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

[Upset Spideyfan]

When I left the theater there were no less than three large groups talking about how Batman killed people so I don't know how much I buy into the whole people don't care argument.

 

[Tymminator]

True. But the no kill rule is one of the reasons Batman has been as popular as he has been for 75 years. Because a child who loves him yesterday, is an adult who loves him today.

One off the many reasons, very true.

When I left the theater there were no less than three large groups talking about how Batman killed people so I don't know how much I buy into the whole people don't care argument.

I would guess you should not buy not it at all.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Why does Jaxon speak like he's the authority on this topic here? Wasn't he the one that said Batman has no moral code. That he's just as much of a criminal as the others. That he's not in it to help people but just to punish criminals?

Reminds me what the Arkham Knight/Jason Todd said in Arkham Knight

"Batman's not about saving the innocent no no. He's about punishing the guilty."

[YT]RzejbyLozq8[/YT]

Which is wrong of course.

 

[Tymminator]

I have to add, if Batman acts like that then I don't see how the GCPD would openly work with him to the point where everyone in the city knows what the Batsignal means when they see it n the sky and why a group called the Justics League would even allow him in.

 

[MadVillainy]

I have to add, if Batman acts like that then I don't see how the GCPD would openly work with him to the point where everyone in the city knows what the Batsignal means when they see it n the sky and why a group called the Justics League would even allow him in.

To be fair, I think most of the JL doesn't have a problem with killing or at least their no kill rule is not very integral as say Supes, Batman, or Flash.

GL rings didn't allow them to kill if I remember correctly (I think it was Sinestro Corps War when they allowed them to use lethal force), but in a movie I'd have no problem if GL was dropping aliens...within reason of course. He's a space cop and cops can use lethal force.

 

[Tymminator]

To be fair, I think most of the JL doesn't have a problem with killing or at least their no kill rule is not very integral as say Supes, Batman, or Flash.

GL rings didn't allow them to kill if I remember correctly (I think it was Sinestro Corps War when they allowed them to use lethal force), but in a movie I'd have no problem if GL was dropping aliens...within reason of course. He's a space cop and cops can use lethal force.

I see what you are saying but I'm thinking of how Batman killed in the context of the movie,

Spoiler

in one scene he basically killed Lex's security force in his attempt to break into Lex's place to steal Kryptonite that Lex actually legally owned.

I can't see them being cool with that.

EDIT: I only saw the movie once, I do plan to see it again, so maybe I'm remembering that scene wrong, but first viewing, that's how it played to me.

 

[MadVillainy]

I see what you are saying but I'm thinking of how Batman killed the context of the movie,

Spoiler

in one scene he basically killed Lex's security force in his attempt to break into Lex's place to steal Kryptonite that Lex actually legally owned.

I can't see them being cool with that.

Yeah I get what your saying now. I agree with you.

Sad thing is: I doubt it'll be addressed in JL lol


On another note: an interesting thing to see in a future JL film would be the fact that they're basically split on lethal force (Supes, Bats, Flash against with Wondy, GL, and Aquaman for and then there is a tie breaker)

 

[Tymminator]

I am looking forward to how Ben does Batman in his movie.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I have to add, if Batman acts like that then I don't see how the GCPD would openly work with him to the point where everyone in the city knows what the Batsignal means when they see it n the sky and why a group called the Justics League would even allow him in.

If Suicide Squad is anything to go by then Batman has not always been operating like this. The batmobile in the trailer has no gun attached to it and presumably his scenes in the movies are flashbacks. It would appear that the arrival of Superman put Batman in a downward spiral questioning his own ultimate powerlessness in the wake of this all powerful being who can wipe out the entire human race...

 

[Tymminator]

If Suicide Squad is anything to go by then Batman has not always been operating like this. The batmobile in the trailer has no gun attached to it and presumably his scenes in the movies are flashbacks. It would appear that the arrival of Superman put Batman in a downward spiral questioning his own ultimate powerlessness in the wake of this all powerful being who can wipe out the entire human race...

If that is explained then it will be great (Maybe Robin was killed and that put Batman in a downward spiral).

Suicide Squad looks good so we will see how that fleshes things out.

 

[souperman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Deadly serious.

Pun of the day.
Intended or otherwise.

...careful now...he's Deadly Serious...

 

[TripleJ]

Yes, it is wrong. Calling it a different version is like calling the cloud version of Galactus in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer "a different version".

Deadly serious.

