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

[Llama_Shepherd]

Crisis was not based specifically on any comics, it took a fair amount from Earth 2, but nobody in the Justice League killed.

 

[Asgard]

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?

Sugar? Why you copping attitude? The times he's murdered people are in the comics that are no longer in canon arent they? Like you can reference them but that history isnt part of the current iteration of Batman's lore.

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.

Because murder or execution is what the no kill policy is about. Can you point to specific moments where Batman faced a similar situation to Supes in MOS, because if he did and killed to protect people in imminent danger then thats not murder.

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?

Well, it is the moral high ground that Batman, Superman, and other superheroes adhere to.

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

If this is how you feel about Batman not killing, then I cant imagine how you feel about Superman who also refuses to murder and execute criminals as well. And unlike the criminals Batman routinely goes after, Superman's are threats on a galactic level.

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.

Superman and Batman both share that moral high ground though. They both refuse to murder criminals no matter how dangerous they are.

 

[Loki882]

While not killing enemies is noble in theory, it becomes less noble if thousands of innocent people die unnecessarily as a result. It's a trap that all comics fall into, you can't kill off iconic villains permanently, they're too marketable and popular. At the same time, you run the risk of making your heroes look like self-righteous *******s who put their own personal codes above the lives of innocent people. Batman doesn't just refuse to kill the Joker, he actively prevents ANYONE ELSE from killing him as well. It's a no win scenario.

 

[Shikamaru]

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

Already in the first two sentences of your long post and your argument already falls apart. The Superman in MOS was heavily influenced by John Byrne's Superman, which is the Modern Age Superman. In the same way, the new Batman will most likely be heavily influenced on the Modern Age Batman much like most Batman products that have come out since the 1980's. It makes logical sense as well to base this Batman off the Modern Batman since that is the best Batman to play off this specific version of Superman.

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'm not talking about all versions of Batman. I am talking about this specific version of Batman. The Batman that first debuted in Year One and onward. For this specific version of Batman, it is taboo to kill more than it is to any other superhero.

Did he use a gun and kill people back in 1939? Yes. But that Batman is an entirely different character. That Batman never existed in the specific DC continuity that I am talking about. That was an entirely different character than the version of Batman I am talking about right now. Canonically, Year One is the first appearance of Batman and he clearly does not kill or use a gun in there. Him killing back in 1939 is not You probably don't know this, but comic book characters are never who they are in their first debut. They're not fully developed at the start of their comics like characters in books and movies are. Comic book characters slowly develop overtime. They are slowly drizzled into perfection overtime. This is especially true for Batman, who was originally a knockoff of the Shadow which is why he killed people for the first few comics. As time passed, Batman became less like the Shadow and became his own character which is part of the reason why he stopped killing people in comics. The version of Batman that most fans consider to be the definitive version is the Post-Crisis Batman. That version of the character is the perfected Batman. They've tried everything over the years, from Batman killing to Batman being campy instead of dark to whatever, and have seen what works for the character and what doesn't work. They kept everything that worked and that is the Batman that we have today.

If anything, Batman became a far more complex character due to the complexity that comes with his no-kill policy.

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.

I never saw it as that. Remember that "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you" moment in Batman Begins? That's what I saw it as. He did not want Flash to die and then that other speedster volunteered. Instead of telling him the danger, he just went along with it. A bastard move? Indeed. However, Batman himself has always been a bit of a bastard. He beats criminals to a pulp, breaks and enters, and the list goes on. He only has one rule that he does not break, which is resorting to murder. The only thing stopping him from crossing that line and becoming a monster like the Punisher and the Joker is that one little rule.

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.

Your understanding is wrong. It was not a story from the comics. It was not in continuity of the New Earth Batman. It was a recycled and rejected movie idea (keep that in mind) from the DCAU that had major changes done to the original version (it's practically not the same film anymore and not even the exact same characters). Such film does not by any means trump the last 30-40 years of comics that established Batman's morality in solid stone. It's like saying gravity doesn't exist because a random guy passing on the street said so (figuratively speaking).

