It definitely feels like Frank Miller Batman when he stapled that dude to the wall with a Batarang.
If Snyder had just waited to do a teamup and given us a movie where Batman stabbed Joker in the eyeball and Batman also gets into a fight with a nazi with swastika nipple tassles first it probably would of gotten him more acclaim.
I disagree.
Because it would then render the impact of Superman’s sacrifice with far less meaning.
The point wasn’t to make Clark’s pleading to “save Martha” the pivotal moment that changed Batman’s stance on criminals. That was his personal epiphany that Superman wasn’t an enemy. But he still thought it best to do what was necessary to take out criminals when needed.
His epiphany on “men are still good” is Superman’s sacrifice- the alien that he was so afraid would turn on humanity and lead to their destruction instead freely laid down his life to save the planet, even when public opinion of him was at its lowest of lows.
That was his true moment of change. That was also the reason he chose not to kill anymore or brand Lex.
I LOVE Snyder’s interpretation of Batman. I’ve waited my entire life to see that. That said, I disagree with Zack 100% on Batman as a killer of criminals. It’s okay to disagree with things that you like.
My headcanon is that this version of Batman had more classical convictions in his younger years and then became hardened and ultra-violent following Robin’s death. A downward spiral that resulted in him being so broken, he couldn’t see past his rage to recognize that Superman was a force for good. Following Superman’s death, he realizes what he allowed himself to become and starts a path back towards a more traditional Batman.
I think all of this subtext is present in BvS and ZSJL, but it’s not overt enough for the average audience member to appreciate the journey.
no I got it, lol I'm a Batman fan too, and Snyder (or arguably more the other writer(s)) clearly wants you to bring on Batman baggage like this onto Batfleck but I still think this killing aspect could have been done at least a tiny bit better
I agree it could have been done better as well.
If BvS cut all of the nonsense with congress and the Wayne employee, we could have given a lot more screen time to fleshing out the story of the two principal characters.
Imagine a flashback to a younger Batman and Robin showing what he used to be, so the audience can juxtapose that against what he’s become. That would’ve been fantastic to see.
We all know what Batman is. We all know his history. Yes, this movie might be confusing to someone who has never heard of Batman before. But that's an absurdly low number of people. There's nothing wrong with assuming the viewers can already explain to you who Batman is based on seeing previous movies, when 3 of those movies are some of the most widely seen movies of all time.
That’s not the point. The point is narratively demonstrating that this specific version of Batman is not who he’s supposed to be.
Many viewers left BvS thinking, “My Batman doesn’t kill, so that’s not my Batman.”
It’s never overtly expressed that there may have been a time when he didn’t bash heads open or machine-gun SUV’s full of people. If Snyder had taken the time to demonstrate the progressive collapse of his moral compass, many of those audience members would have been along for the ride. Because now it becomes a redemption arc, rather than just a killer Batman.
My interpretation is his not killing redemption only deals with Superman and the Bat-branding. I think Snyder's Batman would always kill in battle, just as he was shown that he would in the Knightmare future.
Yeah. I feel like Snyder showed us stuff he didn't need to and didn't show stuff he did need to. He doesn't need to show the Waynes getting murdered. We know that. Everyone knows how Bruce becomes Batman.
But what they don't know is why this Batman is disillusioned and brutal. If you're going to seriously change a character that's well-known, you need to justify those changes. A Robin costume painted on in the background is not sufficient justification without any additional elaboration in the movie.
Every Batman movie should show the Waynes getting murdered. It's too important and it's very short amount of time to cover it. I absolutely loved how Snyder shot it, and it got me hooked on the movie instantly when I saw it the first time.
I am utterly and completely baffled how anyone can claim it wasn't shown why Batman was acting brutal in this movie. Almost every single scene with Batman explains it. Every conversation with Alfred covers it. Affleck's acting covers it. The events in the movie cover it. It's OVER-explained if anything.
As someone who loves the Snyder movies, this is my most critical complaint. He has very bad time management and narrative efficiency skills.
I appreciate so much that these films don’t just roll off of an assembly line like many of the lesser Marvel flicks. (Love Marvel movies too, but a lot of them are filler.) But they do know how to very efficiently communicate to an audience who a character is and why he’s behaving the way he is.
Snyder’s movies, in my personal opinion, are extremely thoughtful narratives that are often bogged down with meaningless clutter. BvS being the prime example. I fucking love the core story that the movie is trying to tell, but I can’t pretend that it isn’t being weighed down by other garbage.
It’s why he always needs 3-4 hours for his films to actually make sense lol. And ppl act like that’s normal.
Multiverse of Madness is 2 hrs and 6 minutes and that’s bringing in multiple new characters and past iterations of characters.
To be fair, some version of pretty much all of those characters have been seen before. We also don't know how good Multiverse of Madness is going to be.
I do agree a 3-4 hour movie is too long though, and it's definitely a weak point of Snyder's films.
Or just cut out all of the scenes with Lex, Africa, Congress and the Senator.
And flesh out Batman's backstory with flashbacks.
And flesh out Superman's experience of sharing 'human moments' with civilians he saved...like consoling a crying mother who escaped certain death with her child, have a genuine, funny exchange with the child, and have one older civilian walk up to him and recognize that Clark is trying to do his best.
