BvS Batman v Superman & The Dark Knight Returns - let's clear something up... [SPOILERS]

[FunkMiller]

Starting this thread to address something that's cropped up quite a bit in the on-going discussion over the rights and wrongs of Batman killing in BvS.

Zack Snyder defended his version of Batman killing by citing TDKR in an interview with Hey You Guys:

There’s a scene from the graphic novel where he busts through a wall, takes the guy’s machine gun…I took that little vignette from a scene in The Dark Knight Returns, and at the end of that, he shoots the guy right between the eyes with the machine gun. One shot.

A lot of people have been referring to this when arguing that it's okay for Batman to kill in BvS.

Except Zack Snyder is wrong.

Here's the panels he's talking about:

Notice the most important panel? You see how there's only one bullet hole in the wall? Also, notice the look of shock on the mutant's face, rather than pain?

You could argue it is left ambiguous, and that's fair enough. But let's end this idea that Batman shoots the mutant in the head, the way Snyder suggests.

Moreover, Frank Miller has stated more than once that Batman does not kill, and throughout TDKR it is made evident in dialogue and action that Batman is still following his no kill policy.

Snyder is either ignorant of his source material, or intentionally misinterprets it to suit his own agenda.

***

Hope it was okay with the mods to start this thread. Thought it was worth doing to clear up any confusion.

...and Batman doesn't kill The Joker either. Joker snaps his own neck

Thanks for your kind attention.

 

[chintai80]

someone should link this thread to snyder and the writers of the dc films.

they ain't even really reading the source they said they were basing their story off of. shame on them!

 

[souperman]

Is that not blood splatter on the wall behind him?

and it'a policy, not an unbreakable rule.

Policy's are changed all the time to suit current conditions.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Is that not blood splatter on the wall behind him?

and it'a policy, not an unbreakable rule.

Policy's are changed all the time to suit current conditions.

No it's not. He shot the wall by the mutant's head to scare him into dropping the kid.

But the policy itself isn't the point. People are allowed to change whatever they want when adapting comics (the fallout from those changes are on them). The point is that Snyder says he based Batman's no kill policy on this specific scene from TDKReturns, which he obviously read wrong. Or didn't research. If he'd looked it up because he felt the panel wasn't clear he'd find interviews with Frank Miller stating that Batman doesn't kill in the TDKReturns leading up to his confrontation with Joker.

 

[FunkMiller]

Is that not blood splatter on the wall behind him?

and it'a policy, not an unbreakable rule.

Policy's are changed all the time to suit current conditions.

Again, you can make an argument for a degree of ambiguity, but he quite clearly does not shoot the mutant between the eyes.

And, as I say, the weight of evidence in TDKR is that Batman does not break is no kill rule at all during the course of the story.

The main point I'm making is about Snyder's inaccuracy, and how that speaks to his decisions and though processes during the making of BvS. He clearly doesn't know the source material he's working from properly.

 

[KillerWolf]

Is that not blood splatter on the wall behind him?

and it'a policy, not an unbreakable rule.

Policy's are changed all the time to suit current conditions.

I believe it's "her", but, yeah, it is. Whatever Miller said, Batman killed her in that panel.

As for him doing a similar thing in the

Spoiler

Martha's rescue scene

, it was more than justified, given the gravity of the situation.

Again, you can make an argument for a degree of ambiguity, but he quite clearly does not shoot the mutant between the eyes.

And, as I say, the weight of evidence in TDKR is that Batman does not break is no kill rule at all during the course of the story.

The main point I'm making is about Snyder's inaccuracy, and how that speaks to his decisions and though processes during the making of BvS. He clearly doesn't know the source material he's working from properly.

There's no ambiguity whatsoever when you have a panel of a man shooting a gun and a next panel of a guy with blood splatter behind his/her head.

Besides, given that Snyder didn't have his Batman shoot the guy between the eyes, I don't see what's the point of this thread.

 

[TDKR1977]

You're conveniently ignoring the blood spatter on the wall behind the mutant, which is NOT there in the previous panel. Good try, but...you're wrong. He shot him. Whether he lives or dies is ambiguous.

ETA Yes, there's a bullet hole in the wall. Machine guns can fire multiple rounds, and walls don't bleed.

 

[DieSmiling]

If you're gonna argue he didn't kill anyone in that panel you could just as easily argue Batman didn't kill anyone in BvS -- while he clearly seems to no one is every confirmed killed. Just very badly burned. ;-)

 

[FunkMiller]

You're conveniently ignoring the blood spatter on the wall behind the mutant, which is NOT there in the previous panel. Good try, but...you're wrong. He shot him. Whether he lives or dies is ambiguous.

