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

[Tempest]

He didn't make the other Flash vibrate himself to death. The other Flash just volunteered for it and Batman went along with it. I wouldn't count that as a murder.

No, he told our Flash that he was too slow. I distinctly remember that. He preyed on the ego of the other Flash, because he knew it would work -- and it did.

 

[BH/HHH]

No, he told our Flash that he was too slow. I distinctly remember that. He preyed on the ego of the other Flash, because he knew it would work -- and it did.

Yes he did, he knew what could happen and he let it happen but I suppose existence itself was at risk lol

 

[Tempest]

Yes he did, he knew what could happen and he let it happen but I suppose existence itself was at risk lol

My point wasn't that he was wrong to do it, necessarily...just that he doesn't exactly have the high ground when it comes to this, "I don't kill" policy people keep bringing up.

Of all the DC characters, I think he's the one who would understand most what Clark did in MOS, and why...and I would think he'd support it.

So I really hope it's not the idea that Clark killed someone that has him and Clark butting heads in the next film. I hope it's because Bruce sees him as someone who is dangerous and uncontrollable that puts him at odds with Clark at first.

 

[BH/HHH]

My point wasn't that he was wrong to do it, necessarily...just that he doesn't exactly have the high ground when it comes to this, "I don't kill" policy people keep bringing up.

Of all the DC characters, I think he's the one who would understand most what Clark did in MOS, and why...and I would think he'd support it.

So I really hope it's not the idea that Clark killed someone that has him and Clark butting heads in the next film. I hope it's because Bruce sees him as someone who is dangerous and uncontrollable that puts him at odds with Clark at first.

Oh I agree with you

 

[Shikamaru]

My point wasn't that he was wrong to do it, necessarily...just that he doesn't exactly have the high ground when it comes to this, "I don't kill" policy people keep bringing up.

Of all the DC characters, I think he's the one who would understand most what Clark did in MOS, and why...and I would think he'd support it.

So I really hope it's not the idea that Clark killed someone that has him and Clark butting heads in the next film. I hope it's because Bruce sees him as someone who is dangerous and uncontrollable that puts him at odds with Clark at first.

I disagree. Out of all superheroes to exist, Batman's no-kill policy is more important to him than it is to any other superhero. I wrote this a few pages ago:

The claim that "Batman not killing is BS" is BS in-and-of-itself. Out of all the superheroes in comics, the no-kill rule is more important to Batman than any other superhero and it forms who he is as a person more than any other superhero. This includes even Superman.

The vast majority of other superheroes don't kill simply because they're superheroes and killing is bad...because they're superheroes. It doesn't work that way for Batman. The reason for why he does not kill and does not use guns is engrained into his character. These two things have molded him and his mythos in a way that they haven't molded any other character and his mythos.

There are so many reasons for why this is the case that requires me to get into the entire essence and philosophy behind Batman and his mythos but I'll keep it simple: Notice how often the no-kill theme plays a roll in Batman stories. In most other superhero stories, it is there but is more concealed and only comes out once in a while throughout their stories. In Batman stories, the theme is constantly there and is in many ways the very core of many stories. Also notice how much controversy and disgust a lot of people have for Batman not killing the Joker. Some people have even said that they can't stand Batman altogether because of that. When you think about it, shouldn't they feel this way about most superheroes since it is a known fact that most superheroes don't kill? Yet barely anyone critiques Superman and Spider-Man for not killing Lex and the Green Goblin respectively, who are both far more dangerous than Joker in the first place. Batman gets so much more criticism in comparison to them for simply not killing a street-level psychopath. This is because, as I said (and I hate to say this since I really like both Spidey and Supes), there is no other superhero whose no-kill rule is as attached to the core of their being as it is to Batman.

When you make it ok for Batman to kill, you not only change him but you change his entire world. You completely alter the Batman/Joker dynamic. The Batman/Ra's dynamic. The Batman/Gordon dynamic. His friendship with Superman. The entire message behind vigilantism that comes with Batman. Robin's entire purpose for existing is gone. Everything about Batman as we know him and his world as we know it would completely change, and I don't think people realize this.

If you do not like the idea of Batman's no-kill rule being so attached to him, Batman is not a character that's meant for you in the same way how the Punisher is not a character aimed at people who don't like the idea of superheroes killing. I am not trying to offend anyone for saying this, but it is essentially true and there is nothing wrong with that. There is no comic book character that can be targeted and loved by everyone. That's not to say that you can't be bothered once in a while or have disturbing thoughts here and there about Batman's decision to spare the Joker (we all have those sometimes, even the hardcore fans) but if it constantly disturbs you to the point that it affects your overall enjoyment of Batman content and your overall opinion of Batman, then Batman is not a character designed to appeal to you personally.

