And that's great - I am fine with that...just like I am fine with Snyder taking liberties with the characters.
That's fine for you. But you see not everyone is happy with the liberties Snyder took. For many of us he went too far. Even if you personally had no problem with them, it can't be hard to see why so many others dislike them. It's not the fact that he made changes, it's the choice of changes he made that is so bad.
And that's great - it's too bad you weren't able to enjoy it. But, that's life. People have different tastes
Too true. If we were all the same it would be boring.
Eh..I wouldn't use the word "right" - it's probably more accurate to use - true to most versions in comic books. Honestly, I think fans get a little too overworked with changes (although what do you expect? It's a common place in comic books - making the entire Superhero genre cyclical).
I think right is the correct term to use. Changes always happen in CBMs. There has not been one that has not had them. It comes with the territory. Sometimes they are even necessary. Sometimes not, but still they don't ruin a character in any significant way.
Things like with Batman killing does. When a change basically goes against such a major aspect that defines a character in terms of their morals and who they are as a person, and in this case hero, that's wrong. That's why there's always such a big backlash from the fans when it happens. Has been since the Tim Burton days. And here we are again.
These days, you are far more likely to find something original and better in books outside of plain superheroics.
I don't see what exactly. The most popular adaptions of these heroes tend to follow the good old fashioned superheroics. Spider-Man, Superman, Batman etc they don't have to stack up body counts to be great. I don't just mean in movies. Cartoons, too. I mean look at the likes of the Batman animated series.
Indeed. Of course, the word right and wrong, can be subjective...but at the same time.
Depends on what context you're using it in. The aforementioned examples in my last post with Deadpool, Bane, and Batman are definitely solid cases to say those choices of characterization were wrong.
Do I believe that no kill Batman is better? To certain extent, I do admit that the code does make the character better, but there are other sides to it. Especially when his code endangers Gothamites (and it's sort of becomes an internal conflict in itself, which writers often ignore - him maintaining his code, which is noble and selfish at the same time vs villains like Joker committing acts of great violence - which Bruce would technically prevent by letting his code go).
That kind of great conflict is why we get brilliant stuff like this;
[YT]VRiX5Mh2YCo[/YT]
If Batman was a killer, he and Jason's Red Hood would be partners, instead of having brilliantly intense scenes of ideology conflict like this.
Of course, he doesn't have to outright kill them either...he could just not save them. Best example I can think of right now is when he saves Joker in Arkham Origins (although, you can forgive that since it's his first encounter with the character).
I sort of liked what Snyder (Scott) did recently - where Bruce fought Joker and died, while evidently killing him (Joker).
But that scene in Arkham Origins (my fav of the Arkham games) is what set the stage for their relationship. It made Joker see Batman in a whole new light, and that's when his whole Batman obsession began. It was followed up by this piece of brilliance where we get a glimpse inside Joker's messed up mind, and what he thinks of Batman;
[YT]9akBjJZB29w[/YT]
Three years later I still say that game has some of the best Batman writing I've ever seen.
He shoots a car which explodes then crashes through it! He lands the ****ing Batmobile on a guys face!
