BvS Crossing THAT line. Batman: Judge, Jury, and what?!?

[gdw]

So, a quote from Affleck which I read not too long ago got me a tad bit concerned, though not jumping to any conclusions:

"We've seen that Batman is willing to cross the line in order to protect people."
"That vigilantism has been a part of this character all along, and we are tapping into that mentality when faced with something as potentially deadly as Superman."

This implication sounds like he's talking about killing when "necessary" to protect people.

Since it's not stated explicitly, I held out hope. Especially as I thought that they would be touching upon Kal [BLACKOUT]snapping Zod's neck[/BLACKOUT] in the end of MOS to some degree, with Batman showing Superman there's always another way.

Seeing the aforementioned quote in the article at the link below (I believe this is the Empire article?) it is followed by the writer referring to Batman as judge, jury, and executioner.

http://imgur.com/ffwLwML,xh9WYNB,YZ...SO,sxNmgNO,X24t5Ht,rWah6Dn,XVt4krT,6ZQI4Vq#15

Certainly does not alleviate any concerns regarding Batman potentially killing.
I don't want to see an entire film devoted to Batman struggling with making the same kind of choice(s) Superman [BLACKOUT]made with Zod.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[Quasimod0]

Sometimes I feel like the police ,and Batman, are partially at fault for all these psycho's continuing to murder people. Every time Batman throws the Joker in jail, he just escapes again and continues to kill more people. Batman doesn't kill Joker because he doesn't want to sink to that level or "become like him". But if he killed him, Gotham would be a much safer place to live.

Just my two cents on that. For the record though, I'm glad Batman has a no-kill rule. I don't wanna see Bat-Punisher.

 

[elgaz]

Sometimes I feel like the police ,and Batman, are partially at fault for all these psycho's continuing to murder people. Every time Batman throws the Joker in jail, he just escapes again and continues to kill more people. Batman doesn't kill Joker because he doesn't want to sink to that level or "become like him". But if he killed him, Gotham would be a much safer place to live.

Just my two cents on that. For the record though, I'm glad Batman has a no-kill rule. I don't wanna see Bat-Punisher.

I used to have similar thoughts, but then realised Batman's motives are as much driven by his desire for vengeance (which would propel him to murder the Joker) as they are by his desire for justice and to set an example (which propels him to capture Joker instead, and not stoop to his level).

It's infuriating I guess lol.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

I think we may see Bats' struggle with whether or not to kill as a theme, but I kind of doubt this will be a punisher-style Batman.

 

[king666]

I think it's a big part of the modern version of the character and it's fuel to a lot of his best stories. The "killing" as a plot point (like Superman killing Zod) is ok. Bat-Punisher would ****ing suck.

 

[gdw]

Certainly not gonna see Bat-Punisher, and the description doesn't evoke that given the phrasing of crossing that line when necessary to save people.

The thing is that's precisely the line he should never cross.
As much as they hammered the "one rule" thing in the Nolan films, it's something they never actually held to in the end.

Batman is responsible for the death of at least one "villain" in each of the Nolan films. Ra's, Dent, and Talia.
Batman would not leave someone to die in a crash like that, unless it was the Ra's from the books, and Batman knew he was "immortal." Then I could see Batman ditching Ra's in such a scenario.

I'd like to, finally, see a film universe Batman who ACTUALLY doesn't kill.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, the whole thing with Ra's, though badass, was pretty silly. "I won't kill you... I'll just leave you to die in a plane crash that I CAUSED." Umm, Bruce? That IS killing him.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

Sometimes I feel like the police ,and Batman, are partially at fault for all these psycho's continuing to murder people. Every time Batman throws the Joker in jail, he just escapes again and continues to kill more people. Batman doesn't kill Joker because he doesn't want to sink to that level or "become like him". But if he killed him, Gotham would be a much safer place to live.

Just my two cents on that. For the record though, I'm glad Batman has a no-kill rule. I don't wanna see Bat-Punisher.

