BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - - - - Part 305

Status
Not open for further replies.
When I think about it, it's pretty amazing on how the members of the suicide squad that Batman locked away are still alive since based on BvS, I don't think that he would have taken them in alive. Not to mention like, it's an mystery on how Batman even allowed the joker to stay alive.

I think the answer will turn out to be, and largely remain, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

From Suicide Squad on out, there's going to be a quiet retcon to Batman's general lethality. Sure, his "growing bad turn" is still going to be a thing, but *how* bad, and how lethal? Will get quietly treated as less Snyder-tastic.
 
I think the answer will turn out to be, and largely remain, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

From Suicide Squad on out, there's going to be a quiet retcon to Batman's general lethality. Sure, his "growing bad turn" is still going to be a thing, but *how* bad, and how lethal? Will get quietly treated as less Snyder-tastic.

I don't see how there could be or would need to be a retcon. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice established that Batman's lethality was a relatively new development, and that it was already waning after his confrontation with Superman and his subsequent death. Batman's rage was slowly heating up to a boiling point but turned down right before he truly went over the edge. That was the story Snyder told.
 
Batman say himself in comics too that if he became killer he could never recover from that. Snyder not understand character.

A Batman who cannot recover from killing is not admirable, in my opinion. It is not a characterization I find compelling or interesting. Even Superman has had to kill. Many heroes -- good people -- have killed. A hero is someone who believes that while killing generates a particularly pernicious guilt and darkness in the soul, redemption is possible. A Batman who does not believe in redemption, or who believes killing is a sin that cannot be forgiven, is actually more terrifying to me than a Batman who lost his way and found his way back.
 
Batfleck's killing is totally different because he wasn't killing due to the fact that you have no choice in order to save an innocent life or lives which doesn't make you a cold blooded killer. That's why I don't condemn Batfleck for roasting KGBeast when he was about to do the same to Martha. Imagine Batman trying to live with himself saying he let innocent people die because he couldn't bring himself to kill the bad guy when there was no other way to save innocent lives. That doesn't make him a murderer or an executioner. It is not remotely the same as nonchalantly killing needlessly like Batfleck consistently did in the movie. He was playing Judge, Jury, and executioner on criminals because he wanted to, not because he had no choice.

Even the producer of the movie said so;

"He is more than a vigilante," he explained. "He has become not only the cop, if you will, he has also become the jury and executioner."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/batman-v-superman-new-dark-859485

And some people wonder why he gets compared to The Punisher when he does the exact same thing. That's they type of killer Batman could never recover from. That's what he's talking about here;

296hmi0.jpg



He's being confronted by Jason Todd in that panel, who freely kills criminals as the Red Hood, and is asking Batman why he has not executed the Joker yet. Not talking about killing the Joker in the desperate act to stop him so he can save a life or lives. But just executing him because he thinks Joker deserves it.

Also brilliantly recreated in the animated adaption:

[YT]7kscfb9XzPs[/YT]

It's nothing to do with Batman believing in redemption. This is about a Batman who let himself cross that very clear line and turn into the very thing he knows he could never let himself be. A murderer. This is one of Batman's most vital core characteristics, and Snyder took a big smelly dump on it. Batfleck is forever tainted by what he's done, and the Jim Gordon in this universe should be reacting like this to him, hunting him down and bringing him to justice;

Gordon1.jpg


I think the answer will turn out to be, and largely remain, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

From Suicide Squad on out, there's going to be a quiet retcon to Batman's general lethality. Sure, his "growing bad turn" is still going to be a thing, but *how* bad, and how lethal? Will get quietly treated as less Snyder-tastic.

That would be a shameful admission that they were wrong to characterize Batman that way.
 
Last edited:
That's one of the things I love about Batman. There is sound rational logic as to why he dresses like a bat. To invoke fear in criminals. He is just a man, and needs that edge to appear more than just that.

Yeah, if we're talking "Canon" Batman, he is a pretty sane, abeit damaged character.

Like you said, Bruce's decision to dress like a Bat is pretty logical....especially when you take into consideration that comic Batman often lives in a universe with a bunch of non powered heroes. His rationale is more sound than, say, Oliver Queen running around in Robin Hood tights or Ted Kord dressing like a Beetle. But for some reason, only Bruce's sanity is questioned.
 