As a side note, I find it very interesting how much criticism Batman gets for his methods from a political point of view. It seems that left-wings always critique him for having methods that are too extreme while right-wings critique him more for not having methods extreme enough.

Also, the claim that Batman is sparing the Joker for selfish reasons is not really true. In a way, he is keeping Gotham and the whole world more safe. That may sound ridiculous, but allow me to explain.

Psychologically speaking, Batman is a monster in human form. Bruce Wayne has intentionally transformed himself into such a larger-than-life creature. As Dennis O'Neil and Frank Miller once said, the interesting thing about Batman is that he is a monster but is on the good side. This same creature that is currently on our side walks on the edge of insanity every night. The only thing keeping him away from crossing that line - a line very thin when it comes to someone like Batman - is his no-kill rule. From the moment he breaks that rule, he has crossed that line. If he justifies one murder, he will be able to do it again.

That is where the issue with Batman killing arises. Batman is no cop. If a cop was to murder someone, he would still be bound by the laws of the legal system that would prevent him from crossing that line. And even if the cop did cross that line, it would barely have any effect because cop are just ordinary people with limits.

On the other hand, Batman does not have those luxuries. He answers to no one and is a larger-than-life creature not bound by human limits. Think about what it would mean if someone like Batman went around killing people. He is the world's greatest detective. Arguably the world's greatest tactician. Arguably the most obsessed and most motivated superhero in the DC universe to get the job done. Has prepared contingency plans to take down any member of the JLA if they were to go rogue. Is this really someone you would want to go around deciding who gets to live and who gets to die? Imagine the danger that would come from that. There would be very little people could do to stop Batman in that situation.

On top of that, it is not Batman's job to kill the Joker in the first place. He set out to stop crimes from happening. Once he stopped the crime at hand, he lets the (honest) police take care of the rest. It is entirely up to the Gotham City Hall what happens from that point on and whether or not the Joker gets to live. And if the Joker got the death penalty tomorrow, Batman would have no problem with it (yes, I know there is a story where the Joker got the death penalty and Batman intervened but I found it to be very out of character).

 

[Tempest]

I disagree. Out of all superheroes to exist, Batman's no-kill policy is more important to him than it is to any other superhero. I wrote this a few pages ago:

If Batman had never killed, you'd have more ground to stand on.

The thing is, Batman and Superman both try to avoid casualties when they can. And Batman especially holds Superman to that line, but I think they both know that at times, there are no other options.

Here's the kicker though: They never ask of others what they won't do themselves. Both of them have sacrificed themselves for the world. And they've both taken lives, but have stopped others from killing.

They hold the line...but they've known when to cross it too -- and never, never is it done lightly or without thought. I hate it when people try to minimize what a huge decision it is to take another life by saying, "it's lazy writing", or "there's always a way".

Easy enough to say when you're not putting your heart and soul on the line, I suppose.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

If Batman had never killed, you'd have more ground to stand on.

The thing is, Batman and Superman both try to avoid casualties when they can. And Batman especially holds Superman to that line, but I think they both know that at times, there are no other options.

Here's the kicker though: They never ask of others what they won't do themselves. Both of them have sacrificed themselves for the world. And they've both taken lives, but have stopped others from killing.

They hold the line...but they've known when to cross it too -- and never, never is it done lightly or without thought. I hate it when people try to minimize what a huge decision it is to take another life by saying, "it's lazy writing", or "there's always a way".

Easy enough to say when you're not putting your heart and soul on the line, I suppose.

Wait, who has Batman killed in canon?

 

[Tempest]

Wait, who has Batman killed in canon?

I guess it depends on your view of canon. The current Batman has not killed anyone (yet, that I know of), but historically speaking, yes, Batman has killed.

But if you must know, the earliest Batman killed people (he snapped someone's neck). And in the film Crisis on Two Earths, he used his conniving mind to get the other Flash to literally vibrate himself to death so that our Flash wouldn't have to. I guess we pretend those didn't happen in order to make sure that we have the warmer, fuzzier version of Batman to look up to.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link to the comic book page. -bounces off to read Da Rulez again-

 

[The Guard]

Darkseid? (He tried).

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I guess it depends on your view of canon. The current Batman has not killed anyone (yet, that I know of), but historically speaking, yes, Batman has killed.