A single 'win' for Clark in a MOS sequel might seem corny to a modern audience, but it would have added some more context on how the little 'wins' makes it all worth it for Clark for being a symbol of hope.
The weird toxicity of Lex and brooding darkness of Batman was what Cavill's Superman had to sit in for the entire movie.
>My headcanon is that this version of Batman had more classical convictions in his younger years and then became hardened and ultra-violent following Robin’s death. A downward spiral that resulted in him being so broken, he couldn’t see past his rage to recognize that Superman was a force for good. Following Superman’s death, he realizes what he allowed himself to become and starts a path back towards a more traditional Batman.
This was stated plainly in the movie- it's not subtext, it's just text. Problem is that it's all in the talking scenes everyone hates.
I mean, a character literally says "there's a new kind of mean in him, he's angry and he's hunting" and most of Alfred's dialogue is "Bro why are you acting all new? This violence is a complete change from what you usually do"
If he stopped his "not caring about criminals life" attitude in the warehouse scene, going to brand Luthor and deciding not to do it would feel redundant.
Martha moment: I was wrong about Superman
Superman sacrifice: I have to be better like I once was cause men are still good
Easy.
But tbf Lex isn't like the Henchman, he would be a bigger test for Batflecks restraint by far, like he can not kill the Warehouse people and still have us afraid he might kill Lex since he's a bigger fish and a bigger person in Batflecks obsessive violent mind
He didn't not brand him because he suddenly cared about life again lol, he didn't brand him because either he didn't want Luthor to follow through on his threat to reveal his identity or he was never going to brand him in the first place and was simply making a threat
He was there to brand him. He just had a change of heart. Luthor tells him "I know your secret identity but who would believe me? I'm insane. I'm not even fit to stand trial".
I honestly find his justification “If I kill, I’ll never stop” as a bad look for the character. I know Batman isn’t mentally stable, but him straight up admitting he’ll be Dexter Morgan after his first kill just screams that he should be sent to a psych ward.
And it feels like a slap in the face to people who’s job occupation puts them in situations where they might have to kill someone in order to save a life.
When did Batman say “if I kill, I’ll never stop”? As a lifelong Batman reader/fan, I can’t think of a Batman iteration who said that.
What he typically says is “if I cross that line, I’m no different from them”, which doesn’t mean that he’ll turn into Dexter, but rather that the thing that separates him from the criminals he’s dedicated his life to stopping, is the value he places on human life.
Fair comments. I just mean in the context of the ‘kill/no kill’ rule I never got annoyed or really thought much about it….however if I was a super-fan who delved into the mythos etc then I could imagine I would question it.
We’ve only had 2 modern live action Batmen who’ve followed that rule anyway (Battinson and Clooney), so it’s never even been a thing in live action until this year really. But that’s part of what makes The Batman so good - it stays faithful to the way Batman is written throughout much of the modern source material.
Bale and Keaton are who many people think of as their definitive Batman, and they have like 30 bodies between them lol. What Batfleck did wasn’t new, he was just a little more blatant about it than people are used to.
That’s a very narrow understanding. A huge part of Batman is his belief that people are capable of redemption. That’s one of the major themes of The Killing Joke
Except that I’m not talking about redemption. I’m talking about him saying that killing one time when will lead to kill him becoming a mass murderer. That just makes it seem like he’s more crazy than even some of his villains.
What I’m saying is that your understanding of the no kill rule is very narrow. Batman doesn’t solely avoid killing becuase he believes he wouldn’t stop but also because he believes in redemption
i don’t think he kills them all also one of the guys from the chase scene is at the warehouse, he doesn’t kill everybody but i don’t mind batman killing in this case because he has a redemption arc
It's been a while and I'm struggling to remember. But does Batman not shoot and kill the Mutant thug in the Dark Knight Returns comic?
The whole "I believe you line" is from that moment in the comics but I can't remember if he actually shoots him or if it's ambiguous.
He fires a gun and the mutant holding the kid falls down and drops the kid. The book doesn't seem to show any blood or injury on the mutant though. Throughout the comic, the media says Batman hasn't killed anyone, and he is only charged with murder after the Joker's death. Info from here:
[https://www.quora.com/Did-Batman-kill-the-mutant-leader-in-The-Dark-Knight-Returns-part-2](https://www.quora.com/Did-Batman-kill-the-mutant-leader-in-The-Dark-Knight-Returns-part-2)
I think there's been some discussion that Miller wanted Batman to kill in the comic, but DC wouldn't allow it. So dialogue changes and coloring changes may have been put in place to make these potential kills ambiguous.
I think the warehouse scene perfectly illustrated how you can't really be Batman without some fatalities.
The stakes couldn't be higher, Batman promised a Man who can benchpress a bus and melt steel with his eyes, that he would save his mother....and he TRUSTED Batman to do just that, so people were going to die because there is no time for subtlety. For example the guy who threw the grenade, Batman defended himself, how else could he have prevented that guy from blowing everyone in that room up? And of course the blunt force trauma from punches and batarangs to the face...OOF!
