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

[schereZada]

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.

Meh, it wouldn't be the first time that the author's intentions and the results differ.

 

[chintai80]

he electrocutes that mutant yea. but he lives i believe, he's in a ton of pain but he lived. i think the following reports of batman returning only mentions criminals getting injured real bad.
there's no mention of anyone getting killed.

 

[Poni_Boy]

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.

Hah it doesn't even matter if he hates Frank Miller or his writing. He's willfully choosing to ignore the facts of the story AND the author's statements reinforcing those facts just to prove his interpretation is correct and then force that bias opinion on everyone else. How silly. Just say "I saw it this way" and that's it.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Meh, it wouldn't be the first time that the author's intentions and the results differ.

Hah true story. And that's why it's s good thing the story itself backs up what he says. Good system of checks and balances. Leaves little to be explained.

 

[schereZada]

Hah true story. And that's why it's s good thing the story itself backs up what he says. Good system of checks and balances. Leaves little to be explained.

Not sure. That blood splatter wasn't very little.

 

[KalMart]

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.

I still believe that Batman did everything he could to kill Joker within his physical ability while being stabbed. The fact that he didn't complete it wasn't because he stopped himself. So whether or not Joker finished the job, Batman did indeed intentionally facilitate the death of the Joker. It wasn't like he was going got call an ambulance.

He went past the 'point' when he snapped his neck...that was deliberate and purposeful for one outcome. Had Batman been younger and stronger, and not had his guts nearly hanging out of his body, it would have been 100% effective. I really think it's right there on the page as clear as can be.

 

[Kobra]

Hah it doesn't even matter if he hates Frank Miller or his writing. He's willfully choosing to ignore the facts of the story AND the author's statements reinforcing those facts just to prove his interpretation is correct and then force that bias opinion on everyone else. How silly. Just say "I saw it this way" and that's it.

There's no "this" or "that" way. Being electrocuted that way will most likely kill you. Period. Now, if Frank Miller wants to rewrite the laws of life and tell us that in his universe a man can be absolutely fried like that and get away just with a few minor injuries, that's fine. But to me that's just lazy and convenient writing. The way i remember it, in the book humans are still mortal. They can die being stabbed or shot. Apparently, they can't die electrocuted in the worst possible way. Again, that's Miller rewriting the laws of life. To me it's just bad writing.

 

[Spideyfan117]

he electrocutes that mutant yea. but he lives i believe, he's in a ton of pain but he lived. i think the following reports of batman returning only mentions criminals getting injured real bad.
there's no mention of anyone getting killed.

Yeah, this is what I thought Miller contributed to the Batman Canon. It's the first time, if memory serves, we see a Batman go to such brutal lengths to neutralize enemies, but still refrain from killing. It shows the line he drew for himself that he doesn't want to cross. That's my interpretation, though.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I still believe that Batman did everything he could to kill Joker within his physical ability while being stabbed. The fact that he didn't compete it wasn't because he stopped himself. So whether or not Joker finished the job, Batman did indeed intentionally facilitate the death of the Joker. It wasn't like he was going got call an ambulance.

He went past the 'point' when he snapped his neck...that was deliberate and purposeful for one outcome. Had Batman been younger and stronger, and not had his guts nearly hanging out of his body, it would have been 100% effective. I really think it's right there on the page as clear as can be.

Which is the most tragic part to me. Batman finally crossed the threshold. He made up his mind: I will kill. And then he was incapable of it. Regardless if he couldn't do it because of a last minute change of heart or because he was physically drained, his intent was clear. And he couldn't. Joker took it away from him. Insult to injury. What an *******

 

[FunkMiller]

There's no "this" or "that" way. Being electrocuted that way will most likely kill you. Period. Now, if Frank Miller wants to rewrite the laws of life and tell us that in his universe a man can be absolutely fried like that and get away just with a few minor injuries, that's fine. But to me that's just lazy and convenient writing. The way i remember it, in the book humans are still mortal. They can die being stabbed or shot. Apparently, they can't die electrocuted in the worst possible way. Again, that's Miller rewriting the laws of life. To me it's just bad writing.

I've just sat here (like a right saddo) and gone through TDKR to see if I can see any evidence of the TV reports stating that Batman kills over the course of his return to Gotham. None of them say anything other than that his victims are very badly injured at most. That's in the book. There. On the page. Any other argument is redundant.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

Frank Miller fanboy + money hungery studio people = Batman v Superman.

