Zack Snyder Reveals How Robin Died In The DCEU

Batman-v-Superman-SDCC-trailer-1-1940x847

Ever since it was revealed that in the new DC Extended Universe Robin existed and died, many fans were excited to maybe one day get the “A Death in the Family” or “Under the Red Hood” story arcs. However, the reveal of Jared Leto’s Joker had fans in a frenzy coming up with as many out there theories they could think of.

One of the most outlandish theories that still gets talked about today is one where the Joker and Jason Todd (Robin) are one in the same. That an event causes the former Robin not to die but instead turn into the Batman’s biggest villain. A little different spin on this theory is that the original Joker captures and turns Robin into a version of himself before disappearing.

Today those theories can be put to rest because Zack Snyder director of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice and one of the architects of the DC Extended Universe has come out and stated how Robin died. In an interview with IGN Snyder states while talking about how the death of Robin shaped Batman that:

“In my mind it was that Robin had died about ten years earlier in some run in with a young Joker. So that was an interesting thing to me. Sorta a fun backstory to play with.”

Finally the talk about Jason Todd being the Joker can be put to rest. Would you like to see the future Batman solo film take on one of the above story arcs or maybe both? Be sure to tell us what you think in the comments section below.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36H12KGjTGE&w=560&h=315]

Source: IGN

Heroic Staff

Heroic Staff

Heroic Special Activities Division Agent Trainee Program

  • breakerbaker

    I really wish they had talked about losing Robin in BvS, rather than just having the suit Easter egg, which probably went over a bunch of the audience’s head. I think it would have been a good way for Alfred to try to appeal to Bruce’s better nature, which the movie doesn’t spend enough time acknowledging (in my opinion); it would also paint the picture for the audience of how much Bruce has lost and how far he’s fallen from the days of the Dynamic duo.

    • Elliot

      Zack is not good with emotional story telling but I think they will mention it in Ben Affleck directed Batman movie

      • TMPCTD

        It’ll probably be in the extended cut a bit, as well

        • Elliot

          I really hope it fixes the flow of the movie and is better cut together, it won’t fix the movie for me but it will help

      • SAMURAI36

        Yeah, cuz that opening scene with the Waynes getting murdered, was totally emotionless.

        • Elliot

          It was kinda but we have seen it like 3 times before so yeah. And 1 scene in a 2.5 hour does not make me emotional invested

    • SAMURAI36

      Man, you really need alot of extraneous exposition in order for a story to make sense to you. I get that you’re long winded, but it’s sad that you expect everyone else to be too.

      • breakerbaker

        I’m a fan of exposition when exposition builds character. I’m less a theme of exposition when it’s simply there to move or explain plot. If you can only imagine a way to do this that falls into the category of exposition, you’re not thinking hard enough but fine. The fact remains that the shot of the Robin suit leaves a huge percentage of the audience in the dark because they’ve never read or heard of Jason Todd, let alone A Death in the Family. The suit doesn’t look like any Robin suit they would recognize, and then the movie doesn’t mention him or it in any dialogue. Call it handholding if you want. I think it’s important for the audience to know that the Dynamic duo was a thing in this story and that it’s a key motivating force behind this new and more ruthless Batman. The movie basically tells that audience that it’s all about his parents and MoS. It doesn’t tell me that there’s any big deal about killing people. It doesn’t even tell me there was once a time when he wouldn’t. I would like to assume a lot of those things, but the movie doesn’t give me any reason to. Like the movie. Love the movie. My version with minimal rewrites would have been a 100 times better. Whether you want to admit it or not, even you would have liked it more.

        • SAMURAI36

          I’m a fan of exposition when exposition builds character. I’m less a theme of exposition when it’s simply there to move or explain plot. If you can only imagine a way to do this that falls into the category of exposition, you’re not thinking hard enough but fine.

          This doesn’t mean much to me. But I like how you’re trying to turn this around on me. I’m not the armchair screenwriter/director/whatever it is you think you are.

          The fact remains that the shot of the Robin suit leaves a huge percentage of the audience in the dark because they’ve never read or heard of Jason Todd, let alone A Death in the Family. The suit doesn’t look like any Robin suit they would recognize, and then the movie doesn’t mention him or it in any dialogue.