But if you must know, the earliest Batman killed people (he snapped someone's neck). And in the film Crisis on Two Earths, he used his conniving mind to get the other Flash to literally vibrate himself to death so that our Flash wouldn't have to. I guess we pretend those didn't happen in order to make sure that we have the warmer, fuzzier version of Batman to look up to.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link to the comic book page. -bounces off to read Da Rulez again-

How old are these comics where he snapped someones neck? I mean, generally speaking that old stuff is canon, but Superman couldn't fly in his first few dozen appearances and Spider-Man was Peter Palmer for an entire issue. So I take those things with a grain of salt.

The point is, with his rule Batman is (in most people's opinion) a stronger character. Maybe not a more realistic character. But in my personal opinion a far more fascinating one.

EDIT: I have no source for saying "most people's opinion" it's merely conjecture.

 

[Tempest]

Darkseid? (He tried).

Bless Google, and Cracked, for making my life so much easier:

The 6 Most Brutal Murders Committed by Batman: http://www.cracked.com/article_20111_the-6-most-brutal-murders-committed-by-batman.html

There's also a fabulous article about what Batman and Superman could do when they team up together: http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-superman-vs.-batman-comic-storylines-movie-should-keep/

Ah, my boys in action. Makes you feel good to love them, doesn't it?

 

[Tempest]

How old are these comics where he snapped someones neck? I mean, generally speaking that old stuff is canon, but Superman couldn't fly in his first few dozen appearances and Spider-Man was Peter Palmer for an entire issue. So I take those things with a grain of salt.

The point is, with his rule Batman is (in most people's opinion) a stronger character. Maybe not a more realistic character. But in my personal opinion a far more fascinating one.

EDIT: I have no source for saying "most people's opinion" it's merely conjecture.

It's cool. And most of the comics are old, old, old, so yeah, I know. They don't necessarily count as the current 'canon', but to brush aside the history and nature of Batman does a disservice to his character.

He's a moderately crazy, paranoid bastard with a truckload of issues that he deals with by using his white privilege to beat up on other crazy people with truckloads of issues. And I wouldn't have him any other way.

And I'm not saying Batman isn't compelling or fascinating. I'm just the rude brat who likes to ruin the shine on the characters by pointing out that they are not perfect beings who do everything right -- and I prefer them to be a little filthy in spirit and deed anyway. If they screw up, and still manage to get their act together enough to save the world, it means we can do the same, right? Yeah!

 

[The Guard]

Yes, the whole direction of the scene (script-wise) was wrong from its basis. The question "Was dad proud, mom" shouldn't have been asked at all, imo.

That’s not what the scene is even about. He didn’t ask whether his dad would have been proud. I've seen it twice and I don’t think he said anything like that at all. Clark said something along the lines of “I wish dad could have seen it”. Meaning "I wish Dad was here", and "I wish Dad could have seen the purpose for me being here at last revealed".

To which she replied that his father DID see it. Visually conveyed, we're shown that his father saw his potential to be a hero.

Which subtley legitimizes his father’s sacrifice, and serves as a callback to it even without them discussing it.

1.MoS WAS supposed to be the movie about that. Per Goyer and Snyder themselves.

Which quotes are you referring to, exactly?

2.Yes, the military doesn't trust him, it was pretty clear. But what was set up by the film wasn't implying it was just going to be the military. Plus, I wanted to see the rest of the people reacting to him (and, dare I say, I could care less about the military angle). And I got none of that. I don't think that's subtlety at all.[/quote]

The rest of the world hasn’t really met Superman yet. By any reasonable standard, they'd have no clue what to make of him.

And rather than a bunch of random reaction shots saying that, a la Raimi's Spider-Man, The Avengers, and seemingly every other comic book movie ever made, I’d rather an entire film that deals with just that concept. What in the world do we make of this alien who came among us so suddenly, with such great powers?

That wasn't this film's purpose. This purpose was the creation of Superman.

Yes, yes, I already covered the "life goes on thing" and I'd agree with that in principle. Heck, it's very important. Again, I'm talking execution here. Humour was misplaced, imo. I didn't want people crying all the damn time after Zod time, I hope I'm not giving that impression.

I don’t understand why you think its misplaced, though. If it was in the same SCENE as the more sobering elements, yes, it would be. Adding some levity after a downer of a sequence or a serious sequence is Screenwriting and Storytelling 101.
It’s not really even supposed to be that funny. It’s really just one more moment to characterize Lombard, to remind us that he's part of the Planet before Perry assigns Clark to him and Lois upon his arrival.

