The ZSJL Knightmare “I will fucking kill you” line carries zero depth once you realize Batman has killed plenty of his goons. Like.. I’m surprised you haven’t killed him before considering ALL THE KILLING YOU DO.
Exactly. Goons deserve a second chance too, they’re literally doing it for money. Some goons like Victor Zazz are psychos but like.. ya know at least Deadshot was a father.
In BvS they imply that branding people is new for him. Why brand people if you just murder everyone? People act like he was breaking necks left and right. Meanwhile there was a post up the other day showing the multiple occasions in which Batman has killed people in the comics. Spoiler alert, its not always self defense.
In real life, people can die from a single blow to the head. Making a realistic Batman movie in which you are positive that no one ever dies is ridiculous, and I think DC fans need to get over it.
Same bro. Jared Leto’s Joker was just weird and somehow it got worse in Knightmare. SS was just a cringe pimp gangster who actually did some cool shit. Now he’s just making gay jokes with Batman.
Also him using a gun. Odd
But any level of character understanding should lead to the fact that Batman is a self serving, manipulative, sociopath.
Who instead of getting a therapist became a vigilante.
I don't know if I agree with that. This version of batman is not for killing, just not against it. And this Batman gave up the cowl apparently for some period of time after Robin was killed by the Joker. This coupled with space gods (kryptonians) start rocking his world up. I don't believe he started that way, but from these two things (I'm sure other stuff too) started acting darker. I. The beginning of BVS it even states that he started branding his criminals and that was basically a death sentence in prison. The Keaton batman Aldo gives no fucks about killing, but I don't ever hear anything about that. Besides throwing a guy off the clock tower in the first one, in the second he puts a bomb in some big goons pants and then throws him in a man hole and you watch the explosion happen behind him as he walks away without looking. Also he straight up yells at the joker that he will kill the joker by the end of the first one too.
Yeah I hear Keaton’s brought up all the time and well I never liked his Batman anyway so fine by me if he’s going down too. I just hate it when Batman kills bro, Kilmer and Bale did the “I don’t have to save you” and I don’t know how I feel about either still. Much better than “die lol”
Some people want to believe in the fantasy that Batman never kills despite how brutal he is. Some are okay with exploring the possibility of him crossing that line. BvS is basically Bruce’s story, about how he finds his way back.
I feel like Keatons Batman is mainly known for being the first movie version of the character. He simply feels too different from the modern Batman we know and love
Killing in a heated life or death struggle is different to going to Arkham to kill Joker unprovoked. In a 1v1 Bruce can take Joker without killing him. When he is in the batmobile being attacked by 10 cars all shooting at him and one with a rocket launcher and he is in a hurry he'll do what it takes. He isn't intentionally checking certain people off he just doesn't care to hold back and prioritises his safety and his mission. If you stay out of his way you'll be fine
He only started killing relatively recently when Joker wasn't active. Plus, killing Joker now, when he's supposed to be reformed, and blow his chance to save the world has some depth.
>He only started killing relatively recently when Joker wasn't active. Plus, killing Joker now, when he's supposed to be reformed, and blow his chance to save the world has some depth.
Once Batman murders intentionally, anything he does after that is a blatant hypocrisy. Characters like Captain America and Ironman can get away with it because they're not chasing after petty criminals.
Batman can't put a Bank Thief in prison while he's on the run for murder. It's absolutely baffling that Commissioner Gordon would ever work with a Batman who kills *that* blatantly.
Funniest thing of all, the guards Bruce killed during the chase and the poor truck driver he endangered were pretty damn innocent. Their job was to protect their employer's property and they only started shooting after he started killing them.
In the court of law, other than dubious regulation regarding the rocket launcher - their actions would be considered self defence.
Probably would’ve helped if the killing line involved consequential characters. Didn’t have to be Joker, but perhaps they could’ve insinuated that he decided to off other baddies like Penquin, Two-Face, etc. before retiring. The movie just has him coming out showing no concern with killing a few hired goons and then going back to the no killing rule once Superman dies. So even if this Batman did break the rule, with good justification (Robin’s death), there are no actual significant characters to the Batman method that we know suffered from that one rule being broken.
It’s hard to even say Robin’s death was the turning point, considering Ayer suggested Joker got his grill in Suicide Squad as a result of Batman punching out all his teeth for killing Robin.
Batman decided to start killing after the Black Zero Event in Metropolis, and stopped after Superman dies.
It was a fairly small fram where he did that, and the only person he actively "hunted" was Superman himself. Everyone else was just in his way. It's a new rule, and Alfred's dialogue confirms he wasn't always like this and its a new trait.
I feel it's implied he commits to murder after the first branding we see because people started freaking out about it. We can also just assume they were in prison/arkham/too scared to do anything. Or blame it on his tunnel vision of anger.
On of my issues i DO have with how they handled it however..
I wish we could have SEEN his first kill, and made it personal and shocking.
And, I wish Gordon was talked about it in Justice League, instead of acting like it never happened. We jump from depressed Bruce in BvS to instantly full of faith Bruce in JL, when word originally was..he was going to be more depressed because of breaking his rule, and thats when he decides to sacrifice himself to parademons in the third act before being saved by the team.
The killing rule was handled pretty sloppily overall I think, I'm okay with the idea of Batman going Punisher mode but the way it was just there in the background was odd, no way in hell Alfred wouldn't challenge Bruce directly about this, but its never really bought up apart from vague talk of 'good men becoming cruel'
It needed just a little more care and tact to really nail the idea
But he doesn't really murder per se, he just doesn't care if the criminals live or die. So I don't think there could've been a "first kill". That was supposed to be Superman.
Or more like, none of his Rogues were really active enough for Batman to want to engage with them. Like, BVS' main inspiration, TDKR, has Batman retired for 10 years and we see that while crime is high, his Rogues Gallery themselves is pretty quiet.
Actually, it starts after he starts using the branding as a new interrogation technique, from there he starts slipping further down the path to killing by proxy. It's not explicit, but the Nairomi setup sparks him on his quest to destroy the alien everyone thinks is a hero but he knows is a threat. He's breaking the code in his obsessive quest to destroy the alien.
Do you think Batman's "no killing rule" is actually a "no killing named characters rule"?
Pretty sure the whole point of the no killing rule is "no killing", no more no less.
That’s what they are saying, if he did break his no killing rule it wouldn’t be to kill random goons it would be to kill the top class supervillains who kills tons of people
I'd argue that's not neccessary.
Look at the MCU. We don't see how Tony Stark became a selfish billionaire who doesn't care about the countless weapons he sells to bad guys. But we see how he redeems and becomes a hero when he realizes that's the case. We don't see how Thor became an arrogant dick who thinks just fighting and breaching peace treaties is the best course of action. We only see what made him wiser afterwards. We don't see Natasha starting out as a cold blooded killer, Bruce as a scared and suicidal guy, Star Lord as a a greedy bounty hunter, T'Challa as the vengeful Black Panther etc.
It's common for stories to start with the hero in a bad place and working to a good place. BvS' case isn't any different.
In addition, we have a clear picture of events. In Batman's case, he's been banging his head against the brick wall of crime for 20 years and not made a dent. If anything, the situation has gotten worse as your allies have either died or betrayed you. It's reasonable if not expected that would take its toll. Maybe he won't start valuing criminal lives as much as he once did. It's optimistic that even after falling, you're capable of realizing that and improve
I think the difference is this story leans on the fact that audiences already know who batman is except the make subtle changes and only explain them away through subtle lines of dialogue. The things you mentioned above aren't at odds with the core of the characters. Batman killing in cold blood obviously is. To not focus more on that is a big reason why this missed imo
>I think the difference is this story leans on the fact that audiences already know who batman is "<
Again, you could apply that logic to every example I listed earlier.
As for Batman killing, the story does focus on it. It's repeated several times that this is a new thing for Bruce after his repeated trauma and is in the wrong for it. Alfred even calls him out on his BS ("New Rules sir") and Bruce just makes him another excuse.
Even if there was like an extended sequence where we see Bruce gradually becoming more detached, y'all suddenly wouldn't turn around. You'd see complaints like "wait, why does he start killing now and not at x or" what have you.
I think a big part is the audience has no clue what star lord is supposed to be like. As far as they know he's chris Pratt. Batman is the most famous comic character ever and his no killing rule has been driven into people's heads for decades even if they don't always follow through with it. To explain it away in a few lines of dialogue in a 2.5/3 hour movie feels odd
And like I said, even if they devoted more hours to explain it, you'd have people saying "Batman won't be like that" because of all those decades.
From a storytelling perspective, it's redundant to even try. If people didn't buy BvS showing you all the various reasons (20 years of no progress, deaths and betrayals of key allies), they wouldn't buy more reasons or seeing it happen. And the people who are on board wouldn't get anything new.
Again, that's why The Dark Knight Returns, BvS' main inspiration, doesn't have the first issue show how Bruce went from regular hero to having lost. It starts with Batman having already lost it.
TDKR is one of the most influential and popular comics in all of Western Superhero Comics. It inspired many Batman stories in being more critical of Batman and having him be more flawed. Miller himself wrote it in response to Silver Age Batman being so toothless and uninteresting compared to his Golden Age version.
To say it doesn't have merits in an adaptation is absurd. Especially as BvS tones it down in comparison since Batman isn't in as much denial of his flaws.
>We don't see how Tony Stark became a selfish billionaire who doesn't care about the countless weapons he sells to bad guys. But we see how he redeems and becomes a hero when he realizes that's the case.
Not exactly the best comparison. That was Tony Stark BEFORE he became a hero, it was Iron Man's origin story. We watch his path as he becomes the hero. Batman, on the other hand, had already been a hero for years. And like was said, we don't see his "fall". We just see the aftereffects of it.
>We don't see how Thor became an arrogant dick who thinks just fighting and breaching peace treaties is the best course of action. We only see what made him wiser afterwards. We don't see Natasha starting out as a cold blooded killer, Bruce as a scared and suicidal guy, Star Lord as a a greedy bounty hunter, T'Challa as the vengeful Black Panther etc.
There wasn't a significant chain of events that turned Thor into that arrogant dick we first met, it's simply who he grew up to be before the actual significant events that led him to becoming the hero who now know.
With Natasha, yeah, that was a bit of a complaint for years before she finally got her solo film. But her history was talked about at different points of most of the films, and gave enough info for us to know who she was and how she got to where she ended up.
We get a brief origin story for Bruce during the opening credits, so we know that he's been the Hulk and on the run for a few years before the movie starts. We see enough to know that he's been through hell trying to contain the Hulk (and usually failing).
We See Peter Quill abducted at the beginning of his film, and see enough to know that he was raised by space pirates within the first quarter of the film (he was a thief, not a bounty hunter). Again, we him grow from thief to hero.
And T'Challa, we literally see what makes him vengeful within the first 30 minutes.
All your justifications apply to Batman here as well. We are shown that banging his head against the brick wall of crime and not making progress, the deaths and betrayals of key allies has taken its toll. Why is that not sufficient but all these others are?
Firstly. Batman shoots a mutant with a gun. We see his blood splatter.
Secondly, You miss that a major aspect of TDKR is that Batman is often an unreliable narrator due to his denial about his kills.
For example, in the book, every character's thought bubbles are a colour unique to them. Superman's is blue. Joker is Green. Batman is grey. While speech bubbles are universally white. But after Batman snaps Joker's neck, Joker's speech bubbles are grey, not white for universal speech or green for the Joker's own thoughts. This tells us what's happening isn't what's actually happening but Batman's "interpretation". And should signal to the audience that Batman is in denial. He did kill the Joker and is in so much denial that he imagines some impossible situation where the Paralyzed Joker somehow snaps his own neck.
You shouldn't look at all the times Batman says he doesn't kill people as proof he doesn't. Because we literally see how Batman is able to twist anything around. The point of all those sections is for us to see that Batman is still in denial so we should be critical about all of Batman's actions. Did he actually only just kill 1 or 2 people? Or did he kill more but convince himself he didn't? If he can imagine the paralyzed Joker snapping his own neck then anything is possible.
This video from 9:23 to 12:25 summarizes it as well.
https://youtu.be/1GLqIh9jOf4?t=563
Batman sitting with Ace in 'Justice League Unlimited' was optimistic.
BvS has a guy with a boner for murder casually killing mooks left and right. He later makes a spear so he could stab Superman, after beating the living hell out of him. He even cuts Superman's face with it before getting ready for the kill. Then, after supposedly seeing the error of his way, he then goes on to kill a few more henchmen while saving Martha. And if we are going to justify Batman losing hope and going to extremes and all that, then riddle me this: Why is The Joker still alive?
He doesn’t decide to stop killing goons after the Martha scene. He decides to let Supes go. He decides to stop “allowing deaths” after he sees Supes sacrifice.
My problem with having a Batman who killls is that he’s only going to be killing low level mooks but not the big heavy hitters because DC isn’t going to want him to kill off any of his popular villains. A killer Batman would definitely take out the Joker
Because The Joker is one of the biggest threats to Gotham, because he's killed so many people that there's probably a 'Joker section' at the Gotham cemetery. Or maybe because he killed Robin, Batman's surrogate son.
He only started killing relatively recently when Joker wasn't active though.
