BvS What Went Wrong w/ Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (SPOILERS) - Part 1

[spider-neil]

Nolan clearly studied the source material in depth.

I think Goyer is the one who brought the comic knowledge to the table.
But don't quote me on that one.

With regards to Snyder, I am going to watch the extended cut see how many of the problems are fixed. Things like 'Martha' can't be fixed but pacing can, and also more character development scenes may help to flesh the characters out more.

 

[metaphysician]

I think what brings out the vitriol in people about this movie is that it reveals a deep philosophical and ethical breach between two types of fans:

1. Those fans who love superheroes mostly for bad-ass imagery and power fantasies, vs.

2. Those fans who think superpowers are cool and everything, but worthless without the aspirational/inspirational value of the heroic ideal and the emotional truth of superhero stories.

It's not necessarily a deal-breaker for me that Batman kills. (As many, many, many other people have said, he certainly kills in 'Batman Returns'... a movie I still enjoy) But Snyder is clearly more interested in the violence than the consequences of that violence on the character. Just like he did with 'Watchmen', he constantly upgrades the violence of the characters while ignoring any authentic motivations and emotions that drive those characters through the story. Subtext, nuance, and plot clearly bore the piss out of him.

What's Batman supposed to MEAN in this story? Why should we care about him? Because we know what a Batman is?

Who is Superman supposed to BE in this story? Why should be care about him? Because he's dressed up like Superman?

Blood, F-bombs and boobs is enough to get an 'R' rating, but it's not enough to tell a mature story. A mature story has to have thematic resonance, relatable characters, and an intelligent story. Snyder's 'BvS' has none of these things.

It's like when I was eleven and drew blood over all the characters in the comics because I wanted to see more exxxxxtreeme violence. Snyder's just an eleven-year old, drawing blood on his G.I. Joes.

This. Everything here needs to be read, and then read again. Especially the stuff I bolded.

Ultimately, this is why comparisons between Snyder's Batman killing, versus Nolan's Batman killing and Burton's Batman killing, are so common and yet so forced. Its not the presence of lethal force, its how the lethal force is contextualized in the story. "What does Batman killing mean?"

In the first Batman movie, its done towards the end of the movie, after a progressively more destructive series of murderous acts by the Joker. Its framed as escalation in the war between the two, with Batman's increasing willingness to kill the Joker and his men paired with the Joker's increasing willingness to kill everyone else. Its set up so that it generally feels appropriate and justifiable, in the context of the movie, particularly since its contrasted to the various earlier scenes- when the stakes were lower, Batman *didn't* kill.

In the Nolan Batman movies, Batman's use of lethal force is often awkward and ambiguous, yes. . . but this is pretty clearly deliberate. The "discussion" of the movies is largely about the ethics of vigilanteism, with Batman's dance upon the razor edge of right and wrong. "What, exactly, counts as killing?" is as important to the movies as "Can you do good in secret?" Also note that, over the course of the movies, Batman's position, and his ability to explain it, changes.

In BvS? As near as I can tell, the only meaning of Batman's lethal force is "violence is cool". I suppose it was *supposed* to be about how Batman has gone off the rails, except that following his Moment of Clarity, he does pretty much the same murderous violence, just with less branding.

 

[spider-neil]

In BvS? As near as I can tell, the only meaning of Batman's lethal force is "violence is cool". I suppose it was *supposed* to be about how Batman has gone off the rails, except that following his Moment of Clarity, he does pretty much the same murderous violence, just with less branding.

There was a reason for the lethal force. You may not have liked it, may have thought it was poorly explained, or that it simply had no pay off or consequences. But can't you can't say there was no reason for it.

 

[The Joker]

There was a reason for the lethal force. You may not have liked it, may have thought it was poorly explained, or that it simply had no pay off or consequences. But can't you can't say there was no reason for it.

What because Robin died? Because Batman has become depressed after 20 years? BS reasons. There's no justifiable reason for it. Batman's been through circumstances just as bad and worse than that in the comics and he didn't turn himself into Punisher v2.0 as a result.

 

[spider-neil]

What because Robin died? Because Batman has become depressed after 20 years?

And there you have it. Is that enough of a reason to push Batman over the edge? Comic book Batman would have rolled with the punches and got on with it (he HAS got on with it). But this isn't comic book Batman, this is MOVIE Batman and MOVIE Batman was specifically written to serve as antagonist to Superman. You (and many others) may think the reasons (for lethal force) sucked but what you can't say there were NO reasons because that simply isn't true.