So, we have: Lois kissing him, the military being lukewarm to willing to accept him and his mother thinknig he's a hero. If that's subtle and, moreover, enough for you, I'm glad. It completely misses the point, imo.

What point is it missing, exactly?

We have a lot more than “Lois kissing him”. We have Lois kissing him, comforting him in his grief, welcoming him to his new job in his new mission. We have the military at odds with him but a dialogue of sorts being established, and yes, his mother thinks he’s a hero. Is that so bad? Whereas, in say, BATMAN BEGINS, we have pretty much no idea how Gotham City, the cops, etc feel about Batman after the events of the finale.

What did Perry say or do with regard to Superman?

You didn’t see the sequence that pretty much revolved around “Can you imagine how people would react to something like this?”

Lois was willing to trust him for some reason (aka she's Lois and she likes Superman, you know, from the comics).

Or maybe because, you know, he went around saving lives, saved her life, did nothing at all to prove himself untrustworthy…

Come on now.

And Jonathan? Classic Goyer "tell, don't show.

Except that the film did show humanity initially fearing him, to the point where the military had him in cuffs, containment, and was preparing a tranq sedative. They showed the apprehension of humanity in no uncertain terms. They just did it through the lens of the military, as the only group that would really be equipped to oppose him. Because, I assume, we hadn't seen that angle before in a Superman film.

Because if the movie really wants to explore gray areas, his actions should be considered more ambiguous, even by his own mother (since they didn't show any normal people, nor did they need to, according to you

I don’t see how saving the world is that ambiguous a concept.

His specific actions in doing so WERE presented as ambiguous in the context of those specific actions (killing Zod).

Hey, gray areas, remember? Not everyone will see it that way. and I certainly didn't want to be told this via the military.

"Gray areas" doesn’t mean that ideas have to be mutually exclusive. Gray areas allow for multiple truths, and for someone to be a hero even if they did something considered wrong or immoral.

I don't care about Superman killing. It's the one good thing to come out of MoS, I've said it before.

And, on a completely personal note, I do not idolize cops and the army. At all. I work a day job, I live a normal life and I see rallies where normal people clash with cops all the time, especially all this time. If a "superheroic" figure came along, I'd be very dubious. And that's, more or less, what I wanted from MoS (and that's what was hinted by Goyer). Not the view of the army, who sometimes take lives in the name of duty, of a person who sometimes takes a life in the name of duty. Am I making any sense? I want the juxtaposition of normal people vs superhero, "low level" stuff (even if we have "high level" stakes).

So do I. It's a part of what makes Superman interesting. But I don’t need it in every film, or at every turn in Superman's story.

Just like I can wait for more on the Daily Planet, Metropolis itself, Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen, Kryptonite, etc, I can wait for that incredibly important concept to be tackled. It was introduced here. We saw the first point of contact between Superman and humanity via the military, since this movie was Superman dealing with the military and Kryptonians.

The last think I'd want was to see Clark feeling guilty. I would've liked him to be more skeptical and not so quick to accept the "protector of the Earth" mantle. Superman's supposed to be a beacon of hope and in this movie he's far from that. And I LIKE that, don't get me wrong. I just wish his mom didn't act like he was. Am I getting the contradiction through to you?

I don't think Superman necessarily HAS accepted the mantle of protector of the Earth. He may not even fully understand what that entails yet.

How you cannot see what happens regarding Superman as the birth of a beacon of hope, even if he's not the beacon of hope he eventually becomes, is beyond me.

There’s no contradiction there. There’s what you wanted to see, VS what’s actually in the movie. That’s a question of preference, not a question of screenwriting issues or inconsistencies.

Sure, but that grand fashion (I agree, btw) was more about the fact the he burned the bridges to Krypton than anything about what happened to Metropolis and Smallville (even the Smallville aftermath was a bit touched on via Martha's house getting rebuilt, I found that satisfying enough).

It’s pretty clear that it’s mostly to do with what he’s just done. It can be interpreted in a couple of ways though, that's the beauty of the sequence.

Sure, he found his place in the world as Clark Kent, reporter, but as Superman? That's where the movie fails, to me.

Superman isn’t fully formed. It would never be that simple for Superman to find his place in the world. Hell, Clark Kent isn’t fully formed. Pretty sure that’s the point of the franchise as it unfolds.

Emotions. Relationships. Lois and Clark. Jonathan and Clark. Jor-El and Clark. Zod and Superman. I'll give you Martha and Clark, but that was mostly the acting that saved the script.

