Will Batman still be a killer in this film?

[The Overlord]

Batman was willing to kill random mooks in the Batman v Superman, so he will kill in this movie?

 

[David H.]

This will get "fixed" by WB the same way the destruction in Metropolis got "fixed" in BvS.

I sort of think each DC movie will address the previous one's mistake as an important plot point.

 

[metaphysician]

I doubt it. Snyder isn't really involved, so their should be 100% fewer "Wouldn't it be awesome if [terrible idea]?" moments in the creation. Look at Suicide Squad: for all its issues, it has Batman generally acting like Batman, with no mook murder and actually going out of his way to save villains in danger.

 

[shauner111]

My problem with how they're fixing the killing with each movie, is that it doesn't feel organic. It's like they're only fixing this once the fans/critics speak against it.

I don't think we will see Batfleck murdering criminals in a direct way, but aliens are probably good to go. Then you have Suicide Squad which shows Batman arresting Deadshot, but a division of Wayne Corp is funding a bomb that can make a person's head explode. So at the end of the day, it's not exactly predictable, whether Bats will kill or not. They'll just come up with a sneaky way to do it.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Unless Affleck shares Snyder's idea about "killing by proxy", I doubt that. They already said something about Batman's killing will be addressed in Justice League...

 

[shauner111]

But don't worry, he'll keep stalking criminals at night, ESPECIALLY if they're strolling down the street with their children.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Unless Affleck shares Snyder's idea about "killing by proxy", I doubt that. They already said something about Batman's killing will be addressed in Justice League...

Someone needs to tell Snyder that proxy does not include Batman's trigger finger.

 

[idiot09]

It already stopped in BvS when he didnt brand Luthor so obviously thats not gonna continue.

 

[brandeezy89]

But don't worry, he'll keep stalking criminals at night, ESPECIALLY if they're strolling down the street with their children.

"Criminals deserve no mercy!"

 

[Spoonman]

I am surprised this still is a question for some people. Didn't both Snyder and Affleck separately talk about the subject on the JL set visit interviews? I seem to recall they specifically talked about Batman not being nearly as brutal on JL as he was in BvS and that his past brutal methods would be somewhat adressed on JL, now one has to check expectations so don't excpect and essay on that on JL, just some addresing of the subject.

Also, I thought that after Superman's self sacrifice on BvS and Batman not Branding Lex was a clear indication of whats to come in terms of his character moving forward.

 

[Wildcard]

It already stopped in BvS when he didnt brand Luthor so obviously thats not gonna continue.

Yep. And the fact that he didn't attempt to kill Deadshot, only subdued him.

Still, they should try to make him look like less of a *****e. Having him apprehend dudes in front of their children ain't the way to do it, though.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

This Batman doesn't have a problem sparing big time villains. Otherwise all of his rogues gallery would be dead. He just kills goons.

Which makes him one twisted c***.

 

[Spoonman]

This Batman doesn't have a problem sparing big time villains. Otherwise all of his rogues gallery would be dead. He just kills goons.

Which makes him one twisted c***.

Not really, the Batman we saw on BvS was him at an all time low in terms of jadedness, it is not supposed to be the way he has operated for the whole 20 years of activity he has under his belt in the DCEU version of the character; hence the "new rules" dialog Alfred has with Bruce or "the new kind of mean in him" that the Afroamerican man in Gotham tells Clark about.

 

[JOE]

I don't want to hear Ben talking about a "no killing rule" after the slaughter show in BvS. It's done, just keep it consistent at least. They can't just pretend none of that happened. Back peddling would be stupid at this point. Embrace his lust for bloodshed.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

It doesn't matter. I hate it when people try to justify Batfleck's murder's as "Oh, well he was at his lowest point" or "He has renewed faith in humanity.". That's not the point. He broke his one-rule, nothing will ever change that.

 

[Spoonman]

It doesn't matter. I hate it when people try to justify Batfleck's murder's as "Oh, well he was at his lowest point" or "He has renewed faith in humanity.". That's not the point. He broke his one-rule, nothing will ever change that.

He broke it just like every other cinematic version of the character except for Clooney...nothing will ever change that too, and on top of things there you have Baleman being such a hypocrit about the whole "no killing" thing, so I too hate it when people act as if Batfleck did "the un-thinkable thing"...c'mon.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Not really, the Batman we saw on BvS was him at an all time low in terms of jadedness, it is not supposed to be the way he has operated for the whole 20 years of activity he has under his belt in the DCEU version of the character; hence the "new rules" dialog Alfred has with Bruce or "the new kind of mean in him" that the Afroamerican man in Gotham tells Clark about.

How convenient that all of his rogues were in Arkham during his trying, murderous times. And conveniently started to come out again after he regained humanity.

It's such a stroke of convenience that the Joker didn't face Batman in that window of time.

 

[The Joker]

Maybe all the Arkham villains have mothers named Martha.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

He broke it just like every other cinematic version of the character except for Clooney...nothing will ever change that too, and on top of things there you have Baleman being such an hypocrit about the whole "no killing" thing, so I too hate it when people act as if Batfleck did "the un-thinkable thing"...c'mon.

Nobody barked about those incarnations because 'teh so very comic accurate' though. Which makes this apology tour for his killings seem more blatant sycophantic fanboyism than it already is.

 

[Spoonman]

How convenient that all of his rogues were in Arkham during his trying, murderous times. And conveniently started to come out again after he regained humanity.

It's such a stroke of convenience that the Joker didn't face Batman in that window of time.

I guess so...but you can nitpick almost every movie for that kind of stuff and frankly I am not interested in such a thing, for each their own I guess.

 

[Spoonman]

Nobody barked about those incarnations because 'teh so very comic accurate' though. Which makes this apology tour for his killings seem more blatant sycophantic fanboyism than it already is.

People is being so "mater of fact" towards Batfleck's killings so I am just adopting the same "mater of fact" mentalilty about cinematic Batman having killed before, simple as that, no need for "blatant sycophantic fanboyism" or such things.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Nah. Most decent movies don't have such obvious quantities of conveniences every corner you look. Kind of like Superman suddenly calling his mother by name pre-death. Very convenient stuff.

 

[The Joker]

Batfleck's Batman being a killer even bothered Kevin Conroy;

http://screenrant.com/kevin-conroy-batman-v-superman/

 

[Tacit Ronin]

People is being so "mater of fact" towards Batfleck's killings so I am just adopting the same "mater of fact" mentalilty about cinematic Batman having killed before, simple as that, no need for "blatant sycophantic fanboyism" or such things.

People expected more. What after being told how this incarnation will finally be comic accurate and how it would wash the stain of the previously polluted adaptations and finally do things right.

 

[Spoonman]

Nah. Most decent movies don't have such obvious quantities of conveniences every corner you look. Kind of like Superman suddenly calling his mother by name pre-death. Very convenient stuff.

This is false, But I guess its no good to keep on discussing such trivialities, so I will agree to disagree.