For people saying Affleck is the definitive Batman, can I ask why exactly?
I'm wondering how much of it is the superficial stuff like the Batsuit and the fight scenes. Or maybe yall really do see things in Batfleck that I just don't see. Either way, I'd like to know.
I think any Batman that goes into his crusade wanting it to be finite is a fundamentally flawed interpretation. It may be the more "human" desire, but actively hoping to some day be able to get up and walk away is not something I want out of Batman. And during the ten year period of the Nolan films, he was active for what? A year and a half? Not my cup of tea.
Affleck has been Batman for twenty years, and has shown no signs or desires of stopping. He may be darker, more violent, and at an emotional crossroads, but he lives and breathes by his crusade. I personally think that is an extremely important aspect of the character.
The nightmare sequence bothered me, but only because it was a completely useless sequence. In the context of the scene itself, Batman shooting people was fine. It effectively sold the hopelessness of that post-apocalyptic world, where even Batman was pushed to that point.
Almost every single Batman has been guilty of manslaughter - some examples more egregious than others. So Batfleck shot a flamethrower tank causing it to explode. Is it really that much worse that Bale pushing Harvey off of a building to save James? Both were impossible situations where he had to act to save someone's life.
So he drug a car with people inside of it. Is that much worse than Bale ramming the Tumbler head on into a garbage truck, all but obliterating the cab of the truck and surely killing the driver?
So he knocked two goons into a room with a live grenade (a grenade the goon unpinned). Is that much worse than Bale setting fire and explosions to Ra's al Ghul's monastery full of people - who we then see crashing and falling into the flames?
I don't know. Maybe Affleck's are more graphic? But manslaughter's manslaughter. Keaton, Bale, Affleck. They're all guilty of it to varying degrees. Hell, Keaton flat-out murdered a clown with a bomb, and he is still widely regarded as the best Batman.
I will concede that the branding thing is conceptually confusing. It's an automatic death sentence in prison? How would Batman have any control over that? And why would criminals kill someone for getting their ass kicked by Batman and being branded for it?
But really, there's a grey area here. All Batman is guilty of is physical disfigurement. If inmates decide to kill anyone bearing the mark, they're the ones making the choice to do so. Now, the question is why would Batman continue branding people once he knew it was getting people killed. Well again, it's a grey area. Conceptually, is it similar to Bale not having to kill, but not having to save? Both he and Affleck are wilfully putting someone in a situation where they are going to die.
