Is Batman justified when he refuses to kill? Do you wish he was more like Superman?

[Tempest]

Originally Posted by Lencho01

The Batman killing Joker part was what never occurred to me. Well, I guess it's the fact that DC essentially made it part of the regular continuity rather than the one-off story Moore wanted it to be.

Ah, ok. Well, I'm kind of surprised that people could read that comic and not realize that Batman probably killed Joker. Then again, it's fandom, and fandom has a hard time dealing with Bad Things their characters do.

The whole paralysis thing didn't make much sense to me since it seems possible to fix something like that in their world.

Of course it makes sense. Barbara is a woman. Therefore she has to be half-naked, fridged, or maimed in some way.

[Lencho01]

Originally Posted by Tempest

Ah, ok. Well, I'm kind of surprised that people could read that comic and not realize that Batman probably killed Joker. Then again, it's fandom, and fandom has a hard time dealing with Bad Things their characters do.



Of course it makes sense. Barbara is a woman. Therefore she has to be half-naked, fridged, or maimed in some way.

I'm pretty sure that's the reason why so many people don't see it as him killing Joker. I also didn't really understand what was so great about the story when I read it anyway. I just went, "Oh, ok." when I was done with it.

That's true. Her being a woman does make her a target for something degrading to happen.

Anyway, here's another example of Batman essentially killing someone...

[pr0xyt0xin]

Originally Posted by Lencho01

I'm pretty sure that's the reason why so many people don't see it as him killing Joker. I also didn't really understand what was so great about the story when I read it anyway. I just went, "Oh, ok." when I was done with it.

That's true. Her being a woman does make her a target for something degrading to happen.

Anyway, here's another example of Batman essentially killing someone...

Two of the best examples this thread could come up with are the deaths of Johnny Quick and Owlman. Did we ever stop to think that maybe Crisis on Two Earths was just badly written and made by people who don't understand the character(s)?

I mean, they did cast Billy Baldwin...

[Lencho01]

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

Two of the best examples this thread could come up with are the deaths of Johnny Quick and Owlman. Did we ever stop to think that maybe Crisis on Two Earths was just badly written and made by people who don't understand the character(s)?

I mean, they did cast Billy Baldwin...

I do agree with you, but I was still entertained by the film, epsecially how crazy Owlman was. And given that it was supposed to be a DCAU film, I can't see that version of Batman doing the same thing. Maybe it was in the recent influence of Nolan's Batman in BB.

Hey, I had no problems with Baldwin's voice. I liked it and thought it worked for Batman particularly that version of the character. Wasn't he going to be Batman in Batman Forever?

[Krumm]

Originally Posted by D.P.

Seriously, why is this even a topic?

Too many Superman fans here.

Too many MOS haters.

[TheFlamingCoco]

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

Two of the best examples this thread could come up with are the deaths of Johnny Quick and Owlman. Did we ever stop to think that maybe Crisis on Two Earths was just badly written and made by people who don't understand the character(s)?

I mean, they did cast Billy Baldwin...

Baldwin's voice made me

It sounded high-ish, like the sigh after you drink your favorite drink, if you know what I mean.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by Tempest

Based off of does not equal a carbon copy. Maybe he won't kill. BUT maybe he'd understand that in this very specific circumstance, Superman was justified.

This part of the argument makes no sense. If you believe that Batman as we know him - the Post-Crisis Batman of the Modern Age comics - would understand that what Superman in MOS did is justified, then by your own definition, the new Batman understanding this in the movie would not be out of character at all.

I'm not arguing that superheroes should indeed go about gleefully killing villains right and left. I'm arguing that in some instances, in some circumstances, superheroes will need, and indeed, are almost obligated to make a tough decision.


.................................................. .....

Cool. I don't have a problem with that. I only have a problem with the idea of using Batman to put Superman down for doing what he did in MOS. I don't appreciate or like this idea floating around that Batman is the morally superior guy, simply because he didn't kill, and Superman did.

I've even heard it suggested that Superman murdered Zod, when that is clearly not the case at all.

