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

[Kobra]

Even if he didn't, he still 100% sure killed another guy, so yeah, DKR's Batman kills people. Don't know why people are trying to fight it so much. Is it because they wanna pretend Snyder is portraying Batman in a completely stupid way that has ab****ely nothing to do with the comics? He isn't.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Even if he didn't, he still 100% sure killed another guy, so yeah, DKR's Batman kills people. Don't know people are trying to fight it so much. Is it because they wanna pretend Snyder is portraying Batman in a completely stupid way that has ab****ely nothing to do with the comics? He isn't.

The comic story itself says he doesn't kill.

The author of the story said he doesn't kill.

The one panel that some might think shows him shooting and maybe hitting someone is at best ambiguous.

That does not cancel out the first two points.

Logic says = he doesn't kill in the book

But art is subjective and people can assume whatever they want. Personally, I think Batman wears Victoria's Secret garners under his Batsuit. There's nothing in the story to tell me otherwise

 

[FunkMiller]

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

Alan Moore is, to use a uniquely British phrase, absolutely barking. In the best way possible.

I met him at a taping of a BBC radio show called The Infinite Monkey Cage. I was wearing a Batman t-shirt. When I walked up to him, he saw the t-shirt, and that mighty beard started twitching in supressed dread. I then proceeded to talk to him about the comments he'd made during the show about the passage of time... and didn't mention The Killing Joke or Batman once.

The palpable relief on his face was something to behold.

 

[Kobra]

The comic story itself says he doesn't kill.

The author of the story said he doesn't kill.

The one panel that some might think shows him shooting and maybe hitting someone is at best ambiguous.

That does not cancel out the first two points.

Logic says = he doesn't kill in the book

But art is subjective and people can assume whatever they want. Personally, I think Batman wears Victoria's Secret garners under his Batsuit. There's nothing in the story to tell me otherwise

He kills a guy in the story. It's just that simple.

 

[Poni_Boy]

He kills a guy in the story. It's just that simple.

Yes, your interpretation is that simple. And you're not wrong. It's your interpretation.

 

[Kobra]

Yes, your interpretation is that simple. And you're not wrong. It's your interpretation.

Oh, what's your interpretation? He didn't die but he is brain dead?

 

[Poni_Boy]

Oh, what's your interpretation? He didn't die but he is brain dead?

The mutant panel? Batman shot the wall. Or the mutant in the hand. Isn't clear enough to say which. Definitely doesn't hit him in the head. No evidence of that. Not even the animated version

 

[Kobra]

The mutant panel? Batman shot the wall. Or the mutant in the hand. Isn't clear enough to say which. Definitely doesn't hit him in the head. No evidence of that. Not even the animated version

He electroctutes a guy in the arcade sign.

Oh, wait, wait: He survived, right? Maybe everyone else in the movie survives too.

 

[Poni_Boy]

He electroctutes a guy in the arcade sign.

Oh, wait, wait: He survived, right? Maybe everyone else in the movie survives too.

Yep. I don't see him dying. It's not even something most comics characters die from. It's like saying "he got punched in the temple with reinforced gloves." In real life that's 50/50 a death sentence, comics = normal.

By saying "Batman kills these mutants" you negate what the author, the creator of the story, says. You also negate what characters in the story say. By negating the rules a story lives by you make the story nonsensical. It's like saying "Batman can 100% fly in TDKReturns because they don't show he can't."

 

[schereZada]

The mutant panel? Batman shot the wall. Or the mutant in the hand. Isn't clear enough to say which. Definitely doesn't hit him in the head. No evidence of that. Not even the animated version

It could have hit him in the mouth or the chest. It left quite a splatter of blood behind as evidence.

 

[Poni_Boy]

It could have hit him in the mouth or the chest. It left quite a splatter of blood behind as evidence.

It 100% could have. Which goes back to my other two points. The author says he doesn't kill in the story, and the story flows to where it does because Batman doesn't kill. By saying 100% that mutant died because Batman killed him you negate the other two points, which are both more substantial than a single panel that's ambiguous.