Snyder wanted to direct The Dark Knight Returns. Studio wanted him to launch JL characters as quickly as possible for incoming movies.

Also they did so many dumb, corny or horrible stuff in comics too. Just because something happened in comics don't make an excuse.

I'm not buying Snyder's argument even if killing happened in comics.

 

[Kobra]

Yeah, this is what I thought Miller contributed to the Batman Canon. It's the first time, if memory serves, we see a Batman go to such brutal lengths to neutralize enemies, but still refrain from killing. It shows the line he drew for himself that he doesn't want to cross. That's my interpretation, though.

Refrain from killing? What did he do to make sure the guy didn't die fried?

 

[KalMart]

Which is the most tragic part to me. Batman finally crossed the threshold. He made up his mind: I will kill. And then he was incapable of it. Regardless if he couldn't do it because of a last minute change of heart or because he was physically drained, his intent was clear. And he couldn't. Joker took it away from him. Insult to injury. What an *******

He was a sick, twisted **** right to the end...literally.

 

[Skrilla31]

Another thing about Dark Knight Returns, it's still pro-Batman. No matter how angry and vengeful he's become, he's still the hero of the story.

BVS borders on vilifying him.

 

[KalMart]

Another thing about Dark Knight Returns, it's still pro-Batman. No matter how angry and vengeful he's become, he's still the hero of the story.

BVS borders on vilifying him.

But he's redeemed at the end, and his faith in humanity is restored with newfound determination and hope.


Wasn't done particularly well, but that was the gist of it.

 

[FunkMiller]

Another thing about Dark Knight Returns, it's still pro-Batman. No matter how angry and vengeful he's become, he's still the hero of the story.

BVS borders on vilifying him.

I'd say it straight up turns him into the villain. He kills with intent. He's sadistic. He's driven by hate.

Now that may have been Snyder's intention, but if so, f*** Snyder. Batman isn't a villain.

But he's redeemed at the end, and his faith in humanity is restored with newfound determination and hope.


Wasn't done particularly well, but that was the gist of it.

Yep. But why, for the love of God, do they have to go so far down with him? Surely there's some nuance there if the time is taken to find it?

 

[gdw]

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

 

[chintai80]

I'd say it straight up turns him into the villain. He kills with intent. He's sadistic. He's driven by hate.

Now that may have been Snyder's intention, but if so, f*** Snyder. Batman isn't a villain.



Yep. But why, for the love of God, do they have to go so far down with him? Surely there's some nuance there if the time is taken to find it?

i feel like BvS Batman is just only a half step away from being The Punisher.
i wouldn't say he's a villian in this, but he's an anti-hero at best.

he's still a hero in the dark knight returns, but bordering on being an anti-hero there.

 

[gdw]

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!

Holy **** dude, you are completely delusional. No one is manipulating facts, but you are flat out ignoring them.

 

[gdw]

Hey, look, I drew this picture of a donkey, saying "Taco!"

Nope, that's an iPhone.

 

[KalMart]

I'd say it straight up turns him into the villain. He kills with intent. He's sadistic. He's driven by hate.

Now that may have been Snyder's intention, but if so, f*** Snyder. Batman isn't a villain.



Yep. But why, for the love of God, do they have to go so far down with him? Surely there's some nuance there if the time is taken to find it?

It was the result of a long time doing what he was doing, with seemingly no end in sight, losing more people close to him, etc. He was nearly broken.

Look what the mansion was like. Metaphor, maybe? ld razz:

But…he's better now.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=33312411&postcount=602

Speaking of emotion...not to get too sappy, but I was hoping at the end that Wayne would have spoken with Martha Kent. I now they tried to fit in the Batman line "I failed him" when he's speaking to WW, but I feel it would have been much more impactful if he came to speak to Martha. He'd start wih....."Mrs. Kent? Pardon me, Bruce Wayne.....I'm...."

She'd at first say "I know who you are Mr. Wayne." Referring more to his celebrity et al as Wayne. Wayne would look at her more intently and say "Do you?"

Martha would look more closely at him, then come to realize he's Batman, who saved her before, as she would reply "...a friend of my Son's." And Wayne would sadly nod...then say "I'm sorry for...", having difficulty, "...I came to say...that I'm sorry....I couldn't...."