You are saying this from the perspective of a moviegoer. In the MOS universe, the only people that were there to witness what happened to Zod were Superman himself and those four people he saved (Lois only got there after). The rest of the world has no clue how Zod died and why he died in the first place. The only thing they know? Superman killed him. That and the fact that Zod was found with a broken neck next to Superman's body. Why would anyone (other than Lois and the people close to him) trust the alien with infinite power that the whole world fears at this point when he says that he had no choice but to kill him? This is especially true for Batman, who always mad major trust issues. Batman was not there to witness what happened and only has Superman's word on what happened. It makes logical sense for Batman to be a bit suspicious of Zod's death and to believe Superman is dangerous due to it.

Furthermore, Batman has many arguments to counter Superman's "I had no choice but to do it" statement. You've probably seen some of those same arguments on this site. How exactly did he have to kill Zod in that situation? There are plenty of other things he could have done. He could have flew with him. He could've covered his eyes. Pull his head back so that he fries the ceiling instead of the people. The list goes on. Why didn't Superman do any of these things? Because he was stressed out, put under pressure, could not keep his cool or think rationally. Those things are perfectly normal human reactions and the vast majority of people would have reacted the same way if put into that situation. But Batman has always been a guy who remains calm and calculative even in the worst situations and, to an extent, views what Superman experienced in that moment as a weakness that people can exploit. Thus even if Batman knows exactly what happened in that museum, it would only be evidence for him that Superman lets pressure & his emotions get a hold of him and is thus dangerous having all that power.

That's fine. I get that. But people keep saying that Batman has NEVER killed. With that statement, I am assuming they are speaking about all Batman's, so we know, clearly, that this isn't true.

It goes without saying that, unless people specify otherwise, they are talking about the Post-Crisis Modern Age version of Batman whenever they talk about "Batman".

That is a matter of opinion. Batman is one of my favorite characters, but he's a f'cked up creeper half the time. My own head canon of him is a lot more fun than what he is on paper or on-screen. Unfortunately, my fanon isn't canon.

Maybe "perfection" was not the right word. I guess a better way of phrasing it would be "They are slowly drizzled into who they are and who everyone knows them to be overtime."

I don't believe I ever said he wasn't complex. I AM a fan, even if I'm not the same kind as you are.

I never said you said he wasn't complex. My point is that Batman's no-kill rule and the way it is handled is part of what makes him such a complex character in the first place. In my opinion, he became a far more complex character due to it.

This is why we love him, yes? I'm not arguing that Batman is evil, or that I find him to be wrong. I hope you understand that. What I'm saying is that he IS a bastard, so I'm irritated by the idea that he is somehow morally superior to Superman, who has been forced by circumstances out of his control, to kill.

Do you get where I'm coming from? I Batman. But he's a bit of an ass, he's not morally perfect, so I'm not going to put him on a pedestal of moral greatness just because he decides not to kill.

Of course he is a bit of a bastard. I never said Batman is morally perfect. My entire argument here is that Batman does not kill. Bruce crosses a lot of lines to get the job done, but the one line he refuses to cross is to resort to killing. That is his one and only rule and is part of what makes him so interesting. He is a monster, but he is a monster on our side. Plus, in a way, Batman's no-kill rule is why he has such a strong bond with Superman in the first place. Both men have the same morals; just different methods and views on everything else.

It's not really actually the same thing at all, because gravity is a solid, and real thing, while Batman is a fake person. Which makes this conversation even sillier, since we are arguing the morality of a fictional guy who dresses up like a bat, but such is life. We get our kicks where we can, right?

SO basically, the movie is its own canon, in yet another verse? Ok. That's fine.

By that same logic, what's the point of even coming on this website at all? All arguments and discussions on this site would be silly.

....but Superman killed, so it wasn't THAT faithful of an adaptation, right? They may use a certain comic to base Batman off of, just like they did Superman, but that doesn't mean that they won't tweak the character just a little, or put him in a situation where he may have to go against his beliefs...or perhaps make an exception in judgement for another character, which is what my original argument has been all along.

1) You're making it sound as if Superman killing is going to be his motto in this universe from now on. It isn't. It is a one-time thing. The whole point of getting Superman to kill Zod was to have him learn from that the horrors of killing and for him to never do it again. Goyer even confirmed this in an interview. Superman has always been one of the most moral superheroes, if not the most moral one. In order for this Superman to become that Superman, he has to experience murder in order to have a deep understanding on why it is wrong and on the horrors that come with it in the first place. As people often say, you can't fully learn something until you experience it. I don't really agree with this character arc, but it is the character arc that Snyder and Goyer have in mind.

