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

[Dr doomsday]

And none of this matters yet again all the people saying we understood the movie are once again proving they didn't. Batman killed in this because it was a batman who was very close to being too far gone. It wasn't about being cool it was about creating a Batman who after years has finally cracked, he's very close to becoming one of the psychopaths he fights which is a reoccurring theme of Batman. Batman was not meant to be a hero anymore, Bruce became one of the good guys who didn't stay that way. His kill to save Martha was out of desperation if he had nothing else and he did nothing she would die.

Batman killing doesn't matter because he's not meant to be a hero he's meant to be very close to everything Gotham feared he would be. He was meant to be a monster who through Superman's sacrifice decides to rise from the darkness and be better. So this debate is pointless, if he's meant to be nearly too far gone, him killing makes sense and fits the idea of his character at the times, and clearly you missed the point much like you missed the point of everything else.

This is why people who like the movie don't take you seriously because you endlessly prove that you didn't get it, the purpose of the characters, stories and arcs what the meaning behind countless scenes were, and even the overall message of it. You didn't get it as your reasoning for Batman killing show, just like dang near everything else in BVS you didn't get this version of Batman.

 

[FunkMiller]

And none of this matters yet again all the people saying we understood the movie are once again proving they didn't. Batman killed in this because it was a batman who was very close to being too far gone. It wasn't about being cool it was about creating a Batman who after years has finally cracked, he's very close to becoming one of the psychopaths he fights which is a reoccurring theme of Batman. Batman was not meant to be a hero anymore, Bruce became one of the good guys who didn't stay that way. His kill to save Martha was out of desperation if he had nothing else and he did nothing she would die.

Batman killing doesn't matter because he's not meant to be a hero he's meant to be very close to everything Gotham feared he would be. He was meant to be a monster who through Superman's sacrifice decides to rise from the darkness and be better. So this debate is pointless, if he's meant to be nearly too far gone, him killing makes sense and fits the idea of his character at the times, and clearly you missed the point much like you missed the point of everything else.

This is why people who like the movie don't take you seriously because you endlessly prove that you didn't get it, the purpose of the characters, stories and arcs what the meaning behind countless scenes were, and even the overall message of it. You didn't get it as your reasoning for Batman killing show, just like dang near everything else in BVS you didn't get this version of Batman.

I think you don't get the point of this thread. It's about Zack Snyder not understanding The Dark Knight Returns properly, and working on a flawed interpretation of the book when making his movie.

And we all understand Batman's motivations in BvS fine, thank you. We just think it's garbage.

 

[Dr doomsday]

No you are mistaken Zack never said this was an adaptation of TDKR it was inspired was TDK the killing joke no it was inspired. You guys love making up fake problems that don't exist, stating things that are false.

No you didn't, you did not get Zack's reasoning behind Batman don't lie if you did there wouldn't be stupid comments like he did it because it was cool, you would've said why he actually did it which you didn't. You did not understand why Snyder made the choices he did or what the purpose of Batman's arc was, don't lie. You say it's crap but you couldn't say why it is, your reasoning would amount to that's not Batman, well no crap fanboy that's kind of the idea he's not the Batman we know, but from a story standpoint why is this version bad, I doubt you can give me an answer that doesn't boil down to, that's not my Batman.

 

[Poni_Boy]

No you are mistaken Zack never said this was an adaptation of TDKR it was inspired was TDK the killing joke no it was inspired. You guys love making up fake problems that don't exist, stating things that are false.

No you didn't, you did not get Zack's reasoning behind Batman don't lie if you did there wouldn't be stupid comments like he did it because it was cool, you would've said why he actually did it which you didn't. You did not understand why Snyder made the choices he did or what the purpose of Batman's arc was, don't lie. You say it's crap but you couldn't say why it is, your reasoning would amount to that's not Batman, well no crap fanboy that's kind of the idea he's not the Batman we know, but from a story standpoint why is this version bad, I doubt you can give me an answer that doesn't boil down to, that's not my Batman.

