Superman is completely innocent in that entire fight. He thinks he's dying, he calls out for his mother to be saved. The problem on the part of Superman, is just in execution. The line just doesn't make sense because he would say mom, not Martha, in the heat of the moment. Supes doesn't have time to think, so it comes off stupid that he would say her name. He says "Martha" in the script ONLY so they can force the connection and do another flashback to Thomas saying Marthaaaa. This makes Bats look demented, which is the point, but i just don't like it.
The main problem i have with the whole thing is the Batman side of things and how that's written. It's the worst. Batman stops killing him why?? Im sure many criminals have people in their lives that they care about, yet they're still a danger to society. How does Batman know that Superman won't wipe out the human race and leave himself and mother standing? The whole concept is ridiculous. OHHHHH HE HAS A MOM HE CARES FOR! SO THAT MEANS SUPERMAN WONT DO EVIL TOWARDS THE PLANET ANYMORE! Zero logic. People defending this point don't seem to understand the complexity of human beings or life. Walter White loved his son, daughter...does that mean he won't do the SAME amount of damage to society or human life once a cop finds out about his illegal dealings? Look at any gangster, Tony Soprano cares about his mother and family but we won't kill him or bring him to justice because he has a heart for a few human beings!! Soooo stupid.
I don't understand why people are so upset about Batman killing in this. In Batman '89 he drops bombs from his Batmobile at the thugs in the chemical plant, he shoots missiles at the thugs on the parade floats....In Batman Returns, he straps a bomb to a thug and smirks. He lights another thug on fire with the Batmobile Yet people love that portrayal of Batman and there are quite a number of people that feel Keaton is the best Batman. This feels like a double standard to me.
Not to mention Christopher Reeve Superman kills a depowered Zod while smirking. Superman uses his super strength (as Clark) to beat up a bully in a diner. People love that portrayal of Superman. Yet Cavill Superman kills (with no other options) a raging Zod about to kill a family and destroys a man's truck and people are outraged. Double standard.
It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. The praise that Keaton gets is mainly to do with his performance in the suit, the way it's shot, the suit etc. If you're one of those people who accepts it in Keaton's, and doesn't with Affleck, then yes that's ridiculous. Same with Reeve, which was wrong back then.
Batman should not kill, period. No if, and's, or buts. I agree with many here, his no kill rule makes him my hero, even if this means that he has to go out into the night again to catch the same person.
Also, I wonder how Batman will have a relationship with Gordon and the police force if Batman is killing? He's just another murderer in this case. Plus, why go study martial arts, spying techniques, lock picking, chemistry, biology for years or work your ass off to become the embodiment of peak human physique and conditioning? Grab a gun and shoot the bad guys, problem solved!
There may be more to it in the next movie, but I hate having to try to explain to myself what the hell Batman is doing. One thing I can think of that may be a signal that he is turning back to his roots after the ending of BvS is that during the Suicide Squad filming I remember NOT seeing the turret gun in front of the Batmobile.
Otherwise, as a big Batman fan, although I'm very impressed with the Batsuit, Batman's fighting skills, and Batfleck's performance overall, the whole killing thing really was a huge turnoff for me. Even my wife who has nothing to do with comics turned to me during the movie and said "I thought Batman didn't kill?" and I sunk into my seat just a bit more because we both knew she was right and I had no explanation for her.
Good point. I assume Snyder will have Gordon act normal about Batman's killing. I bet Simmons nails it, but it's a more aggressive and ignorant version of the character who, like Alfred, doesn't really mind that Batman kills people to get the job done. I'm also sure there will be a cold relationship between Gordon and Batman. It's not a deal breaker for me but i prefer a closer relationship between the two characters, and i want to feel some history there, instead of "You do what you gotta do Bats, ill do my job, stay out of each others way".
You could be right about Suicide Squad, but the batmobile scenes could be flashbacks. He still went to Luthor's cell ready to brand him with a big old punch to the face, after he said those nice words at the funeral. So anything is possible. Is he changing completely? Or did he just decide to not kill Lex in that moment? We'll see where Terrio/Snyder take it. Hopefully the right direction. If the Knightmare sequence happens, then it looks like Batman is the same.