2) Superman breaking Zod's neck was when he had his "This is why killing is wrong" moment. Now this particular version of Superman has just as much of a complex reason for his no-kill rule as the new Batman presumably does. But assuming that the new Batman has his parents murdered as a kid and then traveled the world to train, he already had his "This is why killing is wrong" moment prior to becoming Batman. It automatically comes with the origin. Thus it would be pointless to apply that same character arc to Batman here.

3) Having the perfectly-sane boy scout who grew up in Kansas kill this one time is no big deal. One death is not going to corrupt him and destroy him inside out. On the other hand, Batman is a monster in human form and is insane. Killing one person is going to have a far bigger impact on him than on someone like Superman and would lead him to corruption much faster. Basically, you have to push Superman a few meters first while Batman is right at the edge and just needs a little push (as the Joker would say ). Having Batman murder would get him over that edge not too long.

Cool. I don't have a problem with that. I only have a problem with the idea of using Batman to put Superman down for doing what he did in MOS. I don't appreciate or like this idea floating around that Batman is the morally superior guy, simply because he didn't kill, and Superman did.

I would also have a problem with it if they made a big deal out of it. At most, it should be a side-plot IMO.

As you say below, I've already addressed the Batman killing thing several times now, so I hope you have a better understanding of where I'm coming from.

I do.

It's been an interesting and informative debate.

It has.

[Asgard]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

Furthermore, Batman has many arguments to counter Superman's "I had no choice but to do it" statement. You've probably seen some of those same arguments on this site. How exactly did he have to kill Zod in that situation? There are plenty of other things he could have done. He could have flew with him. He could've covered his eyes. Pull his head back so that he fries the ceiling instead of the people. The list goes on. Why didn't Superman do any of these things? Because he was stressed out, put under pressure, could not keep his cool or think rationally. Those things are perfectly normal human reactions and the vast majority of people would have reacted the same way if put into that situation. But Batman has always been a guy who remains calm and calculative even in the worst situations and, to an extent, views what Superman experienced in that moment as a weakness that people can exploit. Thus even if Batman knows exactly what happened in that museum, it would only be evidence for him that Superman lets pressure & his emotions get a hold of him and is thus dangerous having all that power.

Let's say Superman did manage to stop Zod from killing that family without breaking his neck. What then? Zod was determined to kill as many people as possible. At that point he had no other goal except for revenge by mass murder.

Batman could have mentioned all these other things Superman could have done to save that family without resorting to killing Zod, but that doesnt stop Zod's immediate threat to humanity. In reality, short of killing Zod, there was nothing else Superman could have done to stop Zod and Batman would have agreed.

[Lencho01]

I'd laugh if something like this happened...

[Marvin]

^Problem with that is batman always has a choice(even in the TDK trilogy). Would love to see batman actually placed in one of mos type situation and be forced to make a choice. Then again, fans may not respond all that well to such a thing.

Would be cool to see this sort or batman calling out supes in the next film, talk about pay off. I vaguely remember something similar going down in the comics with bats and supes post Zod killing, might have been in that Emperor joker arc.

[Lencho01]

Well, I'd hope that Batman and Superman would be smart enough to solve whatever issues they face in ways that other people wouldn't have thought. But, after MOS I don't really have any expectations about that.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by Lencho01

Well, I'd hope that Batman and Superman would be smart enough to solve whatever issues they face in ways that other people wouldn't have thought. But, after MOS I don't really have any expectations about that.

You should have lost faith in that after Batman Begins...

Anyhow, I'm not so sure I've ever seen a superhero in this particular position before, didn't seem like Clark had any other choices. And if he did I'm curious how many more lives it would have cost.
Point being, it's cool to hope there are better ways but what if there isn't? Seems like an interesting angle.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by Asgard

Let's say Superman did manage to stop Zod from killing that family without breaking his neck. What then? Zod was determined to kill as many people as possible. At that point he had no other goal except for revenge by mass murder.