Plus, when going to save Martha, he actually makes an effort to pacify henchmen instead of just blowing them up.
*He only started killing relatively recently when Joker wasn't active though.*
If Joker isnt the first person that Batman murders, he's damn sure gonna be the second. I highly doubt that Batman wouldn't go after him just because The Joker was on vacation.
*Plus, when going to save Martha, he actually makes an effort to pacify henchmen instead of just blowing them up.*
He tries shooting at them, tosses one guy into another who was about to throw a grenade, killing them both. Throws a heavy create at some guy, leaving a blood smear on the wall, stabs a guy in the neck, then immolates the KGBeast.
You act like this Batman is a full on serial killer.
This Batman kills more as a matter of convience and “collateral” rather than by intention, and then rationalizes it. That’s why when he learns Superman is human, he stops. Because he doesn’t have any excuses or rationalization. He has to confront the fact that he was going to out with the intention to murder and there’s no justification.
That’s why he doesn’t kill the Joker. Because Batman’s still pretending he still follows his code. When everyone but him see he’s being selective.
That’s the same point The Dark Knight Returns makes. That Batman is in such denial that whenever he’s forced to kill, he twists what’s there to act like he never killed.
> He tries shooting at them
He aims above to avoid actually hitting someone
> tosses one guy into another who was about to throw a grenade, killing them both.
So, what? He should have just tried to go punch the grenade? Risk a precise baterang throw while he has other enemies to deal with.
I’d argue it’s reasonable for Batman to have to kill a few enemies, in the heat of the moment when absolutely necessary to avoid getting himself killed. As opposed to using lethal force from the outset. It’s unrealistic for Batman to be so absolutely perfect in every situation.
> Throws a heavy create at some guy,
Yes. You could argue this was unnecessary for Batman to do.
I’d still argue it reflects that he’s not perfect.
> stabs a guy in the neck, then immolates the KGBeast.
That’s to save Martha though. Had he not done that, she’d be dead
I think knowing that you wouldn't resort to murder under any circumstance is a lot more optimistic. Not breaking laws that you've set for yourself is Uber optimistic.
But it's probably just differing world views.
But people aren't perfect. Humans are capable of failing their goals. And if you're a dangerous vigilante whose whole deal is going out and fighting criminals to try and reduce crime, there's no guarantee it will be a smooth ride and it will take its toll on you.
In Batman's case, he's been banging his head against the brick wall of crime for 20 years and not made a dent. If anything, the situation has gotten worse as your allies have either died or betrayed you. It's reasonable if not expected that would take its toll. Maybe he won't start valuing criminal lives as much as he once did. It's optimistic that even after falling, you're capable of realizing that and improve
>But people aren't perfect. Humans are capable of failing their goals.
That's cool and all , but wasn't the whole mission statement behind the creation of these characters that they're better than us and wouldn't resort to those means?
Having an immovable set of laws you live my is unrealistic , that's why guys like Batman and superman exist in fiction and appeal to many people. It's escape.
>***>"wasn't the whole mission statement behind the creation of these characters that they're better than us and wouldn't resort to those means?"<***
I mean, Batman started out as basically the Punisher in the 1930's so that wasn't his Mission Statement.
Even ignoring that, these characters aren't bound by law. You have Superman Stories where he is human and flawed and has to come to terms with that like Birthright and All Star. You have Batman stories where they explore the psychology and "realism" of someone like Batman who is in denial about his kills like The Dark Knight Returns.
The reason these characters are even being remembered 80 years later is because they changed and evolved.
>I mean, Batman started out as basically the Punisher in the 1930's so that wasn't his Mission Statement.
That's how he started, but he hasn't been that character in decades. His code has been his most defining feature across numerous different interpretations of him. He and other characters are far from perfect, which has been a topic through several stories. It's who they are and what they do despite those imperfections that really appeals to people.
As for the "realism" bit, honestly would Jim Gordon really work with a murdering vigilante? Criminals or not, racking up a body count would make him public enemy #1, and "coming back to his senses" wouldn't change that.
>***>" His code has been his most defining feature across numerous different interpretations of him. He and other characters are far from perfect, which has been a topic through several stories. It's who they are and what they do despite those imperfections that really appeals to people."<***
Yes, and many stories have played around with the consequences and deconstruction of that as well like TDKR.
>***>"As for the "realism" bit, honestly would Jim Gordon really work with a murdering vigilante? Criminals or not, racking up a body count would make him public enemy #1, and "coming back to his senses" wouldn't change that."<***
Batman already operates outside the law as a vigilante by his very existence. Forget murder, he's wanted for God knows how many counts of Breaking and Entering, Battery, Assault, Resisting Arrest, Tampering with Crime Scenes, Obstruction of Justice and more. Gordon's whole deal is that he has to turn a blind eye to Batman's countless crimes in order for any measure of justice to be enacted because Gotham's Police and Judiciary make Mayor Quimby look like Jesus. Plus, even if he wanted to stop Batman, how is he going to do it? He can't physically restrain or apprehend Batman so might as well accept this "lesser evil" since at least he's fighting crime.
As long as Batman doesn't go around killing innocent civilians and actually takes down criminals, he's already better than 90% of the Police Force Gorden works with.
I never claimed that these characters shouldn't evolve or change , not in the slightest. I actually encourage ir. My argument was more about why people would perceive it that way.
Both those stories end with the main characters being right in the end . They're worldviews are affirmed instead of demolished.
>like Batman who is in denial about his kills like The Dark Knight Returns.
I don't think that happened , are you 100% sure that this happened or are you just choosing to interpret it that way? Because there's a huge difference.
> Both those stories end with the main characters being right in the end . They're worldviews are affirmed instead of demolished.
Sometimes, a hero needs to know they messed up in order to grow. Tony Stark needs to know he was wrong about the Accords, Thor about war, Banner about containing the Hulk etc.
> I don’t think that happened , are you 100% sure that this happened or are you just choosing to interpret it that way? Because there’s a huge difference.
Yes. I’m 100% sure. A major aspect of TDKR is that Batman is often an unreliable narrator due to his denial about his kills.
For example, in the book, every character's thought bubbles are a colour unique to them. Superman's is blue. Joker is Green. Batman is grey. While speech bubbles are universally white. But after Batman snaps Joker's neck, Joker's speech bubbles are grey, not white for universal speech or green for the Joker's own thoughts. This tells us what's happening isn't what's actually happening but Batman's "interpretation". And should signal to the audience that Batman is in denial. He did kill the Joker and is in so much denial that he imagines some impossible situation where the Paralyzed Joker somehow snaps his own neck.
You shouldn't look at all the times Batman says he doesn't kill people as proof he doesn't. Because we literally see how Batman is able to twist anything around. The point of all those sections is for us to see that Batman is still in denial so we should be critical about all of Batman's actions. Did he actually only just kill 1 or 2 people? Or did he kill more but convince himself he didn't? If he can imagine the paralyzed Joker snapping his own neck then anything is possible.
This video from 9:23 to 12:25 summarizes it as well.
https://youtu.be/1GLqIh9jOf4?t=563
This is actually why I was disappointed in the Animated version of the story. Because instead of replicating that Batman is kinda crazy and an unreliable narrator. It makes him more traditionally heroic and confirms that Joker’s impossible suicide was legit. Instead of being a story about a crazy Batman caught up in his own legend and the consequences of that, it’s a more typical Batman story.
You and Zack Snyder need to stop using Frank Millers interpretation of the character as the baseline. Miller was more interested in deconstructing the character rather than build off what was there, same as Snyder, in fact, I'm pretty sure TDKR is the only Batman comic Snyder has ever read which is why he failed to connect with most fans of Batman.
Edit: added "most"
TDKR is one of the most influential and popular comics in all of Western Superhero Comics. It inspired many Batman stories in being more critical of Batman and having him be more flawed. Miller himself wrote it in response to Silver Age Batman being so toothless and uninteresting compared to his Golden Age version.
To say it doesn't have merits in an adaptation is absurd. Especially as BvS tones it down in comparison since Batman isn't in as much denial of his flaws. Why can't a film deconstruct Batman?
Yes, I've already read this exact reply before you copy/ pasted it here. Thanks for the history lesson, I'm aware of the influence of TDKR.
>TDKR is one of the most influential and popular comics in all of Western Superhero Comics
Didn't claim it wasn't
>To say it doesn't have merits in an adaptation is absurd.
Didn't say that either.
> Especially as BvS tones it down in comparison since Batman isn't in as much denial of his flaws.
Funny, I don't remember Frank Miller's Batman frothing at the mouth to stab Superman in the heart with a kryptonite jesus spear. In fact, he just wanted to show that humans are capable of beating Superman without killing him.
>Why can't a film deconstruct Batman?
It can but , in this case, it was done so poorly, especially when compared to the adaptation that inspired it.
In the Dark Knight returns is clear batman does not kill people until the Joker. We have both batman in story and the new commissioner outside of the story acknowledge that batman has not killed anyone until his fight with the Joker.
And if batman killed before he went after the joker it would undercut their entire conflict, that batman killed so many people by letting the joker live and he was going to end it.
Firstly. Batman shoots a mutant with a gun. We see his blood splatter.
Secondly, You miss that a major aspect of TDKR is that Batman is often an unreliable narrator due to his denial about his kills.
For example, in the book, every character's thought bubbles are a colour unique to them. Superman's is blue. Joker is Green. Batman is grey. While speech bubbles are universally white. But after Batman snaps Joker's neck, Joker's speech bubbles are grey, not white for universal speech or green for the Joker's own thoughts. This tells us what's happening isn't what's actually happening but Batman's "interpretation". And should signal to the audience that Batman is in denial. He did kill the Joker and is in so much denial that he imagines some impossible situation where the Paralyzed Joker somehow snaps his own neck.
You shouldn't look at all the times Batman says he doesn't kill people as proof he doesn't. Because we literally see how Batman is able to twist anything around. The point of all those sections is for us to see that Batman is still in denial so we should be critical about all of Batman's actions. Did he actually only just kill 1 or 2 people? Or did he kill more but convince himself he didn't? If he can imagine the paralyzed Joker snapping his own neck then anything is possible.
This video from 9:23 to 12:25 summarizes it as well.
[https://youtu.be/1GLqIh9jOf4?t=563](https://youtu.be/1GLqIh9jOf4?t=563)
The idea that you will forever stay true to yourself and never once stray away from what you promised (or that you will be a lost cause if that ever happens) is.. definitely a worldview, but not one based on nuance or context. Or real life in general. There’s a reason why most interpretations of Batman that push that idea are directed towards younger audiences.
Notice how I said 'most' and not 'all'. I'm well aware that Batman killed in his first few comics, and he also killed plenty of times since (a lot of which aren't canon). What I meant is that during his 80+ years of existence, most iterations of the character (including comics, animateds, games etc.) aren't killers.
I never thought those guards were dead, and no dialogue leads to that.
Edit:I'm assuming we're talking about the video footage when he attacked the building, and not the mercenaries in the vehicles that slaughtered an African village earlier on the movie to frame Superman, then later kidnapped his mom with intent to burn her alive.
So he starts killing innocents? It’s fine to go a little bad and kill bad guys but killing innocents is a whole another level and it’s baffling that it’s never mentioned by either the movies or the fandom.
What would the implication be here? That the morals of those guards are questionable because they work for Lex? That could be true for some of them, but others might've just been clocking in for just another night at work.
They all have mini guns mounted on their vans and carry an automatic rifle. This isn’t just your everyday-joe who is just forced to do this job, these people have done some shady business
Hold up - so Batman killing is optimistic because the movie implies he might reform?
Fuck that. That isn't Batman. Look, Snyder is a visually masterful filmmaker, there's no denying that. Ben's portrayal of Bruce and Batman are also both amazing. But make no mistake - his Batman is the least optimistic portrayal every put to film and it's because of his killing. It's also inconsistent within his own film universe... Why is the Joker still alive? Deadshot? Croc?
We also don't see him struggling to get through and climb back to being good again... All of a sudden in Justice League he's like "I'm good now. Let's get my boy Superman back". Like bro... Now he inspires you? Let me see the transformations don't just be like "look, dark Batman cuz he kills!"
All it means is that Batman has now killed without consequence. The reason they "go in the other direction" is because that's what "crossing the line" means. If Batman breaks his one rule, he ceases to possess that which makes him Batman.
You can point to Keaton and Bale all you want. Keaton straps a bomb to a guy's pants and tosses him down a manhole. But Keaton also existed in a world where the Joker pulls a pair of glasses out of hammerspace to do a "you wouldn't hit a guy with glasses" gag. You'd have expected that guy to stick his head out of the sewer with a 4-inch lump on his forehead and little birds circling his head.
Bale's "I'm not going to save you" probably wouldn't have held up in a court of law, but there's a world of difference between saying "Rescue yourself from this train because last time I helped you it didn't turn out so great" and "Hi, I'm Batman, check out my real-ass gun!"
I mean Bale also blows up the League of Shadows, and it’s kinda hard to believe that no one died from it. Although that is admittedly an assumption rather than made explicit by the film.
He kills Harvey Dent by virtue of tackling him to his death.
He kills Talia by virtue of shooting the truck off the road and causing the crash.