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.

My point is that MOS created a world that was heavily inspired by some of the most well known Superman comics. It was a faithful adaptation to the Modern Age Superman mythos. So it is likely Batman we'll get a similar treatment, which renders your argument moot.

Heck, the new Batman might be the most accurate representation of the Post-Crisis Batman so far on the big screen, for two reasons:
1) If they want to create a solid Superman/Batman dynamic, that is what they would logically go for since that is the version of Batman that fits best and plays best off this specific version of Superman (because that version of Batman exists in the same universe as the Superman they based the film on).
2) We have yet to get the Batman as we know him as a whole in a film. All other live-action versions so far have been radically different or exactly the same but watered down in their abilities. In order to keep things fresh and to make the audience like this new Batman as fast as possible since he is being introduced not too long after Nolan, that's probably the version they'll go for.

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.

You're forgetting certain factors. Yes, there is nothing wrong with a man that does what I just described, but think about what that would mean for Batman - a character entirely designed on looking intimidating as if he was a monster dressed in colors that blend in the dark (which pink can't do). But for the sake of argument, I will find a better argument.

Remember One More Day? It is regarded as the worst Spider-Man story ever told and literally went against everything Spider-Man is all about. Everybody was out of character and nothing made any sense or matched up with the Spider-Man we've seen in that universe prior to the story.

Suppose that someone adapted OMD into a film after establishing a Spider-Man continuity where Spidey is the character that we know from the 616 comics. Would you argue that what they did is ok because OMD is a story from the comics? Even though it completely went against Peter's entire character and made no sense at all? Bad writing is bad writing. Pure and simple. If a writer goes against the essence of the character, that does not excuse other writers to completely break the rules of said character. It only means that writer does not understand the character. Mistakes are meant to be learned from, not repeated.

There is nothing wrong with different interpretations or bringing your own spin on things. However, when doing a story that takes place in the mainstream universe of a character or an adaptation based on the mainstream version of that same character, there are some basic rules that have to be followed that are not left up to interpretation. When doing a story that takes place in the mainstream DC universe or is an adaptation based on the mainstream version of Batman, you cannot have Batman killing. Any cases of him killing in such particular story is simply inconsistent and inaccurate writing. You have to stay true to the ground rules that you've established in a universe or that have already been established for you (depending on whether or not you created the universe at hand or continued it from the previous writer).

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.

I already addressed all of this in this same post. I'm assuming you've read everything by now. Reread if you want to see these arguments readdressed. If you still don't understand my point after that, then you don't understand my point. Not much I can do.

 

[Shikamaru]

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

And Spider-Man sold his marriage to the devil.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Not every instance of killing is out of character, because character needs to be established through precedent.

Otherwise, by the same argument, Batman was acting out of character (and has been) since gaining the "no-kill" rule.

 

[Shikamaru]

Not every instance of killing is out of character, because character needs to be established through precedent.

Otherwise, by the same argument, Batman was acting out of character (and has been) since gaining the "no-kill" rule.

The thing is that so many relationships within the Batman mythos revolve entirely around Batman not killing. The most well known example is with the Joker. His entire reason for not killing the Joker is because if he can make an exception and justify one murder, he can do it again and again after that and so on. That would technically all fall apart if Batman makes an exception every once in a while. If he can do that, there is no reason why he can't make an exception for the Joker "every once in a while". Then there are character like Ra's. Batman and Ra's respect each other but they completely disagree on each other's methods. Ra's is committed to committing murder for the greater good whereas Batman is not. That's one of the major factors as to why they are on opposite sides. Sure that their antagonistic relationship will still kinda be there if they have Ra's kill all the time while Batman only kills occassionally, but I feel like that would weaken their thematic relationship overall. I could give more examples but you get my point.