As far as Jonathan and Clark, Jor-El and Clark, Zod and Superman...can you elaborate?

Lois and Clark don’t have a relationship yet, at least in terms of a romantic one.

They have a friendship and an attraction. The reasons for that are found throughout the film. They are very much earned in a story and character sense.

And I saw none of that in MoS. Glad you did. All I saw was Goyer desperately trying to keep his WB employment by giving them what gave them money in 2005, even if that money came long-term. I saw a formula that failed to work again.

Then I really don’t think you were looking. It’s pretty much inherent visually, let alone in the dialogue/expository elements.

They're required to by me. If you show me people running away from disaster in Mike Bay fashion, you sure as hell should show them coming to terms with the brave new post-Superman world.

Why?

As if Michael Bay invented people running from things...

I’m pretty sure that’s going to be the focus of the sequel. Which is as it should be. Why rush a massive concept like that into the end of a movie?

Way I see it, they only do the latter. Which is the film's fallacy, to me.

Then again, you weren’t paying that much attention. We can discuss specifics if you want.

I'd agree, if they cocepts they kept preaching about didn't take up a quarter of the screentime. Bruce mentioned he wanted to become a symbol on the plane as a direct continuation of Ra's' advice in prison. And it served (in 2 lines, no less) the story by having Bruce choosing a mask as the means to fight injustice.

In MoS, they keep saying the same thing over and over (hello "fear" in BB) and there's no real payoff.

What do they keep saying over and over?

"Hope"?

They say it like three times. And once it’s Superman repeating what Jor-El told him it means.

The payoff is quite clearly the creation of Superman and the evolution of Clark's mission on Earth.

Every time he nudges him to make a choice about the kind of man he'll be, he undoes it by "You have to keep this side of yourself a secret".

And, in retrospect, the only choice Clark would have to make would be whether he'd reveal himself or not (to which Pa clearly objected).

Not once was the "good or bad" part of this setup mentioned again ("good or bad" in this case implied "go with Kryptonians or save humans").

No he doesn’t.

Jonathan only tells Clark he has to keep this side of him a secret once. He then tells him that he will need to decide what to do with his powers, and choose whether to stand for humanity, or his own kind, once he discovers who he is.

Every time Clark decides to do something he is making a choice.

Pa didn't object to Clark revealing himself. He modifies his objection to explain to Clark that he objects to Clark revealing himself before he knows his purpose.

Gray area, to me, is when you do something you're sure of, or that it makes sense, even though it's morally (as in: morals set by society) questionable. Clark sure as hell knew what he was doing when he killed Zod. It's quite clear, however, why it's gray area. Not so with Pa's schizo advice.

Gray area has different meanings. It's a gray area.

Doing something that is questionable morally or logically is a gray area.
Pa’s advice follows the same pattern. He feels he’s doing the right thing, even though morally it may not be the best option.

That's why it's vintage poor storytelling. Kryptonian is who he is. He found his people, the next best thing after his biological parents.

Which has no bearing on who he has been all his life.

It would be nothing but forced, illogical, unbelieveable melodrama in context.

He may be Kryptonian, but his psychological and social associations are with Earth.

If Goyer's interview claims had any weight, then Zod would have been written in a way that would have made Clark think twice about saving Earth. THAT'S gray area.

Umm…I get where you're going with that, but...that's not Superman in any sense. Killing is one thing. Letting an entire race be eliminated at once if he can avoid it...no.

THAT would make the military and real people even more suspicious and uneasy on Clark (a la STAS with Darkseid controlling Superman, but without the shotcut of mind control, you know, actual adult compelling drama).

That also would be fairly hard to swallow on any real level.

Instead, we get the "Clark, I'm Zod, I regret killing your dad, but I'm all but a robot, so are all the Kryptonians, so go ahead and fight with us". Does Clark's choice make sense within that setup? Sure. Is it compelling? No, sir, not to me. It's a nice way for Clark to solve everything with his fists, but it's not subtle, or deep in the slightest. I do applaud Goyer for finding the best shortcut to apologize for SR's actual gray areas and certainly deeper storytelling (as much as I don't really like SR), though.

I don’t think Clark’s “choice” with regard to Krypton or Earth was ever meant to be compelling, which is why when he destroys the ship, it is played so quickly in the story.

It was never in doubt. He had already decided. He decides right away to protect Earth, his adopted home over an essentially dead race.

What logical reason would he have to do anything else?