Even the producer of the movie said so;

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/batman-v-superman-new-dark-859485

And some people wonder why he gets compared to The Punisher when he does the exact same thing. That's they type of killer Batman could never recover from.

I thought that comment was about his planned assassination of Superman and the brands he put on people. I know the film showed brutality, but at no point are the thugs he attacks confirmed dead. When the filmmakers want to make a point, for characterization purposes, they tend to actually highlight its examples. Superman killing Zod or the brands and attacking Superman are all examples of dark behavior that the filmmakers made sure we saw and understood as bad. Without confirmation that people were fatally injured, it's not fair to say that Batman was killing all of those people.

He's being confronted by Jason Todd in that panel, who freely kills criminals as the Red Hood, and is asking Batman why he has not executed the Joker yet. Not talking about killing the Joker in the desperate act to stop him so he can save a life or lives. But just executing him because he thinks Joker deserves it.

Right, so a situation similar to Batman going after Superman. Well, in the case of this film, Batman doesn't kill Superman and he reforms.

It's nothing to do with Batman believing in redemption. This is about a Batman who let himself cross that very clear line and turn into the very thing he knows he could never let himself be. A murderer.

He almost became a murderer by going after Superman, but he didn't do it. I believe of the branded criminals, only the one Luthor had killed died. The other supposed deaths are just conjecture.

This is one of Batman's most vital core characteristics, and Snyder took a big smelly dump on it. Batfleck is forever tainted by what he's done, and the Jim Gordon in this universe should be reacting like this to him, hunting him down and bringing him to justice;

Snyder showed this Batman struggling with corruption but ultimately finding his way back to the light. Snyder showed in his film the value of that code as righteous and the importance of striving to honor it.

That would be a shameful admission that they were wrong to characterize Batman that way.

It's wrong to characterize Batman as someone who represents the repudiation of the opening line that what falls is fallen? It's wrong to use Batman, an icon, to show that even the best of us can struggle but that hope isn't lost? Maybe it doesn't fit stories you've seen told, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. In the Bible, there's the story of Saul who persecuted Christians but repented, became Paul, and evolved into one of the most important engines for the success of Christianity. It's a great story that inspires to this day. All of these characterizations can be right in their own context, and I don't think it's fair to be so rigid in one's expectations that a new story like this is rejected.
 
With Bat-ffleck in particular, the criticism is also compounded by the fact that we just had an entire trilogy (and one regarded as some of the best CBMs ever) that was VERY explicit about his 'no kill' policy.

He broke his own rule in that trilogy, arguably multiple times.
 
Yeah, if we're talking "Canon" Batman, he is a pretty sane, abeit damaged character.

Like you said, Bruce's decision to dress like a Bat is pretty logical....especially when you take into consideration that comic Batman often lives in a universe with a bunch of non powered heroes. His rationale is more sound than, say, Oliver Queen running around in Robin Hood tights or Ted Kord dressing like a Beetle. But for some reason, only Bruce's sanity is questioned.

Exactly.

I thought that comment was about his planned assassination of Superman and the brands he put on people. I know the film showed brutality, but at no point are the thugs he attacks confirmed dead. When the filmmakers want to make a point, for characterization purposes, they tend to actually highlight its examples. Superman killing Zod or the brands and attacking Superman are all examples of dark behavior that the filmmakers made sure we saw and understood as bad. Without confirmation that people were fatally injured, it's not fair to say that Batman was killing all of those people.

https://creamerscinemacraze.wordpre...-people-in-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice/

Not that there was any grey area here, and the producer needed to explain that Batman does in fact kill people. It's blatantly obvious.

Right, so a situation similar to Batman going after Superman. Well, in the case of this film, Batman doesn't kill Superman and he reforms.

It's not similar at all. Batman never went after the Joker to kill him. This was just Jason Todd confronting Batman with his own warped ideology of justice. Batman explaining why he would never cross that line. Unlike Batfleck who already did multiple times.

He almost became a murderer by going after Superman, but he didn't do it. I believe of the branded criminals, only the one Luthor had killed died. The other supposed deaths are just conjecture.

No offense to you, but if you believe that you are in denial. Even CBS news was circulating the video that tallies up Batman's considerable body count in this movie;

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/video-t...y-count-in-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice/

It didn't become one of the most controversial aspects of the movie because people were just assuming things lol.