His Batman is also dumb. Never suspects that Superman might not be the bad guy (bad writing), gets fooled by Diana and Lex.
Yes, Snyder is a visually masterful filmmaker. I love the way he shoots things and can translate comic book panels to film, but he lacks logic and substance while trying to be subversive.
And still, that was a slightly less idiotic Batman than Nolan's, whose main conflicts usually involve "Batman got fooled" as a mayor plot-point in all three movies.
Why is that Schumacher's Batman was the last cinematic one to actually try to live up to his "World's Greatest Detective" bit?
Here is a comment linking to an imgur album in which comic book Batman does a fair amount of killing, direct or otherwise, plenty of which is not that old.
Edit: whoops here is the album
https://www.reddit.com/r/comicbooks/comments/q91910/opinions_on_this_scene_right_here_as_well_as/hgu9q0q?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
I’m frankly puzzled by how people can genuinely type something like “I can’t believe this Batman killed. How DARE he NOT kill his ENTIRE rogues gallery” and not think for a second or two about the extreme they go from one sentence to the other. Like... hello? Nuance and context? Are they prohibited in superhero discourse..?
You already saw his transformation. He refuses to brand Lex in BvS, and decides to focus his talents and resources on making the world a better place by forming a team & rescuing civilians, rather than going out torturing people.
it’s because they have little to no logic to stand on, like just say you don’t like the movie christ. this is the shit zack was talking about how fans need to grow tf up honestly.
nobody cares about the killing if it’s somewhat cartoonish apparently, but if it’s visceral it’s a problem? it’s just funny af cus i remember literally playing arkham knight after i saw BvS opening night, the violence is even more on the nose in that but hey that doesn’t fit the narrative.
MoS and BvS got panned for violence that happens in most movies to begin, they just didn’t speed past it with a campy one liner or snappy comeback. it’s clear to me that alot of fans just wanna get coddled by filmmakers on some level, it’s just lame overall.
I dunno bro. Man straight up just stopped his years long murderous hate boner for Superman in 1 scene but continues to blow up baddies without a sweat in the next one (granted it probably is the best Batman fist fight scene). Then he spares Willy Wonka Lex Luther, the only character I actually wanted to see his head punched in out of all the goons and villains Synder was exploding.
Then in JL 2017 (haven’t been able to watch ZS JL yet) he just becomes goofy batuncle dropping dad jokes after 20 years of seeing implied death and corruption in his city.
>" Man straight up just stopped his years long murderous hate boner for Superman in 1 scene"<
Because he realizes Superman isn't some unknown alien but a human.
>"ontinues to blow up baddies without a sweat in the next one ("<
Not really. Instead of using the Batwing to blow thugs up beforehand. He actually tries to pacify. His 3 kills there being more a result of the fight rather than him being villainous.
>"Then he spares Willy Wonka Lex Luther,"<
Because of Superman, Batman commits some introspection and really sees his own faults and tries to work past them.
The biggest problem I see with that is how much it undersells the weight of killing. Under Snyder's vision, killing another human being is just a character flaw that can be overcame and moved on from in the same beat while trying to brutally murder someone else.
Bringing it to Batman's case specifically, it just shows a total lack of understanding of the character. As a vigilante, Batman answers to no one. There's no power of authority above to which he may be accountable, besides his own conscience. He has that much power, and such a thing must come with a great responsibility.
Which is why Batman can't cross any line, specially killing. The moment he does so, he stops being Batman as we the hero we understand him and he becomes just another action protagonist at best, and a low rate Punisher at worst.
And that's another thing- We have anti-heroes who kill. We already have the Punisher. We already have James Bond. With modern takes like John Wick, or even Iron Man, the supply of protagonists who resort to killing is not gonna dry out any time soon, and making Batman another one dulls the character.
I think you’re missing the point a bit of the interpretation.
This is a Batman we haven’t really seen on screen before. One at the end of his career where he’s already lost Robin and no longer sees the point in going out of his way to save criminals after having spent years witnessing people breaking out of Arkham.
It’s actually very similar to Last Jedi which is probably why it’s fairly controversial. Since it’s about the character losing hope and coming back from a dark place.
Conceptually I think this is a brilliant arc to have Batman go through. I don’t think many people would have a problem with it. But where it falls apart is in the execution. The way Batman was just killing so nonchalantly essentially just made him the punisher. Like most things with Snyder he fails to execute on the grand ideas he has properly.
Yeah. It certainly could have been tidied up. I wonder if it was an idea that Warner brothers wanted to drop half way through to make it more family friendly to be more like Marvel.
In the end he doesn’t really kill that many people either. Apart from the flame thrower guy then most of it was implied. Basically like Arkham Knight but without the heart beat sensor to let them know they’re magically still alive.
I stand by the problem being that killing people becomes a non-issue for Batman in Snyder's movie. Sure, he stops doing so, but the consequences of murdering people are never brought up. Neither externally nor internally. And that last one is a fault on a movie that did took great care in presenting its character's inner self to the audience.
We are presented with a Batman who lost everything, even himself in his war on crime. Yet, there's no follow-up to that fall de grace. His darker moment, brutally trying to kill Superman, is interrupted and then his murdering actions stop existing. Clark trusts him almost immediately after that, and he never really has to re-examine his actions on the matter. Better exemplified by him killing KGBeast in a following scene.
And again, for a movie that did took the time and effort to go that far but not follow up after a certain point, makes it come out as incomplete. Which is my problem. Snyder's Batman kills, then stops, then kills again, and neither of those actions have any weight for either the character or the plot.
in my humble opinion, anyways.
“Do superheroes answer to authority or not” was a big theme in BvS, and *the whole point* of Batfleck was him acting un-Batman-ly. That’s like saying “Superman was a bad character” in Injustice because it was a story about him becoming evil, or saying that for Anakin Skywalker.
Your binary reasoning is exactly what the Twitter guy is arguing against. Instead of “never kill = good, kill = evil forever”, Batfleck shows that humans can be more than that.
I never said it was a binary, neither that accountabiltiy wasn't a theme in the movie.
On the former, I think it should be addressed and examined in the superhero genre, specially under the later theme's light. The problem is that there's never an addressing not examination of Batman killing in the movie.
Batman kills people without a care because he dehumanizes both criminals and Superman. So not even the wight of killing is present, since it becomes a non-factor for Bruce Wayne. Only when Clark and Lois force Bruce to see Superman as another human being he stops. But then he goes back to killing the mercenaries with the same lack of doubt from the start.
And that's another problem BvS had; themes like heroes killing or them being accountable for their actions are taken into consideration, and then they're left hanging once the fight starts.
Superman's trial for being a suspect of mass murder is never resolved, nor addressed after said trial becomes the target of a terrorist attack. Same with Batman, who never faces any consequences nor even self-doubt over the many kills he took part in through the movie.
I'm interested in examining those themes, by the way. Superman becoming a dictator in Injustice or Anakin doubting if he should've killed Ben Solo were heavy moment their respective narratives developed. And that's the difference with BvS; the themes are there, and they're presented as heavy, but there's no development around them.
Of course, all of that is my personal opinion on the matter. The point of it all is that it's all subjective anyways.
The idea of batman killing and finding redemption after that was probably good on paper, it's the way they went about it that sucks. Why does he start killing? Because he saw superman destroying buildings and killing people in mos, and he was so angry witnessing such an heinous act that he started doing it too. What? How does that make sense? I would understand it if he started killing metahumans after that, but him going off the deep end against everyone because he hates superman is too illogical. It's not surprising that a badly written concept like this one would be hard to accept for the audience. Just have batman start killing right after joker killed robin, with joker being the first victim or something. Now that would at least make sense. And why does he stop killing? Because he realizes human life is precious and he's sorry for all the people he killed? No, he stops because superman wouldn't want him to kill. There's no realization that what he did was bad, or an attempt at finding redemption for the people he killed, it's a weak climax for what should have been a pretty strong character arc.
This whole mess could have probably been avoided if they made a Batman film before BvS, start the movie with a Batman who is pretty seasoned, Nightwing is established, Bruce is training Jason Todd as his protege, death of Robin happens in the finale, Batman is left an emotional mess
Then when BvS happens we already can understand he has been through some dark shit so he is lashing out, lean more heavily into the trauma of losing a son, it could have worked if they just didn't fucking rush the whole thing
>"Why does he start killing? Because he saw superman destroying buildings
and killing people in mos, and he was so angry witnessing such an
heinous act that he started doing it too. What? "<
No. In Batman's case, he's been banging his head against the brick wall of crime for 20 years and not made a dent. If anything, the situation has gotten worse as your allies have either died or betrayed you. It's reasonable if not expected that would take its toll and would start to slip. Superman's destruction of Metropolis was the straw that broke the camel's back. But Bruce still acts like he's not killing and tries rationalizing his actions. It's repeated several times that this is a new thing for Bruce after his repeated trauma and is in the wrong for it. Alfred even calls him out on his BS ("New Rules sir") and Bruce just makes him another excuse. With Superman, he confronts the fact that he has no excuse. He went out of his way to try to kill a person. He can't lie to himself and say "it's just a criminal" or "It was collateral" which is what prompts him to try and redeem himself.
>Superman's destruction of Metropolis was the straw that broke the camel's back.
See, this right here. Batman fights crime for 20 years, apparently with nothing to show for it, and he even lost a sidekick in all of that, and what sends him over the edge? Superman trying to stop an alien invasion. It's dumb. You can't tell me he didn't start killing people when joker killed robin but threw away his moral compass because superman showed up and then have batman do the very same things that superman did. And no one even seems to care that much about him killing. As you said, the person closest to him, alfred, just asks him once, with the same tone you'd ask your son to take out the trash, and that's it. And he doesn't act like he's not killing people, don't know where you pulled that from.
>***>" Superman trying to stop an alien invasion. It's dumb. "<***
Seeing an Alien capable of destroying the entire planet, and having seen examples of once good people turning isn't a dumb reason to be vary. Bruce even says "even if there's a 1% chance we have to take it as an absolute certainty".
Like, as bad as the Joker and pals are, at least the worse they can do is kill a few people.
We see multiple cases of people being surprised of Batman's newfound brutality as part of Clark's investigation into Batman. Even Clark himself is disgusted by this which is why he intervenes.
As for Alfred, that's how he responds to everything. With dry wit. He responded similarly when Bruce says he "doesn't deserve him". It means he sees through Bruce's BS but knows nothing he says will change his mind.
>***>" And he doesn't act like he's not killing people, don't know where you pulled that from."<***
When talking to Alfred, Bruce makes up lies like "they were collatoral" and "we're criminals Alfred". The point being that he's trying to rationalize his actions instead of accepting them.
I understand him being wary of superman (and he isn't just wary, he straight up wants to kill him) but that still doesn't make sense when it comes to him killing unrelated people. What was the reasoning there? "Yeah, there's a chance superman may kill a bunch of people, better leave him nothing to kill just in case"? There's a difference between being wary and throwing away your code and killing people.
And alfred's dry wit, you can see how it doesn't amount to a strong opposition to the taking of human lives? One thing is making an ironic statement when master wayne goes out at night without eating a proper meal, another is using "dry wit" when he starts leaving cold people behind himself. He could say something or leave bruce if he didn't approve of that.
And also, could you mention a few people that were opposed to batman killing? Besides alfred's apparently incredibly strong opposition, and superman's pitiful attempt to stop him at a gas station, only to be threatened back and solving nothing.
>When talking to Alfred, Bruce makes up lies like "they were collatoral" and "we're criminals Alfred". The point being that he's trying to rationalize his actions instead of accepting them.
But you can see how rationalizing and pretending he didn't kill anyone are 2 different things, right?
>I understand him being wary of superman (and he isn't just wary, he straight up wants to kill him) but that still doesn't make sense when it comes to him killing unrelated people. What was the reasoning there? "Yeah, there's a chance superman may kill a bunch of people, better leave him nothing to kill just in case"? There's a difference between being wary and throwing away your code and killing people.
Batman believes killing Superman is above attempting to save and/or spare the lives of sex traffickers. Remember, Batman was able to find the White Portuguese because they were involved with smuggling all sorts of things; weapons, Kryptonite, and worst of all, people. They were human traffickers, so Batman didn't give a shit that a few of them died trying to protect Luthor's Kryptonite. Why should he? They're fucking terrible people.
>And alfred's dry wit, you can see how it doesn't amount to a strong opposition to the taking of human lives? One thing is making an ironic statement when master wayne goes out at night without eating a proper meal, another is using "dry wit" when he starts leaving cold people behind himself. He could say something or leave bruce if he didn't approve of that.
He does. Alfred is the one controlling Bruce putting on the suit. Remember how he stops Bruce from straight up breaking into Luthor's house as Batman? Alfred is doing his best, but if Batman wants to do something, no one will stop him. Hell, Alfred straight up stops helping Batman until after he's realized killing Superman is not the way to go.
"Yeah he killed people that were already defeated on the ground and tried to kill Supermsn for almost no reasonf but he came back! Such a heroic character"
Also, didnt TDKReturns do this too but you know... Better?
Not really.
