building that trust up.

I could buy Batman being an anarchist, but Superman? No. They don't have enough detail about his political opinions on anything. I did get a conservative/Libertarian vibe from him, with his being raised by these cynical Kent's who can't say rescuing children was right, are paranoid about the government, that they don't "owe" the world anything (the complete opposite of Spider-man's motto), Clark going to a priest for help rather than a therapist or a close friend, he's mainly concerned about protecting his girlfriend and his other by B vs S, and his biggest (temporary) alliance with humanity is with the US military in Man of Steel, there are no sub-plots about Clark's opinion on whether killing people is unjust, and collateral damage is nothing to him.

Batman does harm people, sure, but not all Batmen do that the same. Snyder's Batman isn't the same with violence as Batman TAS. Brutal does not entail dropping cars on people like this one does, that's actively killing people. That it does, however, Snyder Batman is not Arkham Batman. Except this is about a movie, not a video game and characters must be consistent or it looks sloppy. The MCU actively tries to cut down on the destruction, like the evacuation in Age of Ultron - a foreign concept to these two. Its only by accident the pseudo JLA fight Doomsday in an abandoned area because the reception was negative to what Superman did in Man of Steel in a crowded city. It is definitely controllable, Batman's heavily trained and experienced Superman's just a fool who can't bother going to learn martin arts or train with his powers. A big reason Superman in other media is such a strong opponent is that he knows how to wield his powers and fight properly. He's not just brawling blindly against Metallo. Everything Batman does in the DCEU is controlled in his violence and action. Snyder loves the excitement of the destruction and the pretty images, the implications of how horrible it is isn't a factor. Superman should be doing more than just punching and kicking but not this Superman, he doesn't even use his x-ray vision after Man of Steel. His Batman drops cars on people, he doesn't need to punch someone to kill them. How this violence is staged in movies speaks to the audience, and Snyder has a certain aesthetic he sticks too which is ultra violent. Like you said, they go all out. There is no restraint.

[John Venus]

Oh he respects the comics just not for the same ones we do nor does he like them for the same reasons we do. He doesn't go beyond the surface level 'ooh Batman is ultra violent, gothic and brutal and Rorschach killed the **** out of those rapists' and doesn't grasp the deeper sub text. He brought in TDK Returns Batman on screen but fails to realize that the reason why TDKR worked was because of the established friendship between Superman and Batman in the mainstream comic. He makes nonsensical story telling decisions. Why go over the Waynes murder again? If its for the Martha scene then it could have been done another way, Bruce staring at a portrait of his family would have worked just as well or talking with Alfred about Martha instead of showing that blasted alley way again. Why make Batman in his 40's and past his prime? Making him older is one thing but he should still be in his prime and kicking ass. The branding thing....just why? Does he get any comeuppance? Does he change his ways? Not really. It's like 'oh hey, Batman's ultra violent now and...' and then what? How is the Joker even alive in this universe? And most importantly why are the ears on the bat suit so tiny and why is the bat symbol so obese?

[Agent Z]

Why make Batman in his 40's and past his prime?

Because Bruce was older and more experienced than Clark. This isn't inherently a bad decision and emphasized Bruce's weariness and paranoia.

Does he change his ways?

He didn't brand anyone after that so yes.

How is the Joker even alive in this universe?

Bruce not knowing where he was and him not prioritizing the Joker at the moment.

[Agent Z]

B vs S isn't about Batman's war on crime it's about Batman's war on Superman. I looked it up but why didn't you simply explain when I asked you? A movie can fail for many, many reasons and that's just one reason it fails. Ideological battles are engrossing, it's what makes great stories between protagonists and antagonists. It's a raison why Nolan's Batman trilogy is beloved, every film Bruce's ideology is confronted with its opposite. The problem is Snyder implies rather then talks about the struggles, sometimes he gets into it but then does nothing with it. He's got loads of material to explore in B vs S with ideologies and he fails at truly exploring them where Nolan would cover every inch of it to milk the drama.

Compare this with what Nolan did with Batman Begins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiaRYQlsjy4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J4yJXYPJDw

There are other scenes, but this should be sufficient.



That's surface detail. And Snyder's Superman's idea of "protecting the weak" is by being apathetic about people dying when he rams himself through buildings with super-powered aliens (man of Steel), doesn't care when heavily armed thugs fight Batman like they're in a war zone (B vs S), and doesn't fight crime in the DCEU. This is why he's caught off-guard by Lex, despite the fact he had the people who would killed his mother in his sights if he hadn't simply focused on Batman - it's like an unintentional Uncle Ben moment which Superman never connects. He will put anyone who endangers Lois through walls or threaten to burn them alive with his health vision when they threaten his mother, though. Batman's obsessed with killing Superman because of the Battle of Metropolis.