I know that, and they made no protest about it. They never felt it spoiled the character. In hindsight it was a change for the best since it became one of the DEFINING traits about the character. It rules how Batman operates and thinks as a hero and person. It's not some shallow aesthetic we're talking about here. This is a very important character trait.

I have no problem with changes either, as long as they don't bastardize one of the key core traits of the character that define who they are.

It's a different version. You don't have to like it, but that's what it is

Just like Singer's Xmen; they aren't entirely comic accurate.

How do you know they didn't? These are two different versions - No kill Batman isn't automatically a better character than Batman who has no problem killing.

As for the change being for best -

Sure, the no kill code did help the character - particularly with the build up of a rogues gallery (and continual existence of all the villains, at the expense of Gothamites).

And it's a big what if. You can only assume what would have happened.

As for key traits - meh. Multiple characters, multiple versions. Superman was a champion of the people - a socialist at core. You don't see that very often these days (Heck, I haven't seen that in any of the movies).

 

[souperman]

Why does Jaxon speak like he's the authority on this topic here? Wasn't he the one that said Batman has no moral code. That he's just as much of a criminal as the others. That he's not in it to help people but just to punish criminals?

Sounds to me like a lot of people think they are authorities on all subjects here.

Me, I don't know anything for sure.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

They should make a James Bond movie where he is a monogamous pacifist who only drinks club soda. You know, for a bold and different reinterpretation.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Batman shouldn't kill period. If he kills, why wouldn't he use guns in that belt of his?

Batman one time saved Joker from the Punisher killing him.

I really really hate some of these discussions because they are so dumb.

"Batman kills"
"Other heroes kill"

"Superman doesn't talk"
"Other characters don't talk"

How about we stop trying to change 2 characters who have remained 2 of the 3 greatest superheroes of all time and has past the test of time? These are 2 noble and inspiring superheroes.

Nolan didn't have Batman constantly kill. BTAS didn't have Batman constantly kill. Arkham didn't have Batman constantly kill.

But it's ok for the DCEU Batman to kill because we all want a DCEU so bad we'll accept anything.

 

[shauner111]

When I left the theater there were no less than three large groups talking about how Batman killed people so I don't know how much I buy into the whole people don't care argument.

I had a group in front of me throwing their hands up everytime he killed. Billions of people, general audience, have seen the Dark Knight Trilogy before seeing this movie. The "I won't kill or use guns intentionally" was a huge part of those films. So I doubt that the general audience, in the year 2016, don't find it odd to see Batfleck behaving this way. If this was before 2008, I would say sure, they probably don't know or care.

 

[TripleJ]

Batman shouldn't kill period. If he kills, why wouldn't he use guns in that belt of his?

Batman one time saved Joker from the Punisher killing him.

I really really hate some of these discussions because they are so dumb.

"Batman kills"
"Other heroes kill"

"Superman doesn't talk"
"Other characters don't talk"

How about we stop trying to change 2 characters who have remained 2 of the 3 greatest superheroes of all time and has past the test of time? These are 2 noble and inspiring superheroes.

Nolan didn't have Batman constantly kill. BTAS didn't have Batman constantly kill. Arkham didn't have Batman constantly kill.

But it's ok for the DCEU Batman to kill because we all want a DCEU so bad we'll accept anything.

No period. DC/WB decides what the character should or shouldn't do - as they have always done. After all, they decided that Batman shouldn't kill in the first place.

 

[Boom]

There there is something inherently ridiculous about Batman telling the Joker, a complete homicidal maniac, to "run for his life."

 

[shauner111]

Batman shouldn't kill period. If he kills, why wouldn't he use guns in that belt of his?

Batman one time saved Joker from the Punisher killing him.

I really really hate some of these discussions because they are so dumb.

"Batman kills"
"Other heroes kill"

"Superman doesn't talk"
"Other characters don't talk"

How about we stop trying to change 2 characters who have remained 2 of the 3 greatest superheroes of all time and has past the test of time? These are 2 noble and inspiring superheroes.

Nolan didn't have Batman constantly kill. BTAS didn't have Batman constantly kill. Arkham didn't have Batman constantly kill.

But it's ok for the DCEU Batman to kill because we all want a DCEU so bad we'll accept anything.

What the argument comes down to is "I like this weird version. Because I like it, it should be accepted as a different version. Action heroes and anti heroes kill so Batman can. Same with Superman." But they're asking Bats to be another character instead. I wonder if it's because they like the visuals and casting so much that they're willing to throw away essential character traits? It's like dude, just admit you like this offbeat version and leave it at that. The proof is there that Batmans moral code is just as important as his cape and cowl. If you take either one away, it's half a Batman.