I tried to do it in a technical way. There’s a great YouTube video that shows all the kills in the Christopher Nolan movies even though we would perceive them as movies where he doesn’t kill anyone. I think there’s 42 potential kills that Batman does! Also, it goes back and includes even the Tim Burton Batman movies where this reputation as a guy that doesn’t kill comes from. So, I tried to do it by proxy. Shoot the car they’re in, the car blows up or the grenade would go off in the guy’s hand, or when he shoots the tank and the guy pretty much lights the tank [himself]. I perceive it as him not killing directly, but if the bad guy’s are associated with a thing that happens to blow up, he would say that that’s not really my problem.

A little more like manslaughter than murder, although I would say that in the Frank Miller comic book that I reference, he kills all the time. 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. Of course, I went to the gas tank, and all of the guys I work with were like, ‘You’ve gotta shoot him in the head’ because they’re all comic book dorks, and I was like, ‘I’m not gonna be the guy that does that!’


Snyder's words. Which are the focus on this thread. Which you are completely dismissing to prove... who the hell knows what. Do you have something to add to Snyder's word to negate people's problem with his rationale?

 

[Jaxon]

I think you don't get the point of this thread. It's about Zack Snyder not understanding The Dark Knight Returns properly, and working on a flawed interpretation of the book when making his movie.

And we all understand Batman's motivations in BvS fine, thank you. We just think it's garbage.

Dude, Zack has said he has taken ideas from TDK it's not an adaptation and it can't be.

 

[mightiest_mortal]

Also, it goes back and includes even the Tim Burton Batman movies where this reputation as a guy that doesn’t kill comes from...

So his "no killing rule" comes from the Tim Burton movies and not the decades and decades of comics?

wow, learn something new every day


(I wonder if Snyder even read any Bat comics outside of Killing Joke and TDKR before making the film)

 

[FunkMiller]

No you are mistaken Zack never said this was an adaptation of TDKR it was inspired was TDK the killing joke no it was inspired. You guys love making up fake problems that don't exist, stating things that are false.

No you didn't, you did not get Zack's reasoning behind Batman don't lie if you did there wouldn't be stupid comments like he did it because it was cool, you would've said why he actually did it which you didn't. You did not understand why Snyder made the choices he did or what the purpose of Batman's arc was, don't lie. You say it's crap but you couldn't say why it is, your reasoning would amount to that's not Batman, well no crap fanboy that's kind of the idea he's not the Batman we know, but from a story standpoint why is this version bad, I doubt you can give me an answer that doesn't boil down to, that's not my Batman.

Where the hell do I say anything about it being an adaptation of TDKR?

I tell you what I don't understand - your use of the English language.

And Poni has reprinted Zack Snyder's exact comments about TDKR.

This thread has been all about him not understanding the graphic novel - a massive problem when you are drawing so heavily on it for your interpretation of Batman. Snyder thinks Batman kills in TDKR, and bases his Batman on that. Batman does not kill in TDKR, so Snyder's Batman is inherently flawed right from the get-go.

Don't get angry at us when Snyder's flaws are pointed out, get angry at him for not doing his homework properly.

 

[FunkMiller]

Dude, Zack has said he has taken ideas from TDK it's not an adaptation and it can't be.

Again: Where the hell do I say anything about it being an adaptation of TDKR?

 

[Jaxon]

Again: Where the hell do I say anything about it being an adaptation of TDKR?

By comparing Batfleck to TDKR and saying Snyder changed Batman is you saying he adapted him wrong.

Batman kills, it makes sense. It's bringing him into a modern sensibility. The no kill rule is comic way of keeping baddies around not a Batman core value, especially when you find yourself with a murdered Robin and have come to the conclusion your life has amounted to nothing.

 

[FunkMiller]

By comparing Batfleck to TDKR and saying Snyder changed Batman is you saying he adapted him wrong.

Batman kills, it makes sense. It's bringing him into a modern sensibility. The no kill rule is comic way of keeping baddies around not a Batman core value, especially when you find yourself with a murdered Robin and have come to the conclusion your life has amounted to nothing.

No. That's not what adaptation means. Adapting a work means to translate that work to the screen. I've been talking about Snyder using TDKR as his inspiration.

Snyder used TDKR as his influence for Batfleck, and stated that it was okay for his Batman to kill, because that's what Miller's Batman in TDKR does.

Except - and for what seems like the millionth time of saying - Miller's Batman in TDKR does not kill.

