Justice League Ben Affleck IS Bruce Wayne/Batman - Part 6

[shauner111]

who did it kill anyway ? the people who were blasting bullets at him ,when he was about to reach the warehouse to save Martha ?
the chase sequence ? with a man about to launch a bazooka at Him ?
is that what people are complaining about ?

people really be actin like he's on "Punisher Mode" out here .
next time what ? he should apologize to the parademon family for shootin him in his head..?.cause u know he should not kill, that's Not Batman....

My Batman cares about all human life. Even criminals.

 

[emielaen]

anticipates Reeves’ humanist take even more

 

[Chip Chipperson]

My Batman cares about all human life. Even criminals.

I, too, much prefer living in “a ******* dreamworld”

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I, too, much prefer living in “a ******* dreamworld”

Should be the canon name for Earth 2 .

 

[shauner111]

Yeah Zack, breaking news for you buddy but Batman...well...it is literally a dream world.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I think the thing with Snyder is that he doesn't associate killing with not valuing human life. And that's not an uncommon view, at least from an American POV. We celebrate soldiers here and largely hail them as heroes. My brother is in the military. He's had to kill before. I'd never think to question his care for humanity though. It's war after all and that's just how it works.

And I feel Snyder holds his version of the heroes to a similar standard. War is sort of a reoccurring theme across his trilogy. Man of Steel heavily features the military fighting alongside Supes. BvS has Batman referring to Superman's emergence as a declaration of war. JL hinges itself on the idea of an oncoming war. So through that lens, they're basically soldiers and them having to occasionally take lives is just a natural outcome of going to battle.

So that said, I just don't think Snyder is interested really in taking a moral position on killing in general. If he did, then why is it not okay to kill Zod but it's totally fine to kill Doomsday? They both contain life at the end of the day. He seems more interested in why a person would kill. I think Snyder feels that there's nothing morally dubious about killing in defense of others (Superman killing Zod), but he seems to have strong opinions on killing to satisfy one's own ego (Batman trying to kill Superman in BvS).

I dunno, I'm just speculating based on the material, stuff Snyder has said, and my own interpretations of course. Just my two cents.

 

[shauner111]

Not the 4 examples you posted. And one of them has always been debatable and proven wrong.

 

[super85]

Batman generally does not kill in the comics and has a code for that. Yes, people like to dig upp exampels from old comics , and usually you can find like a handful of times it has happened. And yes, I am familiar that Batman also had a gun in the earliest of comics.

Even some of the examples people post can be debated. That "you have killed before" discussion with Bruce and Jason, for example that, is that pre-crisis? so for continuity's sake is it the writer who sneaked in a reference to the Golden Age Batman ? Those panels from DKR, yeah, that is always debated, but even as popular DKR is, it was an out of continuity story when it came out, and still is, even if it is one of the most popular Batman stories. I mean Batman has been a vampire in both elseworlds stories and stories that were in the regular books, I still wouldnt want that in a movie.

I am not 100% against different interpretations of characters, or heroes killing. Sometimes its just done in a way that I think is dumb. I have some issues with what Snyder did in BvS. I love the casting, and I accept that Snyder did things differently.

You can accept things and still prefer them to be done in a different way.

 

[elgaz]

The issue of superheroes killing has been a thorny one, even pre-Snyder.

My take on it is that it's very difficult within the confines of a movie experience to adhere to a strict moral code of no killing. Comics are different, because by and large they can push the boundaries of what is believable and you tend to view them as a closed environment - I have a huge collection of graphic novels upstairs in my loft and I don't read any single one of them and instantly compare the decisions taken in that versus the decisions taken in another graphic novel. "Why did Batman not just kill that bad guy? They did it in The Boys....!" ........ etc.

With a movie, it's somewhat different. I find comics are read by comic fans, who may have more strength of feeling about the traditional codes and ethics their characters adhere to - but movies will have both superhero fans and casual cinema goers pop in to watch them.