 

[The Joker]

And there you have it. Is that enough of a reason to push Batman over the edge?

No. Not even close. Even the comic book Snyder SUPPOSEDLY used as inspiration, DKR, didn't have Batman sink to those depths after losing Robin and crime fighting for years on end.

Comic book Batman would have rolled with the punches and got on with it (he HAS got on with it). But this isn't comic book Batman, this is MOVIE Batman and MOVIE Batman was specifically written to serve as antagonist to Superman. You (and many others) may think the reasons (for lethal force) sucked but what you can't say there were NO reasons because that simply isn't true.

But the thing is Batman killing people in this has nothing to do with being an antagonist to Superman. It's not even raised as an issue in this movie with anyone, let alone with Superman. If Superman was any kind of hero he'd have delivered Batman into the Cops that first time because he just killed a bunch of thugs and hospitalized some innocent security guards, too. But Superman apparently doesn't give a toss about that.

So essentially people are right when they say there's no reason for it to be included. It's just a pointless bastardization.

 

[metaphysician]

What because Robin died? Because Batman has become depressed after 20 years? BS reasons. There's no justifiable reason for it. Batman's been through circumstances just as bad and worse than that in the comics and he didn't turn himself into Punisher v2.0 as a result.

Also, I'm not talking reasons, I'm talking *meaning*. "Batman kills people because Robin died" is a cause, not a purpose. If the story doesn't do anything coherent with it, its still meaningless mechanics.

"Batman's lethal violence post-Robin murder contrasts with his behavior pre-murder, showing how far he has fallen" is a story purpose. Its about how the story communicates itself to the audience. And I kind of acknowledged that this seems to be what the movie *wants* to do, it just does a terrible, self-negating job of it.

 

[Loki882]

The movie communicates it EXTREMELY poorly. Really I compare it to Batman Returns, where "Murderman" is also justified very poorly by the narrative. Whereas with the first Burton film (and I had problems with it even there, but less so) and the Nolan films, there's a point behind it that the story gets across well.

 

[The Guard]

No. Not even close. Even the comic book Snyder SUPPOSEDLY used as inspiration, DKR, didn't have Batman sink to those depths after losing Robin and crime fighting for years on end.

This isn't the comics. Robin's death, in the comics, was shown to have a profound effect on Batman, and without the inspiration of Robin, he became much darker. Here, he's becoming much darker, but also much darker than any previous cinematic iteration of Batman.

This movie "communicates it poorly" because this is an issue they're going to delve into more deeply in a solo Batman film. It's just meant to be hinted at here.

But the thing is Batman killing people in this has nothing to do with being an antagonist to Superman. It's not even raised as an issue in this movie with anyone, let alone with Superman. If Superman was any kind of hero he'd have delivered Batman into the Cops that first time because he just killed a bunch of thugs and hospitalized some innocent security guards, too. But Superman apparently doesn't give a toss about that.

Superman isn't even back from his solitude at that point, is he? We don't even know whether he knows about it. And if he did, how's he going to apprehend Batman, who now has Kryptonite?

Superman very clearly has issues with Batman's violent nature. So does Alfred. The issue is absolutely raised in this film.

As for Batman not killing not meaning anything within the story...it follows that if he couldn't kill or use lethal force on regular criminals that we probably wouldn't buy that he'd be willing to kill Superman, a man who has been doing nothing but good albeit amidst controversy. Seeing as how the main conflict of the film revolves around this point, I'd say it serves a purpose.

 

[spider-neil]

it follows that if he couldn't kill or use lethal force on regular criminals that we probably wouldn't buy that he'd be willing to kill Superman, a man who has been doing nothing but good albeit amidst controversy.

Absolutely.
Do I justify it? No. Am I happy with it? To be honest, I wasn't all that arsed. But saying the reasons weren't there, isn't true.
Just like when people say 'Martha' wasn't set up and that WW appeared out of nowhere. It was EXTREMELY poorly done but in all three instances it was set up.

 

[The Joker]

Also, I'm not talking reasons, I'm talking *meaning*. "Batman kills people because Robin died" is a cause, not a purpose. If the story doesn't do anything coherent with it, its still meaningless mechanics.

"Batman's lethal violence post-Robin murder contrasts with his behavior pre-murder, showing how far he has fallen" is a story purpose. Its about how the story communicates itself to the audience. And I kind of acknowledged that this seems to be what the movie *wants* to do, it just does a terrible, self-negating job of it.