And you may not think the no kill policy is an important core value to batman as a character, but I sure as hell do. Hence this thread.

 

[Batmannerism]

I think you don't get the point of this thread. It's about Zack Snyder not understanding The Dark Knight Returns properly, and working on a flawed interpretation of the book when making his movie.

And we all understand Batman's motivations in BvS fine, thank you. We just think it's garbage.

This, totally, absolutely, spot -on !

Personally, I don't have a problem with Batman killing - I'm not a Batman purist- but clearly Frank Miller did, and felt it was such an essential part of the character that he took great pains in DKR to point out Batman's aversion to taking life (also, see Batman Year One )

To say that Snyder understood DKR, yet made a film between Bats and Supes where Bats' number 1 objective was to KILL SUPERMAN, is absurd.

I defended Snyder tirelessly after Man of Steel - not because I think Superman doesn't kill people, because he certainly has when the occasion called for it, but because there is a serious side to Superman, a side that feels isolated from the human race - and of course the whole messianic theme, those were things that I think Snyder explored well and aren't at odds with the character.

I thought MOS had a lot of heart, particularly in the scenes about Clark's childhood - and Russell Crowe was awesome as Jor El. It was a good film that was very misunderstood.

With B v S, if Snyder had made a half-decent film or got the characterizations of these two iconic superheroes right, well then I'd be defending him again.

Sorry, after seeing B v S, I just can't. He got everything that didn't matter quite so much about the comic (the look of Batman and a bunch of the lines) right, but got the things that matter most utterly WRONG.

Miller's Batman is a bit of an obsessive psychopath who doesn't hesitate to cripple thugs or maim enemies - but he's intelligent, methodical and self-sacrificing. I didn't mind Affleck's Batman, but he was none of those things, least of all intelligent.

BTW if you want to see a superhero interaction that's fun and a total 180 degree opposite to B v S, check out the Supergirl/Flash crossover, it was goofy it was schlocky, but it was tremendous fun.

 

[Jaxon]

No. That's not what adaptation means. Adapting a work means to translate that work to the screen. I've been talking about Snyder using TDKR as his inspiration.

Snyder used TDKR as his influence for Batfleck, and stated that it was okay for his Batman to kill, because that's what Miller's Batman in TDKR does.

Except - and for what seems like the millionth time of saying - Miller's Batman in TDKR does not kill.

And you may not think the no kill policy is an important core value to batman as a character, but I sure as hell do. Hence this thread.

Taking inspiration is what he did, and he did, he took some elements from that and put it into the universe that has been created.

Do you honestly think that Batman could even live one week in that world of terrorist level criminals in Gotham? Not a chance. At some stage he's going to have end lives in order to preserve others. As he said, "life has taught him that in order to make a difference you have to force it."

 

[dark_b]

And none of this matters yet again all the people saying we understood the movie are once again proving they didn't. Batman killed in this because it was a batman who was very close to being too far gone. It wasn't about being cool it was about creating a Batman who after years has finally cracked, he's very close to becoming one of the psychopaths he fights which is a reoccurring theme of Batman. Batman was not meant to be a hero anymore, Bruce became one of the good guys who didn't stay that way. His kill to save Martha was out of desperation if he had nothing else and he did nothing she would die.

Batman killing doesn't matter because he's not meant to be a hero he's meant to be very close to everything Gotham feared he would be. He was meant to be a monster who through Superman's sacrifice decides to rise from the darkness and be better. So this debate is pointless, if he's meant to be nearly too far gone, him killing makes sense and fits the idea of his character at the times, and clearly you missed the point much like you missed the point of everything else.

This is why people who like the movie don't take you seriously because you endlessly prove that you didn't get it, the purpose of the characters, stories and arcs what the meaning behind countless scenes were, and even the overall message of it. You didn't get it as your reasoning for Batman killing show, just like dang near everything else in BVS you didn't get this version of Batman.

 

[FunkMiller]

Do you honestly think that Batman could even live one week in that world of terrorist level criminals in Gotham? Not a chance. At some stage he's going to have end lives in order to preserve others. As he said, "life has taught him that in order to make a difference you have to force it."

And this is why you will never see eye to eye with my position. You want to put Batman into the real world, where he quite comprehensively does not exist. And could never exist, for many obvious reasons.