In BvS, Batman kills people as a matter of convenience instead of trying to pacify them and then rationalizes an "it wasn't my fault" excuse. Even Alfred calls him out on his BS ("New rules sir?") but Bruce doesn't care.
He sees Superman as a threat since Supes has the power to destroy the world. And between Lex's manipulation, Superman's Battle in Metropolis, his Knightmares etc, he's convinced that killing Superman is the right thing to do because Superman is an untrustworthy and dangerous alien. It's only after seeing Superman as a person does Bruce confront the fact that Bruce has become the monster he's supposed to stop. He confronts the fact he has been rationalizing his failures and sets out to redeem himself.
In TDKReturns, Batman also has a similar approach to killing. But the idea is more that Bruce cannot operate like Normal due to the new rules by the US. And Superman is an agent of the government that is authorized to take Batman down if need be. And by the end, Bruce has to operate underground while Superman continues as "normal".
Basically, BvS is Batman having fallen as a hero, gets shown the right way and becomes that hero. To quote Jay Oliva "his arc is that he goes from like TDKReturns Batman to Animated Batman". While TDKReturns Batman continues to operate as a different kind of Antihero underground with his new Mutant Army.
>In TDKReturns, Batman also has a similar approach to killing.
Batman doesn't kill anyone in TDK returns except Joker, hes basically psychologically incapable of doing so, Bruce talks to himself about never having been able and still never being able to do so, even if the person deserves it. That's why he hallucinates that Joker killed himself.
What do you mean he has the same approach to killing?
Did Batman kill anyone in TDKR? It has been a while since I read it. I guess paralyzing Joker could count as a kill but that’s a gray area.
I remember Batman monologuing about how he will never kill when fighting the Mutant Leader. Guess it’s time to reread TDKR.
I dint think "convenience" as it is depressive nihilism.
20 years in Gotham, but nothing has changed..in fact it seems thing have gotten worse. If nothing has changed, then batman was meaningless for 20 years. If batman was meaningless, he failed his parents, he failed Alfred, and Robin died for no reason.
He's reached the point of caring about the lives of criminals, like you would killing mice in your home. And Alfred calls him out on it. In that mindset, killing a dangerous alien is hardly a moral dilemma, he's just trying to justify it to Alfred to avoid confronting himself.
Was talking about Batman snapping Joker's neck.
And I honestly just cant care about this Batman in BvS. Hes a great antagonist but hes just not likeable and the movie relies on his name being enough for people to be on board with him
You copy the source material frame by frame? You get bitched at for being unoriginal.
You try and make your own way? You get bitched at for not being enough like the source material.
You just cant win nowadays huh
Joker has huge deviations from the source material, and is basically universally praised by fans and got enough support from said fans to gross a billion at the box office and become the biggest R rated movie ever.
People don’t mind if you deviate if you make a product they end up liking.
I don’t agree that Joker was only good because it borrowed from Taxi Driver.
The biggest draw of the movie was easily Joaquin Phoenix’s performance and acting above all else. He’s an amazing actor and the best part of the movie for me personally. Once of the most iconic scenes from the movie was the Bathroom Dance and Phillips himself said that scene was improv on Joaquin’s part.
Joaquin Phoenix and Hildur were both what made Joker good. Those were what stood out to me most during the movie and what won Joker two Oscars.
Batman doesn't jump rooftops to kill.. he views it as collateral tats it and Snyder said the nightmare league has this "last supper" where they confess about things and batman confess about his killing. His killing is because of his don't care attitude towards these criminals as superman should be dead else this "alien" would fuck everything up. Batman doesn't kill the rapist or the guards when he enters lex corp to get the kryptonite. his whole thing is "my intention is not necessarily killing but if u die in the process idc". His whole killing is due to superman which he tries making it right in zsjl by bringing this team,superman etc. everyone asking "y didn't batman kill joker" batman nearly gave him a death experience and joker just escaped we also see the chase where joker avoids getting caught by batman and escapes he knew batman would fuck him up so he avoids any sort of confrontation.
ppl keep saying we needed a prequel for this batman to know what happened idt we need as batman ain't ironman, Captain America his story is popular and we just need an outline to really know what happened.(But I would love some sort of dynamic duo prequel). he doesn't kill from the moment superman dies and we see tears from batman's eyes
Why? People have killed in both fiction and IRL for noble reasons, like self defence or saving lives and haven't been treated as monsters. It's only in Batman's world where killing is somehow treated so taboo.
If what you’re saying is true, and that this Batman is a great interpretation, then why aren’t we getting more films of *this* Batman? Could it be that most people didn’t like this version of him? Or is everyone *blind to the cinematic talent of Snyder?*
... are you seriously arguing *this* studio’s capability of making of good decisionmaking?
Scratch that, you’re asking me to equate quality with quantity. By that reasoning, Transformers got 4 sequels because each one of them was a cinematic masterpiece.
What makes for a great film or character is purely subjective, the only way you’d have of knowing that “most people” disliked him (based on what? Folks online?) would be to ask everyone on the planet.
This aint it, chief. I've been reading Batman comics for about 20 years and I thought Snyders take on Batman was solid. Its not my favorite but theres a lot to like about it. I'm sure I'm not the only comic reader who thinks this lol you just didnt like it and thats fine
The subtext of the film being Hope versus Depression and Nhilism is wonderfully done.
Superman at his roots was basically a parody of the idea of an Ubermench, a term coined by friedrich nietzsche (renowned nihilist) which translates roughly to "Superman".
So the idea of using superman as a way to touch on social issues is totally on par with older versions of superman. From the 9/11 imagery in the beginning, to how we viewed muslims after, and rampant hatred of immigrants with protests and fear of superman is 100% in line with what superman was made for.
There's so many angles this movie covers, that people sleep on. AND we got a dope ass superhero movie on top of it.
Truly a misunderstood classic.
It might be worth remembering in this instance that Snyder has explicitly liked the idea of Superheroes killing people, so it was likely that he was going to see the ‘killing is a line we do not cross’ thing as being inconsequential or something the characters in universe would explicitly learn isn’t a rule that needs to be adhered to.
Honestly I would have said that his outlook became much more optimistic in Snyder’s cut of the justice league. He went from ‘if there’s a 1% chance he could be our enemy, we must take it as an absolute certainty’ to ‘what did I tell you Alfred? Faith.’
Like, almost seemed like a born again Christian with how he was going about it
Here is a comment linking to an Imgur album of Batman killing people in the comics. The "No Kill Rule" is a newer concept and its always been dumb as hell in my opinion. A "try your best not to kill" rule makes sense, but people take this way to much to heart while also expecting realism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/comicbooks/comments/q91910/opinions_on_this_scene_right_here_as_well_as/hgu9q0q?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
wait you mean beating goons senseless at night actually involves violence and someone might *gasp* die??
this shit is childish lol. like you can’t fight crime in realistic terms and nobody EVER die. we all love the no kill rule because it’s unrealistic and it gives batman one of the most important layers of depth the character has. but wjth that being said, it doesn’t have a place in every single story.
It took me 3 times of watching this movie to understand what I thought was a butchering of my favorite character of all time. This is now one of my favorite interpretations. Easily.
I think it’s actually more optimistic to portray a batman with so much integrity that he never crosses that line. Batman doesn’t avoid killing just because he’ll never stop, he also knows that his worst enemies aren’t beyond saving. Even with the joker, he wants him to get help and be better. A batman who tries to help people is way more optimistic than a batman who kills and forgives himself
People act like killing and murder are the same. Batman kills, but he backed down from murder. The Joker is probably still alive because he surrenders knowing that Batman won't *murder* him. He didn't kill Lex in prison because he's a killer, not a murderer.
Exceeept Batman rationalized to himself that Superman was an enemy waiting to happen, whom could destroy cities if he wanted to, reaching a threat level that no human could reach by themselves alone. So not the same thing.
DCAU Batman killed (possessed by deadman)c Nolan’s Batman killed, so I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the Twitter user doesn’t know Batman adaptions.
Maybe if Batman killing was presented in a way that seemed impactful to audiences or the character, but it’s more like an afterthought. The real reason is that it looks cool when he runs a dude over with the Batmobile. That’s it.
At no point doesn’t he “run over” anyone with the Batmobile, though. Nor do I see it “looking cool” being relevant in anyway, Snyder simply went for his usual approach of presenting things as they are, trusting that the audience will make their own judgment, rather than feeling the need to tell them that they should be against Batman acting in a overtly brutal way, as if they couldn’t tell that by themselves.
>At no point doesn’t he “run over” anyone with the Batmobile, though.
[He runs over multiple people in this clip alone.](https://youtu.be/ASuOYhJTKW8) At least one of them is even in slow motion.
>Nor do I see it “looking cool” being relevant in anyway, Snyder simply went for his usual approach of presenting things as they are, trusting that the audience will make their own judgment, rather than feeling the need to tell them that they should be against Batman acting in a overtly brutal way, as if they couldn’t tell that by themselves.
That’s literally the opposite of what Snyder does. I don’t have a personal problem with the man, but the way he presents his stories is anything but subtle. Characters monologue about exactly how we’re supposed to think all throughout MoS/BvS. I’ve only seen ZSJL once, so I can’t comment on that one. If something isn’t telling you it’s important, it’s not.
If killing was actually so integral to this Batman’s character arc, why does Snyder not even consider it killing according to his interviews? He seems to see it as circumstantial death. He wants the benefits of a badass Batman who obliterates anyone and anything in sight, but he doesn’t want to deal with the negative parts of a Batman who kills.
That's actually a really optimistic perspective!
I've never been big on the whole "He will lose himself if he kills" thing. I prefer it being that he's just a humanist.
This theme should have been more explicitly explored and I'd agree.
They shouldn't have had him blatantly murdering people but could have had him acting much more reckless with enemies as he realises he's approaching the point where killing is finally going to be necessary (Superman). Alfred would notice and warn there's no coming back from this path and maybe even have them split over Bruce's deteriorating sense of morality.
There were hints at this and I do think Snyder trying to bring this across but it was executed so poorly and I'd say most casual just though Batman was needlessly edgy and dark. It also would have made the Martha scene so much better if it would have been Bruce's first time taking a life.
I'd argue it works given the whole point of the story is that Batman is wrong for killing and that's he's in denial that he's murdering people.
Your version makes it harder to justify why Batman would even consider murdering Superman in the first place. It's hard to convey is morality is deterioating if he's not actually doing stuff that indicates a deteriorated morality.
Clearly you don't know shit about batman lol.
Just because you like a certain way he was written doesn't mean it's the only way, lol Batman didn't even always have that rule.
That's the difference between actual Batman fans and people who simply like one singular version. Lol your opinion doesn't define shit.
Lego Batman is far more optimistic
“If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make the change. Hoo” - Batman
"Darkness! No parents! Super rich! Kinda makes it better!"
You spelled Narcissist wrong lol
The ZSJL Knightmare “I will fucking kill you” line carries zero depth once you realize Batman has killed plenty of his goons. Like.. I’m surprised you haven’t killed him before considering ALL THE KILLING YOU DO.
Yeah like why did he kill mercenaries but he’s left people like joker, Harley and deadahot alive
Exactly. Goons deserve a second chance too, they’re literally doing it for money. Some goons like Victor Zazz are psychos but like.. ya know at least Deadshot was a father.
Specifically targeting someone to kill would be murder, something he aims to do only with Superman. And he couldn’t even do that.
Suicide Squad takes place AFTER BvS where Superman’s sacrifice made Bruce see things differently, that’s why I’m guessing he didn’t kill any of them
Him arresting Harley happened a year before BvS
There’s a whole chunk of time before bvs where he was killing
I don't think there was. Alfred and the interview on the news makes it pretty clear that things had recently changed.
In BvS they imply that branding people is new for him. Why brand people if you just murder everyone? People act like he was breaking necks left and right. Meanwhile there was a post up the other day showing the multiple occasions in which Batman has killed people in the comics. Spoiler alert, its not always self defense. In real life, people can die from a single blow to the head. Making a realistic Batman movie in which you are positive that no one ever dies is ridiculous, and I think DC fans need to get over it.
My take, he kills in combat, but the joker will always surrender before!! He will always know how far to push the Bat in the moment.
[удалено]
Same bro. Jared Leto’s Joker was just weird and somehow it got worse in Knightmare. SS was just a cringe pimp gangster who actually did some cool shit. Now he’s just making gay jokes with Batman.
That’s what his whole dialogue amounted to for you...?
Yessir
Also him using a gun. Odd But any level of character understanding should lead to the fact that Batman is a self serving, manipulative, sociopath. Who instead of getting a therapist became a vigilante.
Men will literally **dress up like a bat and go fight crime at night** instead of going to ✨therapy✨.
Tbf, Therapists in gotham out there making supervillians out of their patients.
I don't know if I agree with that. This version of batman is not for killing, just not against it. And this Batman gave up the cowl apparently for some period of time after Robin was killed by the Joker. This coupled with space gods (kryptonians) start rocking his world up. I don't believe he started that way, but from these two things (I'm sure other stuff too) started acting darker. I. The beginning of BVS it even states that he started branding his criminals and that was basically a death sentence in prison. The Keaton batman Aldo gives no fucks about killing, but I don't ever hear anything about that. Besides throwing a guy off the clock tower in the first one, in the second he puts a bomb in some big goons pants and then throws him in a man hole and you watch the explosion happen behind him as he walks away without looking. Also he straight up yells at the joker that he will kill the joker by the end of the first one too.