          And here you are again, trying to speak for an audience that you don’t even know. I’m willing to bet, that out of all the complaints that have been leveled against this film (excluding the “it’s not fun/like Marvel” idiotic complaints), not a single one has been anything remotely regarding this one scene.

          See, while you underestimate the audience’s (and practically everyone else’s) ability to comprehend, I (along with DC, apparently) take it as a given, that most people viewing this film has likely seen many of the cartoons and animated films (you know, those award-winning, bestselling ones?) where Robin’s outfit has been hanging up in the cave for the past couple of decades.

          It’s obvious that Robin is dead, based on the bulletholes in the suit, and Joker had something to do with his death, based on the “Hahahaha’s” spray painted on the suit. It’s really not that difficult, and since it’s not a story point that was central to the BVS story, having it as a cameo is clearly meant to serve the greater DCEU mythos.

          Not sure what’s so difficult about that.

          Call it handholding if you want.

          Yes, as a matter of fact, I do call it precisely that.

          I think it’s important for the audience to know that the Dynamic duo was a thing in this story and that it’s a key motivating force behind this new and more ruthless Batman.

          Good thing “the audience” has you looking out for them, huh? Seeing as how they are soooo stupid, and can’t figure any of this out on their own.

          The movie basically tells that audience that it’s all about his parents and MoS. It doesn’t tell me that there’s any big deal about killing people. It doesn’t even tell me there was once a time when he wouldn’t.

          Yes, because lines like “turning good men cruel”, and “how many are left, are still good”, are clearly just throw-away lines, that have nothing whatsoever to do with Batman, even though Batman himself said one of those lines (and Alfred said the other).

          I would like to assume a lot of those things, but the movie doesn’t give me any reason to. Like the movie. Love the movie. My version with minimal rewrites would have been a 100 times better. Whether you want to admit it or not, even you would have liked it more.

          Yeah, I think I’m gonna just stick with the masterpiece that I saw in the theaters for the 4TH TIME.

          • breakerbaker

            Of course you’re going to stick with it. You have no choice but to stick with it. And make excuses for its many shortcomings by finding fault in anyone who would find fault in it. That is who you are. That is the nature of your fandom. Pitiful insecurity under the thinnest veil of superiority.

            The audience–or a huge chunk of it–doesn’t know that’s Robin’s suit. That’s a problem. It’s an easily fixable, deeply unfortunate omission because of what talking about Robin (or even replacing one of those dream sequences–the second one is the worst, but I’d vote for either or both of the first two–with a Batman and Robin-themed one that ends with Bruce standing over Robin’s body) adds to the character of Bruce. He becomes more of a three dimensional character that way, and when he finally attempts to redeem himself in the end, his arc would have more of a complex emotional core. And I’m sorry, even if you think it’s got that already, the people who don’t come into it with foreknowledge (and even those of us who do but who appreciate a more refined approach to storytelling), do not share the same experience you do when watching it. The movie could have been made so much better if they had simply taken a weekend to clean up just a few of the scenes. And if they had cut a couple others.

            But I am glad you liked it.

          • SAMURAI36

            Of course you’re going to stick with it. You have no choice but to stick with it. And make excuses for its many shortcomings by finding fault in anyone who would find fault in it. That is who you are. That is the nature of your fandom. Pitiful insecurity under the thinnest veil of superiority.

            Yep, that’s totally me: someone who happens to enjoy a product, who doesn’t have to pick it apart just to show how pedantic I am, and who doesn’t take those who do this seriously.

            Imagine that.

            The audience–or a huge chunk of it–doesn’t know that’s Robin’s suit. That’s a problem.

            Prove it. Prove to me, right now, that the audience doesn’t know this. Give me links, quotes, stats, whatever you got. Prove what you’re saying right now, or stop talking about what the audience does or does not know.

            Besides, you are aware that Batman and the Joker are going to be in a Flashback scene in Suicide Squad, yes? Why is that not a perfect place to show the scene you are trying imply needs to be in the story?

            And I’m sorry, even if you think it’s got that already, the people who don’t come into it with foreknowledge (and even those of us who do but who appreciate a more refined approach to storytelling), do not share the same experience you do when watching it.

            There you go, speaking for “the audience” again. You have no idea how incredibly arrogant that makes you sound. If you can find 3 consecutive, yet unrelated reviews in which people are quibbling about this one point, anywhere–RT, Youtube, Social media, any of the comic book sites, etc–, then I’ll acquiesce to this one point. But I’m betting you won’t find it.