He's a comic book character, who exists in an unrealistic, larger than life world. And hes a comic character with a very clearly defined code of not killing. You're fine with him breaking that code. I'm not.

Stop trying to make me see your side of the argument by telling me that Batman would have to kill in a realistic environment. Batman doesn't exist in a realistic environment. The argument is moot.

And you, like Zack Snyder, are misrepresenting something from The Dark Knight Returns when you use the quote about forcing the world to make sense in your defence of Batfleck killing.

That isn't what Batman means in TDKR. He's talking about how the death of his parents made him realise that he had no control over the world around him, and that to make any sense of their pointless deaths, he had to create Batman. To give their deaths purpose.

Snyder of course takes this quote wrongly and applies it to Batman's rationale that only by killing Superman will he bring some kind of order to the world. And you support that bad interpretation with your use of it in your post.

 

[wampa1]

And we all understand Batman's motivations in BvS fine, thank you. We just think it's garbage.

The motivations for all of the characters are all over the place. Superman hates Batman because... well, I guess he sees him as a bit of a thug despite never witnessing any of this first hand because guilty until proven innocent has always been a big part of Superman's character.

*facepalm*

Batman appears to have legitimate (legitimate in a Snyder-verse way) beef with Superman until you realise it's all been artificially fueled by Luthor so we don't know what Batman's true intentions were if Luthor had not stuck his nose in and nor do we ever find out.

And Luthor prods Batman into hating Superman because Luthor hates Superman because of... reasons, I guess.

 

[The Joker]

This, totally, absolutely, spot -on !

Personally, I don't have a problem with Batman killing - I'm not a Batman purist- but clearly Frank Miller did, and felt it was such an essential part of the character that he took great pains in DKR to point out Batman's aversion to taking life (also, see Batman Year One )

To say that Snyder understood DKR, yet made a film between Bats and Supes where Bats' number 1 objective was to KILL SUPERMAN, is absurd.

I defended Snyder tirelessly after Man of Steel - not because I think Superman doesn't kill people, because he certainly has when the occasion called for it, but because there is a serious side to Superman, a side that feels isolated from the human race - and of course the whole messianic theme, those were things that I think Snyder explored well and aren't at odds with the character.

I thought MOS had a lot of heart, particularly in the scenes about Clark's childhood - and Russell Crowe was awesome as Jor El. It was a good film that was very misunderstood.

With B v S, if Snyder had made a half-decent film or got the characterizations of these two iconic superheroes right, well then I'd be defending him again.

Sorry, after seeing B v S, I just can't. He got everything that didn't matter quite so much about the comic (the look of Batman and a bunch of the lines) right, but got the things that matter most utterly WRONG.

Miller's Batman is a bit of an obsessive psychopath who doesn't hesitate to cripple thugs or maim enemies - but he's intelligent, methodical and self-sacrificing. I didn't mind Affleck's Batman, but he was none of those things, least of all intelligent.

BTW if you want to see a superhero interaction that's fun and a total 180 degree opposite to B v S, check out the Supergirl/Flash crossover, it was goofy it was schlocky, but it was tremendous fun.

Yeah, Snyder has as much understanding of DKR as he does the rest of these characters. Which is very little.

The motivations for all of the characters are all over the place. Superman hates Batman because... well, I guess he sees him as a bit of a thug despite never witnessing any of this first hand because guilty until proven innocent has always been a big part of Superman's character.

*facepalm*

Batman appears to have legitimate (legitimate in a Snyder-verse way) beef with Superman until you realise it's all been artificially fueled by Luthor so we don't know what Batman's true intentions were if Luthor had not stuck his nose in and nor do we ever find out.

And Luthor prods Batman into hating Superman because Luthor hates Superman because of... reasons, I guess.

 

[gdw]

And none of this matters yet again all the people saying we understood the movie are once again proving they didn't. Batman killed in this because it was a batman who was very close to being too far gone.

Uh, no, if Batman kills, then he's not "very close to being too far gone"; he IS too far gone. That's always been the ENTIRE POINT of Batman's no kill rule, once he crosses that line, he's no better than them.

It wasn't about being cool it was about creating a Batman who after years has finally cracked, he's very close to becoming one of the psychopaths he fights which is a reoccurring theme of Batman.