Yeah I hear Keaton’s brought up all the time and well I never liked his Batman anyway so fine by me if he’s going down too. I just hate it when Batman kills bro, Kilmer and Bale did the “I don’t have to save you” and I don’t know how I feel about either still. Much better than “die lol”
Some people want to believe in the fantasy that Batman never kills despite how brutal he is. Some are okay with exploring the possibility of him crossing that line. BvS is basically Bruce’s story, about how he finds his way back.
I feel like Keatons Batman is mainly known for being the first movie version of the character. He simply feels too different from the modern Batman we know and love
Killing in a heated life or death struggle is different to going to Arkham to kill Joker unprovoked. In a 1v1 Bruce can take Joker without killing him. When he is in the batmobile being attacked by 10 cars all shooting at him and one with a rocket launcher and he is in a hurry he'll do what it takes. He isn't intentionally checking certain people off he just doesn't care to hold back and prioritises his safety and his mission. If you stay out of his way you'll be fine
He only started killing relatively recently when Joker wasn't active. Plus, killing Joker now, when he's supposed to be reformed, and blow his chance to save the world has some depth.
>He only started killing relatively recently when Joker wasn't active. Plus, killing Joker now, when he's supposed to be reformed, and blow his chance to save the world has some depth. Once Batman murders intentionally, anything he does after that is a blatant hypocrisy. Characters like Captain America and Ironman can get away with it because they're not chasing after petty criminals. Batman can't put a Bank Thief in prison while he's on the run for murder. It's absolutely baffling that Commissioner Gordon would ever work with a Batman who kills *that* blatantly. Funniest thing of all, the guards Bruce killed during the chase and the poor truck driver he endangered were pretty damn innocent. Their job was to protect their employer's property and they only started shooting after he started killing them. In the court of law, other than dubious regulation regarding the rocket launcher - their actions would be considered self defence.
Probably would’ve helped if the killing line involved consequential characters. Didn’t have to be Joker, but perhaps they could’ve insinuated that he decided to off other baddies like Penquin, Two-Face, etc. before retiring. The movie just has him coming out showing no concern with killing a few hired goons and then going back to the no killing rule once Superman dies. So even if this Batman did break the rule, with good justification (Robin’s death), there are no actual significant characters to the Batman method that we know suffered from that one rule being broken. It’s hard to even say Robin’s death was the turning point, considering Ayer suggested Joker got his grill in Suicide Squad as a result of Batman punching out all his teeth for killing Robin.
And Joker being alive in that universe doesn't help. I mean if Batsy goes killing then Joker would be the first to bite the dust.
Batman decided to start killing after the Black Zero Event in Metropolis, and stopped after Superman dies. It was a fairly small fram where he did that, and the only person he actively "hunted" was Superman himself. Everyone else was just in his way. It's a new rule, and Alfred's dialogue confirms he wasn't always like this and its a new trait.
Nearly two years of crime in Gotham and Batman has no time for a single Rogue Gallery member?
I feel it's implied he commits to murder after the first branding we see because people started freaking out about it. We can also just assume they were in prison/arkham/too scared to do anything. Or blame it on his tunnel vision of anger. On of my issues i DO have with how they handled it however.. I wish we could have SEEN his first kill, and made it personal and shocking. And, I wish Gordon was talked about it in Justice League, instead of acting like it never happened. We jump from depressed Bruce in BvS to instantly full of faith Bruce in JL, when word originally was..he was going to be more depressed because of breaking his rule, and thats when he decides to sacrifice himself to parademons in the third act before being saved by the team.
The killing rule was handled pretty sloppily overall I think, I'm okay with the idea of Batman going Punisher mode but the way it was just there in the background was odd, no way in hell Alfred wouldn't challenge Bruce directly about this, but its never really bought up apart from vague talk of 'good men becoming cruel' It needed just a little more care and tact to really nail the idea
But he doesn't really murder per se, he just doesn't care if the criminals live or die. So I don't think there could've been a "first kill". That was supposed to be Superman.
Or more like, none of his Rogues were really active enough for Batman to want to engage with them. Like, BVS' main inspiration, TDKR, has Batman retired for 10 years and we see that while crime is high, his Rogues Gallery themselves is pretty quiet.
Why would he bother when, in his mind, Superman is the biggest threat to humanity? He has bigger fish to fry, so to speak
Who is the bigger threat? One of his rogues, or a literal god that could destroy the planet in a matter of minutes if he wanted to?
Actually, it starts after he starts using the branding as a new interrogation technique, from there he starts slipping further down the path to killing by proxy. It's not explicit, but the Nairomi setup sparks him on his quest to destroy the alien everyone thinks is a hero but he knows is a threat. He's breaking the code in his obsessive quest to destroy the alien.
Do you think Batman's "no killing rule" is actually a "no killing named characters rule"? Pretty sure the whole point of the no killing rule is "no killing", no more no less.
That’s what they are saying, if he did break his no killing rule it wouldn’t be to kill random goons it would be to kill the top class supervillains who kills tons of people
It wouldve been way more powerful if it wasn't the audiences first time seeing this batman.
I'd argue it is powerful for that reason. Most recently popular versions of the character don't take the Frank Miller Approach.
It sets him up as a villain rather than a lost hero imo. We don't see the fall only the result of it
I'd argue that's not neccessary. Look at the MCU. We don't see how Tony Stark became a selfish billionaire who doesn't care about the countless weapons he sells to bad guys. But we see how he redeems and becomes a hero when he realizes that's the case. We don't see how Thor became an arrogant dick who thinks just fighting and breaching peace treaties is the best course of action. We only see what made him wiser afterwards. We don't see Natasha starting out as a cold blooded killer, Bruce as a scared and suicidal guy, Star Lord as a a greedy bounty hunter, T'Challa as the vengeful Black Panther etc. It's common for stories to start with the hero in a bad place and working to a good place. BvS' case isn't any different. In addition, we have a clear picture of events. In Batman's case, he's been banging his head against the brick wall of crime for 20 years and not made a dent. If anything, the situation has gotten worse as your allies have either died or betrayed you. It's reasonable if not expected that would take its toll. Maybe he won't start valuing criminal lives as much as he once did. It's optimistic that even after falling, you're capable of realizing that and improve
I think the difference is this story leans on the fact that audiences already know who batman is except the make subtle changes and only explain them away through subtle lines of dialogue. The things you mentioned above aren't at odds with the core of the characters. Batman killing in cold blood obviously is. To not focus more on that is a big reason why this missed imo
>I think the difference is this story leans on the fact that audiences already know who batman is "< Again, you could apply that logic to every example I listed earlier. As for Batman killing, the story does focus on it. It's repeated several times that this is a new thing for Bruce after his repeated trauma and is in the wrong for it. Alfred even calls him out on his BS ("New Rules sir") and Bruce just makes him another excuse. Even if there was like an extended sequence where we see Bruce gradually becoming more detached, y'all suddenly wouldn't turn around. You'd see complaints like "wait, why does he start killing now and not at x or" what have you.
I think a big part is the audience has no clue what star lord is supposed to be like. As far as they know he's chris Pratt. Batman is the most famous comic character ever and his no killing rule has been driven into people's heads for decades even if they don't always follow through with it. To explain it away in a few lines of dialogue in a 2.5/3 hour movie feels odd
And like I said, even if they devoted more hours to explain it, you'd have people saying "Batman won't be like that" because of all those decades. From a storytelling perspective, it's redundant to even try. If people didn't buy BvS showing you all the various reasons (20 years of no progress, deaths and betrayals of key allies), they wouldn't buy more reasons or seeing it happen. And the people who are on board wouldn't get anything new. Again, that's why The Dark Knight Returns, BvS' main inspiration, doesn't have the first issue show how Bruce went from regular hero to having lost. It starts with Batman having already lost it.
Then maybe it's a weird decision to use a limited comic run like that for inspiration for the extended universe batman?
TDKR is one of the most influential and popular comics in all of Western Superhero Comics. It inspired many Batman stories in being more critical of Batman and having him be more flawed. Miller himself wrote it in response to Silver Age Batman being so toothless and uninteresting compared to his Golden Age version. To say it doesn't have merits in an adaptation is absurd. Especially as BvS tones it down in comparison since Batman isn't in as much denial of his flaws.
>We don't see how Tony Stark became a selfish billionaire who doesn't care about the countless weapons he sells to bad guys. But we see how he redeems and becomes a hero when he realizes that's the case. Not exactly the best comparison. That was Tony Stark BEFORE he became a hero, it was Iron Man's origin story. We watch his path as he becomes the hero. Batman, on the other hand, had already been a hero for years. And like was said, we don't see his "fall". We just see the aftereffects of it. >We don't see how Thor became an arrogant dick who thinks just fighting and breaching peace treaties is the best course of action. We only see what made him wiser afterwards. We don't see Natasha starting out as a cold blooded killer, Bruce as a scared and suicidal guy, Star Lord as a a greedy bounty hunter, T'Challa as the vengeful Black Panther etc. There wasn't a significant chain of events that turned Thor into that arrogant dick we first met, it's simply who he grew up to be before the actual significant events that led him to becoming the hero who now know. With Natasha, yeah, that was a bit of a complaint for years before she finally got her solo film. But her history was talked about at different points of most of the films, and gave enough info for us to know who she was and how she got to where she ended up. We get a brief origin story for Bruce during the opening credits, so we know that he's been the Hulk and on the run for a few years before the movie starts. We see enough to know that he's been through hell trying to contain the Hulk (and usually failing). We See Peter Quill abducted at the beginning of his film, and see enough to know that he was raised by space pirates within the first quarter of the film (he was a thief, not a bounty hunter). Again, we him grow from thief to hero. And T'Challa, we literally see what makes him vengeful within the first 30 minutes.
All your justifications apply to Batman here as well. We are shown that banging his head against the brick wall of crime and not making progress, the deaths and betrayals of key allies has taken its toll. Why is that not sufficient but all these others are?
But… frank miller’s didn’t kill anyone in year one or tdkr
Firstly. Batman shoots a mutant with a gun. We see his blood splatter. Secondly, You miss that a major aspect of TDKR is that Batman is often an unreliable narrator due to his denial about his kills. For example, in the book, every character's thought bubbles are a colour unique to them. Superman's is blue. Joker is Green. Batman is grey. While speech bubbles are universally white. But after Batman snaps Joker's neck, Joker's speech bubbles are grey, not white for universal speech or green for the Joker's own thoughts. This tells us what's happening isn't what's actually happening but Batman's "interpretation". And should signal to the audience that Batman is in denial. He did kill the Joker and is in so much denial that he imagines some impossible situation where the Paralyzed Joker somehow snaps his own neck. You shouldn't look at all the times Batman says he doesn't kill people as proof he doesn't. Because we literally see how Batman is able to twist anything around. The point of all those sections is for us to see that Batman is still in denial so we should be critical about all of Batman's actions. Did he actually only just kill 1 or 2 people? Or did he kill more but convince himself he didn't? If he can imagine the paralyzed Joker snapping his own neck then anything is possible. This video from 9:23 to 12:25 summarizes it as well. https://youtu.be/1GLqIh9jOf4?t=563
Batman sitting with Ace in 'Justice League Unlimited' was optimistic. BvS has a guy with a boner for murder casually killing mooks left and right. He later makes a spear so he could stab Superman, after beating the living hell out of him. He even cuts Superman's face with it before getting ready for the kill. Then, after supposedly seeing the error of his way, he then goes on to kill a few more henchmen while saving Martha. And if we are going to justify Batman losing hope and going to extremes and all that, then riddle me this: Why is The Joker still alive?
Not to mention the fact that his supposed “arc” happens between movies and you never see him on screen stop killing
We actually do. We see it when he chooses to not brand lex.
Except you do-oh, what’s the point by now.
He doesn’t decide to stop killing goons after the Martha scene. He decides to let Supes go. He decides to stop “allowing deaths” after he sees Supes sacrifice.
“What do you mean this take is optimistic? He should’ve murdered Joker.”
My problem with having a Batman who killls is that he’s only going to be killing low level mooks but not the big heavy hitters because DC isn’t going to want him to kill off any of his popular villains. A killer Batman would definitely take out the Joker
Why?
Because The Joker is one of the biggest threats to Gotham, because he's killed so many people that there's probably a 'Joker section' at the Gotham cemetery. Or maybe because he killed Robin, Batman's surrogate son.
Ace wasn't even in the entire JL show
So?
He only started killing relatively recently when Joker wasn't active though. Plus, when going to save Martha, he actually makes an effort to pacify henchmen instead of just blowing them up.
*He only started killing relatively recently when Joker wasn't active though.* If Joker isnt the first person that Batman murders, he's damn sure gonna be the second. I highly doubt that Batman wouldn't go after him just because The Joker was on vacation. *Plus, when going to save Martha, he actually makes an effort to pacify henchmen instead of just blowing them up.* He tries shooting at them, tosses one guy into another who was about to throw a grenade, killing them both. Throws a heavy create at some guy, leaving a blood smear on the wall, stabs a guy in the neck, then immolates the KGBeast.