            It’s just YOU, that’s complaining about this point. Nobody else, just you. yhou’re the only one siting here acting like the movie fails, because they didn’t show Robin dying. Never mind the fact that aside from Batman killing, virtually EVERYONE agrees that every scene with Batman in it, is lauded as a masterpiece of storytelling.

            And LMAO at “refined storytelling”. Nothing you are describing could be remotely construed as that. You are too high on your own opinions for you own good, methinks.

            But I am glad you liked it.

            Says the guy who all but calls me retarded for liking the film, and that I should accept his janky, Captain Obvious, armchair version of it.

            Riiiight.

          • breakerbaker

            Dude, you’re not allowed to talk about the 1000s of books you have and claim that people don’t like a movie because they simply don’t know enough about the characters or the style of storytelling and then accuse somebody else of being a pedant. Or you’re allowed. It’s just extremely ill advised.

            Prove it. Prove to me, right now, that the audience doesn’t know this. Give me links, quotes, stats, whatever you got. Prove what you’re saying right now, or stop talking about what the audience does or does not know.

            This is the weakest brand of argument. That’s like me saying “prove that they do know!” But how exactly are you going to do that? See the problem? You presume the audience knows things you have no reason to expect them to know–outside of the circle of fandom, nobodys even heard of Jason Todd. They don’t know anything about Death in the Family. These aren’t things that can be verified with data. They’re simply things we should understand by knowing the culture. In nine live action Batman movies, Robin has appeared in three. The most recent was nearly 20 years and four movies ago. He did not wear a suit that looked like that in any adaptation. The only indication that he ever existed in this movie is a lingering shot that’s never explained. He’s not named or talked about. There’s barely any reason to expect half this audience to know who Robin is, let alone that that’s his suit. The reason it’s not as large a point of contention is because the suit is a symbol of a missed opportunity that would make the things that are bad about this movie better. If you don’t know who’s suit that is, then it’s not a particularly remarkable detail one way or the other. It’s just another gloomy detail for a gloomy Batman.

            In the end, the way storytelling works is that if it’s important that your audience know something, you do what you need to do to either show or tell them that something. It’s your responsibility as a storyteller to make the thing accessible to them without talking down to them. If your story fails to reach any but the most devout of the converted, then you’ve failed as a storyteller. That is most assuredly what has happened here. The sad thing about this movie is how close they came to making something that was genuinely good, but then with nearly every pivotal story cue, they come up short when they were nearly there. The movie is a collection of details. Some that work. Some that don’t work. Most that don’t work very well together.

          • SAMURAI36

            Dude, you’re not allowed to talk about the 1000s of books you have and claim that people don’t like a movie because they simply don’t know enough about the characters or the style of storytelling and then accuse somebody else of being a pedant. Or you’re allowed. It’s just extremely ill advised.

            Fair enough. But it’s probably preferable to do that, than to know very little about the subject matter, but still try to come off as a pedant. Just sayin’.

            This is the weakest brand of argument. That’s like me saying “prove that they do know!” But how exactly are you going to do that? See the problem?

            Actually, it’s no where near as hard as you are trying to make it seem. So here’s a suggestion:

            Let’s use RT (since that seems to be the go-to site for BVS, for some reason) as a qualifier….. Sift thru the 200-something reviews, and see which ones even remotely mention this “Robin” issue you are trying to trump up here. If you can find 3 or more, then I’ll gladly concede the point. But you and I both know that you won’t. I’ll even help you, if you want.

            You presume the audience knows things you have no reason to expect them to know–outside of the circle of fandom, nobodys even heard of Jason Todd.

            You’re moving the goalposts now. I never said anything about Jason Todd. In fact, I’ve already stated that there are mysteries that are going to be left for future movies. One of which is who the actual Robin is, which, if rumors are true, will play out in the Affleck Batman solo film, in “Under The Red Hood” fashion.

            I merely stated that the general audience will know that A) the suit on display is “Robin” (which is something as commonplace in DC lore, as people knowing that Superman is vulnerable to Kryptonite, without them having to say the word “Kryptonite” in the film), B) something happened to this Robin (based on the bulletholes in the suit), and C) the “something” that happened to Robin was likely at the hands of the Joker (hence the “hahaha” sprawled all over the suit).