Snyder showed this Batman struggling with corruption but ultimately finding his way back to the light. Snyder showed in his film the value of that code as righteous and the importance of striving to honor it.

Too late. Damage is done. He's crossed the line multiple times. Doesn't matter how much redemption he finds. The blood is on his hands. He turned into a murderer. He should be hunted down and brought to justice.

It's wrong to characterize Batman as someone who represents the repudiation of the opening line that what falls is fallen? It's wrong to use Batman, an icon, to show that even the best of us can struggle but that hope isn't lost? Maybe it doesn't fit stories you've seen told, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. In the Bible, there's the story of Saul who persecuted Christians but repented, became Paul, and evolved into one of the most important engines for the success of Christianity. It's a great story that inspires to this day. All of these characterizations can be right in their own context, and I don't think it's fair to be so rigid in one's expectations that a new story like this is rejected.

Sorry but I'm not getting into some religious debate over this. To answer your questions, yes it's wrong. Batman can be shown to lose hope, lose his way, and find that hope is not lost without being turned into a murderer.

I say this as though it's a theory. They actually have successfully done that in the comics, the cartoons, and the movies.
 
Last edited:
To the user equating someone enlisting in the army, going to war, and killing enemy combatants to a billionaire waging a personal war on crime and giving himself the authority kill as he sees fit: Please Stop

To the user saying Batman did not kill in the movie and that it is simply conjecture to think otherwise, even though the director of the movie has confirm Batman committed manslaughter: Please Stop
 
When Snyder make Batman villain you know he not understand characters at all. It not ballsy it just bad.

It was very ballsy. They tried something new with a beloved character rather than retreading familiar ground, and they're being crucified for it.

The level of an adaptation's faithfulness to its source is not a measure of its quality. You may not like the changes implemented in this new version of the story, but just the fact that it is different does not make it objectively "bad". If it was, it could then be argued that the Silver Age Batman is "bad" because he departs from the character as created by the original authors. He became a company mandated "nice guy" during the Silver Age, as opposed to the violent vigilante who wasn't afraid to kill a few thugs in his quest for justice during the Golden Age.
 
To the user equating someone enlisting in the army, going to war, and killing enemy combatants to a billionaire waging a personal war on crime and giving himself the authority kill as he sees fit: Please Stop

To the user saying Batman did not kill in the movie and that it is simply conjecture to think otherwise, even though the director of the movie has confirm Batman committed manslaughter: Please Stop

:up:Some of the denial in this thread is strong, boarder line hilarious considering context and facts.:funny:
 
It was very ballsy. They tried something new with a beloved character rather than retreading familiar ground, and they're being crucified for it.

The level of an adaptation's faithfulness to its source is not a measure of its quality. You may not like the changes implemented in this new version of the story, but just the fact that it is different does not make it objectively "bad". If it was, it could then be argued that the Silver Age Batman is "bad" because he departs from the character as created by the original authors. He became a company mandated "nice guy" during the Silver Age, as opposed to the violent vigilante who wasn't afraid to kill a few thugs in his quest for justice during the Golden Age.

Disagreed. This not something new. Burton Batman was stupid killer as well and that get lots of criticism too. Bad version of Batman always does when it stray from faithfulness and make Batman a character he not like killer. Snyder version was Bat Punisher.
 
I would like to see them address the issue going forward, and not sweep it under the rug. As has been said, the "damage has been done" so to speak. Like it or not, Batman has crossed that line, to some extent, even if you say, he wasn't intending those vehicular deaths to happen, or for the guy to get his head splattered (assuming he's dead), I don't blame Bats for the grenade death, the Martha save explosion seems pretty intentional. I don't count the Knightmare kills, anymore than I blame Supes for ripping Batman's heart out or laser beaming those guys, those are in a world that's gone to s*** and we don't know the context.



Basically, we're shown a Batman who is neutralizing an immediate threat, any way possible, and if a casualty happens, "Hey, it's all in the game, baby!" as Omar says (another trench coat vigilante come to think about it).


I can accept that. I can accept a Batman who is not perfect, who goes into a battle and just acts on instinct and does what needs to be done, he gets stabbed and shot and overpowered and outnumbered. I like that because it makes the threat feel real, the fight feel more visceral. But, I would have at least liked for that issue to have been addressed a little more, like does he have regret or guilt over it when it happens (but, this is a Batman who is broken, and I accept that portrayal as well).