 

[Gianakin_]

The problem that I've noticed with quite a few MOS detractors (but certainly not all of them) is that they aren't judging the movie on its own merits, they're judging it on what THEY EXPECTED it to be. There is a lot of "I wanted to see this" or "this is not how I expect people to at." That's not evaluating the movie on its own merits, that's judging the movie on what you THOUGHT it should be.

I noticed the same. I've seen a lot of opinions and reviews with the word "should" in it. That just signifies walking in with a pre-determined notion.

If these 2 posts include me, let me say that I walked into the movie expecting what Snyder/Goyer promised in interviews, which was what was set up in act 1. Nothing more. No "Lois should have red head", no "Those kinds of scenes must be included". My "shoulds" stem from after I saw the movie thrice and I noticed what didn't click with me, mosty emotionally and thematically.

 

[Gianakin_]

We were told what the film would be about: Clark's choice. What kind of person would he be? How would he use his powers? We know Jonathan wanted him to keep everything secret, but for Clark to have a kind heart, and to not abuse his powers. Jor-El wanted Clark to be a leader of Men, and to be a bridge between humans and Kryptonians. Clark wanted to make a difference in people's lives, but he wasn't sure how to.

Now we see a melding of sorts of his parents' desires: He will help save the world, but on his terms -- and yet, he isn't trying to be a leader.

So at the end of the film, the theme of choice has been laid to rest. Now, the rest of the themes, hope and inspiration...those were not fully realized in this film....and really, those themes can be touched on, but never realized until it is the absolute 100% end for Superman. So I'm not fussed that we didn't see people inspired or being led around by Superman.

I get what you're saying, I really do. But I just didn't see the realization of the whole "Good or bad, you're gonna change the world" angle, which directly implied and set up he'd have a dilemma between Zod and Earth. If the choice was whether he'd reveal himself to the world or not, then I missed it, the story does make sense (even though I'd argue it's still executed poorly) and I can safely say it's a very boring obstacle for the main hero, thus making MoS an uninteresting movie at its core, to me.

There's more reasons in this film for Clark and Lois to hook up than there ever was in the comic books, in my opinion. I never understood how Clark could stand Lois, who was too stupid to figure out who he was.

And best of all, this Lois knows Clark, knows who he is, and she likes ALL of him. There's no need for her to like Clark but love Superman. She cares about his entire being, and that is so, so fantastic.

You are right about one thing: We didn't get a full-blown Lois/Clark relationship. What we got instead was the foundation for something wonderful for them to build on, the tenuous strands of something bigger that would grow not just from lust, but from friendship and trust.

I find that to be far more sexy than randomly tossing them together as sex partners. I think my two favorite moments between them are when he's getting ready to be turned over to Zod, they hold hands, and of course, that moment in the subway where he's crumbling, and she holds him up and holds onto him while he quietly breaks apart.

I don't need them in bed together, or to go on dates to get how they feel about each other. This was more than enough to see how they are now, and how they could be in the future.

Yes, but:
1.Having more reasons than the other versions isn't enough for me (btw, Smallville got tons of things wrong, but I still think it's best iteration of the whole Lois/Clark relationship. But it's a TV series with lots of time, so I won't count it in my argument).
2.The hand holding was great. Really, if the romance sunplot had stopped there I'd be agreeing with you all the way. The kiss and the one-liner immediately after it ruined everything for me. It devolved to the obligatory CBM trope. I never wanted a full-blown Lois/Clar relationship, as you can see. I wanted thing to make sense in the context of the movie. And they didn't, to me.

 

[Bathead]

This concept I see floated around a lot that Batman be held responsible for al those people who were hurt or killed because he didn't kill the killers is a load of crock. The only ones responsible are the ones who did the killing. Batman Begins even addressed this at the Waynes' funeral, where the young Bruce is saying to Alfred that it was his fault for not doing anything, and to which Alfred answers (something like) "No, Master Wayne, it wasn't your fault, it was all him.(Joe Chill)" And he was right, and it applies just as much here.
Just think ,if Batman wasn't around at all, the death toll would be even higher. Batman has, over his career saved many thousands of lives thru his actions, and yet, to some of you, that's not enough. You want him to be a killer, too, just like the criminals and crazies he fights every night while risking his own life to do that. How ungrateful can you get?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Just a small interjection here, but how do y'all feel about the Supergirl story in SUPERMAN/BATMAN where it's more or less intimated that Batman was willing to kill everyone on APOKALIPS to fulfill the mission? It's often bandied about by BatFan's as this great moment in Batman's comic history. Myself? It felt cheap and out of character. The fine line between hardass and *****ehat is as hard to know as the line between love and nausea. (Props to you King Joffee!)