Batman could have mentioned all these other things Superman could have done to save that family without resorting to killing Zod, but that doesnt stop Zod's immediate threat to humanity. In reality, short of killing Zod, there was nothing else Superman could have done to stop Zod and Batman would have agreed.

How about beat him until he is unconscious and/or can't move and then send him to the Phantom Zone, in space, in some advanced STAR Labs-made prison, etc.?

[Marvin]

All non options in this movie.
The unconscious one might but but it might cost a few lives(a bigger issue I've been told). However, pretty sure zod would wake up...then, more trouble.

The movie presented something that simply seems beyond the comicbook institutionalized. A no win.

[Lencho01]

Originally Posted by Marvin

You should have lost faith in that after Batman Begins...

Anyhow, I'm not so sure I've ever seen a superhero in this particular position before, didn't seem like Clark had any other choices. And if he did I'm curious how many more lives it would have cost.
Point being, it's cool to hope there are better ways but what if there isn't? Seems like an interesting angle.

I don't hold Nolan's version of the character in as high regard has people tend to do. I was pretty much ready for a new version after BB. Yeah, there were some things I like about it, but overall meh.

I can't think of any other superhero that has been put in that position on film. But, it would've been great if Superman was the guy to solve it without fulfilling Zod's death wish.

I don't know if we'll ever learn the specifics of how Zod got put in the PZ in the earlier version of the script, but I thought it would've been great if Superman did outsmart him. Especially after Zod busted out that diss of him being a warrior and asking if Superman trained on a farm.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by Marvin

All non options in this movie.
The unconscious one might but but it might cost a few lives(a bigger issue I've been told). However, pretty sure zod would wake up...then, more trouble.

The movie presented something that simply seems beyond the comicbook institutionalized. A no win.

Batman, Lex Luthor, and STAR Labs exist in this universe. We even know from the Goyer that Cyborg's tech is ready or will soon be ready. This is a universe with more advanced tech than ours, only that it is not available to the public. Surely there had to be a way to deal with Zod. And if there isn't, what will they do when guys like Brainiac and Darkseid show up?

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by Lencho01

I don't hold Nolan's version of the character in as high regard has people tend to do. I was pretty much ready for a new version after BB. Yeah, there were some things I like about it, but overall meh.

I can't think of any other superhero that has been put in that position on film. But, it would've been great if Superman was the guy to solve it without fulfilling Zod's death wish.

I don't know if we'll ever learn the specifics of how Zod got put in the PZ in the earlier version of the script, but I thought it would've been great if Superman did outsmart him. Especially after Zod busted out that diss of him being a warrior and asking if Superman trained on a farm.

The sad irony is that the Nolan films never shut up about the no kill rule.

Anyways, I think it will be pretty interesting for the young audience to see your superman overcomes all scenario after this movie and because of this movie. I fully understand that a character can just have a no kill rule based on several other things but I have never actually heard the argument as to why that approach is better. When it comes to the matter of strong and traditional story telling anyways.

In short, don't lose faith yet. Pretty sure if the no kill rule had to be discussed by producers then there is some sort of pay off down the road.

Funny enough, I think when they sent Red Skull into the portal at the end of Cap, I nodded my head and said to myself, yup, good old safe forgettable marvel at play here. Wonder when skull will be returning...hopefully avengers.
I'm glad they took a chance with this film. I've been an advocate for such things for a while.

[TheFlamingCoco]

Originally Posted by Lencho01

I don't hold Nolan's version of the character in as high regard has people tend to do. I was pretty much ready for a new version after BB. Yeah, there were some things I like about it, but overall meh.

I can't think of any other superhero that has been put in that position on film. But, it would've been great if Superman was the guy to solve it without fulfilling Zod's death wish.

I don't know if we'll ever learn the specifics of how Zod got put in the PZ in the earlier version of the script, but I thought it would've been great if Superman did outsmart him. Especially after Zod busted out that diss of him being a warrior and asking if Superman trained on a farm.

He'd need some type of portal or time paradox for something like that.
Movie universe gave him no options.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

Batman, Lex Luthor, and STAR Labs exist in this universe. We even know from the Goyer that Cyborg's tech is ready or will soon be ready. This is a universe with more advanced tech than ours, only that it is not available to the public. Surely there had to be a way to deal with Zod. And if there isn't, what will they do when guys like Brainiac and Darkseid show up?

