BvS Is Batman justified when he refuses to kill? Do you wish he was more like Superman?

[Marvin]

I'd only considered Superman killing Zod out of character if he spit on the ground, dusted off his hands, and walked away saying, "That's that." But he did nothing like that. Superman's action was not out of character -- it was about building character.

so simple
so true

 

[The Guard]

However, as hopefuldreamer stated, the ending of MoS swept everything under the rag; the Metropolis fight, Zod's death, everything. It made the movie look very dishonest in its intentions. At least the Avengers had a passing montage of people grieving. MoS has Clark feeling cautiously triumphant when talking with Ma Kent and Steve Lombard asking women to go out with him to a football game. Yes, life goes on, but seriously? They chose to convey it THAT way?

How does the movie somehow come across as dishonest? What intentions? How can a movie come across as dishonest when it presents a gray area to begin with?

Yes. They did. They chose to focus on the character that the entire movie is about rather than the destruction that was caused (which was shown). Or they chose to wait until the sequel. Which is a valid way to convey it, instead of doing it the same way as every other modern disaster/superhero film.

The Batman movies swept Batman's killings under the rug as well, especially with regard to Dent, who he very much did kill. How anyone can say that Batman tackled Dent off a ledge and somehow didn't kill him and keep a straight face is beyond me. That continues to be one of the most absurd arguments I've heard in regard to the Nolan Batman films. That somehow Batman didn't kill because he was saving a kid.

 

[Shikamaru]

I don't think people realize the point of this thread. The question the OP is asking is "Should the new Batman kill?", not "Did the previous versions of Batman in live-action kill?". Yet I see a lot of people bringing up past examples of Batman killing in live-action to justify them doing it with the new Batman again.

So Batman left Ra's on a train to die in Batman Begins, which was not exactly killing but not something Batman would do either. So he accidentally killed Harvey in The Dark Knight. So he intentionally killed Talia's driver which lead to Talia's death. So he was the Punisher in a batsuit in the Burton films. So what? Why does this make it ok for the new Batman to kill?

When doing a reboot, the whole point of it is to correct any mistakes that the previous franchise(s) did. We should want and expect the team working on this new Batman to do just that, not repeat them again because...."Well, might as well continue the trend". By the latter's same logic, it would have been ok to make the new Spider-Man a mute wimp because the last franchise did it. It would have been ok to dumb down Batman and give him bat nipples in Batman Begins because the last franchise did it.

Getting back to the main topic of this thread that so many of you have missed, should this new Batman kill? Do you want this new Batman to kill? My answer to both of those questions is no. For the new Batman, they should aim for the best representation of the no-kill rule to exist in live-action so far. Batman's no-kill rule is a huge part of his character and has formed who he is more than it has any other superhero. As I said before, the vast majority of all other superheroes - including even Superman - don't kill because...they're superheroes. Batman's reason for not killing and not using guns go so far beyond that. He doesn't just not kill because he is a superhero. His no-kill rule has been engrained in his character that it makes who he is. From the second you take it away, you change everything about Batman and his mythos. You change the Batman/Joker dynamic, the Joker as a whole, the Batman/Gordon dynamic, the Batman/Ra's dynamic, the reason as to why Robin exists in the first place (which is to provide some levity so that Batman doesn't cross the line), and the list goes on. I don't think people realize how radically different everything we know about Batman and his universe would be if Batman was turned into the Punisher.

Batman should not kill. Period. It is what makes him Batman.

 

[Kal-El.9859]

I don't see why people ask such stupid questions and why I let myself get reeled in...Batman and Superman should not kill. I understand why Superman killed in Man of Steel and that is the reason he will never do it again....I HOPE

 

[Loki882]

Because, Batman was saving the life of a child and someone died by accident. It's not the same as Burtman blowing up a factory full of people or strapping a bomb to someone's waist and kicking him down a sewer main. The Guard, you seem to think that anyone dying violates Batman's code, I think that his code mean he doesn't kill people in cold blood, that is the difference.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Yeppity yep. Though in comics, Batman always has the perfect gadget and plan of attack, so lethal accidents don't happen

 

[Gianakin_]

No, all the boss kills in the bat films(with the exception of maybe Dent) were swept under the rug in closing, the ones in other cbm's even moreso. MoS at least addressed their "Boss kill" to some degree.
It is "boss kills" I assume you are talking about. Speaking of killing, how are any of the avengers dealing with the sheer population of aliens they killed in their movie(stark in particular)? Any tears shed?