 

[BlueLantern]

People who see Batman willing to commit genocide as badass are the same ones who probably saw Clark killing Zod at the end as badass. Neither moments did it for me.

 

[Krumm]

If these 2 posts include me, let me say that I walked into the movie expecting what Snyder/Goyer promised in interviews, which was what was set up in act 1. Nothing more. No "Lois should have red head", no "Those kinds of scenes must be included". My "shoulds" stem from after I saw the movie thrice and I noticed what didn't click with me, mosty emotionally and thematically.

It had nothing to do with you and that's a fair statement.

 

[Gianakin_]

All good.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Bruce trained specifically to avoid lethal force. If he was willing to kill he could've trained to be a Navy Seal then go rogue. But then he couldn't clean up Gotham. Anyone Batman captured would be set free automatically due to a crazed vigilante's involvement and Batman would quickly end up on America's most wanted list for serial murder.

Batman killing changes his relationship with Gotham, the entire nation as well as with other superheroes who won't associate with a wanted murderer. Kind of like how the Punisher is the red-headed step child of the superhero community. Batman would never be allowed to associate with the JLA and he would be a hunted fugitive until he died or was put in prison.

 

[Marvin]

Just a small interjection here, but how do y'all feel about the Supergirl story in SUPERMAN/BATMAN where it's more or less intimated that Batman was willing to kill everyone on APOKALIPS to fulfill the mission? It's often bandied about by BatFan's as this great moment in Batman's comic history. Myself? It felt cheap and out of character. The fine line between hardass and *****ehat is as hard to know as the line between love and nausea. (Props to you King Joffee!)

It was a bluff.
Batman, when the audience respects his mental prowess, is fully capable of out maneuvering a creature like Darksied. That was sort of the point. That is sort of the point of batman when he tags along League missions, he's very clever and calculated.
It would be the same if you played poker with Bruce Wayne. A skilled poker player can bluff you into thinking they are capable of anything, that's different than them actually doing it.

Bats knew he wasn't going to wipe out a planet, but that doesn't mean making the calculated threat by showing his hand is beyond his basic morality.
imo.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Yeah Darksied being the typical narcissistic dictator projected his own immorality onto Batman and figured "why wouldn't he blow up my planet? I wouldn't hesistate if I were him".

 

[Shikamaru]

Just a small interjection here, but how do y'all feel about the Supergirl story in SUPERMAN/BATMAN where it's more or less intimated that Batman was willing to kill everyone on APOKALIPS to fulfill the mission? It's often bandied about by BatFan's as this great moment in Batman's comic history. Myself? It felt cheap and out of character. The fine line between hardass and *****ehat is as hard to know as the line between love and nausea. (Props to you King Joffee!)

As Marvin and MessiahDecoy123 have said, it was a bluff. No different than when he bluffs that he will drop a criminal from a big height if he doesn't cooperate. We as the readers know this is not the case but Gotham's criminals and Darkseid don't. Batman gets them to psychologically think that he would go that far and then uses that to his advantage.

That's part of why the Joker is Batman's archenemy. He is the only villain to call Batman out on bluffing whenever Batman threatens to kill him.

 

[Bathead]

As Marvin and MessiahDecoy123 have said, it was a bluff. No different than when he bluffs that he will drop a criminal from a big height if he doesn't cooperate. We as the readers know this is not the case but Gotham's criminals and Darkseid don't. Batman gets them to psychologically think that he would go that far and then uses that to his advantage.

