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

[The Guard]

I always figured that mutant was a dead man.

A shoulder wound like that from a machine gun? You're pretty much a goner.

And I don't know that I ever bought that rubber bullets can't kill.

 

[schereZada]

Again, I never saw it as 'chickening out', but because he had lost so much blood and strength by that point...and Joker mocks him for it as a sadistic last laugh, 'you couldn't go though with it'...but what, he could go through with leaving him a paralyzed from the neck down, left to die in mere minutes if he didn't strap him to stretcher and airlift him away? Joker simply helped Batman finish the job because he physically couldn't, not because he decided not to.

I'm honestly shocked that people didn't see it that way, this is the first I've ever heard of that. Maybe because they always feel that Batman shouldn't kill in his regular canon...but this particular alternative story, he's been driven to that.

Hey, I never saw it as chickening out either. In fact the first 1000 times I read the book I had the feeling that Batman had in fact killed the Joker by himself. I don't have half a problem with Batman killing. But Batman did think "I wish I were (a killer)" when he stopped. And he stopped only when he heard the voices of the people running away and calling him a killer. Call it ambiguous or vague but those two things are in the book.

And of course Batman was going to kill the Joker. I said so myself. Which is why he went so far as to breaking his neck. I'd say they both did the deed together, the only thing in which they could work shoulder to shoulder.

And understandably so. He even says to Joker, "all the people I've murdered...by letting you live."

I agree with both you and Batman.

 

[KalMart]

Hey, I never saw it as chickening out either. In fact the first 1000 times I read the book I had the feeling that Batman had in fact killed the Joker by himself. I don't have half a problem with Batman killing. But Batman did think "I wish I were (a killer)" when he stopped. And he stopped only when he heard the voices of the people running away and calling him a killer. Call it ambiguous or vague but those two things are in the book.

Looks to me that people called him 'killer' AFTER he snapped Joker's neck...probably why they called him that no? Why would they call him one when he was just grabbing Joker while being stabbed himself? Look, it's right there on the page. They even spelled out the sound of his neck breaking, and show his head twisted awkwardly around. He 'stopped' after breaking his neck because, well, he broke his neck...game over. But as it turns out, it wasn't quite enough.

The 'I wish I were' to me is, again, more a reflection on the moral burden he has to carry for that decision, being who he is and what he normally believes in...something an actual killer wouldn't, and even if it is justified in Batman's case. It'd be easier if he was, say, like the Punisher. Then it'd be an easier road ahead dealing with doing what was ultimately the right thing. Nothing ambiguous or vague about that.

I see no hesitation in Batman at least trying his best to kill Joker. And I agreed with his decision.

 

[craigaat]

Batman killed in comics decades before TDKR.

Batman killed in movies decades before BvS.

Get over it.

 

[matt47]

Bottom line is, a lot of people hate the fact that he kills. The rest think it's "fine" or "not bad", but it's never, "Ohh finally, a Batman that kills! I've been waiting for this for so long."

 

[Brother Jack]

I've always read that scene as Batman wanting and trying to kill Joker in that moment but stopping short because when it came down to the line he couldn't do it. Whether it was nobility or just fear, he didn't have it in him. This is what Joker tells him and both he and Batman call it weakness. The irony of the scene, and Joker's last laugh, is that the people think Batman murdered him when he chose not to go all the way, even if he wished he had.

But even if Batman killed the mutant with the kid, it's still made clear that he is not some wanton murderer like Snyder claims. There are many times throughout the book that he explicitly talks about choosing not to kill, about how he abhors guns. It illustrates a fundamental respect for human life that is contentious and somewhat fluid but still there. And it simply wasn't with Batfleck. If you don't have a problem with that, cool. You don't have to. But it's not an accurate portrayal of the character in DKR.

 

[KalMart]

Bottom line is, a lot of people hate the fact that he kills. The rest think it's "fine" or "not bad", but it's never, "Ohh finally, a Batman that kills! I've been waiting for this for so long."

I don't know if anyone wants/enjoys seeing Batman kill people as part of his M.O.. I've always held the opinion that for the most part, the story should provide sound reasoning for him to have to kill someone, and to take narrative responsibility for that action as something that's not done gratuitously or without plausible moral weight on the character for having to make that decision.