I'd rather he not kill too. I like that he can deal with what he deals with, without killing too. I'll be lying if I said I'd still find the character interesting if he killed.

 

[Fallen Angel]

He aint no Judge Dredd.

 

[TripleJ]

I am okay with it...but it does present a lot of problems, like why he keeps Joker alive?

Unless of course - they want to explicitly show that Batman is psychotic, just like the villains he fight. It's possible - they are going for a darker universe, and he has lost at least one Robin.

 

[Majik1387]

It would be interesting to have a live action movie where Batman doesn't kill for once.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I think his brand of vigilantism itself is "crossing the line". It's still taking the law violently (if non-lethally) into one's own hands. I think that's more what Ben meant. As I have stated, I don't believe Batman is willy hilly using lethal force and that there will be explanations for the Batjet and the neck snapping f Desert Storm Batman that will not implicate BatFleck as a Punisher type when all is said and done.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

It would be interesting to have a live action movie where Batman doesn't kill for once.

 

[jokesonm3]

It would be interesting to have a live action movie where Batman doesn't kill for once.

But, but...the one rule....

Looks like the joker did break it after all

 

[Shikamaru]

If Batfleck intentionally kills anyone at any point in the film, I'll immediately lose all interest in this version.

I mean, the no-kill rule is arguably more important to Batman than it is to any other character, even Superman. The rest don't kill because "they're superheroes" and it's part of an ongoing comic book tradition, but Batman's reasons for not killing are deeply embedded in his character and make him a more complex person as a result. It would be the equivalent of making the Punisher not kill. It would change the entire Batman mythos.

 

[jokesonm3]

Jason's speech to Bruce about why the joker is still alive even after all he has done in 'under the red hood' was one brilliant speech, i hope batman puts his no-kill rule to the breaking point in a situation and questions all his choices of what's best for gotham

 

[Tra-El]

Wait, we're still blacking out Superman

Spoiler

breaking Zod's neck at the end of Man of Steel

, out of all places, HERE? 2 years later?

Interesting.

And we already saw Affleck break some Super-soldier's neck in the CC trailer.

 

[jokesonm3]

Wait, we're still blacking out Superman

Spoiler

breaking Zod's neck at the end of Man of Steel

, out of all places, HERE? 2 years later?

Interesting.

And we already saw Affleck break some Super-soldier's neck in the CC trailer.

in fact i wonder if superman will be haunted by the actions he's done for that specific moment?

 

[Binker]

The truth is, alot of superheroes, Batman yes as well as Superman, should kill the bad guy especially when it is clear that they will not change, and they are monsters (metaphorically and literally). And regardless of what people might say, this will not ruin those characters. In fact, you could add more layers in the process.

Take Joker for example: Batman has every right to kill this guy, because he is a monster who murders everytime he escapes, and Batman feels responsible "All the people I've murdered, by letting you live." But, what if Joker cannot be killed, which has been seen and suggested in various media. What if Batman is afraid of Joker, and his anger is based on this evil, because Joker cannot die, he always comes back, he is the boogeyman. That is no different from what he is seen as anyways, and yes you kinda are taking what was recently revealed about him in "Endgame", but it is another layer that doesn't alter Batman in a negative way.

Now Superman, I feel he should be the same: I agree with him killing Zod in MOS, because Zod could not be stopped and had to be taken down. Hell, many argue this, but those people don't realize what would happen if what they happened was the case instead, the reaction would be the same with the film falling short in their minds. Anyway, off topic: while Superman can get away with "killing" those who cannot be killed and will always come back, such as monsters, Parasite, even Brainiac; I want to bring up this idea of when Superman "sees" that the villain isn't actually the villain, but is something else more positive. This in turn, would put him at odds with many who see whatever this person or case is, in black and white. Just as much as killing someone, while it gets rid of that evil person, it doesn't stop the spread of that influence onto others, so far is too far. Superman could go through that, no problem, and get good stories out of it.