I'm willing to go with where the creators want the story to go, but I feel like they almost tried to slip it in there, like showing explosions or blood spatter because it makes a cool scene, but then hoping it would go unnoticed and nobody would be like "Hey, wait, so Batman kills people now?" If you're gonna do it, go into it head on and don't avoid it.
 
It was very ballsy. They tried something new with a beloved character rather than retreading familiar ground, and they're being crucified for it.

The level of an adaptation's faithfulness to its source is not a measure of its quality. You may not like the changes implemented in this new version of the story, but just the fact that it is different does not make it objectively "bad". If it was, it could then be argued that the Silver Age Batman is "bad" because he departs from the character as created by the original authors. He became a company mandated "nice guy" during the Silver Age, as opposed to the violent vigilante who wasn't afraid to kill a few thugs in his quest for justice during the Golden Age.



Agreed. I mean, it is HARD to tell a Superman/Batman story on the big screen in this context of a grounded, real world story. They could have easily told a Donner style story in which logic goes out the window in favor of a more wholesome story. I respect and appreciate what they're attempting, even if they do make some initial mistakes. You've got the beginning of a huge universe, the two biggest characters, with the expectations from the Nolan films, and the expectation to make Superman fit into theses modern day action epics.



It's a LOT on their plate. People seem willing to forgive Nolan's Batman for causing collateral damage or "I don't have to save you" or not being perfect enough to save Gordon's son and not cause the death of Harvey Dent at the same time. I'm willing to cut some slack in order to see this version of the characters onscreen. Others aren't, and that's okay, because these characters belong to all of us. Most action heroes, people are fine with collateral damage, Indiana Jones, James Bond, Jason Bourne, John McLane, the list goes on and on. And the No Kill thing was in large part due to the wholesome comic code and then continued so they can justify "Why does Batman not just kill The Joker" when they want The Joker to keep coming back because comic books are an ongoing, never ending story. This film universe is meant to be a self contained story with real consequences.




I really like Zack Snyder a lot. In my opinion, he is one of the best CBM directors, he and Larry Fong are in a league of their own when it comes to the comic book aesthetic on screen. But, I feel like he's not the best at articulating or justifying his choices.I think it's kinda funny when Zack, inevitably has to defend it and kinda doesn't know what to say "He kills people all over the place in Dark Knight Returns! Everybody told me 'Dude, you've GOT to have Batman shoot him in between the eyes!" And I was like 'No, I'm not gonna be that guy.'" Really, Zack? Is that what "they" told you? It's almost like he's trying to throw the blame off on an unspecified "they" who pressured Zack into having Batman kill. And, hell, maybe that's the case and there was a group decision to kinda tweak the No Kill thing. Maybe Nolan was for it, who knows? People are quick to place all the blame on Snyder, but it takes a lot of people to tell a story of this size.
 
Btw, I'm actually watching the film as I'm typing. One choice that I just noticed that I'm not such a fan of, immediately after the senate bombing, Superman is standing in the midst of the explosion with all these people who just died not a second before, and he's just looking sad and befuddled, but not showing much of a reaction or emotion. It would have been a good moment to have him react like he did after killing Zod or like Batman did in the Knightmare scene when people start getting shot. Show him completely breaking down, show some emotion. This is a humanized, flawed, scared, uncertain, portrayal, okay I'm all for that, but he doesn't need to be so statuesque at all times
 
But, I feel like he's not the best at articulating or justifying his choices.I think it's kinda funny when Zack, inevitably has to defend it and kinda doesn't know what to say "He kills people all over the place in Dark Knight Returns! Everybody told me 'Dude, you've GOT to have Batman shoot him in between the eyes!" And I was like 'No, I'm not gonna be that guy.'" Really, Zack? Is that what "they" told you? It's almost like he's trying to throw the blame off on an unspecified "they" who pressured Zack into having Batman kill. And, hell, maybe that's the case and there was a group decision to kinda tweak the No Kill thing. Maybe Nolan was for it, who knows? People are quick to place all the blame on Snyder, but it takes a lot of people to tell a story of this size.