There is no "forgiven" scenes in those movies, I don't know whee you're getting at. Police are afraid of Batman, while Superman is controversial and that's not gone into much - the Battle of Metropolis isn't bought up aside from the memorial. Snyder brings up society being impacted by Superman and wants us to question it but that goes nowhere because of the court hearing explodes and the montage just ends with "Superman is." He's afraid to put his Superman really under a microscope, except when he's pouting. The films have contradictory messages about his impact and don't go into it as mochas they should and it's retconned entirely by Justice League he may as well be a new character in Whedon's movie. We get the funeral in B vs S, but its unearned. He's hasn't been Superman for long and he's isolated from the public and when he did go to court it got permanently sidelined by the explosion, which he's blamed for. The funeral is like what classic Superman would get after spending years building that trust up.

I could buy Batman being an anarchist, but Superman? No. They don't have enough detail about his political opinions on anything. I did get a conservative/Libertarian vibe from him, with his being raised by these cynical Kent's who can't say rescuing children was right, are paranoid about the government, that they don't "owe" the world anything (the complete opposite of Spider-man's motto), Clark going to a priest for help rather than a therapist or a close friend, he's mainly concerned about protecting his girlfriend and his other by B vs S, and his biggest (temporary) alliance with humanity is with the US military in Man of Steel, there are no sub-plots about Clark's opinion on whether killing people is unjust, and collateral damage is nothing to him.

Batman does harm people, sure, but not all Batmen do that the same. Snyder's Batman isn't the same with violence as Batman TAS. Brutal does not entail dropping cars on people like this one does, that's actively killing people. That it does, however, Snyder Batman is not Arkham Batman. Except this is about a movie, not a video game and characters must be consistent or it looks sloppy. The MCU actively tries to cut down on the destruction, like the evacuation in Age of Ultron - a foreign concept to these two. Its only by accident the pseudo JLA fight Doomsday in an abandoned area because the reception was negative to what Superman did in Man of Steel in a crowded city. It is definitely controllable, Batman's heavily trained and experienced Superman's just a fool who can't bother going to learn martin arts or train with his powers. A big reason Superman in other media is such a strong opponent is that he knows how to wield his powers and fight properly. He's not just brawling blindly against Metallo. Everything Batman does in the DCEU is controlled in his violence and action. Snyder loves the excitement of the destruction and the pretty images, the implications of how horrible it is isn't a factor. Superman should be doing more than just punching and kicking but not this Superman, he doesn't even use his x-ray vision after Man of Steel. His Batman drops cars on people, he doesn't need to punch someone to kill them. How this violence is staged in movies speaks to the audience, and Snyder has a certain aesthetic he sticks too which is ultra violent. Like you said, they go all out. There is no restraint.

Nolan's Batman burned down an entire building full of people including the guy he said he didn't want to kill. The only difference between Snyder and Nolan is the former isn't under any delusions his Batman killed people.

As usual, your criticisms about Snyder's Superman are designed to paint him in the worst light possible and ignore what actually happens in the movies.

[batnbreakfast]

Nolan's Batman burned down an entire building full of people including the guy he said he didn't want to kill. The only difference between Snyder and Nolan is the former isn't under any delusions his Batman killed people.

As usual, your criticisms about Snyder's Superman are designed to paint him in the worst light possible and ignore what actually happens in the movies.

Now setting a building of highly trained assassins on fire isn't the same as burning down a building full of people. Nolan's Batman risks his life saving Ra's in Tibet while Snyder's Batman throws cars at other cars and has a machine gun mounted on the Batmobile. Sure Snyder's Batman looks cool but he's an *******. Immature to take your frustration out on the real world. Don't care for the reasons because the movie SHOWS THIS not the reasons for it. If lucky you get a blink and you miss it throwaway line. In Snyder's case its not ignoring basic filmmaking its making movies for an audience that's oh so smart and sophisticated and cares about all the stuff just hinted at.

[SiegePerilous02]

Nolan's Batman burned down an entire building full of people including the guy he said he didn't want to kill. The only difference between Snyder and Nolan is the former isn't under any delusions his Batman killed people..

I'm not so sure.
https://www.cbr.com/snyder-says-batm...r-than-murder/

I also don't think Nolan was ever under any delusion that his Batman didn't kill people or allowed them to die. It's more that he was more practical than the comic version yet more restrained than Snyder's. He avoided unnecessary killing, like when he saved the Joker from falling when he wasn't an immediate threat anymore, but killed Dent when it was either him or the kid and he was too exhausted/injured for the perfect solution. Or when his actions lead to Talia's death because she had a bomb and the clock was ticking.

And it's not like either Nolan or Burton's Batmen haven't received criticism for their killing. They've received it in abundance over the years, it's not news. Snyder's take is the most recent so it gets the most heat right now, his overall film arguably isn't as strong as the previous entries so there is less positive to outweigh the criticisms, and it may just be a "straw the broke the camel's back" situation where the third major cinematic Batman canon still doesn't adhere to the no kill rule despite people just wanting to see it already.