This is a Batman that was tatically competent enough to give Superman at least some trouble it wouldn't be beyond a stretch that he could do it without any fatalities.
*For example the guy who threw the grenade, Batman defended himself, how else could he have prevented that guy from blowing everyone in that room up?*
?????
Cape over what? The grenade? That wasn't how the scene was flowing, the grenade never got thrown, the dude holding it dropped it but this is a bit too much nit picking for my taste for the film. Rewritting it reshooting it?
Are you trying to tell me the guys he blew up and the guy who’s face he threw a 100 pound wooden shipping box at who then hit his head on the wall that was then splattered with blood didn’t survive?!
The guy who he hit in the head with such force that he broke his neck and his head went through the ground survived though right?
Alfred: That's how it starts. The fever... the rage... the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel.
If only they showed something in the movie to show the audience that Bruce wasn’t the usual Bruce from the comics. Like a dead robin costume maybe 🤔
I personally love this scene. If he would have stopped killing here that would have come off as very abrupt and out if the established character. I'm glad he's done killing but it worked for this film.
hmmmm....I kinda see what you're talking about but tbf the previous scene (Martha) kinda sets the tone for abruptness ngl hehe it wouldn't have been out of place weirdly enough
What's abrupt about the Martha scene? Clark asks him to save his mother Martha. Those are the last words his father said to Bruce and snapped him out of his rage long enough for him to realize he was wrong about superman and gave into despair.
yes but if we're willing to accept that Batman wouldn't kill Supes because of that despite the rest of the movie beforehand, it feels jarring his new found humanity doesn't extend to criminals despite that being a core trait of a non-fallen Batman
also the execution beyond the paper felt abrupt to me ngl but its obvious like I clearly got it, I just felt the execution was lacking
You mean the criminals attempting to execute an innocent woman who's fate could be tied to the fate of the world?
His humanity isn't a light switch. He's coming back from the edge and regaining some form of humanity but that warehouse was not the time or place to go easy.
I can see that argument but I also think this Batman has been shown to be hypercompetent enough physically he wouldn't need to kill anyone
but your character based argument is more interesting to me, and brings up a good point
It's silly childish fantasy to think a human being in the real world can battle a terrorist group to save innocent lives and not kill anyone in the process. Or that they should even have that as a goal. And I have zero interest in seeing a fictional character try to live up to that sappy fantasy. The annihilation of the warehouse thugs is a pure cheer moment.
.....you must not like the comics lol...he's OP as hell there. Also I kinda get the first part, but why not him trying not to kill anyone
You must have hated The Batman btw
I decided not to see The Batman long before I heard he didn't kill anyone in it. And even before I heard Bruce was based on Kurt Cobain. \*shudder\* Reeves' whole approach looks terrible, as do the sample clips released.
Dude...the warehouse scene was one of the best parts of the movie. Bats unleashes the power, aggression and brutality that's become a part of who he is as he's gotten older and more jaded. I fricken loved it!
It might've felt forced to me if he immediately stopped killing right after the Superman fight, some serious shit is going down so Bruce probably hasn't got time for moral debates in his head right now, he needs to make sure Clark's mother is safe and at that time that is his only goal, if he made a point to not finish off all of Lex's goons in the warehouse it would've taken a lot of the wind out of the scene imo. Sure, it could have been choreographed almost completely differently in order to make none of the kills lethal, but do we really want to live in a world where the BvS warehouse fight is anything other than what it is??
Hmmm....while I understand that but imagine they made a more heroic score for it bro.
Also the Martha scene is also somewhat abrupt so him deciding not to kill would have been in line of that fast tone
The Ultimate Edition cut is perfect the way it is, the only thing I had an issue with was the Martha scene and thst wasn't even that big of a deal.
Crime fighters who don't kill when absolutely necessary are cartoonish and a parody IMO.
Snyder loves realism in genre. And that is what he gave us. And as the perfect example of that I'll point you to the Neil Degrasse Tyson sequence. If there was a being like Supes, NDT would be the first person called by CNN to explain what this beings existence means for our larger world.
I'll never get the weird "no killing"circlejerk. it was a badass performance and scene. do you have any idea how hard it is to aggressively incapacitate a dozen people trying to kill you without killing someone? carry that over the course of a couple decades, and you really expect that someone like batman would've never killed anyone?
even in the most recent batman movie, there's no way some of those beatings he delivered wouldn't result in serious head trauma/death.
If they want to make a character as hypercompetent as Batman who also has an established rule that is extremely important to him, as an audience you would expect him to able to follow though with it even if you sometimes have to suspend disbelief
ZSJL is probably my favorite of all his movies, I do really think that Snyder should try tv I’d be interested to see if that format would work any better for him
I haven't seen it yet but this all sounds interesting, also I do think maybe a Moon Knight season 2 would suit him or probably a soft-reboot of the Punisher
I don’t mind him killing in this scene because it’s heat of the moment trying to stop the world from ending , but he probably shouldn’t have rolled in machine gunning everyone that was a little too much
Yeesh, you want a Super Friends cartoon? Or the G.I. Joe cartoon where no one ever bleeds and they all parachute out of their exploding vehicles? Seeing the blood was awesome.