That's part of why the Joker is Batman's archenemy. He is the only villain to call Batman out on bluffing whenever Batman threatens to kill him.

Yup. Reminds me of that scene near the beginning of the Arkham Asylum game where Joker is standing atop a sort of elevator over a deep shaft and he dares Batman to knock him off with a batarang to make him plunge to his death ("You know you want to." Joker says). Batman makes a move to throw the batarang and then stops, then the Joker says "Ha, I knew you couldn't do it."

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

The thing is that so many relationships within the Batman mythos revolve entirely around Batman not killing. The most well known example is with the Joker. His entire reason for not killing the Joker is because if he can make an exception and justify one murder, he can do it again and again after that and so on. That would technically all fall apart if Batman makes an exception every once in a while. If he can do that, there is no reason why he can't make an exception for the Joker "every once in a while".

To quote Jason Todd (referring to killing exclusively Joker) "Why do all you scouts in spandex always say that? 'If I cross that line there's no coming back'"?

Bruce had no answer, he couldn't actually justify himself. In Hush, Batman tries to kill Joker, he tried to kill KGBeast, in Tec issue with Facade he killed someone, he wanted to kill Alexander Luthor Jr, he drove Joe Chill to suicide, he tried to kill Hurt, he helped cause the death of Darkseid etc etc, I could give more examples, but you get my point.

Then there are character like Ra's. Batman and Ra's respect each other but they completely disagree on each other's methods. Ra's is committed to committing murder for the greater good whereas Batman is not. That's one of the major factors as to why they are on opposite sides. Sure that their antagonistic relationship will still kinda be there if they have Ra's kill all the time while Batman only kills occassionally, but I feel like that would weaken their thematic relationship overall. I could give more examples but you get my point.

I bet R'as felt the same way when Bruce threatened him with death and stabbed him in the chest, or when he mortally wounded Ra's decaying body. Oh, and when Bruce burned his body, to prevent any resurrection. Or killed his father. Or waged a war with Talia that led to both the death of Ra's' daughter and grandson.

I'm not saying it's a good idea for Bruce to kill, I think it's terrible, but precedent is there for Bruce to want, try, and succeed in killing people.

 

[Tempest]

Already in the first two sentences of your long post and your argument already falls apart. The Superman in MOS was heavily influenced by John Byrne's Superman, which is the Modern Age Superman. In the same way, the new Batman will most likely be heavily influenced on the Modern Age Batman much like most Batman products that have come out since the 1980's. It makes logical sense as well to base this Batman off the Modern Batman since that is the best Batman to play off this specific version of Superman.

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.

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.

I'm not talking about all versions of Batman. I am talking about this specific version of Batman. The Batman that first debuted in Year One and onward. For this specific version of Batman, it is taboo to kill more than it is to any other superhero.

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.

....They are slowly drizzled into perfection overtime. This is especially true for Batman, who was originally a knockoff of the Shadow which is why he killed people for the first few comics.

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.

If anything, Batman became a far more complex character due to the complexity that comes with his no-kill policy.

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 saw it as that. Remember that "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you" moment in Batman Begins? That's what I saw it as. He did not want Flash to die and then that other speedster volunteered. Instead of telling him the danger, he just went along with it. A bastard move? Indeed. However, Batman himself has always been a bit of a bastard. He beats criminals to a pulp, breaks and enters, and the list goes on. He only has one rule that he does not break, which is resorting to murder. The only thing stopping him from crossing that line and becoming a monster like the Punisher and the Joker is that one little rule.

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.

Your understanding is wrong. It was not a story from the comics. It was not in continuity of the New Earth Batman. It was a recycled and rejected movie idea (keep that in mind) from the DCAU that had major changes done to the original version (it's practically not the same film anymore and not even the exact same characters). Such film does not by any means trump the last 30-40 years of comics that established Batman's morality in solid stone. It's like saying gravity doesn't exist because a random guy passing on the street said so (figuratively speaking).