Thugs shooting at him while he's chasing them, so he shoots back and takes them out....demolishing their car into flaming carnage....maybe a little borderline Punisher, but I guess it had to be done given the circumstances and who/what they were.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Some fans can hate Miller all they want, he wrote some s*** in TDKR.

Fixed lol.

I've always read that scene as Batman wanting and trying to kill Joker in that moment but stopping short because when it came down to the line he couldn't do it. Whether it was nobility or just fear, he didn't have it in him. This is what Joker tells him and both he and Batman call it weakness. The irony of the scene, and Joker's last laugh, is that the people think Batman murdered him when he chose not to go all the way, even if he wished he had.

But even if Batman killed the mutant with the kid, it's still made clear that he is not some wanton murderer like Snyder claims. There are many times throughout the book that he explicitly talks about choosing not to kill, about how he abhors guns. It illustrates a fundamental respect for human life that is contentious and somewhat fluid but still there. And it simply wasn't with Batfleck. If you don't have a problem with that, cool. You don't have to. But it's not an accurate portrayal of the character in DKR.

Agreed.

 

[matt47]

I don't know if anyone wants/enjoys seeing Batman kill people as part of his M.O.. I've always held the opinion that for the most part, the story should provide sound reasoning for him to have to kill someone, and to take narrative responsibility for that action as something that's not done gratuitously or without plausible moral weight on the character for having to make that decision.

Thugs shooting at him while he's chasing them, so he shoots back and takes them out....demolishing their car into flaming carnage....maybe a little borderline Punisher, but I guess it had to be done given the circumstances and who/what they were.

I'd be...okay with him killing if they made a point about him killing people now and that at the end he gives it up, getting back to how he was before.

 

[KalMart]

I've always read that scene as Batman wanting and trying to kill Joker in that moment but stopping short because when it came down to the line he couldn't do it. Whether it was nobility or just fear, he didn't have it in him. This is what Joker tells him and both he and Batman call it weakness. The irony of the scene, and Joker's last laugh, is that the people think Batman murdered him when he chose not to go all the way, even if he wished he had.

But even if Batman killed the mutant with the kid, it's still made clear that he is not some wanton murderer like Snyder claims. There are many times throughout the book that he explicitly talks about choosing not to kill, about how he abhors guns. It illustrates a fundamental respect for human life that is contentious and somewhat fluid but still there. And it simply wasn't with Batfleck. If you don't have a problem with that, cool. You don't have to. But it's not an accurate portrayal of the character in DKR.

But that doesn't make much sense to me because if he couldn't do it, he wouldn't have gone so far as to break his neck that way....which will leave him dead in short order if he's not immediately treated. Its like cutting into someone's carotid artery, but not completely severing the vessel...leaving a little tissue still connected so bleeding will be a little slower. But he's still going to bleed to death...because you slashed open his artery. I mean....he already did it. 'KRAKKK...!!'

I interpreted it as Joker mocking Batman to the last, knowing that he's as good as dead anyway. Telling him he didn't have the nerve like 'is that all you got?'. Nah, I see Batman absolutely going all the way as best he could with his guts nearly hanging out and his consciousness fading. But Joker still got the last laugh.

I mean...it's right there on the page with nothing to 'interpret' so to speak, where does he 'let up'? Does he somehow in that 1000th of a second reduce the twisting force by a fraction of a newton so it's just barely less than lethal....for the next two minutes or whatever? Not trying to ridicule you, I'm just saying I don't think 'letting up' or intentionally 'not going all the way' is on the page. I can only guess that some people want that to be the case when it isn't actually presented that way, because it's out of Batman's character (even though this was basically an alternate future/elseworlds story).


But as I also said....maybe it doesn't really matter which way someone sees it. The rest of that story and all its context still stays the same...and Batman doesn't value life any more or less with either interpretation of that.

 

[KalMart]

I'd be...okay with him killing if they made a point about him killing people now and that at the end he gives it up, getting back to how he was before.

Overall, I think the point was that Wayne's faith in humanity was restored and there's probably good chance he may be less...lethal? But then , maybe in this Bat-universe, those casualties come with the job anyway.

 

[Victarion]

I was talking about the movie with some friends the other night. They were glad we finally got a badass Batman (the JL subplot stuff was the movie's weakpoint for them). Not justifying, just an observation here, but the people he killed were criminals that had taken their lives into their own hands.

 

[gdw]

Bottom line is, a lot of people hate the fact that he kills. The rest think it's "fine" or "not bad", but it's never, "Ohh finally, a Batman that kills! I've been waiting for this for so long."