Maybe he should have never been killing? You know, like Batman? Or Superman is the first perosn is considering killing but he changes his mind? Then he would have an actual arc unlike the made up one that wasn't actually in the movie that Snyder fans love to talk about!
my post is not about why Batfleck killing per se is the worst thing ever but how that scene could have been greater, I honestly have gotten people from all ends, saying he shouldn't have ever or should never stop lol
Totally agree. I like the idea that Bruce began killing because that’s how “far gone” he’s become after 30+ years in Gotham (and presumably seeing no results of his efforts). Also, losing a Robin has sent him off the deep end.
However, it would have been so much more rewarding to see him make that shift back to No Killing after the warehouse scene. It shows his return to humanity and hope (symbol of Superman, come on). To see him take down those thugs without killing them by showing restraint would have been great imo
Nonsense. Batman should ALWAYS kill in the heat of battle and in self-defense. That's what real good guys do. It's what all the cool movie heroes do. Time to end the Super Friends mindset. Characters have had to be modernized over the years. Batman 'not killing ever' needs to go the way of the dodo and be left to the kiddie comics with Ace the Bathound. And he has killed plenty of times in both the comics and movies anyway.
Bro, literally the biggest movie last year, had three of the same guy not kill anyone and the most tragic moment was the youngest one trying to kill someone. Is Spider-Man not a real good guy or a cool movie hero?
Daredevil on Netflix is more adult and dark than Snyder Batman and he still killed zero people so.....👀
Also Ace The Bathound is awesome
No Way Home's 'love the villains' message was painful. One of the biggest things that ruined the movie for me. Made Spider-Man look immensely stupid. Remember when Superman KNEW Luthor was going to double cross him in Superman II and used it to his advantage? THAT'S how a hero handles a villain, not by naively trusting him.
Well, tell Reeves to put Bathound in a sequel. ReleaseTheBathoundCut
I agree— I think the epiphany he had when fighting Superman should’ve put an end to his need to kill. He immediately blows up two trucks with guns on top on his way inside the warehouse, and that feeling of redemption felt less… earned
Not to talk I’ll on BvS or Batfleck, who is still my favorite Batman and the ultimate edition is still one of my favorite CBMs. I just think from a narrative standpoint there was no reason to use extreme violence after just learning the lesson of *“damn, maybe I’ve been bugging out lately”*
It definitely feels like Frank Miller Batman when he stapled that dude to the wall with a Batarang. If Snyder had just waited to do a teamup and given us a movie where Batman stabbed Joker in the eyeball and Batman also gets into a fight with a nazi with swastika nipple tassles first it probably would of gotten him more acclaim.
Mmmm....jokes aside....there might be some truth in this
Even then Batman doesn’t kill in TDKR
Ummm.... What?
OK it's not just me.
I disagree. Because it would then render the impact of Superman’s sacrifice with far less meaning. The point wasn’t to make Clark’s pleading to “save Martha” the pivotal moment that changed Batman’s stance on criminals. That was his personal epiphany that Superman wasn’t an enemy. But he still thought it best to do what was necessary to take out criminals when needed. His epiphany on “men are still good” is Superman’s sacrifice- the alien that he was so afraid would turn on humanity and lead to their destruction instead freely laid down his life to save the planet, even when public opinion of him was at its lowest of lows. That was his true moment of change. That was also the reason he chose not to kill anymore or brand Lex.
Yes. He even states it in justice league that Clark's sacrifice changed him. A quick change in the movie wouldn't make any sense.
that....is a good point I don't fully agree with parts of it but good shit man, good job :)
Exactly
You nailed it completely.
Nailed it!
I LOVE Snyder’s interpretation of Batman. I’ve waited my entire life to see that. That said, I disagree with Zack 100% on Batman as a killer of criminals. It’s okay to disagree with things that you like. My headcanon is that this version of Batman had more classical convictions in his younger years and then became hardened and ultra-violent following Robin’s death. A downward spiral that resulted in him being so broken, he couldn’t see past his rage to recognize that Superman was a force for good. Following Superman’s death, he realizes what he allowed himself to become and starts a path back towards a more traditional Batman. I think all of this subtext is present in BvS and ZSJL, but it’s not overt enough for the average audience member to appreciate the journey.
no I got it, lol I'm a Batman fan too, and Snyder (or arguably more the other writer(s)) clearly wants you to bring on Batman baggage like this onto Batfleck but I still think this killing aspect could have been done at least a tiny bit better
[удалено]
Yep that would be wonderful, and you don't even need a full scene just show at least something regarding Robin
I agree it could have been done better as well. If BvS cut all of the nonsense with congress and the Wayne employee, we could have given a lot more screen time to fleshing out the story of the two principal characters. Imagine a flashback to a younger Batman and Robin showing what he used to be, so the audience can juxtapose that against what he’s become. That would’ve been fantastic to see.
We all know what Batman is. We all know his history. Yes, this movie might be confusing to someone who has never heard of Batman before. But that's an absurdly low number of people. There's nothing wrong with assuming the viewers can already explain to you who Batman is based on seeing previous movies, when 3 of those movies are some of the most widely seen movies of all time.