            If the “general audience” isn’t able to piece these things together, then they have no business watching this movie to begin with.

            These aren’t things that can be verified with data. They’re simply things we should understand by knowing the culture. In nine live action Batman movies, Robin has appeared in three. The most recent was nearly 20 years and four movies ago. He did not wear a suit that looked like that in any adaptation. The only indication that he ever existed in this movie is a lingering shot that’s never explained. He’s not named or talked about. There’s barely any reason to expect half this audience to know who Robin is, let alone that that’s his suit.

            See above. However, you act as if the Batman and Robin dynamic hasn’t been thoroughly implanted within people’s minds, and that it’s only been done via the movies. Batman boasts the longest running (in multiple forms) animated history. People don’t have to know intricate stories like DITF or TKJ or UTRH, in order to know that it’s a Robin suit hanging up in the cave. It’s not like Batman keeps anyone else’s suits hanging up, other than members of the Bat Family. Some things are just common sense.

            The reason it’s not as large a point of contention is because the suit is a symbol of a missed opportunity that would make the things that are bad about this movie better. If you don’t know who’s suit that is, then it’s not a particularly remarkable detail one way or the other. It’s just another gloomy detail for a gloomy Batman.

            If that’s the case (which it’s most certainly NOT), then it’s nothing ventured, or gained/lost. But clearly it means something, as Batman takes a moment in the film, to stare at it.

            In the end, the way storytelling works is that if it’s important that your audience know something, you do what you need to do to either show or tell them that something.

            Good thing they SHOWED it, then. But that’s not what you’re talking about here. You seem to want EVERYTHING spelled out. No room, apparently, for nuance or subtlety, in your mind. Leave no mystery unsolved, no plots for later, etc. They either spill all the beans, or the movie sucks.

            It’s fine that you don’t prefer this particular story telling style (as I don’t prefer yours), but that doesn’t make it bad by default.

            It’s your responsibility as a storyteller to make the thing accessible to them without talking down to them.

            You mean, the way you’ve been trying to tell this story?

            That is most assuredly what has happened here. The sad thing about this movie is how close they came to making something that was genuinely good, but then with nearly every pivotal story cue, they come up short when they were nearly there. The movie is a collection of details. Some that work. Some that don’t work. Most that don’t work very well together.

            All of that is certainly your opinion. Those that liked the film (and despite what you seem to think, there are PLENTY who fall into the “general audience” category) don’t have the complaints that you seem to have.

            But that doesn’t mean that the film is perfect. I am however, after a 4th viewing, am willing to concede that Batman is indeed guilty of manslaughter, which is a valid (and even widespread) complaint, even if it’s one that I don’t personally share myself.

            But citing them not naming the Robin that died as a reason that the movie doesn’t work, is just downright outlandish.

          • breakerbaker

            So I went to see it again last night, and I’ll say this: It’s not nearly as bad the second time as it was the first.

            I still don’t think it’s a good movie, but it’s closer to being okay than it is to being just miserable, which was my initial reaction to it.

            I still don’t like a lot of the decisions they made with the characters and plot and I don’t think they did enough to earn some of the other decisions I’d be more okay with it they were simply fleshed out. And the nonlinear, choppy editing is a real obstacle to coherent storytelling in both the first act and in the epilogue.

            It’s frustrating because I think they were a few pretty simple changes (cutting a few scenes and changing/adding dialogue in a few others, and then maybe adding one or two scenes) away from something special that would have generated much more in terms of mass appeal. I know that you’re not particularly concerned with mass appeal, but there was a better way to skin this cat. And they just missed it.

          • SAMURAI36

            I won’t say “I told you so”, but I will say that I predicted as much, that you would feel at least slightly different about BVS, after a 2nd viewing.

            It’s kinda hard to tell with you, because you are more stiff-necked than most, but most people who had a negative take on the film after the initial viewing, changed their feelings after a subsequent viewing. Some have even done a complete 180 on their feelings about it.

            I’ve seen it 4 times already (working on the 5th this coming week, during my next day off from work).

            My first viewing, I was just in complete awe. The second time, I tried to hone in on the things I might have missed the first time. The 3rd time, I was left scratching my head, from all the negative reviews. The 4th time, I was in awe again.

            Not sure how I’ll feel this 5th time, but I’m pretty sure it will be something close to awe again, LOL.