These guys seem to be fine with any character hiding underneath a bat suit , as long as you call them Bruce Wayne, then it's accepted. I disagree with that. You can call
Travis Bickle Bruce Wayne and put him in a batsuit, but it's still Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver in disguise.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

No period. DC/WB decides what the character should or shouldn't do - as they have always done. After all, they decided that Batman shouldn't kill in the first place.

Bruce Timm, who I would imagine is quite well respected around these parts for his work on BTAS and that expanded universe, wanted Superman to kill Doomsday in his animated movie much like Superman killed Zod in MOS(he had no problem with Superman killing in MOS). WB told him no, he couldn't do it. Timm has even said he thinks the no killing rule is outdated.

 

[The Joker]

It's a different version. You don't have to like it, but that's what it is

Just like Singer's Xmen; they aren't entirely comic accurate.

How do you know they didn't? These are two different versions - No kill Batman isn't automatically a better character than Batman who has no problem killing.

As for the change being for best -

Sure, the no kill code did help the character - particularly with the build up of a rogues gallery (and continual existence of all the villains, at the expense of Gothamites).

And it's a big what if. You can only assume what would have happened.

As for key traits - meh. Multiple characters, multiple versions. Superman was a champion of the people - a socialist at core. You don't see that very often these days (Heck, I haven't seen that in any of the movies).

Yeah, it's a different version. A wrong version. That's why any time it's done in movies it spawns a backlash;

How do I know they didn't what? Dislike changing the no kill rule? If they had they would have spoken out about it at least once over the years. Finger wasn't shy about speaking his mind about things that upset him. Like when Kane cheated him out of his due creative credit. So do you really think he wouldn't speak out about his character being turned into the opposite of what he originally was if he had a problem with it?

The no kill code is not good for building up his rogues gallery, it's good because it makes Batman a better hero and character. There's no what if here. It's brought about some brilliant stories and character moments. It helps create interesting conflicts. Just check out the Under the Red Hood tale when Jason (who is what Batman would be if he was a killer) confronts him for not killing the Joker.

There's no multiple characters, multiple stories on this issue. Batman is not a killer. His moral code has been a huge defining aspect of his character for over 75 years. That's a fact, not an opinion.

Batman shouldn't kill period. If he kills, why wouldn't he use guns in that belt of his?

Batman one time saved Joker from the Punisher killing him.

I really really hate some of these discussions because they are so dumb.

"Batman kills"
"Other heroes kill"

"Superman doesn't talk"
"Other characters don't talk"

How about we stop trying to change 2 characters who have remained 2 of the 3 greatest superheroes of all time and has past the test of time? These are 2 noble and inspiring superheroes.

Nolan didn't have Batman constantly kill. BTAS didn't have Batman constantly kill. Arkham didn't have Batman constantly kill.

But it's ok for the DCEU Batman to kill because we all want a DCEU so bad we'll accept anything.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

No period. DC/WB decides what the character should or shouldn't do - as they have always done. After all, they decided that Batman shouldn't kill in the first place.

By your logic, Batman and Robin should be respected because WB owns Batman and can do whatever they like.

 

[shauner111]

There there is something inherently ridiculous about Batman telling the Joker, a complete homicidal maniac, to "run for his life."

I can say the same about a Batman who would let Punisher pull the trigger or a Batman who uses it on Joker himself.

 

[MadVillainy]

Bruce Timm, who I would imagine is quite well respected around these parts for his work on BTAS and that expanded universe, wanted Superman to kill Doomsday in his animated movie much like Superman killed Zod in MOS(he had no problem with Superman killing in MOS). WB told him no, he couldn't do it. Timm has even said he thinks the no killing rule is outdated.

It's outdated but it's such a part of the character that I think it's a huge mistake to get rid of it. And the reason's they don't kill makes sense.

I think it's really outdated that Cap fights with a damn shield, but it's such a part of the character that getting rid of it would be stupid.

ANd I love Bruce Timm, I personally think he's made the best representation of the DCU. But that doesn't mean you have to agree with him on everything. Just because you like/respect someone doesn't mean you have to agree with everything they say

 

[shauner111]

So basically Bruce Timm thinks it's outdated, so that's that, it's outdated. ahhhh the Hype..