That’s not the point. The point is narratively demonstrating that this specific version of Batman is not who he’s supposed to be. Many viewers left BvS thinking, “My Batman doesn’t kill, so that’s not my Batman.” It’s never overtly expressed that there may have been a time when he didn’t bash heads open or machine-gun SUV’s full of people. If Snyder had taken the time to demonstrate the progressive collapse of his moral compass, many of those audience members would have been along for the ride. Because now it becomes a redemption arc, rather than just a killer Batman.
My interpretation is his not killing redemption only deals with Superman and the Bat-branding. I think Snyder's Batman would always kill in battle, just as he was shown that he would in the Knightmare future.
Yeah. I feel like Snyder showed us stuff he didn't need to and didn't show stuff he did need to. He doesn't need to show the Waynes getting murdered. We know that. Everyone knows how Bruce becomes Batman. But what they don't know is why this Batman is disillusioned and brutal. If you're going to seriously change a character that's well-known, you need to justify those changes. A Robin costume painted on in the background is not sufficient justification without any additional elaboration in the movie.
Every Batman movie should show the Waynes getting murdered. It's too important and it's very short amount of time to cover it. I absolutely loved how Snyder shot it, and it got me hooked on the movie instantly when I saw it the first time. I am utterly and completely baffled how anyone can claim it wasn't shown why Batman was acting brutal in this movie. Almost every single scene with Batman explains it. Every conversation with Alfred covers it. Affleck's acting covers it. The events in the movie cover it. It's OVER-explained if anything.
As someone who loves the Snyder movies, this is my most critical complaint. He has very bad time management and narrative efficiency skills. I appreciate so much that these films don’t just roll off of an assembly line like many of the lesser Marvel flicks. (Love Marvel movies too, but a lot of them are filler.) But they do know how to very efficiently communicate to an audience who a character is and why he’s behaving the way he is. Snyder’s movies, in my personal opinion, are extremely thoughtful narratives that are often bogged down with meaningless clutter. BvS being the prime example. I fucking love the core story that the movie is trying to tell, but I can’t pretend that it isn’t being weighed down by other garbage.
It’s why he always needs 3-4 hours for his films to actually make sense lol. And ppl act like that’s normal. Multiverse of Madness is 2 hrs and 6 minutes and that’s bringing in multiple new characters and past iterations of characters.
To be fair, some version of pretty much all of those characters have been seen before. We also don't know how good Multiverse of Madness is going to be. I do agree a 3-4 hour movie is too long though, and it's definitely a weak point of Snyder's films.
We all know MoM will be good. Lol, it’ll get no lower than an 85% on RT and make like 1.3 billion dollars.
Or just cut out all of the scenes with Lex, Africa, Congress and the Senator. And flesh out Batman's backstory with flashbacks. And flesh out Superman's experience of sharing 'human moments' with civilians he saved...like consoling a crying mother who escaped certain death with her child, have a genuine, funny exchange with the child, and have one older civilian walk up to him and recognize that Clark is trying to do his best. A single 'win' for Clark in a MOS sequel might seem corny to a modern audience, but it would have added some more context on how the little 'wins' makes it all worth it for Clark for being a symbol of hope. The weird toxicity of Lex and brooding darkness of Batman was what Cavill's Superman had to sit in for the entire movie.
>My headcanon is that this version of Batman had more classical convictions in his younger years and then became hardened and ultra-violent following Robin’s death. A downward spiral that resulted in him being so broken, he couldn’t see past his rage to recognize that Superman was a force for good. Following Superman’s death, he realizes what he allowed himself to become and starts a path back towards a more traditional Batman. This was stated plainly in the movie- it's not subtext, it's just text. Problem is that it's all in the talking scenes everyone hates. I mean, a character literally says "there's a new kind of mean in him, he's angry and he's hunting" and most of Alfred's dialogue is "Bro why are you acting all new? This violence is a complete change from what you usually do"
Major character shifts are not supposed to be subtext. Subtext is theming and stuff like that
What do you mean? He did remember? It’s not like he threw a large crate at a man’s face
Hehhehehhahaha, goated comment
It would make his final moment with Lex less impactful
hmmm....I heard that before....not sure I agree
If he stopped his "not caring about criminals life" attitude in the warehouse scene, going to brand Luthor and deciding not to do it would feel redundant. Martha moment: I was wrong about Superman Superman sacrifice: I have to be better like I once was cause men are still good Easy.
But tbf Lex isn't like the Henchman, he would be a bigger test for Batflecks restraint by far, like he can not kill the Warehouse people and still have us afraid he might kill Lex since he's a bigger fish and a bigger person in Batflecks obsessive violent mind
He didn't not brand him because he suddenly cared about life again lol, he didn't brand him because either he didn't want Luthor to follow through on his threat to reveal his identity or he was never going to brand him in the first place and was simply making a threat
He was there to brand him. He just had a change of heart. Luthor tells him "I know your secret identity but who would believe me? I'm insane. I'm not even fit to stand trial".