The movie communicates it EXTREMELY poorly. Really I compare it to Batman Returns, where "Murderman" is also justified very poorly by the narrative. Whereas with the first Burton film (and I had problems with it even there, but less so) and the Nolan films, there's a point behind it that the story gets across well.

This isn't the comics. Robin's death, in the comics, was shown to have a profound effect on Batman, and without the inspiration of Robin, he became much darker. Here, he's becoming much darker, but also much darker than any previous cinematic iteration of Batman.

This movie "communicates it poorly" because this is an issue they're going to delve into more deeply in a solo Batman film. It's just meant to be hinted at here.

I know it's not the comics. The comics made a coherent story and didn't bastardize Batman. You know what the worst defense in the world is for a movie's flaws? Saying the sequel will address it. A good movie should stand on it's on two feet and not expect a sequel to fix it's problems.

We heard the same spiel with MOS. BvS will address those problems. Now we're supposed to until another movie to address these problems. Maybe one day we'll get a DCCU movie that doesn't rely on an unmade sequel to address it's own problems.

Superman isn't even back from his solitude at that point, is he? We don't even know whether he knows about it. And if he did, how's he going to apprehend Batman, who now has Kryptonite?

Superman very clearly has issues with Batman's violent nature. So does Alfred. The issue is absolutely raised in this film.

As for Batman not killing not meaning anything within the story...it follows that if he couldn't kill or use lethal force on regular criminals that we probably wouldn't buy that he'd be willing to kill Superman, a man who has been doing nothing but good albeit amidst controversy. Seeing as how the main conflict of the film revolves around this point, I'd say it serves a purpose.

Poor Superman is not back from feeling sorry for himself, so he lets a murderous vigilante go with a pathetic one line warning. Batman had no kryptonite in that scene where he stopped the Batmobile and warned Batman off.

Where are the issues of Batman's violent nature raised as a serious concern for Superman? Because if Superman was really bothered by a killer vigilante he'd have taken him down. A throwaway line just doesn't cut it. Alfred's reaction is even worse. He barely makes a mention of it. Alfred should have tore Bruce to shreds for that. He'd never ever support a killer Batman.

He shouldn't be willing to kill Superman at all. That's even more ridiculous and worse than killing criminals. But you know maybe the other criminals just don't have Moms named Martha

 

[GeoMFilms]

First I want to say I REALLY loved this movie. I really enjoyed watching it (Minus Lex. If he was a different character then fine hes ok, but as LEX? No he sucked).

But one thing I was wondering about this movie and maybe would of been nice to have done....when the Flash talks to Bruce wayne about saving Lois I think it would of been nice if he was actually referring to Supermans mom Martha.

Maybe Flash could of been more vague about what he was saying "Protect the woman Superman loves...she is the key" (only seen movie once so don't remember what he says exactly). In the movie you don't see Batman going out of his way to find Lois and protect her, but I think it would of added to the scene of when Batman hers Martha, because right there he will realize 'the woman he loves' is Superman's mother...if her doesn't do something right now and lets Superman's mother die, then that Dark future where Superman goes bad will truly happen. He needs to help superman keep his mother alive.

Any thoughts on that...sorry if this has come up before. I didn't look through all other post.

 

[Longshot777]

He actually says, save Lois.

Anyways,

This is the perfect sequel to MOS. So if you hated MOS then obviously you will hate BVS.

JL will also be in the same line as these 2. If your not looking for a deep "Watchmen" kind of superhero movie then Snyder's universe is not your cup of tea.

I'm just wondering, what were you guys expecting from sequels that was started by MOS???

For me, the action should have more WOW scenes with better effects but that's it.

I like the story, mood, pacing, and themes. I wouldn't change any of those.

 

[hellified]

liked wonder woman but worried how theyre going to do her movie
Liked affleck as batman
Cavell is solid as superman
Lois Lane is still annoying

didn't care for HOW luthor was portrayed
HATED how Doomsday comes about (another missed opportunity)
was very muddled in story...why was the legless dude sending checks back to bruce wayne??
perry white's disillusionment with reporting actual investigation news was a huge stretch
overlong
Did I mention how much I HATED how they brought in Doomsday?
the batmobile scenes where so dark I really couldn't see anything to enjoy it.
And how they did Doomsday sucked donkey..

overall it worked for an action/comic flick but meh..


If nothing this flick actually proved that batman really doesn't belong in justice league...that he can't hang with super powered beings (no matter how prepared).

Bruce was essentially in ironman type armor and STILL had nothing to bring to the table. Even with kryptonite he barely hurt superman even if he did kill him how would he fight wonder woman if he had to?