 

[Kobra]

Yep. I don't see him dying. It's not even something most comics characters die from. It's like saying "he got punched in the temple with reinforced gloves." In real life that's 50/50 a death sentence, comics = normal.

By saying "Batman kills these mutants" you negate what the author, the creator of the story, says. You also negate what characters in the story say. By negating the rules a story lives by you make the story nonsensical. It's like saying "Batman can 100% fly in TDKReturns because they don't show he can't."

Dude, just stop. The guy gets electrocuted pretty hard in the sign. If you're gonna say he isn't dead, i can say the exact same this for everyone Batman supposedly kills in BvS. We don't see their funeral do we? Maybe all of them survived. That doesn't change the fact that the intention was there. The creator of the book can say wtf he wants. Fact is: People would die from something like that and Batman threw him against the sign on purpose knowing what could happen. What's your excuse?

 

[KalMart]

I think a big part of the 'ambiguity' in DKR was due to a particular art stye/composition that I found rather bold and even cinematic for the time. Namely…depicting the aftermath and/or effect of an impactful action, yet not actually showing the specific action itself. Like the thug with glasses who is grabbed from behind by Batman through a door window…a moment later we just see his glasses hanging in mid-air because he was (as we assume/determine) yanked away so violently. Superman being spoken to one moment, then he realizes a nuclear missile has been fired, and the next moment we see just his clothes still hanging in mid-air because (as we assume/determine) he bolted away at super speed. Bruno firing her submachine gun at a Superman she can't quite see, and then a moment later she's tied up in hot twisted metal because (as we assume/determine) Superman did it in the blink of an eye.

A mutant thug threatening a child, then a gunshot by Batman…and then thug is limply falling away with a blood spatter on the wall behind him/her.…because (as at least I assumed/determined) the thug was hit by the bullet.

I have to admit as well that at first I was taken aback that Batman seemingly shot the thug dead. It was like 'whoa, this Batman isn't messing around!' Not so much because he killed, but because he used the gun and not a Batarang or such. Yes I know he used a rifle later to fire a cable, but at the time I figured that if he used the big mutant's M60 to begin with, it was to shoot the other thug….dead. Othwerwise, I felt they would have depicted his hand shot off, which would possibly be more gruesome and maybe even worse than killing.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Dude, just stop. The guy gets electrocuted pretty hard in the sign. If you're gonna say he isn't dead, i can say the exact same this for everyone Batman supposedly kills in BvS. We don't see their funeral do we? Maybe all of them survived. That doesn't change the fact that the intention was there. The creator of the book can say wtf he wants. Fact is: People would die from something like that and Batman threw him against the sign on purpose knowing what could happen. What's your excuse?

Answer these questions:

1.Why did Miller say Batman doesn't kill in this story he wrote, if Batman kills?

2. Why does the story repeat ad nauseum (up to the very end post-Joker death) that Batman doesn't kill and isn't a killer?

 

[Kobra]

Answer these questions:

1.Why did Miller say Batman doesn't kill in this story he wrote, if Batman kills?

2. Why does the story repeat ad nauseum (up to the very end post-Joker death) that Batman doesn't kill and isn't a killer?

1. Ask him.

2. Bad writing?

Are you seriously going to deny that electrocuting someone like that on purpose isn't attempted murder? People die from much less than that. That guy was absolutely fried. He was electrocuted in the most dramatic way possible.

Like i said before, you are manipulating the "facts" so they can better fit your agenda. But if you really wanna pretend Batman doesn't kill that guy, maybe i can also pretend he doesn't kill anyone in BvS. The logic is exactly the same.

Read the book, see it for yourself and just deal with the fact that Batman fried a guy. FRIED!

 

[The Guard]

Dude, just stop. The guy gets electrocuted pretty hard in the sign. If you're gonna say he isn't dead, i can say the exact same this for everyone Batman supposedly kills in BvS. We don't see their funeral do we? Maybe all of them survived. That doesn't change the fact that the intention was there. The creator of the book can say wtf he wants. Fact is: People would die from something like that and Batman threw him against the sign on purpose knowing what could happen. What's your excuse?