Not talking about "boss kills", not exclusively. Even though Clark reacted after killing Zod, the tone I got from him right after that really rubbed me the wrong way (in the Ma Kent scene). He gave off a very... triumphant vibe. Reserved and not arrogant, sure, but triumphant nevertheless.

And no sir, the Avengers did nothing of the sort. But then the Avengers didn't claim to be all the deep s**t MoS was trying so hard to persuade me it was.

Again my point, addressed. MoS did alot of that, people seem to argue for more but mix their words with "at all".

Newp, I know exactly what I'm saying. "At all" sounds about right.

As for the passing montage, if a 3 seconds of memorial footage laced into an expositional news cast in the 9/11 style would be the cure all that would have had the detractors ok with all the death, then I won't believe the deaths are even that big a problem to them, honestly. At least some people have argued for a scene where perhaps some of the victims have a real time scene in which they may even address superman himself or he him self visit a memorial...etc. A 3 seconds of embedded nothing in which we are told something else...
sure I guess.

Don't get me wrong, what the Avengers did wasn't anywhere near enough to what I'd expect from a poignant aftermath scene. But it was *something*.

 

[Gianakin_]

How does the movie somehow come across as dishonest? What intentions? How can a movie come across as dishonest when it presents a gray area to begin with?

There was no gray area in MoS. It tried to come off as a movie that had one, but it never did. It was amoeba-like in its presentation and resolution of its... "themes". There was no "first contact" theme, there was no "nature vs. nurture" theme, there was no choice, there wasn't even consistency in Pa Kent's advice to Clark.

Yes. They did. They chose to focus on the character that the entire movie is about rather than the destruction that was caused (which was shown). Or they chose to wait until the sequel. Which is a valid way to convey it, instead of doing it the same way as every other modern disaster/superhero film.

It's valid in your opinion, not in mine. Leaving it for the sequel is always a bad idea, to me. If it's not for you, bravo. And don't tell me there aren't other ways to convey it that are different from other films. Don't tell me a writer is getting paid thousands or millions to just not mention anything at all, because the only other alternative is to do it like other movies did it.

It's the same problem I had with BB. Batman let Ra's die. I hated that. TDK fixed it, so it works on a trilogy level, but in BB it's problematic.

The Batman movies swept Batman's killings under the rug as well, especially with regard to Dent, who he very much did kill. How anyone can say that Batman tackled Dent off a ledge and somehow didn't kill him and keep a straight face is beyond me. That continues to be one of the most absurd arguments I've heard in regard to the Nolan Batman films. That somehow Batman didn't kill because he was saving a kid.

1)The bolded part isn't even close to what I'm arguing. 2)I didn't even mention Batman's killings in the part of my quote that you posted, so I'm not sure what you're trying to do here.

However, I'll bite just this once: Dent was swept under the rag? The entire finale of TDK was about Dent's death and its reprecussions on Batman and Gordon and, ultimately, the city. He didn't, say... go out for a date with Selina Kyle (which was how many posters here wanted TDK to end, btw). It was all about Dent.

 

[Krumm]

^ Yeppity yep. Though in comics, Batman always has the perfect gadget and plan of attack, so lethal accidents don't happen

So Batman is smart enough to never have accidents. I knew it!

If Batman is so smart then there should be no accidents.

^ That's wild logic. Accidents are kind of inevitable, especially in high stress situations.

 

[Marvin]

Not talking about "boss kills", not exclusively. Even though Clark reacted after killing Zod, the tone I got from him right after that really rubbed me the wrong way (in the Ma Kent scene). He gave off a very... triumphant vibe. Reserved and not arrogant, sure, but triumphant nevertheless.