At best his presence in the league is as the only fully HUMAN representative but look at that final battle scene....Superman went AT doomsday..Wonderwoman went AT doomsday with a SMILE on her face.. the BEST batman could do was be a distraction and bait. They missed ONE opportunity in that scene to show it...like doomsday shoots a blast of energy at them and Batman flies into wonderwoman who catches him and says "your in my way!" places him to the side and goes straight at DD without hesitation...

This SHOULD be addressed in the Justice League movie...if not its a HUGE omission.

 

[SKSpawn]

And there you have it. Is that enough of a reason to push Batman over the edge? Comic book Batman would have rolled with the punches and got on with it (he HAS got on with it). But this isn't comic book Batman, this is MOVIE Batman and MOVIE Batman was specifically written to serve as antagonist to Superman. You (and many others) may think the reasons (for lethal force) sucked but what you can't say there were NO reasons because that simply isn't true.

You that, after Jason died, comic Batman didn't just 'get on with it", right? He went into a violent, self-destructive downwarf spiral and it took Tim Drake becoming the new Robin to snap him out of it.

Batman has killed before, implicitly and explictly. The comparisons to Affleck's Batman and the Punisher are laughable; Punisher would have gunned down everyone without mercy in dispassionate, cold blood. The majority of Batman's body count came from his Batmobile and Batwing chases, which were highly dangerous, volatile situations anyway. Batman easily killed a few people in Nolan's movies when in his vehicles; the only difference is that we never explicitly saw it as in BvS.

I think a bit of collateral damage/death is fine, really, and largely unavoidable. It's not like he gunned down henchmen left and right or purposely set out to kill.

 

[hellified]

You that, after Jason died, comic Batman didn't just 'get on with it", right? He went into a violent, self-destructive downwarf spiral and it took Tim Drake becoming the new Robin to snap him out of it.

Batman has killed before, implicitly and explictly. The comparisons to Affleck's Batman and the Punisher are laughable; Punisher would have gunned down everyone without mercy in dispassionate, cold blood. The majority of Batman's body count came from his Batmobile and Batwing chases, which were highly dangerous, volatile situations anyway. Batman easily killed a few people in Nolan's movies when in his vehicles; the only difference is that we never explicitly saw it as in BvS.

I think a bit of collateral damage/death is fine, really, and largely unavoidable. It's not like he gunned down henchmen left and right or purposely set out to kill.

you forget that in earlier punisher comics he mainly used rubber "mercy" bullets before they started portraying him as a straight up psychopath. In that regard the punisher was in the vein of early batman.

 

[The Guard]

I know it's not the comics. The comics made a coherent story and didn't bastardize Batman. You know what the worst defense in the world is for a movie's flaws? Saying the sequel will address it. A good movie should stand on it's on two feet and not expect a sequel to fix it's problems.

First of all, it's obviously meant to be part of Batman's overall story and arc and will inform his character throughout this new universe. This movie DOES address it, by the way.

This isn't the same issue as MAN OF STEEL not addressing destruction. Not by a long shot. This is a longterm element of character that they clearly intend to build on, and that they DID address within this film.

But why is this such a problem for people, that not everything is wrapped up completely or explored completely in one film? It's a perfectly legitimate form of storytelling. HARRY POTTER, anyone? LORD OF THE RINGS? Gradual evolutions of character from film to film. It's quite common in serial storytelling.

We heard the same spiel with MOS. BvS will address those problems. Now we're supposed to until another movie to address these problems. Maybe one day we'll get a DCCU movie that doesn't rely on an unmade sequel to address it's own problems.

It's only a problem because you feel it is. It is not inherently a "problem" to introduce an idea about a character and not completely resolve it. The Nolan franchise did much the same thing with various concepts. So have other serial stories.

Though the film does clearly show an evolution in Batman's mindset and methods by the end of the film, so it's not exactly a loose end, either. The film very much does address it. Just not with a lot of exposition.

Poor Superman is not back from feeling sorry for himself, so he lets a murderous vigilante go with a pathetic one line warning. Batman had no kryptonite in that scene where he stopped the Batmobile and warned Batman off.

Batman's not depicted as "murderous" during Clark's investigation. Simply as a brutal force.

And yes, Superman lets him off with a warning. That's the difference between Batman and Superman. Superman uses his words first, he doesn't just force a violent conflict.

Where are the issues of Batman's violent nature raised as a serious concern for Superman?