Superman will just kill those guys too
that's what up. Shots fired.
Superman should just put zods head on an intergalactic pike to ward off evil dooers.

On a serious note, what ever this universe may become, the point is that it's not that universe right now. More to the point it wasn't that universe at the moment superman had to make this decision.

That the thing about the marvel verse, Killian may have been a problem, but he was nothing the avengers couldn't deal with 6 days later. Superman doesn't have any options. The thing about batman and bane...Banes just a guy with a single bomb, not quite a world ending in 4 days threat there.

in short, all those options for incarcerating Zod that you are going to cite form the comics, hardly apply to this film. The only option I think may have worked lies in the JorEl hologram but as far as I understand that thing is gone. Also seems like it would have meant more death.

Then again there is the superman two option(complete with superman flying away), however it also results in killing so probably no.

[Lencho01]

Originally Posted by Marvin

The sad irony is that the Nolan films never shut up about the no kill rule.

Anyways, I think it will be pretty interesting for the young audience to see your superman overcomes all scenario after this movie and because of this movie. I fully understand that a character can just have a no kill rule based on several other things but I have never actually heard the argument as to why that approach is better. When it comes to the matter of strong and traditional story telling anyways.

In short, don't lose faith yet. Pretty sure if the no kill rule had to be discussed by producers then there is some sort of pay off down the road.

Funny enough, I think when they sent Red Skull into the portal at the end of Cap, I nodded my head and said to myself, yup, good old safe forgettable marvel at play here. Wonder when skull will be returning...hopefully avengers.
I'm glad they took a chance with this film. I've been an advocate for such things for a while.

Seriously, I kept thinking does Bruce really have no problem with killing because there was Ra's and Harvey. And possible Scarecrow with the hallucinogen.

I still don't see a need to have him kill in order to make that rule. Perhaps, it would've been better if they had shown him set the rule in the first place or reflect on it instead of moving on as if it never happened. In the end, I'm just "whatever" about this version of the character and will be ready for the next one.

I think Weaving pretty much said he wasn't interested in playing the role again. I was kinda surprised that they didn't bring him up in Avengers. Like Cap just wondering what really happened to him. Even so, since they established Cap as a soldier, it was clear he'd have no real problem with killing Red Skull if needed.

Originally Posted by TheFlamingCoco

He'd need some type of portal or time paradox for something like that.
Movie universe gave him no options.

I think everyone understands that.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by Lencho01

Seriously, I kept thinking does Bruce really have no problem with killing because there was Ra's and Harvey. And possible Scarecrow with the hallucinogen.

I still don't see a need to have him kill in order to make that rule. Perhaps, it would've been better if they had shown him set the rule in the first place or reflect on it instead of moving on as if it never happened. In the end, I'm just "whatever" about this version of the character and will be ready for the next one.

I think Weaving pretty much said he wasn't interested in playing the role again. I was kinda surprised that they didn't bring him up in Avengers. Like Cap just wondering what really happened to him. Even so, since they established Cap as a soldier, it was clear he'd have no real problem with killing Red Skull if needed.

Trust me Marvel doesn't need Hugo to cash in on their Red Skull investment. He'll be back.

As for cap, I'm more referring to how the fans respond to a iconic colourful hero killing people at will. However you make a good point about how the characters react to doing such things. I do think however superman letting out an agonizing yell vs cap just reloading his gun speaks volumes on the matter.
I also think ending the movie on a sense of triumph and not him dwelling and reflecting on losses is very much in the superman tradition. No point in Snyder hedging the lawn any further

Either way, I'm glad they set the rule in such a way. It's def more in the show don't tell vain of things. Going forward anyways.

And batman killed talia as well.

[Asgard]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

How about beat him until he is unconscious and/or can't move and then send him to the Phantom Zone, in space, in some advanced STAR Labs-made prison, etc.?

Phantom Zone was closed presumably forever when that ship went down. There is no STAR Labs prison that could imprison a Kryptonian in MOS.