Yes, it absolutely has been a reoccurring theme, and in every single case that it's been thematically used, Batman does NOT kill, because, again, at that point he's no longer CLOSE to becoming one of them, he IS one of them.

That is the entire point you seem to be missing, or refusing to acknowledge, and that everyone else here is trying to get through to you.

Batman was not meant to be a hero anymore, Bruce became one of the good guys who didn't stay that way. . . .

Yes, very true, Bruce is absolutely meant to be wrong in this film.
A BETTER story teller would have made his turmoil about whether or not he's finally willing to cross that line to take out Superman.

Having Batman already a killer completely neuters his entire character arc, and fundamentally misunderstands the point of that line, and how close Bruce is to it.

You can't claim it's about how "close" he is to becoming just like the criminals, if he already DID cross the line.

That is why Snyder, and you, clearly do not understand this aspect of the character.

Batman killing doesn't matter because he's not meant to be a hero he's meant to be very close to everything Gotham feared he would be. He was meant to be a monster who through Superman's sacrifice decides to rise from the darkness and be better. So this debate is pointless, if he's meant to be nearly too far gone, him killing makes sense and fits the idea of his character at the times, and clearly you missed the point much like you missed the point of everything else.

This is why people who like the movie don't take you seriously because you endlessly prove that you didn't get it, the purpose of the characters, stories and arcs what the meaning behind countless scenes were, and even the overall message of it. You didn't get it as your reasoning for Batman killing show, just like dang near everything else in BVS you didn't get this version of Batman.

Man, this post was just saying the same thing over and over again. Yet again, yes, Bruce's story IS meant to show how CLOSE he is to everything he's been fighting. This culminates in the final moments of the titular fight, when, after learning Superman's mother is about to die, and Bruce realizes he HAS become EXACTLY what he's sworn to prevent, but only IF he goes through with it and kills Superman, or at least doesn't stop the fight.

In doing so, he would become the monster that took someone's parents from them.
It's beautifully poetic, and the perfect way to resolve that conflict, however it's completely undermined by the fact that Bruce has ALREADY crossed that line about a half dozen times by this point int the movie.

So no, it's NOT about us not understanding what they were attempting to do with Batman in the movie. It's the fact that we see exactly what they were TRYING to do, and they completely shat all over their own intentions by having him kill countless faceless thugs throughout the film.

A lot of people who ACTUALLY don't get what they were going for mock this by saying 'those thugs must not have had a mother named Martha.'
The actual truth about how much they screwed up with having Batman kill is when you ask "how many of those criminals had children?"

Bruce almost undeniably created more than a few orphans in this film, then stops just short of letting Clark become one again. Well, and killing Clark himself, but any way.


Long story short, not only could they have cut every single Bat-kill from the movie, and it would have taken, literally NOTHING from the story (definition of gratuitous?), but it actually would have made the story they were TRYING to tell ACTUALLY work, and told the same arc a HELL of a lot better.
We would have actually cared that Bruce was seriously considering killing Superman, and it would have ACTUALLY shown that he was about to become everything he hated.

Also, let's not forget that even AFTER Bruce realizes he's been wrong at the end of the titular fight, what's the very next thing he does?
Guns down a ****load of criminals outside the warehouse on his way to rescue Martha.
The very first thing he does in his act of "redemption" is kill a bunch of criminals.
It's not just KGBeast (who arguably could have survived, especially considering the character's story in the books), it's not just that he's backed into a "no win" situation (Snyder cited the Kobayashi Maru which further shows, not only his misunderstanding of Batman, but of Star Trek), as he had no problem killing all the guys out side just moments before.

So much for his character's "redemption." The fact that he continues to kill after snapping out of it with Superman kinda makes your whole point dead in the water.

 

[gdw]

One more thing, I am one of the (many) who actually really liked BvS, but I still vehemently disagree with making Batman an out and out killer.
It's not just a matter of misunderstanding the character, it's lazy writing.

Batman considers killing to be a limitation, one which he will not place on himself. Killing is a cop-out to him.
The entire point, and this is why Snyder citing the Kobayashi Maru just highlights his lack of understanding, there's no such thing as a "no win" situation for Batman, just like Kirk.