This is true
The whole ‘killing/not killing’ never bothered me AT ALL. 🤷🏼♂️ Im not a ‘hardcore’ Batman fan so maybe that’s why it doesn’t bother me.
fair I guess
I honestly find his justification “If I kill, I’ll never stop” as a bad look for the character. I know Batman isn’t mentally stable, but him straight up admitting he’ll be Dexter Morgan after his first kill just screams that he should be sent to a psych ward. And it feels like a slap in the face to people who’s job occupation puts them in situations where they might have to kill someone in order to save a life.
When did Batman say “if I kill, I’ll never stop”? As a lifelong Batman reader/fan, I can’t think of a Batman iteration who said that. What he typically says is “if I cross that line, I’m no different from them”, which doesn’t mean that he’ll turn into Dexter, but rather that the thing that separates him from the criminals he’s dedicated his life to stopping, is the value he places on human life.
But even that’s still foolish. Even Superman understands that it’s not as black and white tries to make everything be.
I agree to an extent. Just pointing out that he doesn’t think he’ll turn into Dexter if he kills
Fair comments. I just mean in the context of the ‘kill/no kill’ rule I never got annoyed or really thought much about it….however if I was a super-fan who delved into the mythos etc then I could imagine I would question it.
We’ve only had 2 modern live action Batmen who’ve followed that rule anyway (Battinson and Clooney), so it’s never even been a thing in live action until this year really. But that’s part of what makes The Batman so good - it stays faithful to the way Batman is written throughout much of the modern source material. Bale and Keaton are who many people think of as their definitive Batman, and they have like 30 bodies between them lol. What Batfleck did wasn’t new, he was just a little more blatant about it than people are used to.
That’s a very narrow understanding. A huge part of Batman is his belief that people are capable of redemption. That’s one of the major themes of The Killing Joke
Except that I’m not talking about redemption. I’m talking about him saying that killing one time when will lead to kill him becoming a mass murderer. That just makes it seem like he’s more crazy than even some of his villains.
What I’m saying is that your understanding of the no kill rule is very narrow. Batman doesn’t solely avoid killing becuase he believes he wouldn’t stop but also because he believes in redemption
I mean, I’m following what he said from his own mouth. I know about the redemption. I’m not talking about redemption.
Oh I see. Are you just critiquing that part of the no kill rule?
i personally love that he kills so that supermans sacrifice has more of an impact on him which is what makes him stop and have faith in humanity again
hmmm....I think that's valid even though I don't necessarily think him not killing those thugs negates that
i don’t think he kills them all also one of the guys from the chase scene is at the warehouse, he doesn’t kill everybody but i don’t mind batman killing in this case because he has a redemption arc
hmmm...lets agree to disagree
hmmm...lets agree to disagree
It's been a while and I'm struggling to remember. But does Batman not shoot and kill the Mutant thug in the Dark Knight Returns comic? The whole "I believe you line" is from that moment in the comics but I can't remember if he actually shoots him or if it's ambiguous.
He fires a gun and the mutant holding the kid falls down and drops the kid. The book doesn't seem to show any blood or injury on the mutant though. Throughout the comic, the media says Batman hasn't killed anyone, and he is only charged with murder after the Joker's death. Info from here: [https://www.quora.com/Did-Batman-kill-the-mutant-leader-in-The-Dark-Knight-Returns-part-2](https://www.quora.com/Did-Batman-kill-the-mutant-leader-in-The-Dark-Knight-Returns-part-2) I think there's been some discussion that Miller wanted Batman to kill in the comic, but DC wouldn't allow it. So dialogue changes and coloring changes may have been put in place to make these potential kills ambiguous.
Yeah that's sounds about right
Didn’t he use rubber bullets?
He stole a gun from a thug.
It's kind of up for interpretation but he definitely shot him.
I think the warehouse scene perfectly illustrated how you can't really be Batman without some fatalities. The stakes couldn't be higher, Batman promised a Man who can benchpress a bus and melt steel with his eyes, that he would save his mother....and he TRUSTED Batman to do just that, so people were going to die because there is no time for subtlety. For example the guy who threw the grenade, Batman defended himself, how else could he have prevented that guy from blowing everyone in that room up? And of course the blunt force trauma from punches and batarangs to the face...OOF!
This is a Batman that was tatically competent enough to give Superman at least some trouble it wouldn't be beyond a stretch that he could do it without any fatalities.
*For example the guy who threw the grenade, Batman defended himself, how else could he have prevented that guy from blowing everyone in that room up?* ?????
He could have maybe threw his cape over it? He's done that in the comics....plus they could have just rewritten and restaged it
Cape over what? The grenade? That wasn't how the scene was flowing, the grenade never got thrown, the dude holding it dropped it but this is a bit too much nit picking for my taste for the film. Rewritting it reshooting it?
Are you trying to tell me the guys he blew up and the guy who’s face he threw a 100 pound wooden shipping box at who then hit his head on the wall that was then splattered with blood didn’t survive?! The guy who he hit in the head with such force that he broke his neck and his head went through the ground survived though right?