The uncertainty over his heritage is where Clark’s conflict comes in, not choosing between the two. Clark obviously would have preferred, like Jor-El, for them to coexist.

Hm, and right before that you're asking why he should have been conflicted about his heritage. Another case of sloppy writing. Sure, let's honor the thing we don't give a s**t about.

I was saying “Why should he be conflicted over choosing Earth VS Krypton”?

It’s not that he doesn’t value his heritage. He clearly does, per the events of the film.

Which is just a natural progression of what he'd been doing so far.

Eh, it's a pretty drastic change from what he’d been doing, at least in terms of its visibility. He was hiding what he could do and his presence on Earth.

I'm unsure why you're splitting hairs on this point. Your argument was that it was a small thing.

Well, big whoop. It's a superhero movie where the superhero saves the world. Doesnt' excuse that there's no compelling drama (as promised) in the meantime.

I saw some compelling drama. It was just superhero drama. Because it’s a superhero movie.

I knew arguing with you would at some point come to that kind of comment. I'm sorry I wasn't proven wrong. I hope you can refrain from that in your next reply or replies. If not, let me know, so it can end sooner than later.

No, we're not going to play that game. You said this:

Basically, things happened without real reason. Because we know Superman wears a suit, we know Superman protects Earth, we know Superman kisses Lois. So Goyer went "A to B to C", instead of "C because of B, because of C". No internal world logic.

Implying that you did not see or know the reasons these things happened within the film. Or you would not have stated that there were none, correct?

There are reasons those things happened in the film. Legitimate story and character reasons.

If you do not know them, then I must assume, per your statement, that you either cannot figure them out or that you missed them in the film. So I stated as much.

If you can figure them out or did not miss them, what is the point in suggesting that they happen without reason in the first place?

No, that's what the movie actually said "Save people cos it's the right thing". I wanted to be shown reasons why he chooses Earth over Krypton, why he chooses to save people, secretly or publicly. You know, because the 1st aact of the movie promised me that.

Superman has never been about choosing Earth over Krypton. There's little logic to making that choice, from a storytelling or character standpoint. That seems like forced melodrama for the sake of forced melodrama to me.

To introduce a concept like that would have presented an illogical situation for Superman to buy into, and at that point, the “Superman” in him collapses.
That issue has never been his definining conflict. He has never made the “either/or” choice if he could help it.

Zod tried to make him do so, and he rejected him immediately. That's Superman.

No, I wanted someone to show me. Even a hint of chemistry would have done the job. Someone should tell Snyder that panting and grunting before or after a kiss is just a substitute of chemistry. Subtle, because Snyder is good at doing sexy, but a substitute nonetheless.

You realize these two were onscreen together prior to that sequence, right? There were several sequences with existing chemistry and a budding relationship/friendship.

But yeah, what MoS showed me was at best that these 2 could be trusting friends.

Which is pretty much exactly where they should be in their relationship at this point.

Except that they like each other. Which is a completely legitimate thing to portray.

I'll rephrase then: "It's used by pros, so deal with it".

You can have your opinion about what's best all day long.

But if you’re going to legitimately criticize screenwriting, or any art form, especially a professional's work in a professional industry, then you’ve got to have more than “It’s not my personal preference”.

 

[The Guard]

Bless Google, and Cracked, for making my life so much easier:

The 6 Most Brutal Murders Committed by Batman: http://www.cracked.com/article_20111_the-6-most-brutal-murders-committed-by-batman.html

There's also a fabulous article about what Batman and Superman could do when they team up together: http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-superman-vs.-batman-comic-storylines-movie-should-keep/

Ah, my boys in action. Makes you feel good to love them, doesn't it?

Please tell me that the one where he cuts Dick Grayson's head off with a hatchet from THE DARK KNIGHT STRKES AGAIN is in there...

Poo, it's not.

There's also a good one from a LEGENDS OF THE DARK KNIGHT run by Mike Mignola where he kicks a guy backward onto some iron spikes and the dude impales himself.

 

[Tempest]

Please tell me that the one where he cuts Dick Grayson's head off with a hatchet from THE DARK KNIGHT STRKES AGAIN is in there...

Poo, it's not.

There's also a good one from a LEGENDS OF THE DARK KNIGHT run by Mike Mignola where he kicks a guy backward onto some iron spikes and the dude impales himself.

Who says gratuitous violence can't be fun? I still haven't recovered from the Batman and Superman saga where they built robot doubles and tortured them with robots of their dead parents. Boyz have issues, that's all I'm saying.

