Based off of does not equal a carbon copy. Maybe he won't kill. BUT maybe he'd understand that in this very specific circumstance, Superman was justified.
This part of the argument makes no sense. If you believe that Batman as we know him - the Post-Crisis Batman of the Modern Age comics - would understand that what Superman in MOS did is justified, then by your own definition, the new Batman understanding this in the movie would not be out of character at all.
I'm not arguing that superheroes should indeed go about gleefully killing villains right and left. I'm arguing that in some instances, in some circumstances, superheroes will need, and indeed, are almost obligated to make a tough decision.
.......................................................
Cool. I don't have a problem with that. I only have a problem with the idea of using Batman to put Superman down for doing what he did in MOS. I don't appreciate or like this idea floating around that Batman is the morally superior guy, simply because he didn't kill, and Superman did.
I've even heard it suggested that Superman murdered Zod, when that is clearly not the case at all.
You are saying this from the perspective of a moviegoer. In the MOS universe, the only people that were there to witness what happened to Zod were Superman himself and those four people he saved (Lois only got there after). The rest of the world has no clue how Zod died and why he died in the first place. The only thing they know? Superman killed him. That and the fact that Zod was found with a broken neck next to Superman's body. Why would anyone (other than Lois and the people close to him) trust the alien with infinite power that the whole world fears at this point when he says that he had no choice but to kill him? This is especially true for Batman, who always mad major trust issues. Batman was not there to witness what happened and only has Superman's word on what happened. It makes logical sense for Batman to be a bit suspicious of Zod's death and to believe Superman is dangerous due to it.
Furthermore, Batman has many arguments to counter Superman's "I had no choice but to do it" statement. You've probably seen some of those same arguments on this site. How exactly did he
have to kill Zod in that situation? There are plenty of other things he could have done. He could have flew with him. He could've covered his eyes. Pull his head back so that he fries the ceiling instead of the people. The list goes on. Why didn't Superman do any of these things? Because he was stressed out, put under pressure, could not keep his cool or think rationally. Those things are perfectly normal human reactions and the vast majority of people would have reacted the same way if put into that situation. But Batman has always been a guy who remains calm and calculative even in the worst situations and, to an extent, views what Superman experienced in that moment as a weakness that people can exploit. Thus even if Batman knows exactly what happened in that museum, it would only be evidence for him that Superman lets pressure & his emotions get a hold of him and is thus dangerous having all that power.
That's fine. I get that. But people keep saying that Batman has NEVER killed. With that statement, I am assuming they are speaking about all Batman's, so we know, clearly, that this isn't true.
It goes without saying that, unless people specify otherwise, they are talking about the Post-Crisis Modern Age version of Batman whenever they talk about "Batman".
That is a matter of opinion. Batman is one of my favorite characters, but he's a f'cked up creeper half the time. My own head canon of him is a lot more fun than what he is on paper or on-screen. Unfortunately, my fanon isn't canon.
Maybe "perfection" was not the right word. I guess a better way of phrasing it would be "They are slowly drizzled into who they are and who everyone knows them to be overtime."
I don't believe I ever said he wasn't complex. I AM a fan, even if I'm not the same kind as you are.
I never said you said he wasn't complex. My point is that Batman's no-kill rule and the way it is handled is part of what makes him such a complex character in the first place. In my opinion, he became a far more complex character due to it.
This is why we love him, yes? I'm not arguing that Batman is evil, or that I find him to be wrong. I hope you understand that. What I'm saying is that he IS a bastard, so I'm irritated by the idea that he is somehow morally superior to Superman, who has been forced by circumstances out of his control, to kill.
Do you get where I'm coming from? I
Batman. But he's a bit of an ass, he's not morally perfect, so I'm not going to put him on a pedestal of moral greatness just because he decides not to kill.
Of course he is a bit of a bastard. I never said Batman is morally perfect. My entire argument here is that Batman does not kill. Bruce crosses a lot of lines to get the job done, but the one line he refuses to cross is to resort to killing. That is his one and only rule and is part of what makes him so interesting. He is a monster, but he is a monster on our side. Plus, in a way, Batman's no-kill rule is why he has such a strong bond with Superman in the first place. Both men have the same morals; just different methods and views on everything else.
It's not really actually the same thing at all, because gravity is a solid, and real thing, while Batman is a fake person. Which makes this conversation even sillier, since we are arguing the morality of a fictional guy who dresses up like a bat, but such is life. We get our kicks where we can, right?
SO basically, the movie is its own canon, in yet another verse? Ok. That's fine.
By that same logic, what's the point of even coming on this website at all? All arguments and discussions on this site would be silly.
....but Superman killed, so it wasn't THAT faithful of an adaptation, right? They may use a certain comic to base Batman off of, just like they did Superman, but that doesn't mean that they won't tweak the character just a little, or put him in a situation where he may have to go against his beliefs...or perhaps make an exception in judgement for another character, which is what my original argument has been all along.
1) You're making it sound as if Superman killing is going to be his motto in this universe from now on. It isn't. It is a one-time thing. The whole point of getting Superman to kill Zod was to have him learn from that the horrors of killing and for him to never do it again. Goyer even confirmed this in an interview. Superman has always been one of the most moral superheroes, if not the most moral one. In order for this Superman to become that Superman, he has to experience murder in order to have a deep understanding on why it is wrong and on the horrors that come with it in the first place. As people often say, you can't fully learn something until you experience it. I don't really agree with this character arc, but it is the character arc that Snyder and Goyer have in mind.
2) Superman breaking Zod's neck was when he had his "This is why killing is wrong" moment. Now this particular version of Superman has just as much of a complex reason for his no-kill rule as the new Batman presumably does. But assuming that the new Batman has his parents murdered as a kid and then traveled the world to train, he already had his "This is why killing is wrong" moment prior to becoming Batman. It automatically comes with the origin. Thus it would be pointless to apply that same character arc to Batman here.
3) Having the perfectly-sane boy scout who grew up in Kansas kill this one time is no big deal. One death is not going to corrupt him and destroy him inside out. On the other hand, Batman is a monster in human form and is insane. Killing one person is going to have a far bigger impact on him than on someone like Superman and would lead him to corruption much faster. Basically, you have to push Superman a few meters first while Batman is right at the edge and just needs a little push (as the Joker would say
). Having Batman murder would get him over that edge not too long.
Cool. I don't have a problem with that. I only have a problem with the idea of using Batman to put Superman down for doing what he did in MOS. I don't appreciate or like this idea floating around that Batman is the morally superior guy, simply because he didn't kill, and Superman did.
I would also have a problem with it if they made a big deal out of it. At most, it should be a side-plot IMO.
As you say below, I've already addressed the Batman killing thing several times now, so I hope you have a better understanding of where I'm coming from.
I do.
It's been an interesting and informative debate.
It has.
I do agree with you, but I was still entertained by the film, epsecially how crazy Owlman was. And given that it was supposed to be a DCAU film, I can't see that version of Batman doing the same thing. Maybe it was in the recent influence of Nolan's Batman in BB.
t:
Seriously, I kept thinking does Bruce really have no problem with killing because there was Ra's and Harvey. And possible Scarecrow with the hallucinogen. 