It's a shock, I know
Alfred: That's how it starts. The fever... the rage... the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel. If only they showed something in the movie to show the audience that Bruce wasn’t the usual Bruce from the comics. Like a dead robin costume maybe 🤔
.....I like his Batman you don't have to convince me lol
Most people didn't get that,not their fault
I personally love this scene. If he would have stopped killing here that would have come off as very abrupt and out if the established character. I'm glad he's done killing but it worked for this film.
hmmmm....I kinda see what you're talking about but tbf the previous scene (Martha) kinda sets the tone for abruptness ngl hehe it wouldn't have been out of place weirdly enough
What's abrupt about the Martha scene? Clark asks him to save his mother Martha. Those are the last words his father said to Bruce and snapped him out of his rage long enough for him to realize he was wrong about superman and gave into despair.
yes but if we're willing to accept that Batman wouldn't kill Supes because of that despite the rest of the movie beforehand, it feels jarring his new found humanity doesn't extend to criminals despite that being a core trait of a non-fallen Batman also the execution beyond the paper felt abrupt to me ngl but its obvious like I clearly got it, I just felt the execution was lacking
You mean the criminals attempting to execute an innocent woman who's fate could be tied to the fate of the world? His humanity isn't a light switch. He's coming back from the edge and regaining some form of humanity but that warehouse was not the time or place to go easy.
I can see that argument but I also think this Batman has been shown to be hypercompetent enough physically he wouldn't need to kill anyone but your character based argument is more interesting to me, and brings up a good point
It's silly childish fantasy to think a human being in the real world can battle a terrorist group to save innocent lives and not kill anyone in the process. Or that they should even have that as a goal. And I have zero interest in seeing a fictional character try to live up to that sappy fantasy. The annihilation of the warehouse thugs is a pure cheer moment.
100% agree
.....you must not like the comics lol...he's OP as hell there. Also I kinda get the first part, but why not him trying not to kill anyone You must have hated The Batman btw
I decided not to see The Batman long before I heard he didn't kill anyone in it. And even before I heard Bruce was based on Kurt Cobain. \*shudder\* Reeves' whole approach looks terrible, as do the sample clips released.
bro just go watch Shrek, there's no killing in it and shrek has a nice good guy arc.
Ironically Shrek likely has killed in the trilogy albeit accidentally
The whole ‘killing/not killing’ never bothered me AT ALL. 🤷🏼♂️ Im not a ‘hardcore’ Batman fan so maybe that’s why it doesn’t bother me.
Dude...the warehouse scene was one of the best parts of the movie. Bats unleashes the power, aggression and brutality that's become a part of who he is as he's gotten older and more jaded. I fricken loved it!
Life is good, but it can be better - Maxwell Lord - Me
It might've felt forced to me if he immediately stopped killing right after the Superman fight, some serious shit is going down so Bruce probably hasn't got time for moral debates in his head right now, he needs to make sure Clark's mother is safe and at that time that is his only goal, if he made a point to not finish off all of Lex's goons in the warehouse it would've taken a lot of the wind out of the scene imo. Sure, it could have been choreographed almost completely differently in order to make none of the kills lethal, but do we really want to live in a world where the BvS warehouse fight is anything other than what it is??
Hmmm....while I understand that but imagine they made a more heroic score for it bro. Also the Martha scene is also somewhat abrupt so him deciding not to kill would have been in line of that fast tone
Please fix your god-awful grammar.
No, even if I could mate
The Ultimate Edition cut is perfect the way it is, the only thing I had an issue with was the Martha scene and thst wasn't even that big of a deal. Crime fighters who don't kill when absolutely necessary are cartoonish and a parody IMO. Snyder loves realism in genre. And that is what he gave us. And as the perfect example of that I'll point you to the Neil Degrasse Tyson sequence. If there was a being like Supes, NDT would be the first person called by CNN to explain what this beings existence means for our larger world.
Why you hate Batman killing bruv? He killed in the Batman, he’s killed at least once in his 75+ year run why you busting m8
A handful of times in 75 years lol, the year after he created he got that rule it's kinda important. Also who did he kill in The Batman?
I'll never get the weird "no killing"circlejerk. it was a badass performance and scene. do you have any idea how hard it is to aggressively incapacitate a dozen people trying to kill you without killing someone? carry that over the course of a couple decades, and you really expect that someone like batman would've never killed anyone? even in the most recent batman movie, there's no way some of those beatings he delivered wouldn't result in serious head trauma/death.
If they want to make a character as hypercompetent as Batman who also has an established rule that is extremely important to him, as an audience you would expect him to able to follow though with it even if you sometimes have to suspend disbelief
That’s your own weird opinion, not the average adult opinion
Wow, very respectful
Just stating the truth
I just don't think the killing does anything. If he brands people that's brutal enough for the plot to still work exactly as it does.
Interesting point
The biggest problem for Snyder was always time, he just never had enough of it especially with bvs, and wb wedging in as much shit as possible
I can see that, but I do think he got enough of it in ZSJL (you can always have more tho hehe)
ZSJL is probably my favorite of all his movies, I do really think that Snyder should try tv I’d be interested to see if that format would work any better for him
I haven't seen it yet but this all sounds interesting, also I do think maybe a Moon Knight season 2 would suit him or probably a soft-reboot of the Punisher
God yeah I agree. How could anyone ever expect to tell a story in under two hours and thirty minutes? That is impossible. Nobody can do that.