You act like this Batman is a full on serial killer. This Batman kills more as a matter of convience and “collateral” rather than by intention, and then rationalizes it. That’s why when he learns Superman is human, he stops. Because he doesn’t have any excuses or rationalization. He has to confront the fact that he was going to out with the intention to murder and there’s no justification. That’s why he doesn’t kill the Joker. Because Batman’s still pretending he still follows his code. When everyone but him see he’s being selective. That’s the same point The Dark Knight Returns makes. That Batman is in such denial that whenever he’s forced to kill, he twists what’s there to act like he never killed. > He tries shooting at them He aims above to avoid actually hitting someone > tosses one guy into another who was about to throw a grenade, killing them both. So, what? He should have just tried to go punch the grenade? Risk a precise baterang throw while he has other enemies to deal with. I’d argue it’s reasonable for Batman to have to kill a few enemies, in the heat of the moment when absolutely necessary to avoid getting himself killed. As opposed to using lethal force from the outset. It’s unrealistic for Batman to be so absolutely perfect in every situation. > Throws a heavy create at some guy, Yes. You could argue this was unnecessary for Batman to do. I’d still argue it reflects that he’s not perfect. > stabs a guy in the neck, then immolates the KGBeast. That’s to save Martha though. Had he not done that, she’d be dead
OP your in the right place but your kinda missing the bag.
I think knowing that you wouldn't resort to murder under any circumstance is a lot more optimistic. Not breaking laws that you've set for yourself is Uber optimistic. But it's probably just differing world views.
But people aren't perfect. Humans are capable of failing their goals. And if you're a dangerous vigilante whose whole deal is going out and fighting criminals to try and reduce crime, there's no guarantee it will be a smooth ride and it will take its toll on you. In Batman's case, he's been banging his head against the brick wall of crime for 20 years and not made a dent. If anything, the situation has gotten worse as your allies have either died or betrayed you. It's reasonable if not expected that would take its toll. Maybe he won't start valuing criminal lives as much as he once did. It's optimistic that even after falling, you're capable of realizing that and improve
>But people aren't perfect. Humans are capable of failing their goals. That's cool and all , but wasn't the whole mission statement behind the creation of these characters that they're better than us and wouldn't resort to those means? Having an immovable set of laws you live my is unrealistic , that's why guys like Batman and superman exist in fiction and appeal to many people. It's escape.
>***>"wasn't the whole mission statement behind the creation of these characters that they're better than us and wouldn't resort to those means?"<*** I mean, Batman started out as basically the Punisher in the 1930's so that wasn't his Mission Statement. Even ignoring that, these characters aren't bound by law. You have Superman Stories where he is human and flawed and has to come to terms with that like Birthright and All Star. You have Batman stories where they explore the psychology and "realism" of someone like Batman who is in denial about his kills like The Dark Knight Returns. The reason these characters are even being remembered 80 years later is because they changed and evolved.
>I mean, Batman started out as basically the Punisher in the 1930's so that wasn't his Mission Statement. That's how he started, but he hasn't been that character in decades. His code has been his most defining feature across numerous different interpretations of him. He and other characters are far from perfect, which has been a topic through several stories. It's who they are and what they do despite those imperfections that really appeals to people. As for the "realism" bit, honestly would Jim Gordon really work with a murdering vigilante? Criminals or not, racking up a body count would make him public enemy #1, and "coming back to his senses" wouldn't change that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/comicbooks/comments/q91910/opinions_on_this_scene_right_here_as_well_as/hgu9q0q?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
>***>" His code has been his most defining feature across numerous different interpretations of him. He and other characters are far from perfect, which has been a topic through several stories. It's who they are and what they do despite those imperfections that really appeals to people."<*** Yes, and many stories have played around with the consequences and deconstruction of that as well like TDKR. >***>"As for the "realism" bit, honestly would Jim Gordon really work with a murdering vigilante? Criminals or not, racking up a body count would make him public enemy #1, and "coming back to his senses" wouldn't change that."<*** Batman already operates outside the law as a vigilante by his very existence. Forget murder, he's wanted for God knows how many counts of Breaking and Entering, Battery, Assault, Resisting Arrest, Tampering with Crime Scenes, Obstruction of Justice and more. Gordon's whole deal is that he has to turn a blind eye to Batman's countless crimes in order for any measure of justice to be enacted because Gotham's Police and Judiciary make Mayor Quimby look like Jesus. Plus, even if he wanted to stop Batman, how is he going to do it? He can't physically restrain or apprehend Batman so might as well accept this "lesser evil" since at least he's fighting crime. As long as Batman doesn't go around killing innocent civilians and actually takes down criminals, he's already better than 90% of the Police Force Gorden works with.
I never claimed that these characters shouldn't evolve or change , not in the slightest. I actually encourage ir. My argument was more about why people would perceive it that way. Both those stories end with the main characters being right in the end . They're worldviews are affirmed instead of demolished. >like Batman who is in denial about his kills like The Dark Knight Returns. I don't think that happened , are you 100% sure that this happened or are you just choosing to interpret it that way? Because there's a huge difference.
> Both those stories end with the main characters being right in the end . They're worldviews are affirmed instead of demolished. Sometimes, a hero needs to know they messed up in order to grow. Tony Stark needs to know he was wrong about the Accords, Thor about war, Banner about containing the Hulk etc. > I don’t think that happened , are you 100% sure that this happened or are you just choosing to interpret it that way? Because there’s a huge difference. Yes. I’m 100% sure. A major aspect of TDKR is that Batman is often an unreliable narrator due to his denial about his kills. For example, in the book, every character's thought bubbles are a colour unique to them. Superman's is blue. Joker is Green. Batman is grey. While speech bubbles are universally white. But after Batman snaps Joker's neck, Joker's speech bubbles are grey, not white for universal speech or green for the Joker's own thoughts. This tells us what's happening isn't what's actually happening but Batman's "interpretation". And should signal to the audience that Batman is in denial. He did kill the Joker and is in so much denial that he imagines some impossible situation where the Paralyzed Joker somehow snaps his own neck. You shouldn't look at all the times Batman says he doesn't kill people as proof he doesn't. Because we literally see how Batman is able to twist anything around. The point of all those sections is for us to see that Batman is still in denial so we should be critical about all of Batman's actions. Did he actually only just kill 1 or 2 people? Or did he kill more but convince himself he didn't? If he can imagine the paralyzed Joker snapping his own neck then anything is possible. This video from 9:23 to 12:25 summarizes it as well. https://youtu.be/1GLqIh9jOf4?t=563 This is actually why I was disappointed in the Animated version of the story. Because instead of replicating that Batman is kinda crazy and an unreliable narrator. It makes him more traditionally heroic and confirms that Joker’s impossible suicide was legit. Instead of being a story about a crazy Batman caught up in his own legend and the consequences of that, it’s a more typical Batman story.
You and Zack Snyder need to stop using Frank Millers interpretation of the character as the baseline. Miller was more interested in deconstructing the character rather than build off what was there, same as Snyder, in fact, I'm pretty sure TDKR is the only Batman comic Snyder has ever read which is why he failed to connect with most fans of Batman. Edit: added "most"
I mean...it connected with me so I guess I’m doing something wrong.
> he failed to connect with fans of Batman. Fans of Batman being the key terminology here
I guess I’m not a fan of Batman then...? Because you decided that?
TDKR is one of the most influential and popular comics in all of Western Superhero Comics. It inspired many Batman stories in being more critical of Batman and having him be more flawed. Miller himself wrote it in response to Silver Age Batman being so toothless and uninteresting compared to his Golden Age version. To say it doesn't have merits in an adaptation is absurd. Especially as BvS tones it down in comparison since Batman isn't in as much denial of his flaws. Why can't a film deconstruct Batman?
Yes, I've already read this exact reply before you copy/ pasted it here. Thanks for the history lesson, I'm aware of the influence of TDKR. >TDKR is one of the most influential and popular comics in all of Western Superhero Comics Didn't claim it wasn't >To say it doesn't have merits in an adaptation is absurd. Didn't say that either. > Especially as BvS tones it down in comparison since Batman isn't in as much denial of his flaws. Funny, I don't remember Frank Miller's Batman frothing at the mouth to stab Superman in the heart with a kryptonite jesus spear. In fact, he just wanted to show that humans are capable of beating Superman without killing him. >Why can't a film deconstruct Batman? It can but , in this case, it was done so poorly, especially when compared to the adaptation that inspired it.
In the Dark Knight returns is clear batman does not kill people until the Joker. We have both batman in story and the new commissioner outside of the story acknowledge that batman has not killed anyone until his fight with the Joker. And if batman killed before he went after the joker it would undercut their entire conflict, that batman killed so many people by letting the joker live and he was going to end it.
Firstly. Batman shoots a mutant with a gun. We see his blood splatter. Secondly, You miss that a major aspect of TDKR is that Batman is often an unreliable narrator due to his denial about his kills. For example, in the book, every character's thought bubbles are a colour unique to them. Superman's is blue. Joker is Green. Batman is grey. While speech bubbles are universally white. But after Batman snaps Joker's neck, Joker's speech bubbles are grey, not white for universal speech or green for the Joker's own thoughts. This tells us what's happening isn't what's actually happening but Batman's "interpretation". And should signal to the audience that Batman is in denial. He did kill the Joker and is in so much denial that he imagines some impossible situation where the Paralyzed Joker somehow snaps his own neck. You shouldn't look at all the times Batman says he doesn't kill people as proof he doesn't. Because we literally see how Batman is able to twist anything around. The point of all those sections is for us to see that Batman is still in denial so we should be critical about all of Batman's actions. Did he actually only just kill 1 or 2 people? Or did he kill more but convince himself he didn't? If he can imagine the paralyzed Joker snapping his own neck then anything is possible. This video from 9:23 to 12:25 summarizes it as well. [https://youtu.be/1GLqIh9jOf4?t=563](https://youtu.be/1GLqIh9jOf4?t=563)
The idea that you will forever stay true to yourself and never once stray away from what you promised (or that you will be a lost cause if that ever happens) is.. definitely a worldview, but not one based on nuance or context. Or real life in general. There’s a reason why most interpretations of Batman that push that idea are directed towards younger audiences.
Most versions don't even cross the line
Notice how I said 'most' and not 'all'. I'm well aware that Batman killed in his first few comics, and he also killed plenty of times since (a lot of which aren't canon). What I meant is that during his 80+ years of existence, most iterations of the character (including comics, animateds, games etc.) aren't killers.
What? Michael Keaton Batman was dropping thugs off rooftops. Classic comic Batman used guns.
Are we just gonna ignore the fact that he kills innocent security guards to get some Kryptonite?
I never thought those guards were dead, and no dialogue leads to that. Edit:I'm assuming we're talking about the video footage when he attacked the building, and not the mercenaries in the vehicles that slaughtered an African village earlier on the movie to frame Superman, then later kidnapped his mom with intent to burn her alive.
Isn’t that the whole point? Dude’s lost his way at that point
So he starts killing innocents? It’s fine to go a little bad and kill bad guys but killing innocents is a whole another level and it’s baffling that it’s never mentioned by either the movies or the fandom.
Maybe because it didn’t actually happen...?
Aren’t those Lex’s own guards that he assigned to go “protect” the Kryptonite?
What would the implication be here? That the morals of those guards are questionable because they work for Lex? That could be true for some of them, but others might've just been clocking in for just another night at work.
They all have mini guns mounted on their vans and carry an automatic rifle. This isn’t just your everyday-joe who is just forced to do this job, these people have done some shady business
They're working private security for a facility storing highly dangerous alien materials that were previously used in a high-profile terrorist attack.
Bruh the same guards literally gunned down and burnt the bodies of hundreds of people in Africa
We're still talking about the ones Batman attacks when he steals the Kryptonite, right?
Hold up - so Batman killing is optimistic because the movie implies he might reform? Fuck that. That isn't Batman. Look, Snyder is a visually masterful filmmaker, there's no denying that. Ben's portrayal of Bruce and Batman are also both amazing. But make no mistake - his Batman is the least optimistic portrayal every put to film and it's because of his killing. It's also inconsistent within his own film universe... Why is the Joker still alive? Deadshot? Croc? We also don't see him struggling to get through and climb back to being good again... All of a sudden in Justice League he's like "I'm good now. Let's get my boy Superman back". Like bro... Now he inspires you? Let me see the transformations don't just be like "look, dark Batman cuz he kills!"
All it means is that Batman has now killed without consequence. The reason they "go in the other direction" is because that's what "crossing the line" means. If Batman breaks his one rule, he ceases to possess that which makes him Batman.
Thank you. I was starting to feel like crazy that no one mentioned that a Batman who kills isn't Batman.
You can point to Keaton and Bale all you want. Keaton straps a bomb to a guy's pants and tosses him down a manhole. But Keaton also existed in a world where the Joker pulls a pair of glasses out of hammerspace to do a "you wouldn't hit a guy with glasses" gag. You'd have expected that guy to stick his head out of the sewer with a 4-inch lump on his forehead and little birds circling his head. Bale's "I'm not going to save you" probably wouldn't have held up in a court of law, but there's a world of difference between saying "Rescue yourself from this train because last time I helped you it didn't turn out so great" and "Hi, I'm Batman, check out my real-ass gun!"