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

Batman, Lex Luthor, and STAR Labs exist in this universe. We even know from the Goyer that Cyborg's tech is ready or will soon be ready. This is a universe with more advanced tech than ours, only that it is not available to the public. Surely there had to be a way to deal with Zod. And if there isn't, what will they do when guys like Brainiac and Darkseid show up?

The thing is, none of these things were available to Superman at the time of Zod's attack on the populace. No super advanced prisons that can hold Kryptonians, no device that can strip away Kryptonian powers under a yellow sun, etc...

Superman literally had no choice but to kill Zod to stop him from murdering countless innocent people.

Well, Goyer has expressed that killing Zod would be Superman's catalyst to never kill again, so the next movie he writes will involve Superman actually having an opportunity to stop threats to humanity without having to kill.

[The Guard]

Furthermore, Batman has many arguments to counter Superman's "I had no choice but to do it" statement. You've probably seen some of those same arguments on this site. How exactly did he have to kill Zod in that situation? There are plenty of other things he could have done. He could have flew with him. He could've covered his eyes. Pull his head back so that he fries the ceiling instead of the people. The list goes on.

It was shown pretty clearly that Superman was unable to do any of those things with reasonable force applied. And none of these arguments change the fact that Zod would have continued to attempt to kill people. At every turn. Presenting him with the same problem. Again and again and again.

And Batman's argument against killing has never been a logical one. It is an emotional issue for him, not one of logic.

[Tempest]

Originally Posted by Asgard

Phantom Zone was closed presumably forever when that ship went down. There is no STAR Labs prison that could imprison a Kryptonian in MOS.


The thing is, none of these things were available to Superman at the time of Zod's attack on the populace. No super advanced prisons that can hold Kryptonians, no device that can strip away Kryptonian powers under a yellow sun, etc...

Superman literally had no choice but to kill Zod to stop him from murdering countless innocent people.

Well, Goyer has expressed that killing Zod would be Superman's catalyst to never kill again, so the next movie he writes will involve Superman actually having an opportunity to stop threats to humanity without having to kill.

Using logic to argue about this is pretty useless. It's clear from the film that Superman didn't want to kill Zod. It was made clear that it was immensely emotional and painful for him to do it.

That will never be good enough for these people. They'd rather have a shiny superhero that never has to face tough decisions. They complain that the writers forced Superman into this situation -- yes they did. Instead of giving him an easy out, they demanded that Superman sacrifice something in order to save humanity. I like that the writers dared to challenge Superman, to give him a difficult situation where there were no oh-so-convenient ways around having to actually make a tough choice.

Poor Superman can't win though, no matter what. He fights Zod, but he doesn't do it in the right way, apparently, because there's all kinds of destruction. He doesn't save enough people (although I'd be interested to see an actual number of people that would satisfy the masses), and when he DOES save people, he's criticized for saving "just those few". Then he finally has to put an end to the massive destruction, and then he gets crapped on because if he is forced to kill.

Feh. Fanboys. Can't ever be happy with anything.

Superman is awesome. Batman is awesome. And they're both complicated idiots who do things wrong, and who sometimes muck everything up. It doesn't make them bad; it makes them easier to connect with.

[Lencho01]

Originally Posted by Marvin

Trust me Marvel doesn't need Hugo to cash in on their Red Skull investment. He'll be back.

As for cap, I'm more referring to how the fans respond to a iconic colourful hero killing people at will. However you make a good point about how the characters react to doing such things. I do think however superman letting out an agonizing yell vs cap just reloading his gun speaks volumes on the matter.
I also think ending the movie on a sense of triumph and not him dwelling and reflecting on losses is very much in the superman tradition. No point in Snyder hedging the lawn any further

Either way, I'm glad they set the rule in such a way. It's def more in the show don't tell vain of things. Going forward anyways.

And batman killed talia as well.

That is true. It'd be shocking if he popped up in the next film.

They did have that nice moment where he pretty much explained that he wasn't planning on just killing Nazis. He just hated bullies. But, in the end he's still a soldier so his approach should be expected even though he's a noble guy.

At least they didn't have him doing the Superman flyby because that would've been really weird given the tone of the whole film.

Dude, Batman pretty much killed Talia like he killed Ra's. When that happened, I thought, "Nice one, Nolan."