I think movie goers - particuarly the casual ones - are also likely to question the decisions taken by characters onscreen. Liam Neeson has just rid the world of 50 gangsters who threatened his daughter and no-one bats an eyelid, yet Superman is trying to save the entire human race from extinction and there is an uproar when he breaks Zod's neck. When you have action films and thrillers also taking up screentime, it's very difficult to have your superhero characters refrain from making those kind of choices in life or death situations. I'm not arguing the rights & wrongs of it, just that it's a very different circumstance in a movie - particuarly if you're trying to sell a gritty/realistic approach. Even the mighty Nolan struggled with it - "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you".

I think Da-Scribe has nailed it also - we champions soldiers and military and don't question them taking a life in a war environment. The finale of Avengers Endgame was surely war - did anyone complain that Tony Stark wiped out thousands (maybe more) of Thanos' soldiers? I don't see how Superman breaking Zod's neck was any worse asides from the fact that then you're dealing with a singular death like that, it becomes more personal. What's the old saying - a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic?

 

[COCOS]

My Batman cares about all human life. Even criminals.

yeah u right, batman should have let the guy machine gun his Batwing & let the other guy explode him with his Bazooka.....and i forget he should have saved the russian guy who was threatin to flame Martha Kent. ...because im sure he would do a 180° and become a good guy just seconds after., because Your Batman might be not just a vigilante but he's a great psychiatric, Your Batman must Be a thinker ,he beat his ennemies and pay for the hospital bill right after, your batman cares alot..dont make me start about theses beautiful parademons...Batman should ask them to go take a coffee or two, speak about life in apokolips, get their nasty nails done..

the snyder Cringe keep on coming, with people like U,

 

[shauner111]

yeah u right, batman should have let the guy machine gun his Batwing & let the other guy explode him with his Bazooka.....and i forget he should have saved the russian guy who was threatin to flame Martha Kent. ...because im sure he would do a 180° and become a good guy just seconds after., because Your Batman might be not just a vigilante but he's a great psychiatric, Your Batman must Be a thinker ,he beat his ennemies and pay for the hospital bill right after, your batman cares alot..dont make me start about theses beautiful parademons...Batman should ask them to go take a coffee or two, speak about life in apokolips, get their nasty nails done..

the snyder Cringe keep on coming, with people like U,

You type all of that out as if it’s a joke, but you’re describing Batman. He could have done the job without killing them. Fans have talked about ways around that batwing scene for years. He must be a thinker? Was that supposed to be edgy lol. Batman literally helps send criminals to Arkham so they can get treated. Bruce Wayne values human life. I didn’t say I didn’t like this Batfleck take or that he should not kill. It’s Snyder’s vision, it’s fine. But it’s not my Batman. Is that OK with you? Do I have to ask you permission? Or is that too “cringe”?

 

[Da-Scribe]

Not the 4 examples you posted. And one of them has always been debatable and proven wrong.

I’m not quite following.

 

[shauner111]

Posted 4 comic examples as if that’s supposed to represent a 80 year history. And the Dark Knight Returns one has been debated over and proven that he doesn’t kill that mutant.

 

[shauner111]

Seems like his post of pics were deleted.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Seems like his post of pics were deleted.

Oh okay I see. I thought you were responding to me and got confused. My bad.

 

[super85]

yeah u right, batman should have let the guy machine gun his Batwing & let the other guy explode him with his Bazooka.....and i forget he should have saved the russian guy who was threatin to flame Martha Kent. ...because im sure he would do a 180° and become a good guy just seconds after., because Your Batman might be not just a vigilante but he's a great psychiatric, Your Batman must Be a thinker ,he beat his ennemies and pay for the hospital bill right after, your batman cares alot..dont make me start about theses beautiful parademons...Batman should ask them to go take a coffee or two, speak about life in apokolips, get their nasty nails done..

the snyder Cringe keep on coming, with people like U,

That's not really the thing here. I think your post is a bit dishonest. Batman is a fictional character, and he was put in those situations by the writer and director. I can Accept most of that, but its nothing weird of somebody else does not.