Well, seeing as how Superman is Clark, and Clark is Superman, they can be found in a sequence where Clark discusses the social aspects of Batman's crusade and tries to get Perry to let him write that, which he considers an important social story.

Because if Superman was really bothered by a killer vigilante he'd have taken him down. A throwaway line just doesn't cut it. Alfred's reaction is even worse. He barely makes a mention of it. Alfred should have tore Bruce to shreds for that. He'd never ever support a killer Batman.

Again, Batman is not depicted as a "killer vigilante" until later in the film.

Superman shows that he is willing to take him down if Batman doesn't stop.

 

[The Joker]

First of all, it's obviously meant to be part of Batman's overall arc throughout this new universe. This movie DOES address it, by the way.

How is it obviously meant to be that? The movie does not address it in any serious way. It's a passing mention.

But why is this such a problem for people, that not everything is wrapped up completely or explored completely in one film? It's a perfectly legitimate form of storytelling. HARRY POTTER, anyone? LORD OF THE RINGS? Gradual evolutions of character from film to film. It's quite common in serial storytelling.

I can't speak for Harry Potter because I don't watch the movies, but Lord of the Rings were filmed as one long story, chopped up into three movies. The public knew this.

It's only a problem because you feel it is. It is not inherently a "problem" to introduce an idea about a character and not completely resolve it. The Nolan franchise did much the same thing with various concepts. So have other serial stories.

No, it's a problem because it actually is.

The Nolan franchise didn't do anything as controversial and stupid as this and leave it unresolved.

Though the film does clearly show an evolution in Batman's mindset and methods by the end of the film, so it's not exactly a loose end, either. The film very much does address it. Just not with a lot of exposition.

Believe it or not, most people didn't find "Martha" an adequate 'evolution' or proper address to this bastardization. And rightly so. You'd find better writing on the back of a cereal box.

Batman's not depicted as "murderous" during Clark's investigation. Simply as a brutal force.

He's branding crooks so they'll get killed in jail. Pull the other one.

And yes, Superman lets him off with a warning. That's the difference between Batman and Superman. Superman uses his words first, he doesn't just force a violent conflict.

It's got nothing to do with violence. Just haul Batman's butt into the Cops. He just ran over a bunch of guys with his Batmobile, and hospitalized security guards just doing their jobs, too.

Well, seeing as how Superman is Clark, and Clark is Superman, they can be found in a sequence where Clark discusses the social aspects of Batman's crusade and tries to get Perry to let him write that, which he considers an important social story.

A newspaper article is the way Superman shows his concern? Oh I take it all back. This was clearly a big priority to him.

Again, Batman is not depicted as a "killer vigilante" until later in the film.

Superman shows that he is willing to take him down if Batman doesn't stop.

Yes he is. He's branding crooks for slaughter in jail. Superman shouldn't be thinking twice about taking him down.

 

[Poni_Boy]

If we're only talking about the movie, who's Robin?

 

[The Guard]

How is it obviously meant to be that? The movie does not address it in any serious way. It's a passing mention.

I don't see this as an issue. Sorry. It's clearly meant to set up where his character is so the solo Batman film can delve into the how and why more.

I can't speak for Harry Potter because I don't watch the movies, but Lord of the Rings were filmed as one long story, chopped up into three movies. The public knew this.

That doesn't change the fact that they were seperate films with seperate mini character arcs from film to film.

Believe it or not, most people didn't find "Martha" an adequate 'evolution' or proper address to this bastardization. And rightly so. You'd find better writing on the back of a cereal box.

Nor is that all that I'm referring to. And I'm not really interested in arguing whether it was "done well enough"

He's branding crooks so they'll get killed in jail. Pull the other one.

There is nothing in the film that suggests that this is Batman's intention. The media speculates that this may end up being what happens, but also mentions that no one has been killed yet who has a bat brand. And Batman is not responsible for other criminals choosing to kill someone. That's absurd.

It's got nothing to do with violence. Just haul Batman's butt into the
Cops. He just ran over a bunch of guys with his Batmobile, and hospitalized security guards just doing their jobs, too.

Superman obviously doesn't want to do that. I don't know what to tell you.

And there's nothing to suggest Superman knows about the security guards.

He has, in all liklihood, just returned to Metropolis during the Luthor/Lois sequence.

A newspaper article is the way Superman shows his concern? Oh I take it all back. This was clearly a big priority to him.

No, the entire scene where Clark expresses his concern and his reasons for concern is the way Superman shows his concern.

Yes he is. He's branding crooks for slaughter in jail. Superman shouldn't be thinking twice about taking him down.