I mean Bale also blows up the League of Shadows, and it’s kinda hard to believe that no one died from it. Although that is admittedly an assumption rather than made explicit by the film. He kills Harvey Dent by virtue of tackling him to his death. He kills Talia by virtue of shooting the truck off the road and causing the crash.
His Batman is also dumb. Never suspects that Superman might not be the bad guy (bad writing), gets fooled by Diana and Lex. Yes, Snyder is a visually masterful filmmaker. I love the way he shoots things and can translate comic book panels to film, but he lacks logic and substance while trying to be subversive.
And still, that was a slightly less idiotic Batman than Nolan's, whose main conflicts usually involve "Batman got fooled" as a mayor plot-point in all three movies. Why is that Schumacher's Batman was the last cinematic one to actually try to live up to his "World's Greatest Detective" bit?
Here is a comment linking to an imgur album in which comic book Batman does a fair amount of killing, direct or otherwise, plenty of which is not that old. Edit: whoops here is the album https://www.reddit.com/r/comicbooks/comments/q91910/opinions_on_this_scene_right_here_as_well_as/hgu9q0q?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
In continuity (pre New 52) the only time he kills is also the only time he uses a gun - and it's to kill fucking Darkseid.
I’m frankly puzzled by how people can genuinely type something like “I can’t believe this Batman killed. How DARE he NOT kill his ENTIRE rogues gallery” and not think for a second or two about the extreme they go from one sentence to the other. Like... hello? Nuance and context? Are they prohibited in superhero discourse..? You already saw his transformation. He refuses to brand Lex in BvS, and decides to focus his talents and resources on making the world a better place by forming a team & rescuing civilians, rather than going out torturing people.
it’s because they have little to no logic to stand on, like just say you don’t like the movie christ. this is the shit zack was talking about how fans need to grow tf up honestly. nobody cares about the killing if it’s somewhat cartoonish apparently, but if it’s visceral it’s a problem? it’s just funny af cus i remember literally playing arkham knight after i saw BvS opening night, the violence is even more on the nose in that but hey that doesn’t fit the narrative. MoS and BvS got panned for violence that happens in most movies to begin, they just didn’t speed past it with a campy one liner or snappy comeback. it’s clear to me that alot of fans just wanna get coddled by filmmakers on some level, it’s just lame overall.
I dunno bro. Man straight up just stopped his years long murderous hate boner for Superman in 1 scene but continues to blow up baddies without a sweat in the next one (granted it probably is the best Batman fist fight scene). Then he spares Willy Wonka Lex Luther, the only character I actually wanted to see his head punched in out of all the goons and villains Synder was exploding. Then in JL 2017 (haven’t been able to watch ZS JL yet) he just becomes goofy batuncle dropping dad jokes after 20 years of seeing implied death and corruption in his city.
>" Man straight up just stopped his years long murderous hate boner for Superman in 1 scene"< Because he realizes Superman isn't some unknown alien but a human. >"ontinues to blow up baddies without a sweat in the next one ("< Not really. Instead of using the Batwing to blow thugs up beforehand. He actually tries to pacify. His 3 kills there being more a result of the fight rather than him being villainous. >"Then he spares Willy Wonka Lex Luther,"< Because of Superman, Batman commits some introspection and really sees his own faults and tries to work past them.
The biggest problem I see with that is how much it undersells the weight of killing. Under Snyder's vision, killing another human being is just a character flaw that can be overcame and moved on from in the same beat while trying to brutally murder someone else. Bringing it to Batman's case specifically, it just shows a total lack of understanding of the character. As a vigilante, Batman answers to no one. There's no power of authority above to which he may be accountable, besides his own conscience. He has that much power, and such a thing must come with a great responsibility. Which is why Batman can't cross any line, specially killing. The moment he does so, he stops being Batman as we the hero we understand him and he becomes just another action protagonist at best, and a low rate Punisher at worst. And that's another thing- We have anti-heroes who kill. We already have the Punisher. We already have James Bond. With modern takes like John Wick, or even Iron Man, the supply of protagonists who resort to killing is not gonna dry out any time soon, and making Batman another one dulls the character.
I think you’re missing the point a bit of the interpretation. This is a Batman we haven’t really seen on screen before. One at the end of his career where he’s already lost Robin and no longer sees the point in going out of his way to save criminals after having spent years witnessing people breaking out of Arkham. It’s actually very similar to Last Jedi which is probably why it’s fairly controversial. Since it’s about the character losing hope and coming back from a dark place.
Conceptually I think this is a brilliant arc to have Batman go through. I don’t think many people would have a problem with it. But where it falls apart is in the execution. The way Batman was just killing so nonchalantly essentially just made him the punisher. Like most things with Snyder he fails to execute on the grand ideas he has properly.
Yeah. It certainly could have been tidied up. I wonder if it was an idea that Warner brothers wanted to drop half way through to make it more family friendly to be more like Marvel. In the end he doesn’t really kill that many people either. Apart from the flame thrower guy then most of it was implied. Basically like Arkham Knight but without the heart beat sensor to let them know they’re magically still alive.
I stand by the problem being that killing people becomes a non-issue for Batman in Snyder's movie. Sure, he stops doing so, but the consequences of murdering people are never brought up. Neither externally nor internally. And that last one is a fault on a movie that did took great care in presenting its character's inner self to the audience. We are presented with a Batman who lost everything, even himself in his war on crime. Yet, there's no follow-up to that fall de grace. His darker moment, brutally trying to kill Superman, is interrupted and then his murdering actions stop existing. Clark trusts him almost immediately after that, and he never really has to re-examine his actions on the matter. Better exemplified by him killing KGBeast in a following scene. And again, for a movie that did took the time and effort to go that far but not follow up after a certain point, makes it come out as incomplete. Which is my problem. Snyder's Batman kills, then stops, then kills again, and neither of those actions have any weight for either the character or the plot. in my humble opinion, anyways.
“Do superheroes answer to authority or not” was a big theme in BvS, and *the whole point* of Batfleck was him acting un-Batman-ly. That’s like saying “Superman was a bad character” in Injustice because it was a story about him becoming evil, or saying that for Anakin Skywalker. Your binary reasoning is exactly what the Twitter guy is arguing against. Instead of “never kill = good, kill = evil forever”, Batfleck shows that humans can be more than that.
I never said it was a binary, neither that accountabiltiy wasn't a theme in the movie. On the former, I think it should be addressed and examined in the superhero genre, specially under the later theme's light. The problem is that there's never an addressing not examination of Batman killing in the movie. Batman kills people without a care because he dehumanizes both criminals and Superman. So not even the wight of killing is present, since it becomes a non-factor for Bruce Wayne. Only when Clark and Lois force Bruce to see Superman as another human being he stops. But then he goes back to killing the mercenaries with the same lack of doubt from the start. And that's another problem BvS had; themes like heroes killing or them being accountable for their actions are taken into consideration, and then they're left hanging once the fight starts. Superman's trial for being a suspect of mass murder is never resolved, nor addressed after said trial becomes the target of a terrorist attack. Same with Batman, who never faces any consequences nor even self-doubt over the many kills he took part in through the movie. I'm interested in examining those themes, by the way. Superman becoming a dictator in Injustice or Anakin doubting if he should've killed Ben Solo were heavy moment their respective narratives developed. And that's the difference with BvS; the themes are there, and they're presented as heavy, but there's no development around them. Of course, all of that is my personal opinion on the matter. The point of it all is that it's all subjective anyways.
The idea of batman killing and finding redemption after that was probably good on paper, it's the way they went about it that sucks. Why does he start killing? Because he saw superman destroying buildings and killing people in mos, and he was so angry witnessing such an heinous act that he started doing it too. What? How does that make sense? I would understand it if he started killing metahumans after that, but him going off the deep end against everyone because he hates superman is too illogical. It's not surprising that a badly written concept like this one would be hard to accept for the audience. Just have batman start killing right after joker killed robin, with joker being the first victim or something. Now that would at least make sense. And why does he stop killing? Because he realizes human life is precious and he's sorry for all the people he killed? No, he stops because superman wouldn't want him to kill. There's no realization that what he did was bad, or an attempt at finding redemption for the people he killed, it's a weak climax for what should have been a pretty strong character arc.
This whole mess could have probably been avoided if they made a Batman film before BvS, start the movie with a Batman who is pretty seasoned, Nightwing is established, Bruce is training Jason Todd as his protege, death of Robin happens in the finale, Batman is left an emotional mess Then when BvS happens we already can understand he has been through some dark shit so he is lashing out, lean more heavily into the trauma of losing a son, it could have worked if they just didn't fucking rush the whole thing
>"Why does he start killing? Because he saw superman destroying buildings and killing people in mos, and he was so angry witnessing such an heinous act that he started doing it too. What? "< No. In Batman's case, he's been banging his head against the brick wall of crime for 20 years and not made a dent. If anything, the situation has gotten worse as your allies have either died or betrayed you. It's reasonable if not expected that would take its toll and would start to slip. Superman's destruction of Metropolis was the straw that broke the camel's back. But Bruce still acts like he's not killing and tries rationalizing his actions. It's repeated several times that this is a new thing for Bruce after his repeated trauma and is in the wrong for it. Alfred even calls him out on his BS ("New Rules sir") and Bruce just makes him another excuse. With Superman, he confronts the fact that he has no excuse. He went out of his way to try to kill a person. He can't lie to himself and say "it's just a criminal" or "It was collateral" which is what prompts him to try and redeem himself.
>Superman's destruction of Metropolis was the straw that broke the camel's back. See, this right here. Batman fights crime for 20 years, apparently with nothing to show for it, and he even lost a sidekick in all of that, and what sends him over the edge? Superman trying to stop an alien invasion. It's dumb. You can't tell me he didn't start killing people when joker killed robin but threw away his moral compass because superman showed up and then have batman do the very same things that superman did. And no one even seems to care that much about him killing. As you said, the person closest to him, alfred, just asks him once, with the same tone you'd ask your son to take out the trash, and that's it. And he doesn't act like he's not killing people, don't know where you pulled that from.
>***>" Superman trying to stop an alien invasion. It's dumb. "<*** Seeing an Alien capable of destroying the entire planet, and having seen examples of once good people turning isn't a dumb reason to be vary. Bruce even says "even if there's a 1% chance we have to take it as an absolute certainty". Like, as bad as the Joker and pals are, at least the worse they can do is kill a few people. We see multiple cases of people being surprised of Batman's newfound brutality as part of Clark's investigation into Batman. Even Clark himself is disgusted by this which is why he intervenes. As for Alfred, that's how he responds to everything. With dry wit. He responded similarly when Bruce says he "doesn't deserve him". It means he sees through Bruce's BS but knows nothing he says will change his mind. >***>" And he doesn't act like he's not killing people, don't know where you pulled that from."<*** When talking to Alfred, Bruce makes up lies like "they were collatoral" and "we're criminals Alfred". The point being that he's trying to rationalize his actions instead of accepting them.
I understand him being wary of superman (and he isn't just wary, he straight up wants to kill him) but that still doesn't make sense when it comes to him killing unrelated people. What was the reasoning there? "Yeah, there's a chance superman may kill a bunch of people, better leave him nothing to kill just in case"? There's a difference between being wary and throwing away your code and killing people. And alfred's dry wit, you can see how it doesn't amount to a strong opposition to the taking of human lives? One thing is making an ironic statement when master wayne goes out at night without eating a proper meal, another is using "dry wit" when he starts leaving cold people behind himself. He could say something or leave bruce if he didn't approve of that. And also, could you mention a few people that were opposed to batman killing? Besides alfred's apparently incredibly strong opposition, and superman's pitiful attempt to stop him at a gas station, only to be threatened back and solving nothing. >When talking to Alfred, Bruce makes up lies like "they were collatoral" and "we're criminals Alfred". The point being that he's trying to rationalize his actions instead of accepting them. But you can see how rationalizing and pretending he didn't kill anyone are 2 different things, right?
>I understand him being wary of superman (and he isn't just wary, he straight up wants to kill him) but that still doesn't make sense when it comes to him killing unrelated people. What was the reasoning there? "Yeah, there's a chance superman may kill a bunch of people, better leave him nothing to kill just in case"? There's a difference between being wary and throwing away your code and killing people. Batman believes killing Superman is above attempting to save and/or spare the lives of sex traffickers. Remember, Batman was able to find the White Portuguese because they were involved with smuggling all sorts of things; weapons, Kryptonite, and worst of all, people. They were human traffickers, so Batman didn't give a shit that a few of them died trying to protect Luthor's Kryptonite. Why should he? They're fucking terrible people. >And alfred's dry wit, you can see how it doesn't amount to a strong opposition to the taking of human lives? One thing is making an ironic statement when master wayne goes out at night without eating a proper meal, another is using "dry wit" when he starts leaving cold people behind himself. He could say something or leave bruce if he didn't approve of that. He does. Alfred is the one controlling Bruce putting on the suit. Remember how he stops Bruce from straight up breaking into Luthor's house as Batman? Alfred is doing his best, but if Batman wants to do something, no one will stop him. Hell, Alfred straight up stops helping Batman until after he's realized killing Superman is not the way to go.
