AFFLECK: It’s definitely...

>AFFLECK: It’s definitely, the world’s greatest detective aspect of Batman is more present in this story than it was in the last one, and will probably be expanded upon further in a Batman movie that I would do. I think all the great Batman stories are, at their heart, detective stories. That’s why they feel like noir movies in a way. Somehow feels like it could be The Maltese Falcon. But at their heart good Batman stories are, like I said, detective stories. And with detective stories, there’s a “what’s happening” element, but there’s also a, “how do I find these people and bring them together? How are we going to work together successfully?” Sort of a multilateralist –


Do you think he wears the suit while working on the script, complete with voice changer?

Other urls found in this thread:

io9.gizmodo.com/a-brief-history-of-zack-snyder-defending-the-end-of-man-1763888746
youtube.com/watch?v=psVIG7YvdjM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>tfw some people will die before they have the chance to see the batfleck solo movie

All i want is a definite Batman movie. We've yet to get that so far.

Meant to say "definitive"

Is Affleck pissed that Synder made Lois Lane a better detective that Batman in BvS? Cause that was one of the bits that made me so fucking mad, I'm glad that Ben remembers that Batman is a detective and not just a martial artist with plot armor.

>tfw WB may self-destruct the DCEU through stupidity and Snydering before Afleck gets a chance to save it.

WB will rue the day they didn't beg Affleck to direct the JL movie.

>But at their heart good Batman stories are, like I said, detective stories. And with detective stories, there’s a “what’s happening” element, but there’s also a, “how do I find these people and bring them together? How are we going to work together successfully?”

"How many people can I murder today?"

JL was already in production when BvS bombed. It was too late to take Snyder off of it, unfortunately.

If Nolan's movies had more detective work they would have been it. And not the stupid "rebuilding the bullet" shit from The Dark Knight. That was their one weak aspect.

Well, the first two. The third one had a lot of other problems.

You people are getting boring at this point, same OK schtick.

Imagine a street level detective story like "Gone Baby Gone" only with Batman.

If we go and hunt snyder down and murder him, do you think they'll be able to salvage the rest of the movie?

No, it would just let Goyer step in, and then the movie would be completely ruined.

Maybe if Nolan had kept making them like Begins, but with TDK and TDKR it was clear that the weakest part of his Batman trilogy was Batman himself.

People seem to blame only Snyder when it was written by Goyer and Terrio. They take Snyder off and keep them, nothing would change

>You people are getting boring at this point, same OK schtick.

"Why does this true thing continue to be true? So boring!"

Well, it would look much worse. Snyder is a great cinematographer, it's all the other parts of directing he sucks at.
He couldn't get a good performance out of Daniel Day Lewis, but his expressionless face would be shot beautifully.

Mah nigga. I've always thought Begins was the best of the three. I was surprised to learn a lot of people didn't like it as much.

>Imagine a street level detective story like "Gone Baby Gone" only with Batman.

The problem is that mega-budget blockbusters kind of force you to go big or go home.

Batman works best at street-level, but a summer blockbusters almost demands some kind of "save the city"/"save the WORLD" level story.

What's needed is a Netflix-level show for Batman, where they have the budget to do things right but have the room to grow and breathe that a TV series gives you.

So we murder both of them. And leave the flayed bodies on the hollywood sign

Begins is my least favorite Batman movie of them all, followed by Rises.

Nah, Snyder dictated a lot of the tone and direction choices that so many people panned the movie for. Yeah the story sucked, but so did so many of the elements that make a coherent movie good.

Also, he's a cry baby who went out of his way to spite everyone for the complaints about man of steel in the most childish way possible.

>W-What? You don't LIKE cities being destroyed? Well fuck you! I'm just going to drop 'OH ITS ABANDONED' or 'OH ITS AFTER WORKHOURS NO ONE IS HERE' and then destroy the city!
>You want superman saving people? Here's superman saving people! But it's SAD and SOMBER and SERIOUS.
>The jesus allegories are too much? Fuck you! Now batman gets to be jesus too!

It's okay to be wrong. At least you know you have a problem and can work on fixing it.

Problem is you people are complete hypocrite s about it and had no problem with Keaton and Nolan Bats killing only reason you bring it up now is Snyder. As such there is no reason tomtake anything you have to say seriously at this point. Your just shit posting with nothing to say

I'm sorry you like a bad movie.