Writing Batman into a "no win" situation, and having him kill his way out, is simply being lazy.

If you disagree, watch Batman: Under the Red Hood. THIS is how you write Batman out of a "no win" scenario:

https://youtu.be/7kscfb9XzPs?t=2m23s

 

[gdw]

Taking inspiration is what he did, and he did, he took some elements from that and put it into the universe that has been created.

You're completely missing the point. Snyder EXPLICITLY cited TDKR (among other things) to JUSTIFY his decision to have Batman kill.
It's not a matter of taking inspiration from it, and doing it his own way.

Snyder explicitly believes that his decision to have Batman kill is SUPPORTED by the book(s).

Also, he thinks the no kill notion came from the Burton films . . . WHAT?!

Do you honestly think that Batman could even live one week in that world of terrorist level criminals in Gotham? Not a chance. At some stage he's going to have end lives in order to preserve others. As he said, "life has taught him that in order to make a difference you have to force it."

First off, it's a MOVIE. There's ALWAYS a degree of suspension of disbelief.
There's no way that a normal human doing the things Batman does to the guys in the warehouse wouldn't lead to multiple victims succumbing to their wounds latter on, if not instantly.

However, just like in the Arkham games, that scene is played to be Batman being NON-lethal. Again, it's a movie.

Also, that's the entire point of Bruce's LIFETIME of training. He's so "lethal", but skilled, that he knows how to attack so that he WON'T kill anyone.

He has not only the techniques to kill you, but the SKILL and lifetime of training to use them on you and make sure you WON'T die.

It's not just a matter of not understanding Batman's no kill rule, but also Bruce's entire life BEFORE he put on the cowl. His training, his resolve, his parent's deaths. All of this is either completely ignored, or out right spit upon, the instant Batman takes a life.

And THAT is why making the entire film about Bruce struggling with whether or not to cross that line to prevent Superman's inevitable (in his mind) turn to the dark side is a FAR better story, and FAR more interesting and gripping.

 

[FunkMiller]

Basically... what he said

 

[shauner111]

By comparing Batfleck to TDKR and saying Snyder changed Batman is you saying he adapted him wrong.

Batman kills, it makes sense. It's bringing him into a modern sensibility. The no kill rule is comic way of keeping baddies around not a Batman core value, especially when you find yourself with a murdered Robin and have come to the conclusion your life has amounted to nothing.

This post shows your lack of understanding of the character, and your willingness to defend Snyder's choices at any cost, just because you enjoy this new version. It absolutely is a core value.

Yes, it's possible that there is an arc that takes place over the course of this series, where he becomes a killer due to Robin's death, and then Superman inspires him to stop.

 

[gdw]

This post shows your lack of understanding of the character, and your willingness to defend Snyder's choices at any cost, just because you enjoy this new version. It absolutely is a core value.

Yes, it's possible that there is an arc that takes place over the course of this series, where he becomes a killer due to Robin's death, and then Superman inspires him to stop.

I like to pretend that the Knightmare vision (we don't see him kill anyone before this), combined with maybe, possibly, in some alternate edit that exists in my head, seeing a hint of the anti-life equation in Lex's files, or in some other way influenced by Darkseid, and that pushes him over the edge to not caring if he leaves a body count in an effort to save the world.

In my dreams this is something that was cut from the theatrical cut, but exists in the full cut.

Hey, I can dream.

 

[MrsKent26]

By comparing Batfleck to TDKR and saying Snyder changed Batman is you saying he adapted him wrong.

Batman kills, it makes sense. It's bringing him into a modern sensibility. The no kill rule is comic way of keeping baddies around not a Batman core value, especially when you find yourself with a murdered Robin and have come to the conclusion your life has amounted to nothing.

I don't fault anyone for liking Snyder's batman. I like some aspects of him myself.

I disagree with the rest of this post though.

Batman's stance against killing is absolutely a core value. It has been for decades. It's function is by no means limited to "keeping baddies around."

If you consider who batman is (in many comics, not just a couple wayward ones), he was traumatized at a young age by a horrible act of violence, a seemingly faceless and random grime. Why, after years of intense training and honing of abilities, would he suddenly and casually decide that he's going to allow himself to become the very thing that ruined his life and led to The Batman in the first place? That doesn't make much sense to me and it weakens the character. He's not just a blunt instrument that creates havoc on innocent bystanders; he's very precise and knowledgeable. I'm all for a batman that lives on the edge, looks and sounds fierce and maybe gets a little too rough if it suits the narrative, but once he's fallen over that chasm, he has bankrupt his purpose.

