Yeah you can find exceptions. You can also find instances of sexism and racism if you look. Batman is not a killer. It's a key part of his character.
Just so you know, Batman killing in BVS completely destroys the core conflict between Red Hood and Batman. The iconic scene where they fight in front of Joker is ruined. Pretty sad really I was very excited about that possibility. Batman killing in BVS is so unnecessary and just messes things up
You also do realize that a masterpiece like TDK could never happen with this Batman. Joker can't drive Batman to break his one rule because he has already broken it.
I really can't believe people are defending Batman's killing. There are no upsides whatsoever. I care so little about their reasoning for his murderous ways I wish they would just ignore it and act like he didn't kill anyone
A few things.
I find a terrible irony in your assertion that 'a masterpiece' like TDK couldn't be made with this batman. Like holding that films fate over my head lol. But yes ironic, for TDK was already made with a batman that stepped all over his supposed and supposedly integral no kill rule, even after BB at that, the film with maybe his biggest kill count outside of 89. I suppose even a hypocritical take on something that important is better than supposedly disregarding all together. Here's the thing, and something I wish all the so called purists would get straight, thus far this batman has been most faithful to that material you so very much desire for they didn't change a thing, they just added the stipulation that unlike the killing in all these prior movies, here is a batman that was actually driven past his breaking point. And elseworlds(as all movies are almost by definition) proposing what happens after the end of batman. That's the thing about context. If you have a story about batman in which he's brainwashed for 20 years to be darkseid's 'desaad' character, then when he does non batman like things you actually have in story context as to why, thus making it source accurate, rather making claims that he's not acting like batman...dumb. The trouble is as you yourself say, you don't give a damn about the in narrative anything, just that the end result is the same as what you want. It's nutz, and something I've seen in the important professional reviews as well.
This other part, about not getting to see this supposedly iconic scene you need to see. Sorry but you wanting more and more of comic stories or animations you've seen has nothing to do with reviewing the film in the here and now. Me not getting to see all the iconica that comes with Pym and his ultron is gone, Me not getting to see the iconic 'A stands for France' line, how's about I simply review the avengers for what it did do and not the stuff I want that it potentially won't do in some later film. Firstly there is an argument to be had as to whether those things I mentioned are even good(fans have their debates) just as they do all things jason todd. Secondly, would it be 'right' to then **** on all that is yielded and interesting about the new mcu because I think what some other writer did is demonstrably better or the best or the only way that's valid. no. Dear god Xmen first class..
And no, you actually still can have your scene, just have batman take back on his stance, especially now that a certain someone has rekindled his spark and mission and belief in men, I digress.
And lastly, yes we can find exceptions, we accept them as such. No reason why the movies can't also be seen as exceptions.
Anyways, my original post was actually about the use of the word 'psychopath'. I mean first this guy goes on about wanting stuff more like source(I have to assume that's where all that is coming from about superman), then asserts a batman that isn't this very thing he is often known for being or being close to in many of his celebrated material, is more source?
People use their preconceptions like the bible truly. Not only implying following the scripture is the best and only way to go forward but also in how they pick and choose what parts of the contracting scripture are indeed scripture. Batman especially in his older age can be crazy in the books, that's all.
Secondly, I have to assume all of this stems from the idea that batman is crazy in his need for blood and killing, to which I myself asserted that if shooting back at people who themselves are shooting 50cal and such machinery at you makes you a 'psychopath', then it sure as hell makes all the avengers the same or worse.
If only the header read, why can't dc fans get it right.
Have a good one.
Really?