Here's the thing, movies aren't in real time. For example, there are a boat load of scenes that take place after Pa Kent dies(about 1 hours worth). Some full of laughs some of violence some of tears, but all in themselves influenced by things that may not directly tie into Kents death. Scenes about other relevant and thematic story points.
The scene in which Zod died ended with the "right" tone, if clark burst into laughter in that same scene or time frame you'd be onto something. The scenes after the attack, take place at a later time and are in relation to other things. The scene with Ma and Clark was about his father, her husband and that payoff. The scene with Lennox was about military action/procedure/lack of trust and relations going forward. The scene at the DP was about people moving on with their lives(because the terrorists were stopped and the world and city were saved much to the chagrin of the cynics), it was also about a the thematic payoff to clarks search of his place in the world, found in the last dialogue exchange.
Long story short, scenes are about things. After 911 not all my conversations were about the lives lost, some were about breakfast and school work. I don't fault you for wanting some more scenes about that particular issue but I don't fault the film for simply telling it's story. The scene at the end of Begins was about Rachel and Bruce and how he has become a hero and their history. Very much in the same way Martha and Clark shared a moment about similar things. Adding to the kent scene with "but what about all the death" would be like arguing that the BB scene needed to mention all of the above as well(cause batman killed, defied his no kill rule which rachel actually helped give him and lots of lives were lost).
Just saying. Another scene with a memorial at this point seems like playing into the hands of a conditioned audience imo. Just tell the story.

And no sir, the Avengers did nothing of the sort. But then the Avengers didn't claim to be all the deep s**t MoS was trying so hard to persuade me it was.

Don't remember MOS making any claims about anything. It was what it was.
I do think however it set a "grey area" tone in Pa Kent's responses to a few of Clarks simple conflicts.

Newp, I know exactly what I'm saying. "At all" sounds about right.

Thought so.
A hero cries after he kills someone or something and "at all" becomes hyperbole.

Don't get me wrong, what the Avengers did wasn't anywhere near enough to what I'd expect from a poignant aftermath scene. But it was *something*.

*at all*

 

[The Guard]

There was no gray area in MoS. It tried to come off as a movie that had one, but it never did. It was amoeba-like in its presentation and resolution of its... "themes". There was no "first contact" theme, there was no "nature vs. nurture" theme, there was no choice, there wasn't even consistency in Pa Kent's advice to Clark.

Sure there were. Superman killing Zod is probably the best example of the introduction of a gray area concept.

And you know why there was no consistency in Pa Kent's advice to Clark? Because that was one of the gray areas in the film. It's not meant to have a clear answer or morality to it.

Not even sure what you mean by there being no choice in the movie.

It's valid in your opinion, not in mine. Leaving it for the sequel is always a bad idea, to me. If it's not for you, bravo. And don't tell me there aren't other ways to convey it that are different from other films. Don't tell me a writer is getting paid thousands or millions to just not mention anything at all, because the only other alternative is to do it like other movies did it.

I never said it was the best choice, or that you have to like it, but it is a valid approach to storytelling. It's valid in that its an acceptable way to structure a screenplay or a mythology. It's been done before MOS, and it will be done after it.

1)The bolded part isn't even close to what I'm arguing. 2)I didn't even mention Batman's killings in the part of my quote that you posted, so I'm not sure what you're trying to do here.

I wasn't referring to just you. I would have thought that would have been clear when I used the phrase "how anyone can", and made a broad statement about a general argument people make. I was making my own seperate point, connected to the idea of things being swept under the rug.

However, I'll bite just this once: Dent was swept under the rag? The entire finale of TDK was about Dent's death and its reprecussions on Batman and Gordon and, ultimately, the city. He didn't, say... go out for a date with Selina Kyle (which was how many posters here wanted TDK to end, btw). It was all about Dent.

No, Dent's death wasn't swept under the rug. I said "Batman's killing Dent" was. The fact that Batman killed was pretty much ignored after an entire film spent exploring the idea.

Dent's death is incredibly relevant to the end of TDK. But there's not an ounce of exploration or resolution of the fact that Batman broke his "one rule" to kill his former ally. I suppose it could be argued that Batman's one rule is "Not executing people", but that's a pretty weak interpretation of Batman's no killing rule, because it allows Batman to kill anyone he "needs" to.

I suppose it could also be argued that Batman is paying his penance for killing Dent by taking the blame, but that's nowhere to be found in the film itself or in the character's reactions to events, and I suspect he would have done it anyway, if Gotham had needed it.

 

[EssayM]

Admittedly the way that was cut was poor but it's a 2 and a half hour movie you can't expect repercussions at the end of a film of that length. Personally I think a few lines of dialogue between Lois & Clark in the subway station after the scream would have gone a long way. But I don't dwell on it because I knew (or I'm expecting) them to address it in the sequel. I guess one thing you could say is that Superman had so much going on I don't think he had time to really dwell on it. Look at what they did in the comics after he killed the Zoners it wasn't over night he broke down, maybe the sequel will start with him having nightmares thinking back to what happened or something along those lines.