Its the most "Batman" movie of the Trilogy and the only one where Bale was any good as Batman

You mean an objectively good one that revitalized the Batman franchise and created the modern Batman phenomenon as we know it?

Having shit taste is one thing, user, but don't flaunt your ignorance.

>Problem is you people are complete hypocrite s about it and had no problem with Keaton and Nolan Bats killing

Just because someone did something poorly before doesn't mean it's excused when someone does it again user.

Ha ha, nope. Bat-murder is widely, and rightly, mocked as garbage.

>b...b...but Keaton and Nolan...

Nope. Their Batmen weren't explicitly killers. If you can't see the difference you're literally incapable of contributing to this discussion.

JL is going to be chopped all to hell and be a hard movie to watch.

I really hope they blow up whatever plans they have and just let Afleck do a solo Batman movie, maybe more.

>Nah, Snyder dictated a lot of the tone and direction choices that so many people panned the movie for.

DING DING

As proof, guess who was behind the genius idea to have Superman kill:

>Here’s what Snyder said in 2013 about Superman killing Zod:

>In the original version of the script, he just got zapped into the Phantom Zone. David [S. Goyer] and I had long talked about it, and Chris [Nolan] and I talked long about it. And I was like, “I really think he should kill Zod, and I really feel like Superman should kill him.”

>This account is backed up by Goyer, who, in the same podcast, said that Nolan told them there was no way they could have that ending. He flat out told them not to write it. Goyer added that they talked to people at DC who told them “No way. No way.” Which Goyer and Snyder apparently didn’t see as a logical reading of the character, and more of a challenge to find the one situation where Superman would kill. Snyder said, later in the Empire podcast, “I just felt like we were able to create this scenario where either Superman is going to see these people get chopped in half or he’s gotta do what he’s gotta do.”

io9.gizmodo.com/a-brief-history-of-zack-snyder-defending-the-end-of-man-1763888746

"I won't kill you but I don't have to save you" was not very Batman. Then again he was new and I kinda liked how we saw that he changed since in TDK he does save Joker.

TDK was great but Begins is very good too, don't know what that other user is smoking. TDKR was a total mess.

Oh yeah, and Snyder is literally a psychopath:

>Snyder’s original reasoning for having Superman kill is more than a little disturbing:

>The why of it for me was, well, if it’s truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained. It’s just in his DNA. And I felt like we needed him to do something—just like him putting on the glasses or going to the Daily Planet, or any of the other things that you’re sort of seeing for the first time, that you realize will then become sort of his thing.

>his aversion to killing is unexplained.

woah

Yeah, that line bothered me. Batman shouldn't ever intentionally let someone die if he can save them. He always goes the extra mile to save a life if possible.

It was grating, but like you said he was new and the movie was good enough to let it slide.

Certainly a far cry from Snyder's Bat of Manslaughter mowing down criminals with machine guns.

Bale bats indirectly killing a lot of ninjas in the fire was kinda a jarring afterthought.

Here's a radical idea, maybe his adoptive parents told him killing is wrong. I know normally the Kents are just there to tell Superman to hide his abilities and to fear humanity, but maybe they could give him some morals too.

>Bat of Manslaughter

Silly user, manslaughter means the killing was unintentional!

>Nope. Their Batmen weren't explicitly killers.

Mugga was throwing people off rooftops with no signs of remorse. Batfleck has a story related reason why he ends up killing people in the movie, he's specifically made to have lost all faith in his old methods and especially his mission having any meaning or impact on crime.

I don't think it matters, most people I know have completely sworn off DC movies period.

The first half of Begins is so fucking bad it's like an entirely different movie.

Meanwhile at the WB offices...

"Zack, we've been reviewing these Justice League dailies you're sending us and we felt we needed to have a talk with you."

"Sure, okay. What's up?"

"Well...look, I'm just going to say it: you have 15 minutes of the Justice League raping toddlers to death."

"Okay, alright. And what's the problem?"

"...the problem is you have 15 minutes of the Justice League raping toddlers to death, Zack. That's the problem."

"Uh...if they didn't rape toddlers to death, how would they know raping toddlers to death is wrong? That's called character building, maybe you suits wouldn't understand."