I doubt that's likely considering it was Snyder's decision to have Superman kill Zod, one of MOS' most controversial scenes, in spite of the fact that Chris Nolan strongly advised him against it;

"Man of Steel" could have had a very different ending if producer Christopher Nolan had had his way, director Zack Snyder and screenwriter David S. Goyer revealed in a recent interview with Empire Magazine, below.

The pair told the magazine that the original script had Superman sending General Zod back into the Phantom Zone alive, but that Snyder felt a different approach was more appropriate, suggesting the ending that ultimately wound up in theaters: Superman killing Zod. Nolan didn't agree with that decision, Goyer and Snyder said, because violence was a trait uncharacteristic of the hero.

"David, Chris, and I had long talks about it, and I said that I really feel like we should kill Zod, and that Superman should kill him," Snyder said. "The 'why?' of it for me was that if [it] was truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained. I wanted to create a scenario where ... either he's going to see [Metropolis's citizens] chopped in half, or he's gotta do what he's gotta do."

But Snyder's creation of a new, violent mythology for the caped crusader has put off many Superman purists, including Mark Waid, author of the comics series "Superman: Birthright." Waid writes on his blog, Thrillbent, that because of the hero's unexpectedly dark turn, "Man of Steel" has "no triumph to it."

"None of Superman's victories in this movie are in any way the kind of stand-up-and-cheer events you'd think necessary in a movie with Superman in it," Waid adds.

http://www.moviefone.com/2013/06/21/alternate-man-of-steel-ending-christopher-nolan/

This is Zack Snyder, who thought it would be 'fun' to kill off a significant supporting character like Jimmy Olsen after 60 seconds of screen time; http://thecomeback.com/theapparty/2...g-about-jimmy-olsen-in-batman-v-superman.html

And the No Kill thing was in large part due to the wholesome comic code and then continued so they can justify "Why does Batman not just kill The Joker" when they want The Joker to keep coming back because comic books are an ongoing, never ending story. This film universe is meant to be a self contained story with real consequences.

It had nothing to do with the comics code authority. Batman's no kill code was created back in 1940, just one year after his creation;

It wasn’t until the release of Batman #1 (June 1940), a story that featured Batman blasting away at a group of men mutated into monstrous giants by Dr. Hugo Strange, that then editor Whitney Ellsworth decided that Batman shouldn’t kill or use a gun.

http://www.actsofgeek.com/2014/07/dc100-batmans-gun/

And has been a core defining trait of the character ever since. I don't know why anyone would think it was 'ballsy' of Snyder to spit in the face of this. Tim Burton did it, too, back in 1989 and 1992, and it was no better received then than it is now;

krr.jpg


Returns.jpg
 
Last edited:
Batfleck's killing is totally different because he wasn't killing due to the fact that you have no choice in order to save an innocent life or lives which doesn't make you a cold blooded killer. That's why I don't condemn Batfleck for roasting KGBeast when he was about to do the same to Martha. Imagine Batman trying to live with himself saying he let innocent people die because he couldn't bring himself to kill the bad guy when there was no other way to save innocent lives. That doesn't make him a murderer or an executioner. It is not remotely the same as nonchalantly killing needlessly like Batfleck consistently did in the movie. He was playing Judge, Jury, and executioner on criminals because he wanted to, not because he had no choice.

Even the producer of the movie said so;



http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/batman-v-superman-new-dark-859485

And some people wonder why he gets compared to The Punisher when he does the exact same thing. That's they type of killer Batman could never recover from. That's what he's talking about here;

296hmi0.jpg



He's being confronted by Jason Todd in that panel, who freely kills criminals as the Red Hood, and is asking Batman why he has not executed the Joker yet. Not talking about killing the Joker in the desperate act to stop him so he can save a life or lives. But just executing him because he thinks Joker deserves it.

Also brilliantly recreated in the animated adaption:

[YT]7kscfb9XzPs[/YT]

It's nothing to do with Batman believing in redemption. This is about a Batman who let himself cross that very clear line and turn into the very thing he knows he could never let himself be. A murderer. This is one of Batman's most vital core characteristics, and Snyder took a big smelly dump on it. Batfleck is forever tainted by what he's done, and the Jim Gordon in this universe should be reacting like this to him, hunting him down and bringing him to justice;

Gordon1.jpg




That would be a shameful admission that they were wrong to characterize Batman that way.