Fellowship was twice as long, had just as much if not more happening, and had just as much expectation of a sequel...and it had two major character deaths that didn't feel rushed and had the appropriate impact. Why didn't they "address it in the sequel"?

And while we're at it, there's another problem: not only does the kill in MOS go nowhere, it also comes out of nowhere. There's nothing anywhere else in the movie about Superman's resolve not to kill, nothing about "breaking your one rule" like in TDK, not even Pa Kent telling Clark something about every life being sacred. If you were going just by the movie, you would think that Supes could have killed Zod at any time and just never thought to do it before. It's anti-climactic and accomplishes nothing outside of getting fanboys' attention.

One last point: there's a reason Superman only kills as a last resort (besides basic morality): if he did kill readily, everyone would be dead. If he hadn't been brought up valuing human life, Superman could just win every battle by vaporizing anyone who opposed him. If you take that away, you have either a) the invincible space-god everyone always says he is, or b) a moron who never thinks of the obvious solution.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Umm.. I don't know about you, but my parents didn't lecture me about not killing, and I don't have an inner vow not to. I just don't expect to be in that situation in which I have to violently defend myself from harm (or my family later on).

I'm sure he didn't either, and part of that really troubled him.

Not everything has to be spelled out.

 

[The Guard]

Exactly.

Nor does everything we see in a film have to be set up previously in the movie. You do too much of that and you start to rob key moments of their impact. (Ending of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, I'm looking at you).

 

[Krumm]

Fellowship was twice as long, had just as much if not more happening, and had just as much expectation of a sequel...and it had two major character deaths that didn't feel rushed and had the appropriate impact. Why didn't they "address it in the sequel"?

And while we're at it, there's another problem: not only does the kill in MOS go nowhere, it also comes out of nowhere. There's nothing anywhere else in the movie about Superman's resolve not to kill, nothing about "breaking your one rule" like in TDK, not even Pa Kent telling Clark something about every life being sacred. If you were going just by the movie, you would think that Supes could have killed Zod at any time and just never thought to do it before. It's anti-climactic and accomplishes nothing outside of getting fanboys' attention.

One last point: there's a reason Superman only kills as a last resort (besides basic morality): if he did kill readily, everyone would be dead. If he hadn't been brought up valuing human life, Superman could just win every battle by vaporizing anyone who opposed him. If you take that away, you have either a) the invincible space-god everyone always says he is, or b) a moron who never thinks of the obvious solution.

While I love the moment and found it immensely powerful, I have found this is the case with some friends who have seen it. They enjoyed the film but wondered why Superman just didn't kill him to begin with. However, I think they like the moment for wrong reasons if you know what I mean.

Regardless, I think they may have relied on the audience's knowledge of Superman too much as an emotional backdrop to the scene, which works for me because I'm a huge fan and deeply invested, but it may have rang hollow with others -- especially in a more cynical society.

As for your last point, I feel like it's contradicting your second point about the no-kill rule not being set up. I may be mis-reading it.

 

[Marvin]

One last point: there's a reason Superman only kills as a last resort (besides basic morality): if he did kill readily, everyone would be dead. If he hadn't been brought up valuing human life, Superman could just win every battle by vaporizing anyone who opposed him. If you take that away, you have either a) the invincible space-god everyone always says he is, or b) a moron who never thinks of the obvious solution.

Last time I checked, Superman killing zod was a last resort. One he kindly asked Zod "not to make him do".
I'm confused why less and less people seem to realize this. My estimate: Years of having a back door always readily available(except for the times where their wasn't).

This no killing being basic morality unless as last resort thing we ask of our heroes... The more time I spend here the more it seems this is only a heroic failing when applied to Superman and no one else. All the heroes are killing as first and last resort these days, Cap, Spidey, Bats, Gandolf, Will Smith, Abe lincoln and even superman himself. It's an odd double standard being placed on this film alone. Worst part is, this is one one that may have artistic justification to explore the theme honestly.

a shame.

 

[Tempest]

Don't get me wrong. I found it immensely emotionally powerful. It rocked me to my very core.

That was what made my heart break with such extreme force.