The first half of Begins was amazing. A great take on Batman's origin that grounds it.

Oh good, they had a story reason for Bat-Punisher. That completely makes it okay.

>muh realism

I sincerely hope you have to watch everyone you ever loved die of a degenerative illness

and they blame you.

Ooh, almost cut myself on that edge there little guy.

Why don't you try again, but this time try making an argument?

So there is no hope right?
Snyder is clearly incompetent, but the people behind him (like Goyer) are not any better, or even worse. Add to that the apparent inepitutde of WB executives (Suicide Squad clearly demonstrates this if Ayer and the rumors are to be believed). Who does that leave to save JL? There is no Feige, Johns doesn't have anywhere near that level of influence, and the cast doesn't seem to be capable of doing anything (unless Afleck steps up in a major way and just directs his own scenes).
On top of that the plot has already leaked and it's just Avengers with extra muguffins.

Opposed to Burton's Batman who just kills people for no reason, yeah.

It's times like this we need a real life vigilante to put scum like Snyder in his place

please inject wasp eggs into your scrotum

What? How was it bad?

...

...

not an argument

You're just embarrassing yourself trying this hard to justify Bat-Murderer. BvS's Batman was unlike any that came before in terms of bloodlust and murder.

This wasn't a Batman who "doesn't have to save" people, or kills reluctantly or by accident, this was a casual killer.

it was boring

I mean, Keaton blew fuckers up with grenades

Yeah, Keaton's batman was murder happy as fuck. But you could also argue that Keaton batman set a very low bar for being 'Batman'.

Keaton was a murder machine. It was like a Schwarzenegger movie

It's meant to be Batman's low point. He's in the wrong the entire movie. He has failed. And only gets redeemed at the end by Superman.

so does OG Batman but no one ever liked OG Batman

Yeah, but it gets lost in the movie because they forgot to make Superman a character, let alone the the protsgonist.

>Gets redeemed at the end by Superman

When does that happen?

There's no need to samefag.

One reason BvS's Bat-Punisher gets such a strong reaction, I think, is its ultra-serious tone. 1989's Batman was certainly serious compared the the 60s show, but it was still fairly ridiculous, so the violence feels less visceral.

BvS is very serious in tone, it's not supposed to be tongue-in-cheek or campy, so Batman's killing is more shocking.

Yeah, and that aspect was quickly dropped, with the character becoming strictly non-lethal for the next 70+ years.

Not samefagging actually, and I'm totally on your side about how BvS batmurder was a terrible choice and really hampered the movie when it came to the character's depiction.

It's just that Keaton did it as well, but you pointed out why it was different. And like I said here, , it doesn't matter because Keaton isn't exactly the golden standard.

You Snyder fans get more pathetic by the second trying to defend his shit.

...

like I said, no one ever liked OG Batman, no one ever liked Batman until Robin showed up.

Robin is probably one of the most important characters to comic history for his impact on the genre.

I would say he and Superman are equally important.

You should paint your walls with a gun and your brains

But it wasn't

When Batman learns that it's wrong to kill everyone from Superman, who died killing a second villain. Basically the message is that anyone as strong as Superman is too dangerous to live, including apparently Superman.

Maybe Batman is gathering all these mighty heroes to form some kinda....Suicide Squad.

The story is about his redemption you illiterate fuck.

At the end of Batman v Superman it has Batman talking about how "men are still good" and how they fail and shit but can rise above it.

Also he only starting being a loon at the beginning with Alfred talking about "New rules?" And Bruce saying "We're criminals".

People who don't get that Batman's arc is about Batman being redeemed by Superman are the problem with this board. You're all a bunch of people who'd fail English Literature 101 because you don't understand stories unless they're painstakingly explained to you.

You're literally wrong about no one liking Batman before Robin. He was popular.

But you are correct about Robin being one of the most important inventions in the history of comics though.

Does this mean that Batman will stop strafing people with chain-guns and blowing them up?
Because Directors seem to increasing rely on this to keep people interested in Batman.

what wasn't boring about going to a Batman movie and having to wait over an hour for Batman to show up?