ETA Yes, there's a bullet hole in the wall. Machine guns can fire multiple rounds, and walls don't bleed.

And you're conveniently ignoring the rest of the graphic novel.

Regardless, the panel is open to interpretation. Unless your name is Zack Snyder.

 

[chintai80]

this is the type of stuff that causes religious conflicts.
different interpretations of the bible - in this case, tdkr.

frank miller needs to release an official statement on this to clear the air. but i doubt even that will really settle the debate. haha

 

[TDKR1977]

And you're conveniently ignoring the rest of the graphic novel.

Regardless, the panel is open to interpretation. Unless your name is Zack Snyder.

So first he CLEARLY didn't shoot the mutant? And once pointed out that you're wrong, it's open to interpretation?

This is why you can never please all of the fans.

 

[FunkMiller]

So first he CLEARLY didn't shoot the mutant? And once pointed out that you're wrong, it's open to interpretation?

This is why you can never please all of the fans.

Read my post properly, chief. I only state that he clearly doesn't shoot the mutant between the eyes, as Snyder suggests.

 

[FunkMiller]

this is the type of stuff that causes religious conflicts.
different interpretations of the bible - in this case, tdkr.

frank miller needs to release an official statement on this to clear the air. but i doubt even that will really settle the debate. haha

Frank Miller's largely gone stark staring mad, so I don't think anything like that will be forthcoming

 

[KillerWolf]

So first he CLEARLY didn't shoot the mutant? And once pointed out that you're wrong, it's open to interpretation?

This is why you can never please all of the fans.

Backtracking at its finest (or lowest, depending on how you look at it ). But seriously, when someone doesn't want to admit being wrong, there's no logic and reason in the world that will make him do so. What I found particularly funny is that he felt compelled to make an entire thread out of this.

 

[chintai80]

Frank Miller's largely gone stark staring mad, so I don't think anything like that will be forthcoming

but i did hear good things about dk3: the master race.
though i think its mainly brian azzarello really writing it. and miller is just either offering an outline or story ideas.
i have yet to read it.

seems like miller's health has declined in the last year or two though. hopefully the man gets better.

 

[TDKR1977]

Read my post properly, chief. I only state that he clearly doesn't shoot the mutant between the eyes, as Snyder suggests.

Oh, jeez. Sorry. Did you not type this in your OP?

"Notice the most important panel? You see how there's only one bullet hole in the wall? Also, notice the look of shock on the mutant's face, rather than pain?"

Did I read that wrong? We're you not saying that he didn't him there? Do you words not mean things anymore?

 

[FunkMiller]

Oh, jeez. Sorry. Did you not type this in your OP?

"Notice the most important panel? You see how there's only one bullet hole in the wall? Also, notice the look of shock on the mutant's face, rather than pain?"

Did I read that wrong? We're you not saying that he didn't him there? Do you words not mean things anymore?

Did I not say in the very next sentence that you could argue it was ambiguous?

 

[BH/HHH]

I was hoping this was a thread about the Dark Knight Returns references/homages in the film

 

[TDKR1977]

Did I not say in the very next sentence that you could argue it was ambiguous?

So which is it? Did he not shoot him or is it ambiguous? You can't have both.

 

[FunkMiller]

I was hoping this was a thread about the Dark Knight Returns references/homages in the film

Sorry dude I didn't think of it being misinterpreted that way.

 

[The Joker]

One thing I agree with. No way did he shoot the guy between the eyes. There's clearly no bullet hole in the mutant's head.

 

[FunkMiller]

So which is it? Did he not shoot him or is it ambiguous? You can't have both.

Okay, to clarify. What's presented in the image, coupled with the other evidence throughout the story and Miller's thought process, says to me that Batman does not shoot the mutant. Am happy with the fact there's ambiguity there though, if others choose to see it. Fair enough?

 

[TDKR1977]

Okay, to clarify. What's presented in the image, coupled with the other evidence throughout the story and Miller's thought process, says to me that Batman does not shoot the mutant. Am happy with the fact there's ambiguity there though, if others choose to see it. Fair enough?

Then what's that stuff on the wall behind him?

 

[BH/HHH]

Sorry dude I didn't think of it being misinterpreted that way.

Not your fault at all mate, mind for assuming

 

[FunkMiller]

Then what's that stuff on the wall behind him?

Maybe blood. I haven't once argued that it might not be. Batman could have shot and injured the mutant, or he could have shot above the mutant's head.

What is obvious though is that he does not definitely kill the mutant.