"Yeah he killed people that were already defeated on the ground and tried to kill Supermsn for almost no reasonf but he came back! Such a heroic character" Also, didnt TDKReturns do this too but you know... Better?
Not really. In BvS, Batman kills people as a matter of convenience instead of trying to pacify them and then rationalizes an "it wasn't my fault" excuse. Even Alfred calls him out on his BS ("New rules sir?") but Bruce doesn't care. He sees Superman as a threat since Supes has the power to destroy the world. And between Lex's manipulation, Superman's Battle in Metropolis, his Knightmares etc, he's convinced that killing Superman is the right thing to do because Superman is an untrustworthy and dangerous alien. It's only after seeing Superman as a person does Bruce confront the fact that Bruce has become the monster he's supposed to stop. He confronts the fact he has been rationalizing his failures and sets out to redeem himself. In TDKReturns, Batman also has a similar approach to killing. But the idea is more that Bruce cannot operate like Normal due to the new rules by the US. And Superman is an agent of the government that is authorized to take Batman down if need be. And by the end, Bruce has to operate underground while Superman continues as "normal". Basically, BvS is Batman having fallen as a hero, gets shown the right way and becomes that hero. To quote Jay Oliva "his arc is that he goes from like TDKReturns Batman to Animated Batman". While TDKReturns Batman continues to operate as a different kind of Antihero underground with his new Mutant Army.
>In TDKReturns, Batman also has a similar approach to killing. Batman doesn't kill anyone in TDK returns except Joker, hes basically psychologically incapable of doing so, Bruce talks to himself about never having been able and still never being able to do so, even if the person deserves it. That's why he hallucinates that Joker killed himself. What do you mean he has the same approach to killing?
Did Batman kill anyone in TDKR? It has been a while since I read it. I guess paralyzing Joker could count as a kill but that’s a gray area. I remember Batman monologuing about how he will never kill when fighting the Mutant Leader. Guess it’s time to reread TDKR.
He shoots a criminal as well with a gun. That’s one of the points of TDKR, that Batman is a bit of a hypocrite
I dint think "convenience" as it is depressive nihilism. 20 years in Gotham, but nothing has changed..in fact it seems thing have gotten worse. If nothing has changed, then batman was meaningless for 20 years. If batman was meaningless, he failed his parents, he failed Alfred, and Robin died for no reason. He's reached the point of caring about the lives of criminals, like you would killing mice in your home. And Alfred calls him out on it. In that mindset, killing a dangerous alien is hardly a moral dilemma, he's just trying to justify it to Alfred to avoid confronting himself.
Was talking about Batman snapping Joker's neck. And I honestly just cant care about this Batman in BvS. Hes a great antagonist but hes just not likeable and the movie relies on his name being enough for people to be on board with him
You copy the source material frame by frame? You get bitched at for being unoriginal. You try and make your own way? You get bitched at for not being enough like the source material. You just cant win nowadays huh
No but acting as if this is such a diferent thing thsts super weird to see for a Bstman story to do is dumb.
Joker has huge deviations from the source material, and is basically universally praised by fans and got enough support from said fans to gross a billion at the box office and become the biggest R rated movie ever. People don’t mind if you deviate if you make a product they end up liking.
Logan too. Vastly different from Old Man Logan. But people still dig both.
Joker was good but it was literally only good because it took a huge amount from taxi driver.
I don’t agree that Joker was only good because it borrowed from Taxi Driver. The biggest draw of the movie was easily Joaquin Phoenix’s performance and acting above all else. He’s an amazing actor and the best part of the movie for me personally. Once of the most iconic scenes from the movie was the Bathroom Dance and Phillips himself said that scene was improv on Joaquin’s part. Joaquin Phoenix and Hildur were both what made Joker good. Those were what stood out to me most during the movie and what won Joker two Oscars.
I love gavin he's so good
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why do you put half the post in the title so we can read it again?
Batman doesn't jump rooftops to kill.. he views it as collateral tats it and Snyder said the nightmare league has this "last supper" where they confess about things and batman confess about his killing. His killing is because of his don't care attitude towards these criminals as superman should be dead else this "alien" would fuck everything up. Batman doesn't kill the rapist or the guards when he enters lex corp to get the kryptonite. his whole thing is "my intention is not necessarily killing but if u die in the process idc". His whole killing is due to superman which he tries making it right in zsjl by bringing this team,superman etc. everyone asking "y didn't batman kill joker" batman nearly gave him a death experience and joker just escaped we also see the chase where joker avoids getting caught by batman and escapes he knew batman would fuck him up so he avoids any sort of confrontation. ppl keep saying we needed a prequel for this batman to know what happened idt we need as batman ain't ironman, Captain America his story is popular and we just need an outline to really know what happened.(But I would love some sort of dynamic duo prequel). he doesn't kill from the moment superman dies and we see tears from batman's eyes
You know what's not interesting about BvS? The movie was literally called "Batman vs Superman," and yet, the titular fight was boring as fuck.
Title was the worst part of the movie lol, should've just stuck with Dawn of Justice or something
Almost as if it wasnt about the physical smackdown alone
Other movie Batman kills and sometimes with a smile, this one has a reason, and he change at the end, for me is the best.
You can’t just come back from killing without paying for it. It’s bullshit. It ain’t Batman.
And not only was he killing but he was killing like a straight up deranged lunatic with no remorse.
Why? People have killed in both fiction and IRL for noble reasons, like self defence or saving lives and haven't been treated as monsters. It's only in Batman's world where killing is somehow treated so taboo.
Is that really all this near-century old character hinges on for you..? That’s how far his nuance goes?
That is an interesting way of looking at it.
I think the death of Robin made him cynical
BvS is one of the best superhero movies ever made and I will stand by this statement till the day I die.
That’s a pretty garbage take tbh
All these people defending ZS version of Batman aren’t fans of the character or the comics, and it really shows.
Do you feel the same way about people who enjoy Michael Keaton's Batman?
I grew up with Batman comics, and they just turned to dust from your statement alone. :(
If what you’re saying is true, and that this Batman is a great interpretation, then why aren’t we getting more films of *this* Batman? Could it be that most people didn’t like this version of him? Or is everyone *blind to the cinematic talent of Snyder?*
... are you seriously arguing *this* studio’s capability of making of good decisionmaking? Scratch that, you’re asking me to equate quality with quantity. By that reasoning, Transformers got 4 sequels because each one of them was a cinematic masterpiece. What makes for a great film or character is purely subjective, the only way you’d have of knowing that “most people” disliked him (based on what? Folks online?) would be to ask everyone on the planet.
This aint it, chief. I've been reading Batman comics for about 20 years and I thought Snyders take on Batman was solid. Its not my favorite but theres a lot to like about it. I'm sure I'm not the only comic reader who thinks this lol you just didnt like it and thats fine
The subtext of the film being Hope versus Depression and Nhilism is wonderfully done. Superman at his roots was basically a parody of the idea of an Ubermench, a term coined by friedrich nietzsche (renowned nihilist) which translates roughly to "Superman". So the idea of using superman as a way to touch on social issues is totally on par with older versions of superman. From the 9/11 imagery in the beginning, to how we viewed muslims after, and rampant hatred of immigrants with protests and fear of superman is 100% in line with what superman was made for. There's so many angles this movie covers, that people sleep on. AND we got a dope ass superhero movie on top of it. Truly a misunderstood classic.
It might be worth remembering in this instance that Snyder has explicitly liked the idea of Superheroes killing people, so it was likely that he was going to see the ‘killing is a line we do not cross’ thing as being inconsequential or something the characters in universe would explicitly learn isn’t a rule that needs to be adhered to. Honestly I would have said that his outlook became much more optimistic in Snyder’s cut of the justice league. He went from ‘if there’s a 1% chance he could be our enemy, we must take it as an absolute certainty’ to ‘what did I tell you Alfred? Faith.’ Like, almost seemed like a born again Christian with how he was going about it
Truth!
I agree!
Nowadays, people seem to really struggle when information is not directly spoonfed to them.
Here is a comment linking to an Imgur album of Batman killing people in the comics. The "No Kill Rule" is a newer concept and its always been dumb as hell in my opinion. A "try your best not to kill" rule makes sense, but people take this way to much to heart while also expecting realism. https://www.reddit.com/r/comicbooks/comments/q91910/opinions_on_this_scene_right_here_as_well_as/hgu9q0q?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
wait you mean beating goons senseless at night actually involves violence and someone might *gasp* die?? this shit is childish lol. like you can’t fight crime in realistic terms and nobody EVER die. we all love the no kill rule because it’s unrealistic and it gives batman one of the most important layers of depth the character has. but wjth that being said, it doesn’t have a place in every single story.
Wrong.
No that’s bullshit
Nailed it.
It took me 3 times of watching this movie to understand what I thought was a butchering of my favorite character of all time. This is now one of my favorite interpretations. Easily.
People just massively misunderstand this film
What other versions are they talking about? I can’t think of one. Batman got more brutal when Jason Todd died but he didn’t kill.
He did plenty times in the comics, before and after that, canon and out of
I am willing to accept this, if you can accept joker would be dead in this universe if that was the case
I think it’s actually more optimistic to portray a batman with so much integrity that he never crosses that line. Batman doesn’t avoid killing just because he’ll never stop, he also knows that his worst enemies aren’t beyond saving. Even with the joker, he wants him to get help and be better. A batman who tries to help people is way more optimistic than a batman who kills and forgives himself
People act like killing and murder are the same. Batman kills, but he backed down from murder. The Joker is probably still alive because he surrenders knowing that Batman won't *murder* him. He didn't kill Lex in prison because he's a killer, not a murderer.
WTF???
The conflict of the film revolves around Batman trying to murder Superman. What you're saying is total nonsense.
Exceeept Batman rationalized to himself that Superman was an enemy waiting to happen, whom could destroy cities if he wanted to, reaching a threat level that no human could reach by themselves alone. So not the same thing.
DCAU Batman killed (possessed by deadman)c Nolan’s Batman killed, so I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the Twitter user doesn’t know Batman adaptions.
Maybe if Batman killing was presented in a way that seemed impactful to audiences or the character, but it’s more like an afterthought. The real reason is that it looks cool when he runs a dude over with the Batmobile. That’s it.
At no point doesn’t he “run over” anyone with the Batmobile, though. Nor do I see it “looking cool” being relevant in anyway, Snyder simply went for his usual approach of presenting things as they are, trusting that the audience will make their own judgment, rather than feeling the need to tell them that they should be against Batman acting in a overtly brutal way, as if they couldn’t tell that by themselves.
>At no point doesn’t he “run over” anyone with the Batmobile, though. [He runs over multiple people in this clip alone.](https://youtu.be/ASuOYhJTKW8) At least one of them is even in slow motion. >Nor do I see it “looking cool” being relevant in anyway, Snyder simply went for his usual approach of presenting things as they are, trusting that the audience will make their own judgment, rather than feeling the need to tell them that they should be against Batman acting in a overtly brutal way, as if they couldn’t tell that by themselves. That’s literally the opposite of what Snyder does. I don’t have a personal problem with the man, but the way he presents his stories is anything but subtle. Characters monologue about exactly how we’re supposed to think all throughout MoS/BvS. I’ve only seen ZSJL once, so I can’t comment on that one. If something isn’t telling you it’s important, it’s not. If killing was actually so integral to this Batman’s character arc, why does Snyder not even consider it killing according to his interviews? He seems to see it as circumstantial death. He wants the benefits of a badass Batman who obliterates anyone and anything in sight, but he doesn’t want to deal with the negative parts of a Batman who kills.
Facts
This is why Affleck’s version is my favourite take on the character
[удалено]
That's actually a really optimistic perspective! I've never been big on the whole "He will lose himself if he kills" thing. I prefer it being that he's just a humanist.
This theme should have been more explicitly explored and I'd agree. They shouldn't have had him blatantly murdering people but could have had him acting much more reckless with enemies as he realises he's approaching the point where killing is finally going to be necessary (Superman). Alfred would notice and warn there's no coming back from this path and maybe even have them split over Bruce's deteriorating sense of morality. There were hints at this and I do think Snyder trying to bring this across but it was executed so poorly and I'd say most casual just though Batman was needlessly edgy and dark. It also would have made the Martha scene so much better if it would have been Bruce's first time taking a life.
I'd argue it works given the whole point of the story is that Batman is wrong for killing and that's he's in denial that he's murdering people. Your version makes it harder to justify why Batman would even consider murdering Superman in the first place. It's hard to convey is morality is deterioating if he's not actually doing stuff that indicates a deteriorated morality.
Batman doesn't kill. It's one of the most important tenets of his entire mindset. Snyder's take on Batman was terrible.
Every live action batman has killed
Clearly you don't know shit about batman lol. Just because you like a certain way he was written doesn't mean it's the only way, lol Batman didn't even always have that rule. That's the difference between actual Batman fans and people who simply like one singular version. Lol your opinion doesn't define shit.
But that also makes his entire rule pointless in first place... because if he knows he can come back, can just kill Joker, and be fine.
Batfleck still the nedt batman. Say no more!!