It would be a bit more full-circle with Wayne, Martha sharing the same name as his mother, Batman realizing that he was wrong about Superman and that he could have been the greatest ally in achieving what he himself wanted to do with his life...finally realizing the importance of Superman on a fundamental level. Sort of a surrogate apology to his own parents through Clark's mother et al....she's lost a husband and son, he's lost a mother and father....Superman fought to save his mother, Wayne never got that chance, and so on. And she consoles him.

I just think the idea of "I failed him" could have been more poignant and personal like that. It would maybe say more about where Bruce Wayne has gone as a person, and how he's come back, and why he has a newfound faith and motivation for putting the JL together.

Maybe that's a bit too sappy for Batman/Wayne, but really...he's still been been a scared, lonely little boy deep down inside the whole time anyway. Maybe meeting Martha was the hug that he needed......to go out and kick some more ass!

But then.....that would probably make it more of a Batman story...and we all know that this was supposed to be a Superman story.....right?

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=33316021&postcount=667

It's why I felt it would have been a nice scene for Wayne to pay his respects to Martha at the end of the film.....because it reflects so much of what he's held inside his whole life, and what he was blind or not privy to at first with Superman. The idea of 'I failed him' would have been more impactful and meaningful that way. Because really...as a hero, what are you protecting? You're protecting the present but you should also protect and nurture hope in the days going forward, the days after you're gone....and he didn't with Superman because he couldn't recognize it. Now that he's here after he's dead...with a Mother who's lost a husband and a son, Wayne being a child who lost his mother and father...it's a sad circle, but one that hopefully gives Wayne hope.

But there was more in the movie that needed help than just that. I don't think it was terrible per se, but a disappointing because of the potential that was actually there but not executed so well.

 

[Victarion]

I wouldn't call Batman a villain since the ones he killed were criminals. It does give Affleck the potential to do something interesting in his solo Batman movie - a situation where we have the guy that's willing to kill criminals vs someone worse than him. Its more fun than something as simple as a straight-edge Batman who we know will do what's right in the interest of justice. There's an added element of unpredictability that i find refreshing.

 

[Kobra]

Holy **** dude, you are completely delusional. No one is manipulating facts, but you are flat out ignoring them.

I'm not denying that he said Batman didn't kill anyone. I'm denying that it makes any sense to believe that electrocuting someone like that isn't attempted murder because, well...it is. Unless Batman is completely ******ed and didn't know he could easily kill a person like that. Yeah, you can have Batman shooting someone in the head and not killing them. But what does that change? It's still him doing something that normally would kill a person. The only people delusional here are those who flat out ignore this simple fact. People would easily die from that. People would easily die from less than that. Batman did something that only makes sense if you're trying to kill someone. I don't know how can anyone dispute that. Well, to be fair, nobody is really disputing that. All you're doing is repeating that Miller states he didn't kill anyone, as if that changed anything about the point i'm trying to make.

 

[TheTarkKnight]

Batman doesn't need to kill people to be "cool" (whatever that means in this context).

He's such a cool character. Part of what makes him interesting to me is that he is that good at what he does, he can make his enemies surrender without killing them.

I enjoyed Batfleck's portrayal. I would've enjoyed it more without the killing.

 

[gdw]

Batman doesn't need to kill people to be "cool" (whatever that means in this context).

He's such a cool character. Part of what makes him interesting to me is that he is that good at what he does, he can make his enemies surrender without killing them.

I enjoyed Batfleck's portrayal. I would've enjoyed it more without the killing.

Exactly.

Batman's no killing isn't even a limitation, so much as it is him being beyond the limitation of needing to resort to killing.

While I understand what they were aiming for with including it to be part of how Bruce has strayed too far from his original mission, to me it is exactly the same as the way the Daredevil movie tackled to notion of crossing that line, vs the Daredevil Season 1.

They could have made Bruce's entire struggle about whether or not to cross that line, and actually kill Superman.
They still could have kept the "he's gone too far" arc without any of the killing, especially considering the main way they show it, and how he, maybe, changes at the end, via the branding.

The fact that you could cut almost every single Bat-kill from this film, and it wouldn't change thing, just goes to prove how pointless it was.