He was kinda popular but nothing like he became after Robin showed up. After that he just exploded in popularity, so much so that they created Supergirl for Superman so he could have a Robin. There was a magical Supergirl that showed up before that but she was created by Jimmy and a genie if I remember correctly.

>we're criminals
Didn't even happen.
As to you're main point, I don't think redeemed is the right word, maybe refocused or, I can't think of the word, he reevaluates his position and figures out he's lost his way.
Justice League would be where he is redeemed, so far he is just beginning to try to redeem himself.

saw the error of his ways

No, because all of the justifications people have come up with are for a director who just thinks it's cool that Batman kills people. Whoever writes the script can try to accommodate that, but Synder will have his "manslaughter".

He wasn't Batman yet though so I don't think it should count. Similarly, since he had already killed "Ra's al Ghul" the train scene is also OK since that man is supposed to be dead

For fuck's sake, Batman's no-killing rule isn't something that's actually logical or something that works well in the narrative. It's purely in the comics because DC doesn't want to think up new villains all the time. It's retarded and every other interpretation of the character sheds it. Just take the only actually good fight scene in that awful movie and be happy.

Every cinematic Batman, from West to Affleck, has no problem killing people, even if they would prefer not to. You don't even need to bring up Keaton. Baleman quite clearly killed Two-Face, Ra's Al Ghul, Talia, and a bunch of ninjas. He might have killed some of Joker's thugs in that highway chase too.

>Didn't even happen.

Are you serious? Watch the scene where Alfred throw down the new paper with the Bat-brand on the front page. Alfred says:

>New rules?

To which Bruce responds:

>We're criminals Alfred, We've always been criminals, nothing's changed

And then Alfred goes into the whole "turn good men cruel" speech.

I do agree somewhat with how he'll be in Justice League though. Though I answer on Suicide Squad below

Well in Suicide Squad he goes out of his way to take Deadshot in quietly and saved Harley from drowning so it seems like: yes. But we haven't seen what Zack plans for Justice League yet, but hopefully Zack just wants one film with his no-kill heroes killing before he has them kill no more.

I don't think your mom was that interested in the first place.

He just wears the cowl and underpants while he types the script.

and the utility belt

you can do better than that

At that time Superman was reversing time by flying around the earth and everyone loved it. Doesn't mean he could get away with it in the new movies.

Literal fucking chads.

That still leaves the issue of why Clark and Flash and other less killy members of the JLA will happily work with a guy that killed 20+ people in one night. BvS Bats was effectively a serial killer.

Batman only kills 4 people in BvS. Pleb.

> the world’s greatest detective aspect of Batman is more present in this story than it was in the last one

>tfw when didn't even know the human-looking alien had parents, let alone that one of them was called Martha, even though this is game-changing information

>Somehow feels like it could be The Maltese Falcon

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

NO

NOT IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS, TUBBY

You're leaving out all the people he ran over, dropped cars on or crashed the Batmobile through. A conservative count is 22.

I have a friend that thinks Rises is better than Begins. It fucking hurts. I'm gonna force him to rewatch it.
This was movie was hot off the heels of MOS where people were enraged at Superman snapping a guy's neck. If the GA hated that, why would they find Batman murdering appealing in the sequel?
Actually end your own life.

>"...the problem is you have 15 minutes of the Justice League raping toddlers to death, Zack. That's the problem."

Is it me, or does it sound like what he's actually complaining about here is that the segments too long and needs to be edited down?

You're a fucking retard, you know that, right?

The point is that Superman showed Bruce that heroism still exist through his selfless sacrifice. That him being an ass and having a hand in the death of Superman he placed the Earth in danger. Because of that he had a moral obligation to round the meta-humans and help them this time around.

I'd argue it's worse, because you've seen it being done wrong before and learnt nothing.

>Nope. Their Batmen weren't explicitly killers
youtube.com/watch?v=psVIG7YvdjM

>BvS is very serious in tone, it's not supposed to be tongue-in-cheek or campy, so Batman's killing is more shocking.
It's always funny how DCEU fans brag about how much more serious their universe is and then cry when people take it seriously.

Oh you crazy kids and your total lack of basic self awareness

Even funnier the mental gymnastics people go though to defend one movie have batman kill while defending the other

>bu...but the movie wasn't serious guys so him killing was alright!

But you people are like bots with no real self awareness or actual common sense so no surprise