Thank you for this Joker. Those two panels sum up the struggles of the Batman. The no kill code does not make him outdated or unrealistic. It makes him Batman. Can you imagine how those panels would read if it was that Jim Gordan and Snyder's Batman? Everyone says but Snyder's Batman has gone through bad times and is broken and jaded. Is that what would have happened to the Batman in those panels? If your going to have the Batman fall then I want to be there for it, not have it happen before his first film in the cinematic universe. And once you do go there, you have to know it's the endgame. The day Batman murders and realizes what he has done is the day he hangs up the cape and cowl. Not because it's what I as a fan would think he should do but because it's what the Batman who I have been reading all of these years would do.
 
Oh okay thanks for the article. The Zod killing, I had no problem with. I'm so used to the action hero killing the bad guy in the end, I thought nothing of it until I started reading reviews, and then I went back and looked at it to see how I felt. I think it worked in the context of the story, and I appreciate them putting the characters into impossible situations like that. Maybe breaking his neck was a little harsh, but I like going in not knowing what to expect from the character, and I can appreciate their vision for these characters, as long as they don't go outta control with it.




Funny, I was just commenting on the Jimmy Olsen thread with reference to this No Kill argument. Basically said it was a head scratching creative choice, that they didn't really stand to gain anything, but risked having people accuse them (or him) of not respecting the complete mythology.


I don't want just another Superhero flick, I want something with substance, and no risk, no reward. But, sometimes it's best to step back and say "Okay what do we stand to gain vs lose with this creative choice?" And I feel like it was probably best to leave out a few of the kills, at least.
 
Speaking of Nolan, is he still involved creatively in any kind of capacity?
 
I actually did not have much objection to the Zod killing. My big issue with the end of MOS is him standing there in the aftermath surrounded by a destroyed Metropolis and the dead and dying and he kisses Lois. I actually think he had better things to do at that moment.

Batman has the no kill policy because of the trauma of his youth and his desire to bring criminals to justice. It defines him and his relationships with basically everyone.
 
i had no problems with Zod killing but i didn't like the scene itself.
it looked kinda goofy and reminded me of this...

ab07aeaf392f4a48dbf4abe490003696998e692b.gif
 
Speaking of Nolan, is he still involved creatively in any kind of capacity?

Nolan consults with Snyder on story choices as far as Snyder said in the interviews...Snyder said Nolan and him had a long discussion about the death of Superman and they finally decided they were going to do it.

I remember him saying that even though Nolan is a big fan he is more like "Does he need to have that big S on the chest or the red underpants?" and Snyder was like "Yes it NEEDS to be like that".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE54Jrjcj8I

See from 0.40 seconds onwards.Also Snyder talks about ice breath and how it could show up in the next movies.
 
I just don't get this overly simplistic notion that people can't come back from as dark a place as killing in the name of justice or protection.

I recently watched Michael Moore's new documentary Where to Invade Next? and one of the places he visited was Norway where he explored their criminal justice system. He specifically highlighted how a man who terrorized a group of young people on an island a few years ago, killing dozens of people, was only sentenced to 21 years in prison (Norway's maximum sentence). He wasn't even killing thugs like Batman supposedly did. Anyway, unlike America's prisons, the focus of imprisonment in Norway and elsewhere is genuine rehabilitation.

When Batman or Batman's fans talk about his being tainted by a kill, the only way in which that makes sense on a personal level is the guilt that would haunt him, and the only way it makes sense on a fan level is if Batman cannot be forgiven and appreciated in his reformed state; because it's not like once you've become a killer, you cannot stop yourself from repeating that behavior. In fact, a person who has known darkness, felt its weight and its nightmares, and found the way back to the light may be even wiser and stronger in the face of similar situations in the future.

Context also matters. I have a book called Superheroes and Philosophy that explores ethical and moral issues, including killing. It does not serve us well to examine heroes' behavior in shades of black and white. For example, the recent events in Nice, France required that the driver of the truck be shot and killed so that he wouldn't run over anyone else on the street. Of course we can all hope for there to be a better way or some avenue which allows a prospective hero to act most in line with the highest of ethical and moral virtues, but reality...life...it's not like that.