[Agent Z]

Now setting a building of highly trained assassins on fire isn't the same as burning down a building full of people. Nolan's Batman risks his life saving Ra's in Tibet while Snyder's Batman throws cars at other cars and has a machine gun mounted on the Batmobile. Sure Snyder's Batman looks cool but he's an *******. Immature to take your frustration out on the real world. Don't care for the reasons because the movie SHOWS THIS not the reasons for it. If lucky you get a blink and you miss it throwaway line. In Snyder's case its not ignoring basic filmmaking its making movies for an audience that's oh so smart and sophisticated and cares about all the stuff just hinted at.

Nolan's Batman said he wasn't going to kill anyone then burned down a building full of people, saving only the man who ordered a person's death and not that person. Whether or not they are assassins is moot. No one cared that the only people Snyder's Batman kills are human traffickers and mercenaries who slaughter entire villages and kidnap elderly women with instructions to kill her if her son comes to her rescue.

The reasons for it were shown. It's shown the very moment we see Bruce witnessing the destruction in Metropolis.

Batman's always been implied if not stated to be taking his anger out on the world.

As for your last sentence, dislike the movies all you like but this just sounds like you being petty towards anyone who likes it.

[Agent Z]

I'm not so sure.
https://www.cbr.com/snyder-says-batm...r-than-murder/

I also don't think Nolan was ever under any delusion that his Batman didn't kill people or allowed them to die. It's more that he was more practical than the comic version yet more restrained than Snyder's. He avoided unnecessary killing, like when he saved the Joker from falling when he wasn't an immediate threat anymore, but killed Dent when it was either him or the kid and he was too exhausted/injured for the perfect solution. Or when his actions lead to Talia's death because she had a bomb and the clock was ticking.

And it's not like either Nolan or Burton's Batmen haven't received criticism for their killing. They've received it in abundance over the years, it's not news. Snyder's take is the most recent so it gets the most heat right now, his overall film arguably isn't as strong as the previous entries so there is less positive to outweigh the criticisms, and it may just be a "straw the broke the camel's back" situation where the third major cinematic Batman canon still doesn't adhere to the no kill rule despite people just wanting to see it already.

Snyder was disputing the legal definition of Bruce's killings not that they were killings at all (for the record I don't actually agree with him but he isn't pretending Batman doesn't kill people). I wouldn't quite say Burton and Nolan's Batman killings have been criticized in abundance. You're more likely to have people either defend them, ignore the killings or even claim it's different from Snyder's for some reason or another.

[manwhohaseverything]

I just don't get the scrutiny the snyder movies, superman and batman get. Even when people aren't talking about the characters. Someone brings it up .

[SiegePerilous02]

Snyder was disputing the legal definition of Bruce's killings not that they were killings at all (for the record I don't actually agree with him but he isn't pretending Batman doesn't kill people). And no Burton and Nolan's Batman killings haven't been criticized in abundance. You're more likely to have people either defend them, ignore the killings or even claim it's different from Snyder's for some reason or another.

It seems like backtracking on his part a bit due to the criticisms.

Yes they have. Not as much recently because Snyder's is the most recent and social media provides more of an outlet for complaints now than it did even in the Nolan days, but don't rewrite history. Batman killing was a frequent criticism of the Burton films by fans and creators alike even before the Nolan films came out. Letting Ra's die in Begins was a source of debate when the first movie came out. Nolan's IS different because it is not as excessive, and you don't have to be a fan of Nolan's films to point that out.

The movies were just deemed as being better overall so it didn't drag them down to same degree Batman killing contributed to BvS being rejected. But that doesn't mean people were okay with it across the board. A seemingly more visually accurate Batman interacting with Superman for the first time in a shared comic book universe in the modern age of superhero films got people excited about seeing a more accurate Batman. And well, we got what we got.

[Agent Z]

It seems like backtracking on his part a bit due to the criticisms.

Yes they have. Not as much recently because Snyder's is the most recent and social media provides more of an outlet for complaints now than it did even in the Nolan days, but don't rewrite history. Batman killing was a frequent criticism of the Burton films by fans and creators alike even before the Nolan films came out. Letting Ra's die in Begins was a source of debate when the first movie came out. Nolan's IS different because it is not as excessive, and you don't have to be a fan of Nolan's films to point that out.

The movies were just deemed as being better overall so it didn't drag them down to same degree Batman killing contributed to BvS being rejected. But that doesn't mean people were okay with it across the board. A seemingly more visually accurate Batman interacting with Superman for the first time in a shared comic book universe in the modern age of superhero films got people excited about seeing a more accurate Batman. And well, we got what we got.

Backtracking would be saying Bruce didn't kill at all imo.

I haven't seen as much criticism of them but maybe that's just me. I didn't hate BvS so I admit that does play into some bias on my part.