So for me, not a bad idea, and something good with layers.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

If Batfleck intentionally kills anyone at any point in the film, I'll immediately lose all interest in this version.

I mean, the no-kill rule is arguably more important to Batman than it is to any other character, even Superman. The rest don't kill because "they're superheroes" and it's part of an ongoing comic book tradition, but Batman's reasons for not killing are deeply embedded in his character and make him a more complex character as a result. It would be the equivalent of making the Punisher not kill. It would change the entire Batman mythos.

I agree. It's worse if he's just killing some lowly crooks. In the trailer, you clearly see (and it's fair we don't know the context of these scenes but still) him taking out common crooks with the bat-wing. The people I think he's killed aren't even his biggest villains, they're just some crooks. Batman wouldn't and shouldn't just off these people. It's out of his character. I'm reminded of this quote from Bruce in Year One,

"Scum, maybe, but even scum have families."

 

[jokesonm3]

Well if i was lets say a citizen in Gotham city and i was too scared to even leave my house due to the threats of villains i would desperately plead for batman to kill them, it would be the quickest way to save gotham and end crime

 

[Tra-El]

in fact i wonder if superman will be haunted by the actions he's done for that specific moment?

I think most of the problem with people's perception of Superman is going to come down to not Supes killing Zod, but the destruction and fear that was brought to the city of Metropolis and the threat of humanity. In many case's, I bet people of a higher military power or power in general with wealth (like Lex) would be over the moon with Zod dead. Now they have their hands on Kryptonian DNA facing the fact that aliens of this type of power and cruelty exist in our lifetime.

I agree that what we're going to see from Supes is not only explanation of his side of the story standing before the U.S Government and its citizens, but what exists inside the mind of Kal-EL could be the killing of Zod and that, in turn, should torment him for a good portion of the movie.

 

[jokesonm3]

I think most of the problem with people's perception of Superman is going to come down to not Supes killing Zod, but the destruction and fear that was brought to the city of Metropolis and the threat of humanity. In many case's, I bet people of a higher military power or power in general with wealth (like Lex) would be over the moon with Zod dead. Now they have their hands on Kryptonian DNA facing the fact that aliens of this type of power and cruelty exist in our lifetime.

I agree that what we're going to see from Supes is not only explanation of his side of the story standing before the U.S Government and its citizens, but what exists inside the mind of Kal-EL could be the killing of Zod and that, in turn, should torment him for a good portion of the movie.

Agreed, people with power and influence in metropolis would benefit from the potential of harvesting an understanding the body of an alien with immense destructive power the like that humans have never seen before perhaps to even weaponize this technology, in fact i really like the idea of superhero films with a good amount of focus on world perception when their saving the day, the citizens of metropolis have already seen destruction on a disaster level scale done to their city, what would even happen if the likes of Mongol or Brainiac invade metropolis to look for superman.

in fact during the opening of the first teaser we heard public figures from all walks of media discussing superman's actions in man of steel (a cool little reference to TDKR), i hope they continue that approach in future films of the DCEU

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I agree. It's worse if he's just killing some lowly crooks. In the trailer, you clearly see (and it's fair we don't know the context of these scenes but still) him taking out common crooks with the bat-wing. The people I think he's killed aren't even his biggest villains, they're just some crooks. Batman wouldn't and shouldn't just off these people. It's out of his character. I'm reminded of this quote from Bruce in Year One,

"Scum, maybe, but even scum have families."

I'm hoping the Batwing was a fake one designed to frame Batman. And that the neck snap is from a dream. It would be just so frustrating to have Batman be a wanton killer.

 

[jokesonm3]

Well im guessing that this incarnation of Lex Luthor is going to be more of a tech genius (perhaps even hacker?) rather than the traditional real estate tycoon, i am highly certain that hacking would be a key theme in Lex Luthor's side of the film