          • breakerbaker

            I’m not comparing the movies. I didn’t even see FF. I’m pointing out that a 68 percent drop off from one week to the next is not a good thing. The New York Times calls it one of the steepest drops of any superhero movie from week one to week two ever. Coincidentally, I named another that dropped about the same amount. You did not like the implication. Here’s another: Watchmen dropped over 67%. It’s not good company when it comes to the perception of box office success. The Times said there was a similar drop off in the foreign markets, and it was especially steep in China.

            You can see it 100 times, if you like. As I’ve said several times, I’m glad you liked it. I am sorry to say that you are in the minority–regardless of whatever you think user generated reviews tell you. No matter how many times you see it and no matter how vervantly and desperately fans try to inflate the positive feedback on social media, it doesn’t change the fact that this movie has been tracking downward from opening day to Saturday to Sunday last week. It did pretty well on the weekdays (for March), as it opened the same week a lot of the country was on spring break, but comparing the weekend to weekend gross illustrates the problem in the same way the day to day gross did last weekend. This movie has poor word of mouth, and it’s made almost all of its money already. If it breaks $1B, it will be limping across the finish line.

            It will probably do well in the home market, so it will obviously make money, but it’s a movie that was designed to
            make at least $1.2B in theatrical release.

            This is not me hoping it will fail. I wish they had made a different movie, and I’m worried about the direction of JL. That much I will say. But I don’t want DC’s universe to fail or be delayed. Or for them to fall back on another Batman movie. I want them to make it work. And I pretty confident that WB is not happy tracking these numbers.

          • SAMURAI36

            I’m not comparing the movies. I didn’t even see FF. I’m pointing out that a 68 percent drop off from one week to the next is not a good thing.

            I neither said nor implied that you compared both movies on a creative level, but you are comparing them on a box office level. And the result is the same; it’s extremely disingenuous.

            I can’t believe that I have to explain this; you’re comparing BVS to a film that 1) didn’t even make its budget back, 2) didn’t open up to a 10th of what BVS did, 3) doesn’t have a positive movie history with the franchise, 4) received no licensing fees (due to Marvel c&ck-blocking it on the licensing end), and 5) suffered from a huge amount of negativity, practically from the very first announcement.

            The New York Times calls it one of the steepest drops of any superhero movie from week one to week two ever.

            Wow. See, this is the negative spin that I’m talking about. The NYT article (I’m going to assume you’re talking about this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/arts/batman-v-superman-stumbles-but-stays-at-no-1.html?_r=0) doesn’t say what you are trying to imply that it says. It also says far more than you are stating here as well.

            Basically, they are saying that the film is a success, DESPITE the drop.

            Coincidentally, I named another that dropped about the same amount. You did not like the implication. Here’s another: Watchmen dropped over 67%. It’s not good company when it comes to the perception of box office success. The Times said there was a similar drop off in the foreign markets, and it was especially steep in China.

            I love how you fail to mention the drops of films like Harry Potter, but is still one of the most successful blockbusters. Which is exactly what the article states.

            You see this as bad, because you think the movie was bad. As the article also states, WB doesn’t see anything bad about this, and that’s really all that matters.

            You can see it 100 times, if you like. As I’ve said several times, I’m glad you liked it. I am sorry to say that you are in the minority–regardless of whatever you think user generated reviews tell you.

            Sooo, it’s better to believe those who disliked/hated the film, rather than the OVERWHELMING number of us who liked/loved it. Noted.

            Not believed, but noted just the same.

            I’m not sure why you wanna be counted amongst the majority of fans that didn’t like the film, even though you’re not. Are you looking for validation that badly?

            It will probably do well in the home market, so it will obviously make money, but it’s a movie that was designed to make at least $1.2B in theatrical release.

            You said this before, and I asked for your proof, and you talked right over it. AGAIN. I’m asking for evidence of how you “know” what WB’s bottom line for this film is. Links please, or GTFOH.

            This is not me hoping it will fail. I wish they had made a different movie, and I’m worried about the direction of JL. That much I will say. But I don’t want DC’s universe to fail or be delayed. Or for them to fall back on another Batman movie. I want them to make it work. And I pretty confident that WB is not happy tracking these numbers.

            “I’m not hoping it will fail, but I’m putting alot of time and energy talking about it failing”. Got it.

