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

no, i get it. i too like the mainstream iteration of batman where he tries to preserve all lives, good and bad. it's the most honorable version of batman and makes for interesting stories.

but the point i was trying to get across was for my own personal preference, if live action adaptions of batman stray somewhat from the mainstream version, i'm ok with it.
that's because there's been incarnations in the comics, such as the 1939 version, where batman has killed...but it was always in a situation where he was thwarting a bad guy from taking innocent lives. when batman has killed in the comics, it was as a last resort where he has exhausted all other options. that version of batman, was still "noble" in a way.

the problem i had with snyder's batman was he first went in with guns blazing. just to steal kryptonite from lex, he goes shooting up at his henchmen.
but that's not the worse of it...he blows up lexcorp, probably fatally injuring some security guards...security guards who were probably just regular people doing their jobs!

that's not a hero...that's just a thug with advanced firepower.

even frank miller's batman wouldn't have done this. at most, he would've broke into lexcorp...knocked out the security guards out cold and took the kryptonite.

but why was the movie version this violent and disregarding of life? it's because snyder wanted to show how "badass" and "cool" batman is.
this version even strays too far from comic versions of batman that have killed.

that's why after bvs, i feel snyder only has a superficial understanding of the source material.

 

As much as I dislike Batman killing, I always thought Batman was unlikeable and psychotic in TDKReturns anyway. And him being willing to kill occasionally here was the only way I'd really buy them having a fight other than one of them being mind controlled.

 

But Supes didn't even want to fight him. So it's no better.

 

I think this bit needs more emphasis. In theory, Batman's ethic of violence could include a "lethal force is justified if necessary to save lives" clause. For that matter, it seems he takes that position a lot of the time with other people ( he almost never gives Gordon trouble for being a cop who occasionally shoots people ). The thing is, a big part of Batman's logic, and his thematic appeal, is him going "If its necessary for me to use lethal force, it means I had already made a mistake. I cannot and must not make mistakes." He's a genius perfectionist, and he really shouldn't ever be written into situations where he can't logically have a nonlethal option or three already planned out.

 

^ this is my problem with snyder's batman. he killed with impunity and no thought. just because snyder likes his violence.

as i said before, i'm ok with live adaptions of batman killing CRIMINALS..but there has to be a justification for lethal use of force.

even burton's batman when he killed, you can argue, were within the rules of engagement (civilian lives being threatened, etc).

but batfleck shot up and maimed some lexcorp security guards (you can see in the scene where they are applying cpr to one of them).

snyder doesn't seem to care for consistent characterization.

 

It wasn't like he was going out of his way to kill criminals. He just didn't go out of his way to save criminals. It didn't seem like he had an agenda like say punisher.

 

That's simply not true though. In this film, Batman does the following:

-Go around branding people, which we're told is "the mark of death" in prison (the film is about as subtle as a sledgehammer when it comes to metaphors).
-Shoot at cars with a machine gun to the point it explodes.
-Go around shooting people with a gun (it may have been a dream but he wasn't aware of it till he woke up).
-Grab an armed henchman's hand, direct it towards another henchman and force him to pull the trigger.
-Doing the exact same thing just mentioned but with a flamethrower instead.
-Throwing an unconscious person towards a grenade.

Not having a problem with Batman killing is one thing. Denying it to be the case is another thing altogether.

 

I'll try my best to answer this, since you asked for an explanation.

First, you talk about "the fact that the intention is there". Bruce has no intention to kill anyone at any point in Returns. The closest he gets to it is when he confronts the Joker, and in the end he still can't bring himself to do it.

Second, I can't think of any examples where someone in the book could have died. Everytime he brutally injures someone, he either knows the police/ambulance are already on their way or has taken them to the hospital personally. I don't remember any example in the book where that wasn't the case.

Third, you're now shifting the goalposts. The whole point of this thread was to debunk Snyder's justification for Batman killing in BvS, which was that he supposedly killed in Returns. Now that that's been disproved, the topic's now shifted to his recklessness, but that's not what Snyder's original argument was.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that electrocuting someone like he does in the book wouldn't kill most people?

 

That's part of the montage at the beginning where the police and the ER go around the city collecting all the mutants Batman just faced, correct? No, you won't die from a current like that unless you don't get first aid. Hence my second point.

Unless you're exposed to a very high voltage, which isn't possible for a haywire in a dense city environment.

 

I think both the book and the animated movie make it very clear that he is being electrocuted quite hard. People die for less than that.

 

I'm still not seeing Batman having an AGENDA. Punisher sets out to kill criminals. If they live he's going back to kill them. Bats just does what he has to. If they live well good for them. If they die...they die.



And before you say off topic. I was originally just replying.

 

Yeah, there's still a sizeable difference between this version of Batman and The Punisher. The Punisher goes out planning to murder specific targets. That's his endgame. The death of criminals.

What are peoples thoughts about Batman going so far during the last scene in order to preserve innocent life? The sequence plays like a race against time/death. Like he's pretty much going to stop at nothing to save this surrogate mother figure.

 

Both the book and animated movie also made it very clear that Batman doesn't kill anyone in it. Also, no, people don't die from less than that (as far as electricity goes).

All that does is only show he's one or two degrees away from the Punisher. He's still far closer to the Punisher than your average Batman, in that regard. That's much better, I guess?

Batman racing against time is one of the oldest tropes in Batman literature. It doesn't translate to him having to resort to killing by default.

On the contrary, the fact he has to be a quick thinker and figure out how to prevent a situation without resorting to killing was always one of the character's most interesting aspects IMO.

 

Could be a step toward his previous moral stance. We never got to see any compassion from him. Hell, the women he save from the sex offender where terrified of him. That plus Supes death at least paves the way for a little redemption. I think he knows he was going a little too close to the edge.

 

You know, the film claiming the bat brand was a death sentence in prison didn't make sense, as they had only just found the second person to be branded, and the first one was still alive.
The first one was also a child sex predator, and they ALWAYS get ****ed up in prison. Batman's branding would have had nothing to do with that.

 

For the character's sake, I hope they do. It might be a waking call for Ben Affleck if he is also getting into too much Frank Miller stuff.

 

Frank Miller's work is like alcohol. Little can be fun.. too much of it ends up with vomiting.

 

Fixed.



t:

 

Batman Year One is my favorite Batbook..but his other Dark Knight books have issues.