Others might want those scenes structured in a different way.

 

[Superherofan123]

The no kill rule is understandable, but we all know in the real world Batman would have killed Joker 100 times over. I don’t get why people get their panties in a wad on either side of this debate. Batman has always killed on screen.

 

[Micromind]

Batman kills when he has no other choice, he's certainly not like Punisher, I also hate the "Revenge" as his motive (looking at you, Matt Reeves) his movtive is to save innocent victims and bring criminals to justice and prevent crime, by operating outside legal system.

Batman can occasionally kill in order to save someone but he still does try to reform criminals and rehabilitate those who need therepy by donating to Arkham.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Yeah but that’s just the thing. I’ve never been one of those people who obsessed over what a real world Batman would or wouldn’t do. Real world Batman has always been unappealing to me. Maybe i was interested in real world Batman for two hours back in the summer of 2005, but I always prefer some level of a fantastical element with the character.

 

[Superherofan123]

Yeah but that’s just the thing. I’ve never been one of those people who obsessed over what a real world Batman would or wouldn’t do. Real world Batman has always been unappealing to me. Maybe i was interested in real world Batman for two hours back in the summer of 2005, but I always prefer some level of a fantastical element with the character.

I get that side of it, too. I just feel like that was sort of the point of this Batman; he completely lost his moral compass, and Superman was the one to shake him out of that.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Yeah I understand what Snyder was going for, but I definitely think there was a better way to go about it, story wise.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

The no kill rule is understandable, but we all know in the real world Batman would have killed Joker 100 times over. I don’t get why people get their panties in a wad on either side of this debate. Batman has always killed on screen.

The "real world" is a little irrelevant seeing as he's a fictional character and not in a realistic film. Snyder's movies have grit to them but they're not "realistic", they're just violent and have a (sometimes) stripped down aesthetic.

I don't give Snyder as much **** as some people do for his heroes killing, I think he made the right call with Zod's death (****ing about that feels a little like complaining Batman killed Darkseid in Final Crisis) even if I have some nitpicks with the scene. When it comes to Batman though the problem is aesthetic in part on top of everything else: Batman mowing people down with machine gun fire just looks and feels wrongheaded and lazy. Generic action movie visual cliches that Snyder thought were cool.

His vision of Batman isn't mine so I wasn't crazy about the idea to begin with but I found him indirectly killing criminals by branding them and letting them be murdered in prison a lot more impactful than pancaking goons with the Batmobile. The latter just exists because it's "cool" and I don't really buy that Batman killing in those contexts is meant to be a bad thing, the former actually feels gross and unpleasant. I sorta feel like the movie wants it both ways, that it wants you to Hem and Haw over Bruce's violence but also think it's totally rad.

@Da-Scribe 's breakdown of how Snyder seems to view different kinds of violence differently is very interesting though, I'm not sure I agree there's a lot of intention there in the actual film but there's something to that analysis for sure.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

Man, this thread has gone downhill

 

[flickchick85]

yeah u right, batman should have let the guy machine gun his Batwing & let the other guy explode him with his Bazooka.....and i forget he should have saved the russian guy who was threatin to flame Martha Kent. ...because im sure he would do a 180° and become a good guy just seconds after., because Your Batman might be not just a vigilante but he's a great psychiatric, Your Batman must Be a thinker ,he beat his ennemies and pay for the hospital bill right after, your batman cares alot..dont make me start about theses beautiful parademons...Batman should ask them to go take a coffee or two, speak about life in apokolips, get their nasty nails done..

the snyder Cringe keep on coming, with people like U,

You've been warned about posts like this before. Dial down the hostility.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Man, this thread has gone downhill