            Anyways, all you are doing, is espousing the typical internet “wisdom” about the film, nothing more. “Affleck will do a solo Batman movie, to replace JL”, and other such nonsense. Stuff with no basis whatsoever.

            And there you go again, talking about what WB is happy about. Never mind the fact that they said they were happy in the very article you mentioned.

            You have no credibility here.

          • SAMURAI36

            So wait, I thought you said:

            And I pretty confident that WB is not happy tracking these numbers.

            So then what’s this???

            http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman_vs_superman/wb-says-theyre-not-concerned-with-batman-v-supermans-2nd-a133028

            Nothing you’ve said so far has panned out.

          • breakerbaker

            That’s a company putting out there what they need to put out there.

          • SAMURAI36

            But let me just say, it’s not necessarily that I’m not concerned with mass appeal. I still want this film to be a box office success (and it is), and that won’t happen with just me and other DC Enthusiasts going to see it a dozen times a piece.

            As of my writing this, the film is on track to make close to $700M before the weekend is done. And that’s just after the first week of opening. It’s still on track to make at least $900M (I’m still crossing fingers that it hits the $1B mark), which it will walk to by the end of its run.

            And that can’t be done without the general audience. But the audience has already spoken; they’ve defied critics, and have given an overall (re: 70+%) positive rating. Which is why I kept saying to you, that you don’t need to speak for the general audience, they’ve already spoken for themselves. Whether you realize it or not, your opinion is the minority, albeit, an overwhelmingly vocal one.

          • breakerbaker

            For better or worse, I think it’s pretty clear, I’m not in the minority.

            The movie dropped nearly 70 percent from weekend 1 to weekend 2. With no real competition, that’s a staggering drop. It means everybody who wanted to see it has already seen it, and that word of mouth was not great. By the end of the second weekend most movies will have made the overwhelming majority of their take, and this one is likely to have its numbers continue to plummet, as it went the unorthodox route of releasing everywhere in the world on the same week. Usually, they stagger international releases, so the global take stays strong as it opens in other markets. It meant the movie had an enormous first week, but without word of mouth, it doesn’t have legs to take it much further.

            “Success” is a nebulous thing. I don’t know if $999M worldwide (and as silly as it may sound to you, I think there’s a good chance the movie fails to break or only barely breaks $1B) will be enough to call is a success. I’m sure there will be those who call it a failure if it doesn’t break $1.5B, which would be a silly claim, but there will be people saying as much.

            I have a feeling that the number is almost guaranteed to come up short of WB’s initial expectations, let alone their hopes having already taken the financial hit of delaying it nearly a year. I don’t know whether to think of that as good or bad news. I do think Z and D Snyder (and maybe Geoff Johns and others) are steering the ship in the wrong direction. I’d like to think a disappointing showing would lead them to reassess, but I’m afraid they set too many things in motion in BvS to make significant changes organically. And I’m not at all confident that they are mature enough to handle the rejection of their idea–Z’s response to criticism thus far has been pretty childish.

          • SAMURAI36

            Nothing you said here is true.

            For better or worse, I think it’s pretty clear, I’m not in the minority.

            FALSE. Based on audience reviews online, the audience has been overwhelmingly positive.

            The movie dropped nearly 70 percent from weekend 1 to weekend 2. With no real competition, that’s a staggering drop. It means everybody who wanted to see it has already seen it, and that word of mouth was not great.

            FALSE, see above. But what you really mean, is that the criticics’ reviews have not been great. There have been numerous articles on this site as well as others, where word of mouth has been very good.

            By the end of the second weekend most movies will have made the overwhelming majority of their take, and this one is likely to have its numbers continue to plummet, as it went the unorthodox route of releasing everywhere in the world on the same week.

            By this “logic”, if it was going to make more the second week than it did the first, then this film would have made $1B this week…..????? Is this really what you’re trying to say?

            Star Wars didn’t even do that.

            “Success” is a nebulous thing. I don’t know if $999M worldwide (and as silly as it may sound to you, I think there’s a good chance the movie fails to break or only barely breaks $1B) will be enough to call is a success. I’m sure there will be those who call it a failure if it doesn’t break $1.5B, which would be a silly claim, but there will be people saying as much.

            What a weird world we live in, where a billion dollars is no longer considered a success.

            I have a feeling that the number is almost guaranteed to come up short of WB’s initial expectations, let alone their hopes having already taken the financial hit of delaying it nearly a year.