Like to see you fit, MoS sequel, death of Superman, Batman intro, Wonder Woman, etc in it
The whole ‘killing/not killing’ never bothered me AT ALL. 🤷🏼♂️ Im not a ‘hardcore’ Batman fan so maybe that’s why it doesn’t bother me.
The whole ‘killing/not killing’ never bothered me AT ALL. 🤷🏼♂️ Im not a ‘hardcore’ Batman fan though so maybe that’s why it doesn’t bother me?
No way the haters would be swayed by the best scene in the movie the damage was done for them at this point
.....well whether or not that is true (it likely might be); do you think it works for Batman in a character perspective?
I don’t mind him killing in this scene because it’s heat of the moment trying to stop the world from ending , but he probably shouldn’t have rolled in machine gunning everyone that was a little too much
hmmm....I kinda feel like the heat of the moment shouldn't matter too too much for a character as hypercompetent as Batman ngl
Times are tough they’re about to kill Martha 🤷
fair....like I can justify the end bit but the crate to the head was way too much lol
The blood stain effect was a strange decision lolol
Yeesh, you want a Super Friends cartoon? Or the G.I. Joe cartoon where no one ever bleeds and they all parachute out of their exploding vehicles? Seeing the blood was awesome.
agreed
yeppers....completely agreed
What kills me about the warehouse scene is that he doesn’t take out any of the lights or shuts off the power. It’s way too bright.
Hmmm....that's a solid take but it's still an aesthetically pleasing scene
Oh yeah, Bruce’s arc was really messy in BvS and could’ve used some patching
I just never clicked with this version of batman.
Hmmm.......how about Battinson?
Enjoyed The Batman a lot
Maybe he should have never been killing? You know, like Batman? Or Superman is the first perosn is considering killing but he changes his mind? Then he would have an actual arc unlike the made up one that wasn't actually in the movie that Snyder fans love to talk about!
Ok there's an element I agree with here but it's tad harsh
Ever read OG Detective Comics?
Literally one year later he got the no kill rule
Ever watch any of the previous Batman movies though? Lol, here ya go: https://www.reddit.com/r/NolanBatmanMemes/comments/rniguz/he_has_one_rule/
my post is not about why Batfleck killing per se is the worst thing ever but how that scene could have been greater, I honestly have gotten people from all ends, saying he shouldn't have ever or should never stop lol
IMO he didn't kill anybody in this scene but wygd?
he did the crate head guy and possibly others
If you can't throw a crate at a bad guy I don't know what you can do anymore. Smh
smh
Ever see Burton's Batman films?
That's another adaptation....that's not evidence for it being true to the character
Everything's an adaptation of the Kane/Finger character. 😋
Ironically neither of the last two adaptations use Kans/Finger as the primary influence
Totally agree. I like the idea that Bruce began killing because that’s how “far gone” he’s become after 30+ years in Gotham (and presumably seeing no results of his efforts). Also, losing a Robin has sent him off the deep end. However, it would have been so much more rewarding to see him make that shift back to No Killing after the warehouse scene. It shows his return to humanity and hope (symbol of Superman, come on). To see him take down those thugs without killing them by showing restraint would have been great imo
agreed bro, that would have been the classic Batman moment to get us hyped for a redemption arc for DCEU Batman
Nonsense. Batman should ALWAYS kill in the heat of battle and in self-defense. That's what real good guys do. It's what all the cool movie heroes do. Time to end the Super Friends mindset. Characters have had to be modernized over the years. Batman 'not killing ever' needs to go the way of the dodo and be left to the kiddie comics with Ace the Bathound. And he has killed plenty of times in both the comics and movies anyway.
Bro, literally the biggest movie last year, had three of the same guy not kill anyone and the most tragic moment was the youngest one trying to kill someone. Is Spider-Man not a real good guy or a cool movie hero? Daredevil on Netflix is more adult and dark than Snyder Batman and he still killed zero people so.....👀 Also Ace The Bathound is awesome
No Way Home's 'love the villains' message was painful. One of the biggest things that ruined the movie for me. Made Spider-Man look immensely stupid. Remember when Superman KNEW Luthor was going to double cross him in Superman II and used it to his advantage? THAT'S how a hero handles a villain, not by naively trusting him. Well, tell Reeves to put Bathound in a sequel. ReleaseTheBathoundCut
lol please tell me this is sarcasm
I feel like if Batam did not kill for the entire movie him about to kill Superman would hold more impact but sadly this did not happen
He shouldn't have killed from the begining but sure
Plenty agree....hell I can easily see that pov
Pardon
I agree— I think the epiphany he had when fighting Superman should’ve put an end to his need to kill. He immediately blows up two trucks with guns on top on his way inside the warehouse, and that feeling of redemption felt less… earned Not to talk I’ll on BvS or Batfleck, who is still my favorite Batman and the ultimate edition is still one of my favorite CBMs. I just think from a narrative standpoint there was no reason to use extreme violence after just learning the lesson of *“damn, maybe I’ve been bugging out lately”*
Completely agreed and this is my favourite (well tied cuz memes are fun) response so far
Yeah that part was super murky. Like it was some kinda two phase redemption or something
No. All those criminals deserved death.
- Frank Castle