Cavill's performance, the whole silence of the scene, the violence of it... it shocked the hell out of me.

But it was in a way that I never ever wanted a Superman story to make me feel. It was a moment of absolute defeat. Superman was broken.

But ultimately, despite that emotional moment, they painted it as the 'right' choice straight after...

It was such a weird thing to do. To show the very act of it in such a way that it makes you feel this sense of defeat, regret and loss, and then start talking about how proud JK would be of him and how Clark wishes he could have seen what he turned out to be...



My faith is shattered.

But you missed the point of the immediate moments after Clark killed Zod.

Yes, he's fallen to his knees. He's screamed out his anguish, he's in tears...

Hopeless. Shattered. Alone. Who would want to be near someone so dangerous?

And then...

Lois approaches him. Looks down at him with tears in her own eyes. She's feeling the pain of Clark's tremendous sacrifice, the weight of his actions.

And she reaches out for him then, without fear, without hesitation. He's sheltered, protected, loved.

Where I think the film messed up just a tad is that they should have had Martha and Clark talk in the cemetery a little more about what happened. She's carrying a newspaper in that scene, and in the novelization, she opens the newspaper to show him the headlines that talk about the destruction in Metropolis, and how he has been named Superman.

If they had left those few moments in the film, I think it would have been nice.

For my own personal desires, I got what I needed from the death of Zod, and the moments after that. Lois sheltering Clark as he sobs is in my top five favorite moments from movies. It pinged everything just right for me.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I'd only considered Superman killing Zod out of character if he spit on the ground, dusted off his hands, and walked away saying, "That's that." But he did nothing like that. Superman's action was not out of character -- it was about building character.

I'd have preferred it had he finished with a witty pun.

"Well, that was a snap".

 

[Krumm]

I'd have preferred it had he finished with a witty pun.

"Well, that was a snap".

I'll take it!

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I'd have preferred it had he finished with a witty pun.

"Well, that was a snap".

Then it would have gotten slightly better reviews

 

[EssayM]

Exactly.

Nor does everything we see in a film have to be set up previously in the movie. You do too much of that and you start to rob key moments of their impact. (Ending of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, I'm looking at you).

The things that matter do. When it's something as game-changing as an American icon killing a dude, you can't just blindside the audience with it and then wait two years to address it. That doesn't mean you have to do a TDKR and show the ending in advance (I'm assuming that's what you were referring to). There's a happy medium between the two that can be found. It's all about subtlety.

While I love the moment and found it immensely powerful, I have found this is the case with some friends who have seen it. They enjoyed the film but wondered why Superman just didn't kill him to begin with. However, I think they like the moment for wrong reasons if you know what I mean.

Regardless, I think they may have relied on the audience's knowledge of Superman too much as an emotional backdrop to the scene, which works for me because I'm a huge fan and deeply invested, but it may have rang hollow with others -- especially in a more cynical society.

As for your last point, I feel like it's contradicting your second point about the no-kill rule not being set up. I may be mis-reading it.

That does make sense. Of course, the problem with that approach is that the audience becomes limited to hardcore fans. A good film should be universal.

As for your confusion, I probably should have clarified: my last point was about the Superman universe in general, where as my second point was specifically about MOS.

 

[The Riddler]

batman killing his villains would, by law, be justified. batman doesn't kill for moral/personal reasons.

 

[Shikamaru]

batman killing his villains would, by law, be justified. batman doesn't kill for moral/personal reasons.

That depends entirely on where people live. Gotham City is meant to be the dark side of NYC and is located somewhere in the northeast. The death penalty is not legal in those parts of the country for the most part.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

That depends entirely on where people live. Gotham City is meant to be the dark side of NYC and is located somewhere in the northeast. The death penalty is not legal in those parts of the country for the most part.

nor is it ever legal for an ordinary, undeputized citizen to do without a fair trial, judge and jury.

 

[herolee10]

Honestly, if put under a realistic situation, the fact that Gotham's Justice system wouldn't have executed the likes of the Joker and most of the dangerous criminals that Batman has sent to prison would be appalling, especially with the number of times that they've escaped from captivity and caused more havoc.

Now i know the reason why they're not killed off in the comics like that is because the writers want them to be recurring villains for the titular character, but I'm just saying that if it was real life, and they still approached it like that, then Gotham is more responsible for the deaths that occur by those villains for every time that they escape.