            Do you know what WB’s expectations were? And do you know what their “financial hit” was? Because I sure don’t. Did they ever announce those numbers to the public?

            I do think Z and D Snyder (and maybe Geoff Johns and others) are steering the ship in the wrong direction. I’d like to think a disappointing showing would lead them to reassess, but I’m afraid they set too many things in motion in BvS to make significant changes organically. And I’m not at all confident that they are mature enough to handle the rejection of their idea–Z’s response to criticism thus far has been pretty childish.

            LMAO, Geoff Johns is steering the ship in the wrong direction?? That’s rich.

            You’ve gone right back into the DC hate brigade category, with that one statement.

          • breakerbaker

            Dude. It made $171M domestic in its first weekend. This weekend, it’s on track to make $52M. That’s a 68% drop, despite the fact that people like you and I have seen it more than once. Just looking at the last major Marvel release, Age of Ultron had a 58% drop from the first to second weekend. That’s what you want in a blockbuster–something in the 50-60% because it’s likely to be cut at least in half again the weekend after that. By comparison, the most recent Fantastic Four dropped 68.2%.

            The trick about this movie is that it’s incredibly front loaded because it opened in so many markets on the same day. So yeah, it’s passed the $700M mark in 10 days. That’s an incredible achievement. It’s numbers are about to go off a cliff, though. Or, they already have.

          • SAMURAI36

            Dude. It made $171M domestic in its first weekend. This weekend, it’s on track to make $52M. That’s a 68% drop, despite the fact that people like you and I have seen it more than once. Just looking at the last major Marvel release, Age of Ultron had a 58% drop from the first to second weekend. That’s what you want in a blockbuster–something in the 50-60% because it’s likely to be cut at least in half again the weekend after that. By comparison, the most recent Fantastic Four dropped 68.2%.

            The fact that you are comparing BVS to FF says all that it needs to say about your bias. Never mind the fact that all the articles on the subject compared it to other Blockbusters of the same caliber, and never once did I see FF even get mentioned in the same discussion as BVS. I don’t even need to explain why that’s one big non-sequitur, and thus I’m not going to.

            The trick about this movie is that it’s incredibly front loaded because it opened in so many markets on the same day. So yeah, it’s passed the $700M mark in 10 days. That’s an incredible achievement. It’s numbers are about to go off a cliff, though. Or, they already have.

            If it’s already “gone off a cliff”, then that’s a d&mn good thing, since it’s still gonna make another $200M (-/+) before the end of its run. All it has to do at this point, is walk to $1B or $900M.

            You can keep trying to spin that as a negative all you want. I, along with most other DC fans, as well as WB themselves, see this as nothing but a complete positive.

  • Tom Chambers

    I do admit I was hoping that Leto’s Joker in Suicide Squad was Todd.

  • Joseph Chaisson

    Does;t really state how he died. Or which Robin it was.

    • ProjectBlue

      Though I bet that’s the exact amount of thought Snyder put into it

  • CSM

    “IN MY MIND”

    A very cavernous place where anyone else can easily ignore and reinterpret.

  • “Sorta fun…” Fun was how he described killing Jimmy Olsen too. This guy just LOVES knocking off beloved characters before they get to become real characters.

  • Jared

    “Sorta a fun backstory to play with.” That’s SUPER fun, the death of a sidekick.

    • SAMURAI36

      Civil War (you know, the story where Cap got killed?) was described as “fun” too.

      Oh wait, that only applies to Marvel. My bad.

  • Lecrazy

    “a young Joker”. Didn’t actually say THE Joker.

  • Pingback: Zack Snyder Explains When Robin Died In The DC Extended Universe | Gizmodo Australia()

  • Pingback: Zack Snyder Explains When Robin Died In The DC Extended Universe – DailyITfix.com- Get Your Geek Fix()

  • Carl

    Honestly this puts nothing to rest.

  • Pingback: This is how Robin died in the DC Cinematic Universe | TechKee Blog()

  • Pingback: This is how Robin died in the DC Cinematic Universe | CTS Blog()

  • Pingback: Director Zack Snyder Reveals How Robin Died And What It Means For Justice League – RECKNEWS.COM()

  • Pingback: Director Zack Snyder Reveals How Robin Died And What It Means For Justice League – DarkGeekMedia()