Again, there is nothing to suggest that Batman is doing this on purpose. Nor is he responsible for someone else's choice to kill someone.

 

[The Overlord]

Maybe this Batman has these ideas about killing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1byycwl8qgc

 

[TheVileOne]

Look buddy, I get disliking the movie, and disliking Man of Steel, that's fine. I don't care for a number of movies that people do. I'm not bashing people for disliking them.

Hell even the comic movies I love, like First Avenger, Batman Begins, MoS, etc, I have criticisms and problems with. I'm not a blind defender.

That image though? Yes, it's tryhard whining. People who act like Superman caused debris to rain on innocent people killing any of them in Man of Steel were simply trying too hard to look for flaws in the film. It overrides everything else to them, like Clark's lack of dialogue, Jor-El having too much importance, and Pa's stupid death scene.

Snyder does indeed have too much focus on style over substance, but the "Superman is reckless" in these movies is ridiculous.

He is Superman. For all the flaws of the movies, he has super senses, and can figure things out down to the last molecule in any situation. The only person he killed, it was given a heavy importance to the story.

I am NOT defending the shmuck that is Zack Snyder, I am addressing why the "Superman causes too much destruction" criticism in these movies is idiotic.

I like Man of Steel and thought it was funny.

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

He actually says, save Lois.

Anyways,

This is the perfect sequel to MOS. So if you hated MOS then obviously you will hate BVS.

JL will also be in the same line as these 2. If your not looking for a deep "Watchmen" kind of superhero movie then Snyder's universe is not your cup of tea.

I'm just wondering, what were you guys expecting from sequels that was started by MOS???

For me, the action should have more WOW scenes with better effects but that's it.

I like the story, mood, pacing, and themes. I wouldn't change any of those.

Trust me, deep is good. Batman v Superman is not deep.

The movie has interesting ideas. Can there be a Superman? Should limits be imposed upon him? A Batman that has fallen. A Lex Luthor who resents God.

But merely having those ideas does not equate to deep. A movie that has depth actually develops a conversations about its themes and explores them, follows them from beginning to end. Batman v Superman drops the political thriller context, explains Batman's brutality in just one throwaway line from Alfred, and Lex Luthor's motivations are clumsily dropped in our laps during one scene.

Snyder recognizes good ideas, but he doesn't have the skill to actually find out what those ideas mean for the characters. Half of the movie - the Superman on trial thread - goes nowhere because it doesn't affect how the movie actually ends. The climax just boils down to who can punch harder?

 

[Jaxon]

This. Everything here needs to be read, and then read again. Especially the stuff I bolded.

Ultimately, this is why comparisons between Snyder's Batman killing, versus Nolan's Batman killing and Burton's Batman killing, are so common and yet so forced. Its not the presence of lethal force, its how the lethal force is contextualized in the story. "What does Batman killing mean?"

In the first Batman movie, its done towards the end of the movie, after a progressively more destructive series of murderous acts by the Joker. Its framed as escalation in the war between the two, with Batman's increasing willingness to kill the Joker and his men paired with the Joker's increasing willingness to kill everyone else. Its set up so that it generally feels appropriate and justifiable, in the context of the movie, particularly since its contrasted to the various earlier scenes- when the stakes were lower, Batman *didn't* kill.

In the Nolan Batman movies, Batman's use of lethal force is often awkward and ambiguous, yes. . . but this is pretty clearly deliberate. The "discussion" of the movies is largely about the ethics of vigilanteism, with Batman's dance upon the razor edge of right and wrong. "What, exactly, counts as killing?" is as important to the movies as "Can you do good in secret?" Also note that, over the course of the movies, Batman's position, and his ability to explain it, changes.

In BvS? As near as I can tell, the only meaning of Batman's lethal force is "violence is cool". I suppose it was *supposed* to be about how Batman has gone off the rails, except that following his Moment of Clarity, he does pretty much the same murderous violence, just with less branding.

Robin has been murdered by the joker. No good men are left. Good men have turned bad. An alien has made his whole life redundant. Is it that hard to see how his own violence has escalated. This Batman is at that point from the start of the movie with plenty of explanation how he got there. I have no idea why people are hung up on this criminals are crazy violent you just can't subvert them.

 

[writer0327]

I think the biggest problem I had with this movie is I thought I was "watching a comic book" instead of watching a movie, if that makes any sense. I think subconsciously that is the biggest issue most people are having without realizing why they are having it. The narrative style used in this film is more befitting a comic book.