Neck-snapping Batman is clearly not as emotional or gut-wrenching as Neck-snapping MOS Superman: http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Ratso/media/batman_cossack.jpg.html

 

[Shikamaru]

I guess it depends on your view of canon. The current Batman has not killed anyone (yet, that I know of), but historically speaking, yes, Batman has killed.

But if you must know, the earliest Batman killed people (he snapped someone's neck). And in the film Crisis on Two Earths, he used his conniving mind to get the other Flash to literally vibrate himself to death so that our Flash wouldn't have to. I guess we pretend those didn't happen in order to make sure that we have the warmer, fuzzier version of Batman to look up to.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link to the comic book page. -bounces off to read Da Rulez again-

We are talking about the current Batman in this discussion. This particular Batman does not kill. The Earth-Two Batman from the 1930's/40's comics that did kill was established to exist in a separate universe from the current Batman. The current comics version of Batman - the most well known and most established version and also the version we'll probably see adapted on the big screen - does not kill. Doing an alternate universe Batman is a whole other story but when doing a story that takes place in the mainstream comics universe or is an adaptation of the Batman in the mainstream comics universe, killing is taboo for Batman.

I still wouldn't consider what he did in "JL: Crisis on Two Earths" to be murder. However, even if it was, what exactly is your point? If I was to make an animated film meant to be based on the Modern Age Batman of today's mainstream comics but had Batman wear lipstick and dress in pink in the film, would you argue the same thing if someone made a thread titled "Is Batman justified to wear lipstick and dress in pink while fighting crime?". No. It should be shrugged off as an out-of-character/inaccurate representation of the version of Batman they are displaying on the screen and then we should move on. Doing a mistake once does not justify someone else to do it again. Quite the opposite. Mistakes are meant to be learned from.

 

[Tempest]

We are talking about the current Batman in this discussion. This particular Batman does not kill. The Earth-Two Batman from the 1930's/40's comics that did kill was established to exist in a separate universe from the current Batman. The current comics version of Batman - the most well known and most established version and also the version we'll probably see adapted on the big screen - does not kill. Doing an alternate universe Batman is a whole other story but when doing a story that takes place in the mainstream comics universe or is an adaptation of the Batman in the mainstream comics universe, killing is taboo for Batman.

Unless we get a whole new Batman, like we got a whole new Superman for MOS. Which would make the most sense.

I don't give a fig if this version of Batman is the most established or well-known. Batman has killed. End of story.

I still wouldn't consider what he did in "JL: Crisis on Two Earths" to be murder.

I didn't say murder (although it's pretty much exactly that). What exactly would you call it then? I'm vastly interested to hear you justify those actions away in order to keep your Knight shiny and squeaky clean.

What Batman did was trick another man into doing something that HE KNEW would be dangerous. He let the man go through with the plan without telling him, "Hey, you're going to do this, and it will probably kill you. Just thought you'd like to know."

He did that in a calculating, cool manner, without apology. I would say that probably amounts to first degree murder right there. You don't have to pull the trigger to be guilty of murder. Some leeway can be granted, considering that the universe or whatever was about to be destroyed, and casualties in war and times of crisis are to be expected.

Still, it was a bastard move on the part of Batman.

However, even if it was, what exactly is your point?

My understanding is that the film is part of the continuity of this Batman. Which means the statement that Batman doesn't kill simply does not apply.

Besides, what's YOUR point? MOS set up a new universe, so it's likely that we'll get a different take on Batman, which renders your argument moot.

If I was to make an animated film meant to be based on the Modern Age Batman of today's mainstream comics but had Batman wear lipstick and dress in pink in the film, would you argue the same thing if someone made a thread titled "Is Batman justified to wear lipstick and dress in pink while fighting crime?".

Careful there. Your intolerance is showing.

And yes, I would argue that Batman is justified to fight crime however he chooses to. If he wants to wear a fancy frock and glass slippers, more power to him. Who am I to judge what anyone wants to wear?

Besides, I love Sissy Maids, transgender, and cross-dressers, so that sort of thing is totally up my ally.

To be frank, the suggestion that a man wearing pink or lipstick is a horrible thing, is quite frankly, a little too close to bashing a vulnerable segment of society for my taste. Perhaps you didn't intend it to be a slur against someone, but you need to check yourself before you post that sort of thing.

Find a better argument. Preferably one that doesn't insult people.

No. It should be shrugged off as an out-of-character/inaccurate representation of the version of Batman they are displaying on the screen and then we should move on. Doing a mistake once does not justify someone else to do it again. Quite the opposite. Mistakes are meant to be learned from.

