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

m1ll3r, I think you'll like this. Just posted yesterday; http://spinoff.comicbookresources.c...ually-kill-anyone-in-the-dark-knight-returns/

 

So your issue is that this Batman doesn't equal your Batman.

Shame because it really holds you back from having a really wonderful interpretation of a lost soul that is redeemed by the acts of Superman.

 

So you don't accept that Batman with his apprentice murdered and tortured by the Joker, with a being that makes him realise that his whole life has achieved nothing can go down a despairing path?

 

Aaaaand game, set, match. /End thread

 

Batfleck doesn't turn cruel due to Robin's death. That happened about 10 years prior to BvS. It's the arrival of Superman which sends him over the edge.

 

[BLACKOUT][/BLACKOUT]

I disagree, but I respect your opinion.

 

i'm ok with adaptions where batman kills - but it has to be in the service of directly protecting lives -- even the comics where batman has killed criminals was done to save lives.

but sometimes when bvs batman was taking lives, no innocent life was directly in danger at that point -- and snyder is using miller's tdkr to justify that -- and yea, that's just a wrong interpretation of the source material.

snyder should just straight up say he's using flashpoint batman as inspiration. then at least he'd be honest and look less foolish (to us comic book geeks -- since non-comic readers don't care about this).

 

Misinterpretation or not, I think it works fine in this story with him refraining from branding Lex at the end.

 

This thinking keeps popping up and it makes no sense. Do you also consider Luke Skywalker to be a murderer out for blood and bent on destruction? He also had people close to him die and it propelled him forward in his story, and he killed a LOT more people in the Star Wars movies than Batman did in BvS.

Killing isn't the same as murder. Batman wasn't a murderer in BvS. He was a cool, calculating, genius, able to funnel his rage at the injustice he sees around him into heroic deeds and intelligent action - and he justifiably used killing to save innocent life.

Then the arrival of Superman and Zod pushed him toward bitterness, helplessness, and paranoia to the point of planning on preemptively killing someone he admits is a hero just because there's a possibility he could be a big threat.

 

^ Two things.

First, the Luke analogy is apples and oranges. Luke isn't defined by a killing/no killing rule the same way Batman is. Neither are most superheroes for that matter (Daredevil is the only other exception).

Second, there's a scene where he forces a henchman to pull the trigger on another henchman. He also throws an unconscious henchman towards a grenade and shoots at another group of henchman from his batmobile (no mention of rubber bullets like in Dark Knight Returns, not to mention the car explodes). This Batman is a straight-up murderer, there's no sugarcoating it. Whether or not that's a good thing is up to you to decide for yourself.

 

Not to mention Luke is not half as resourceful and capable of taking out people in non lethal ways as Batman is.

 

Plus Luke is fighting in an actual war, in which he is a General (I think).

 

So Captain America is a murderer? And Captain Picard? What about Frodo? They also killed lots of people outside the context of a war, more than Batman ever has. That view is nonsense. And Batman wasn't defined by a no killing rule until recently in his history, and calling Batman a murderer is trollishly ignoring the distinction between justified killing and murder.

What's going on is you're arbitrarily judging Batman by different standards while giving all other heroes a pass just because this Batman doesn't fit your narrow preconception of what he should be. Same with Superman in Man of Steel.

 

Cap, Picard, and Frodo don't have a no kill rule. In the case of Picard and Frodo they are not in positions to take out threats in a non lethal way like Batman is. The day Batman can't take out a few armed thugs without blasting them away is the day he needs to hang up the cowl and retire because he's not fit to be Batman any more.

Batman's no killing code has been a defining part of his character since the Golden Age;

 

Batman killing has also been a part of the character since his inception, and has continued to be so throughout his history. And you're grasping at straws there. Whether or not a hero has a non-lethal option is entirely dependent upon the choices of the writers. Captain America, Captain Picard, and Frodo could all have non-lethal options if the writers so chose, but they don't because the writers feel no obligation to adhere to an arbitrary no-killing policy for those characters. It's the same with Batman in BvS.

 

Catwoman was a costume-less thief who pulled scams to rob rich old ladies on luxury cruises in her inception. She wasn't even called Catwoman. That doesn't mean it's a valid part of her character, especially since like Batman killing, it was quickly changed. Since the Golden Age Batman has been a non killing hero.

You're the one grasping at straws. The writers of Batman for the last 70+ years have written him as a character who's core moral code is not to kill. That's who he is. It's not a whim they came up with half way through the character's history, or just recently. That's why any time he is portrayed as a brutal killer (Affleck, Keaton) there is a fan backlash against it because it bastardizes one of the biggest morality traits of the character.

 

Not true. Batman has killed in every single live-action movie he's been in. Except for Adam West, which if you're arguing that Adam West Batman is a legitimate characterization of Batman then there's nothing I can do for you. Regardless, Batman in BvS is a legitimate characterization of Batman and he's in no way a murderer or bent on destruction or any of that nonsense being spouted here.

 

Indeed. And even if that wasn't so, I don't understand the desire some have to see him shed his code of ethics. Such things are why Batman and superman are the greatest: moral struggles. There is very little struggle for someone who decides to be a merciless killer, unless we're talking physically. Some truly exciting drama, unique to these types of characters, can only come about when the character sets his own rules.

 

There's a difference between killing when there's no choice in order to save a life or lives, and needlessly killing like Affleck did. Not just the stuff mentioned a few posts above where he forces a henchman to pull the trigger on another henchman, throws an unconscious henchman towards a grenade and shoots at another group of henchman from his batmobile. But he also brands criminals so they will be murdered in prison.

Btw yes I would argue Adam West is a legitimate version of the character. For over 20 years Batman was portrayed as a campy character in the comics. That's 20 times longer than he was portrayed as a killer. The West version and TV show is still a cultural icon and fan favorite all these years later.

Exactly.