This is largely true.

"We didn't see them die" is a perfectly valid excuse for even his kills in BVS.

People have survived worse that what happens to many of the criminals in the film.

That said, I do think TDKR makes a point to show Batman not going quite that far. While it's unrealistic to survive a machine gun blast to the shoulder, I think we're meant to believe Batman just wounded that mutant.

With The Joker at the end, he goes right up to the point of killing him. Probably even mostly kills him. But The Joker ultimately causes himself to die, robbing Batman of the ability to do so, and having the last laugh because it looks like he has, in fact, killed The Joker.

 

[chintai80]

that gun batman used would've splattered that mutant's head everywhere too.

remember before those panels, the fat mutuant holding this big f***in gun shot up his own gang member because he did not get out of the way of the window in time. and that guy was splattered and shot right through the window.

 

[Poni_Boy]

1. Ask him.

2. Bad writing?

FULL STOP right here. Because you choose to ignore the facts of the story stated by the author and the rules established within the story, your hypothesis is completely illogical. And you have every right to see whatever you want to see in any comic, but it is truly only your interpretation and not fact.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I do think TDKR makes a point to show Batman not going quite that far. While it's unrealistic to survive a machine gun blast to the shoulder, I think we're meant to believe Batman just wounded that mutant.

With The Joker at the end, he goes right up to the point of killing him. Probably even mostly kills him. But The Joker ultimately causes himself to die, robbing Batman of the ability to do so, and having the last laugh because it looks like he has, in fact, killed The Joker.

Ding ding ding. How tragically poetic.

 

[FunkMiller]

1. Ask him.

2. Bad writing?

Dude on a superhero forum criticises Frank Miller for bad writing in The Dark Knight Returns.

Pack it up folks, we're officially done here.

 

[Kobra]

FULL STOP right here. Because you choose to ignore the facts of the story stated by the author and the rules established within the story, your hypothesis is completely illogical. And you have every right to see whatever you want to see in any comic, but it is truly only your interpretation and not fact.

You're the one ignoring facts. You're ignoring the fact that being electrocuted like that will most likely kill you and you're ignoring the fact that Batman threw him against the sign on purpose, so he wanted to fry him. 2 facts you just ignored. If, by miracle, he didn't kill him, that doesn't change much, does it? Or would Batman be less of a killer to you if in BvS he shot a guy in the head but the guy ended up surviving? It's attempted murder. Who cares if he dies or not? It's still Batman trying to kill him.

 

[Kobra]

Dude on a superhero forum criticises Frank Miller for bad writing in The Dark Knight Returns.

Pack it up folks, we're officially done here.

It's my opinion. I think DKR has plenty of problems. If that thing was a live action movie people would be crapping on it as hard as they are on BvS.

 

[hafizbat]

It's my opinion..

Then act like it, and stop getting so upset when others don't share it.

 

[FunkMiller]

It's my opinion. I think DKR has plenty of problems. If that thing was a live action movie people would be crapping on it as hard as they are on BvS.

True, and my comment was facetious, but deliberately so to make a point. You, and a lot of others, are trying to sell your interpretation of that panel in TDKR to justify what Batfleck does in BvS, despite all evidence in the rest of the graphic novel to the contrary. I guarantee that if the BvS defence weren't being mounted, then many more people would agree that the panel is ambiguous, and that there's a very good chance Batman does not in fact kill in TDKR, as per the author's own thoughts on the matter.

 

[Kobra]

True, and my comment was facetious, but deliberately so to make a point. You, and a lot of others, are trying to sell your interpretation of that panel in TDKR to justify what Batfleck does in BvS, despite all evidence in the rest of the graphic novel to the contrary. I guarantee that if the BvS defence weren't being mounted, then many more people would agree that the panel is ambiguous, and that there's a very good chance Batman does not in fact kill in TDKR, as per the author's own thoughts on the matter.

No, no, no. I don't care about that panel. I'm simply stating the fact that Batman electrocutes a guy. Take it as you will. Nothing anybody can say will change that fact. It's in the book.