EXACTLY THIS!

Especially considering we had a prequel comic which explicitly states this Batman did NOT kill.
So it's even worse; it's not just that no one's ever said "Ohh finally, a Batman that kills! I've been waiting for this for so long." It's that we've been PRAYING we could FINALLY say the opposite:
"Ohh finally, a Batman that mirrors the comics, and does NOT kill! I've been waiting for this for so long."

We we're given false hope that this would be the first time we could FINALLY say this, and instead we got Bat-mass murder.

Damn right people are gonna be livid.

 

[gdw]

throwing him into a sign?

Why does everyone seem to default to assuming people die when Batman harms them now?

Again, people get shocked all the time without dying.

 

[matt47]

EXACTLY THIS!

Especially considering we had a prequel comic which explicitly states this Batman did NOT kill.
So it's even worse; it's not just that no one's ever said "Ohh finally, a Batman that kills! I've been waiting for this for so long." It's that we've been PRAYING we could FINALLY say the opposite:
"Ohh finally, a Batman that mirrors the comics, and does NOT kill! I've been waiting for this for so long."

We we're given false hope that this would be the first time we could FINALLY say this, and instead we got Bat-mass murder.

Damn right people are gonna be livid.

lol that's a good point. They did go out of their way multiple times in the lead up to this movie to say he doesn't kill.

 

[matt47]

Why does everyone seem to default to assuming people die when Batman harms them now?

Again, people get shocked all the time without dying.

I never said he did die. I was answering ol mates "???" as to how the thug got electrocuted.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Why does everyone seem to default to assuming people die when Batman harms them now?

Again, people get shocked all the time without dying.

Especially in a comic where the common thread is that Batman can't/won't/doesn't kill. He didn't kill the Mutant with the kid. He didn't kill the mutant leader. He didn't kill the Joker. He wanted to kill Joker, but he didn't/couldn't for whatever reason. That's why Joker killed himself. It was his "last laugh." Now everyone thinks Batman is a killer, when he in actuality is not. Joker broke him, not just by getting Batman to try to kill him but by now making him shoulder the blame for something he didn't do. It's poignant and sad. Now, The Killing Joke, yeah Batman kills him there.

 

[gdw]

I never said he did die. I was answering ol mates "???" as to how the thug got electrocuted.

I know, sorry I wasn't clear. It was more addressed at those who said that was a kill. You're was just the post that actually described the scene.

 

[Rorschach2012]

If we're talking about that Joker scene in TDKR, I still wish Jokers last line would've been "see you in hell... BRUCE"

I love the idea of Joker knowing Batmans identity all along and never doing anything about it

 

[FunkMiller]

Now, The Killing Joke, yeah Batman kills him there.

Oh hell. That one makes the debate over whether Bats kills the female mutant look straight forward, and good natured

I swear sometimes that Morrison and Bolland cooked up the theory just to annoy people t:

 

[hellblazer103]

Well yeah, but....but...you have this awesome Batman...give him more scenes to shine. And don't show all in the trailers. I knew 95% of the movie going in.

bruh, batman was in the movie probably even more than supes so idk wtf you're talking about right now.

 

[Kobra]

bruh, batman was in the movie probably even more than supes so idk wtf you're talking about right now.

I'm talking about not having enough Batman scenes. It doesn't matter if he had more scenes than Superman. I also think Superman didn't have enough scenes. I've been waiting for a new Batman movie for 4 years. I wish i had seen him in action more often.

 

[Aejej]

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.

Right. The proof is in a panel on the page before the one shown. Look at the bullet train and tell me Batman didn't mow the guy down. He did.

/thread

 

[KalMart]

I'm talking about not having enough Batman scenes. It doesn't matter if he had more scenes than Superman. I also think Superman didn't have enough scenes. I've been waiting for a new Batman movie for 4 years. I wish i had seen him in action more often.

Well...it was supposed to be more of a Superman sequel guest-starring Batman. But as many predicted, it felt a lot more like it was about Batman.....just more as Bruce Wayne.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Oh hell. That one makes the debate over whether Bats kills the female mutant look straight forward, and good natured

I swear sometimes that Morrison and Bolland cooked up the theory just to annoy people t:

I love Moore going out of his way to say "Yeah he killed him" because he considers Killing Jjoke the LAST Batman story. The balls. The anarchy