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.

My point is that MOS created a world that was heavily inspired by some of the most well known Superman comics. It was a faithful adaptation to the Modern Age Superman mythos. So it is likely Batman we'll get a similar treatment, which renders your argument moot.

....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.

Heck, the new Batman might be the most accurate representation of the Post-Crisis Batman so far on the big screen, for two reasons:
1) If they want to create a solid Superman/Batman dynamic, that is what they would logically go for since that is the version of Batman that fits best and plays best off this specific version of Superman (because that version of Batman exists in the same universe as the Superman they based the film on).
2) We have yet to get the Batman as we know him as a whole in a film. All other live-action versions so far have been radically different or exactly the same but watered down in their abilities. In order to keep things fresh and to make the audience like this new Batman as fast as possible since he is being introduced not too long after Nolan, that's probably the version they'll go for.

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're forgetting certain factors. Yes, there is nothing wrong with a man that does what I just described, but think about what that would mean for Batman - a character entirely designed on looking intimidating as if he was a monster dressed in colors that blend in the dark (which pink can't do). But for the sake of argument, I will find a better argument.

Depends on how hideous the pink outfit is, don't you think? No, I understand who Batman is. I just didn't like the argument you presented, because it felt insulting. Thank you for understanding.

Remember One More Day? It is regarded as the worst Spider-Man story ever told and literally went against everything Spider-Man is all about. Everybody was out of character and nothing made any sense or matched up with the Spider-Man we've seen in that universe prior to the story.

Suppose that someone adapted OMD into a film after establishing a Spider-Man continuity where Spidey is the character that we know from the 616 comics. Would you argue that what they did is ok because OMD is a story from the comics? Even though it completely went against Peter's entire character and made no sense at all? Bad writing is bad writing. Pure and simple. If a writer goes against the essence of the character, that does not excuse other writers to completely break the rules of said character. It only means that writer does not understand the character. Mistakes are meant to be learned from, not repeated.

There is nothing wrong with different interpretations or bringing your own spin on things. However, when doing a story that takes place in the mainstream universe of a character or an adaptation based on the mainstream version of that same character, there are some basic rules that have to be followed that are not left up to interpretation. When doing a story that takes place in the mainstream DC universe or is an adaptation based on the mainstream version of Batman, you cannot have Batman killing. Any cases of him killing in such particular story is simply inconsistent and inaccurate writing. You have to stay true to the ground rules that you've established in a universe or that have already been established for you (depending on whether or not you created the universe at hand or continued it from the previous writer).

I actually don't know anything about Spiderman. He's probably my least favorite comic character ever. Sorry if you really like him.

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.

It's been an interesting and informative debate.

 

[Lencho01]

I feel dumb that I never looked at The Killing Joke this way...

http://badassdigest.com/2013/08/16/did-batman-kill-the-joker-at-the-end-of-the-killing-joke/

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/08...ing-joke-grant-morrison-talks-to-kevin-smith/

 

[Tempest]

I feel dumb that I never looked at The Killing Joke this way...

http://badassdigest.com/2013/08/16/did-batman-kill-the-joker-at-the-end-of-the-killing-joke/

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/08...ing-joke-grant-morrison-talks-to-kevin-smith/

Are you talking about how you never viewed the book as misogynistic, or the idea that Batman killed Joker, or both?

Because I'm more repulsed by the crass handling of Barbara's paralysis than Batman's manpain from killing Joker.

 

[D.P.]

Seriously, why is this even a topic?

Too many Superman fans here.

 

[Lencho01]

Are you talking about how you never viewed the book as misogynistic, or the idea that Batman killed Joker, or both?

Because I'm more repulsed by the crass handling of Barbara's paralysis than Batman's manpain from killing Joker.

The Batman killing Joker part was what never occurred to me. Well, I guess it's the fact that DC essentially made it part of the regular continuity rather than the one-off story Moore wanted it to be.

The whole paralysis thing didn't make much sense to me since it seems possible to fix something like that in their world.