@nogster
It's a movie based on comicbook characters, all real life logic fails. It's just like Black Widow or Hawkeye fighting alongside Hulk and Thor.
It makes little sense in real life, but because it's a comicbook movie it can get a pass. Don't take everything that happens in these movies that seriously, it's not like your watching a Daniella Steele movie or some real life documentary.
Yet MOS tries to shove it down our throats that it's a real world that's been invaded by aliens in the same way that it could happen tomorrow morning. Once you have aliens, gods, metahumans, magic, you
should be able to let go of that "real world" stuff. But this entire movie tries to be very serious, and shows the politics of our world, so it looks like they were still trying to convince us that it's really serious and realistic. I dont have a problem with it. But defenders like to be choosy with how they make their defense. If somebody doesn't like it and picks it apart, it's "Throw real world logic out the window man!". If we don't like because it's not fun and takes itself too seriously trying to be realistic, it's "Not sure you understand the consequences here in this real world rules and logic!".
Probably based on...?
As has been discussed many times already, the purpose of Alfred's "that's how it starts..." scolding is Bruce has just recently started getting rougher. Referring to the brand new instance of branding.
Torture is further down the ladder of punishment than the finality of murder. If Bruce was already killing at that point, it makes no logical sense for Alfred to start getting worried and talking down on Bruce. That's like a cop slapping your wrist for carrying marijuana when you're a convicted drug trafficker.
Branding is a new thing. He starts off by throwing down the newspaper and nonchalantly says "New rules?". Like it's no problem. Bruce says we've always been criminals Alfred, nothings changed. I took that as he's been brutal and probably killing for ages and branding somebody isn't that much of a difference. Which it isn't. Alfred begins to talk about how everythings changed. He starts talking about Superman's presence, but he could be talking about Bruce becoming cruel. I take it as Bruce started killing YEARS ago. Possibly a few years, 5 years or 10 years. We don't know, but if Robin died 10 years ago, that would trigger such a change, not Supermans appearance. It wouldn't make any sense for the Metropolis incident to put him over the edge and not Joker killing Robin. If anything, Supermans presence has made him brand criminals. That's it.
If you want to judge the film as it is, without comic book history/knowledge, then there's no proof that Bruce had moments in his career where he wasn't killing. Like Keaton. No proof that Robin is dead. Alfred never scolds him for killing, so it's probably been ages since he wasn't.
It would be fun seeing KGBeast return (heavily disfigured) to take revenge on Batman in Bat's first DCU movie. Afterall in movies everything can happen. I'm just glad they didn't went A-Team on us when Batman blew up a few cars and you see everyone crawling out.
Batman was dealing with some pretty high stakes saving Martha. It's either his only leverage he has on Superman ever again. Or if she did die, he was worried Superman would go Darkseid on us and kill off half the planet.
No thanks, the actor was terrible. They have way too many great options. They won't waste it on such a small character.
That was also something I wondered, in the end they just made this decision. I'm not sure but maybe Superman had no way to locate her, Alfred had already the drop on their hidingplace.
Anyway it's no worse than Nolan's decision to make Joker just dissapear after Batman jumped after Rachel. THAT was something that bugs the hell out me even today.
How is that even a comparison? Joker probably just left because he figured Dent wasn't there and he already caused damage with Rachel + getting under Batman's skin. So they left, on to the next thing. It's logical and people make a big deal out of it. Then there's Superman who could save his Martha quicker than batman ever could (there's a timer and a torch waiting for her for Christ's sakes, time is of the essence). Superman lets this psycho Bat do it because he says he promises?? It's ridiculous. It's there so we can have a scene where Batman saves Martha at a warehouse so Zack can show off the new fight choreography he's got planned for the character.
Whether or not Clark knew doesn't change the fact that all he is doing is pleading to save the life of a human and that should be what is taken from that, which is made quite clear.