He became the batman for two reasons 1) Revenge against wrongdoers and 2) save others from tragedies like the one that changed him forever. By killing, he doesn't accomplish either of those. The dead wrongdoer's struggle is over; they don't languish in prison and suffer with memories like Bruce did. It's an incomplete revenge. Also, by killing, he subjects some other family to the knowledge that their loved one has been murdered (sure that loved one was likely a criminal, but still).

 

[shauner111]

I don't fault anyone for liking Snyder's batman. I like some aspects of him myself.

I disagree with the rest of this post though.

Batman's stance against killing is absolutely a core value. It has been for decades. It's function is by no means limited to "keeping baddies around."

If you consider who batman is (in many comics, not just a couple wayward ones), he was traumatized at a young age by a horrible act of violence, a seemingly faceless and random grime. Why, after years of intense training and honing of abilities, would he suddenly and casually decide that he's going to allow himself to become the very thing that ruined his life and led to The Batman in the first place? That doesn't make much sense to me and it weakens the character. He's not just a blunt instrument that creates havoc on innocent bystanders; he's very precise and knowledgeable. I'm all for a batman that lives on the edge, looks and sounds fierce and maybe gets a little too rough if it suits the narrative, but once he's fallen over that chasm, he has bankrupt his purpose.

He became the batman for two reasons 1) Revenge against wrongdoers and 2) save others from tragedies like the one that changed him forever. By killing, he doesn't accomplish either of those. The dead wrongdoer's struggle is over; they don't languish in prison and suffer with memories like Bruce did. It's an incomplete revenge. Also, by killing, he subjects some other family to the knowledge that their loved one has been murdered (sure that loved one was likely a criminal, but still).

Great post. Nailed it.

Even if he goes back to his old self, he's weakened forever because he let Joker win, he took the easy way out and allowed himself to become Joe Chill in some way. Sure, in his mind he's killing people who are doing evil things. But it's closer to Punisher. He's absolutely running the risk of creating more orphans in Gotham. Which goes against the reason for Batman's existence. It's like that scene in batman begins where Rachel tells Bruce that vengeance is making yourself feel better.

I find this Batman was selfish instead of selfless. Even when he did something great like save a young girl from dying, he turns into the Punisher and attempts to kill Superman without looking into him. He met Clark for christ sakes and couldn't figure out that he looked like Supes. He's human looking and acting enough, for two full years, do some digging and see where he's living, if he's a lone wolf or not, where he was raised on earth before Zod arrived and forced him to come forward. When he saves Martha, minutes prior, he's killing thugs without blinking. Sure he's rushing to get to her, but it's still dumb.

 

[MrsKent26]

I find this Batman was selfish instead of selfless. Even when he did something great like save a young girl from dying, he turns into the Punisher and attempts to kill Superman without looking into him. He met Clark for christ sakes and couldn't figure out that he looked like Supes. He's human looking and acting enough, for two full years, do some digging and see where he's living, if he's a lone wolf or not, where he was raised on earth before Zod arrived and forced him to come forward. When he saves Martha, minutes prior, he's killing thugs without blinking. Sure he's rushing to get to her, but it's still dumb.

BvS took some liberties with both batman and superman to allow for a certain plot. IMO, character should come first and drive the plot. This is especially important in the case of these characters because they've been ingrained in pop culture for so long that their stories are iconic/legendary. I think it's infinitely more difficult to sell what is essentially an Elseworlds tale to the wider movie-going public than it is to sell it to a few niche comic fans. By all means, movie-makers, produce some never-before-seen situations for these iconic characters, but keep them in character throughout and people will be happier upon seeing the characters they know acting like...the characters they know (and love). BvS went against that and created this odd sort of vacuum of bad/out-of-character decisions that depended on and exacerbated each other in order to bring about this hyped-up clash. If they had kept them both at their usual levels of greatness/intelligence/fortitude/compassion, this probably would have come out more like a World's Finest film (albeit with a rocky start).