People make mistakes or go to dark places because they're put in difficult positions or they lose their way. It doesn't do any good to pretend that this cannot happen or, if it does, that it casts an inescapable shadow.

"Of course we can all hope for there to be a better way or some avenue which allows a prospective hero to act most in line with the highest of ethical and moral virtues, but reality...life...it's not like that. "

And the entire point of Batman, of devoting a lifetime to training, so that he IS that better way. This isn't real life, this is a comic book (movie,) and, even if you are going to ground it in "realism," Bruce's entire purpose is to be able to be better than that.

Bruce believes that IF he's going to act, to intentionally put himself in these situations, he must have the skills and tools for every possibility. If HE is going to do, he must be BETTER than that. It's not that a good person can't cross certain lines, or that a hero can't, it's that HE can't let himself.

It's an unrealistic, impossible standard, but that's exactly who Bruce is, and that's what makes him, and ONLY him, Batman.

It's also not that redemption is impossible for people, it's that, for BRUCE, it is a line that HE does not see a return from. He would not be able to forgive himself for it, but it's also about his restraint.

Batman is a master of control over himself. If he allows himself to cross that line, that means he has lost that control over himself, and his darkness within. Bruce knows that, deep down, his rage is a very lethal beast that he must channel. If it is unchained, he does not see anyway to get it back under control.

It's not that it's not possible, it's just that Bruce doesn't believe it is. In his eyes, even if he could come back from crossing that line, he would never be the same again.


Just speaking for myself and how I interact with Batman's characterization in the DC Film Universe, I would never attempt to argue that it is in character for Batman to kill. It is absolutely correct that Batman has consistently upheld a "no kill" policy, and that this code has been a cornerstone of some of his most successful and memorable stories.

What I would argue, with regards to Snyder's take on Batman, is that his Batman's shift away from this iconic code is purposeful. Snyder wanted to tell a story about a Batman who had been broken by great personal tragedies, decades of Sisyphean attempts to save Gotham from itself, and most recently PTSD triggered by the Kryptonian invasion and attack on Metropolis.

This Batman is intended to be out of character, and the fact that the audience recognizes that this Batman is decidedly different is Snyder achieving his desired effect. Now, the question is: Did Snyder break his Batman in order to convince the audience that a more brutal Batman is a better or cooler Batman? I think the narrative of the film itself makes it very difficult to make a case for that reading.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice seeks to interrogate what could possibly break Batman, and ultimately what could bring him back to the light. I think what matters most is if this is a worthwhile story to tell, and if so, was it a story that was told well.

I loved it.

I recognize that this was what Snyder was going for, and I can accept it enough to allow myself to enjoy the film (and I do,) AND I think that it CAN work in the film(s), I just do not think it was necessary, and I believe they could have told a much stronger arc for Bruce without it.


He broke his own rule in that trilogy, arguably multiple times.

Yup, Nolan's films were far from perfect. They made several steps I wasn't a fan of. That may have also been part of their thesis, that Bruce's "one rule" is flawed in a real world; that one cannot hold to such absolutes in an imperfect world. Despite Joker 'conceding' "You truly are incorruptible," Bruce ultimately still breaks his one rule to save Gordon's son.
Similar to Snyder's decision, I can understand certain choices, but I believe they were not necessary, and could have been handled differently.

Ultimately, despite "breaking his one rule" in every film, the Nolan films were a HUGE leap forward in regards to Batman's 'no kill' rule.

Arguably Batman Forever portrayed the 'no kill' approach the "best," despite keeping the Burton films as (pseudo)canon, and thus having Bruce being a "reformed" killer. Although, even then he ultimately is responsible for Two-Face's death.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for this Joker. Those two panels sum up the struggles of the Batman. The no kill code does not make him outdated or unrealistic. It makes him Batman. Can you imagine how those panels would read if it was that Jim Gordan and Snyder's Batman? Everyone says but Snyder's Batman has gone through bad times and is broken and jaded. Is that what would have happened to the Batman in those panels? If your going to have the Batman fall then I want to be there for it, not have it happen before his first film in the cinematic universe. And once you do go there, you have to know it's the endgame. The day Batman murders and realizes what he has done is the day he hangs up the cape and cowl. Not because it's what I as a fan would think he should do but because it's what the Batman who I have been reading all of these years would do.

:up:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"