No, what it would mean is that YOU wouldn't like it...but that doesn't mean that it's OOC or inaccurate. It just means that you have a closed mind and an inability to view the character in a different light.

It's an interesting debate, but the fact remains that it's in canon now that Batman has killed. Like it or not, it's there, it happened. You don't get to cherry-pick your canon based on what you like most and what you like least.

I mean, you totally can pick and choose your canon. It doesn't make you correct in your statements, however. You lose all credibility when you complain that the canon doesn't match with what you want. Sorry, thems the breaks of fandom. You take the bad with the good, and deal with it.

So, the point is:

Batman has killed, both in other worlds, and in this current world. To have Batman be able to be sympathetic with Clark's plight in MOS would not be wildly OOC. It would especially be fine if it was hammered home to Batman that Clark has no training in battle, that Clark was up against tremendous odds, and if he understands what a terrible toll it took on Clark to do such a thing.

Anyone with a heart would be able to grant Clark some compassion and leniency. So I'm hoping that the writers will spare us a "Batman lectures Clark about how killing is wrong", especially since we saw that Clark was devastated by what he had to do.

 

[The Riddler]

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.

i'm not talking about the death penalty. batman can easily allege self-defense, which allows any person to legally respond to deadly force in kind. self-defense is a pretty widely accepted affirmative defense to murder.

 

[The Riddler]

Can I just point out that the reason that Batman's villains haven't been executed in the comics is that they're considered insane. It's not that the death penalty doesn't exist in the DC Universe or in Gotham City, it's that they're considered mentally ill, and this is their defense against the death penalty. There have been several stories that deal with this issue.

realistically, villains like the joker, ill or not, would be shot and killed before being apprehended.

as already stated, when people use deadly force, police or people threatened may respond with deadly force. if the joker is using a bomb, a gun, acid, or whatever he's up to, cops would kill him without hesitation. there is no "freeze!" like there is in the movies. if someone has a deadly weapon, has used it or clearly intends to use it, deadly force is totally justified.

 

[Asgard]

My point wasn't that he was wrong to do it, necessarily...just that he doesn't exactly have the high ground when it comes to this, "I don't kill" policy people keep bringing up.

Of all the DC characters, I think he's the one who would understand most what Clark did in MOS, and why...and I would think he'd support it.

So I really hope it's not the idea that Clark killed someone that has him and Clark butting heads in the next film. I hope it's because Bruce sees him as someone who is dangerous and uncontrollable that puts him at odds with Clark at first.

His no killing rule is about executions. He'll beat you to within an inch of your life but he will not murder you.

 

[Loki882]

No, of all the heroes in the DCU, Wonder Woman would probably be the one who understood the most what Clark did in MOS. Batman would be one of the most CRITICAL of what he did to Zod.

 

[Tempest]

His no killing rule is about executions. He'll beat you to within an inch of your life but he will not murder you.

You keep telling yourself that, sugar. I've seen otherwise, but it's clear that people are willing to ignore pieces of canon they don't like in order to support their shiny beliefs, so what else is there to say?

And who was talking about murder, really? We were discussing Batman's no-kill policy. What he faces, and what Superman faced in MOS were two totally different situations -- and when push comes to shove, Batman has chosen death for certain individuals.

And choosing not to kill is not necessarily the high ground here. How many people have been put at risk over and over because Batman doesn't put the Joker down when he has the chance? How many people have died, been injured or maimed because the Joker is alive?

Hooray for Batman that he doesn't kill. Too bad for the hundreds of lives wrecked and destroyed because of his emo idiocy.

FWIW, I do love Batman. But seriously...people are pitching fits because Superman killed, when Batman is just as responsible for bunches of lives being ruined, but he gets a pass because he doesn't kill? Feh, whatever. He doesn't get the moral high ground, no matter how awesome he (and others) thinks he is.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

New Earth Batman (Year One - Flashpoint) had killed and tried to kill, so had Superman.

 

[slumcat]

Honestly I have no problem at all with superheroes killing. None.

It's a job like any other and every job has its unpleasant aspects. If you are in the amry, you have to accept that at some point you might have to kill.

Superheroes are soldiers in a way, so IMO its OK to kill for them.

 

[Marvin]

I prefer the idealist superheros to only kill when they have no choice or way out.
MOS is different from the contemporary genre ilk in this simple approach, for me that's great.

Anyways, I only saw the animated movie(which I assume doesn't count) but did batman kill that owlman in similar fashion in the comics?