Support NeoGAF

[Alienous]

I don't fall one way or the other on Batman killing, presummably when it's at his darkest moments. I know some act as if killing once taints you for life but several Batman stories involve the redemption and reformation of characters. It's within the spirit.

Where I take issue is the noncommittal of whether Batman in fact kills. We all know Snyder's manslaughter quote, but in the film it's merely alluded to that Batman is meaner and going further. For all the action It's that "you didn't see a body" type loophole. What you have are situations where Batman could kill but doesn't. In the warehouse he aims a gun in the air to scatter goons rather than simply shooting them.

Spoiler

He shoots KG Beast's canister, when he could've shot him directly.

It's why saying Batman is now The Punisher is absurd. Punisher would've murdered everybody. This Batman maybe kills one out of twenty goons and it still won't commit about the twentieth. Compare it to the Knightmare that shows Batman killing everybody with guns and all. There's a clear division within the film between a Batman who kills and a Batman who is brutal. In the end it's wishy washy.

Right. This non-commital killing bothers me too. Blowing up a car with people in it because explosions look cool, and the story not reacting to the fact that Batman is leaving dead bodies in his wake. "But Batman branding victims are dying in prison" - how about on the street, as charred corpses? There's no plot relevance to Batman killing the goons. That's my major issue - it's done for no good reason.

Batman shot Darkseid with a radion bullet in Final Crisis.

Right, with the only other option being losing the universe to the embodiment of evil within the DC universe he decides to break his rule and shoot Darkseid. That's dramatic. That works. That isn't shooting missiles at people whose bullets are pinging off of your vehicle.

 

[Ahasverus]

There have not been any interpretations of a canonical Batman willing to kill to get what he wants since 1939. It's not who the character is. Not even in his darkest hour post-Jason.

This is not canonical Batman though, he's elseworlds Batman.

Funnily enough, one of the few canonical batman kills was KGBeast (Lex's henchman in the movie) before being retconned time after.

 

[The Adder]

Batman shot Darkseid with a radion bullet in Final Crisis.

And he gave a long speech about making an exception to his using a gun. Then proceeded to intentionally wing him while having a kill shot. It was Flash and then Superman who killed him.

Says who?

75 years of character history

This is not canonical Batman though, he's elseworlds Batman.

Perfectly valid. I'm taking exception with the idea that a murderous Batman is an equally accurate portrayal of the character.

 

[icespide]

I'm okay with the idea that the batman in this movie has seen some shit and thus does kill people now, but it bums me out if that's the batman we're stuck with in this movie universe

 

[number11]

First time watching this. God that first 90 minutes or so were tough to get through. People have various complaints about this film, the biggest problem is that it's just plain dull.

 

[broncobuster]

But what about the car chase? He's shredding cars with bullets then driving right through their fiery wreckage, tossing a car on top of another full of goons. Then right before the warehouse, when he's in the plane, he blows up all their cars (and there's no way afew didn't die in that explosion).

There's a very intentional bit of shock value to Batman straight up wielding a pistol in the nightmare sequence, but there's not as great as divide between that and his current methods as you're suggesting.

It's not that I disagree, it's that with films there's a show me a body attitude with it all. I know it sounds crazy. To draw a comparison between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, in the former you see Batman drive over a police car. There's a brief shot following of the two cops alive but cramped in the car. Nobody brings it up. Now in The Dark Knight, Batman smashes into the cab of a garbage truck. No reaction shot from the driver. Lots of jokes about Batman killing that guy, yet in the text nothing implies the driver is dead. Because if he were killed, it would dramatically alter scenes to follow.

That's why in Batman v Superman, despite all the flash and noise in the incomprehensible chase scene, there's a benefit of the doubt about whether he killed. Again, it's crazy and sort of dumb. Had Alfred scolded Batman for almost killing, or outright killing, whatever the intent, at least there'd be an explicit idea of what happened. As it stands, you can infer he killed those goons, or you can infer they're injured...horrifically injured. To use another example within the film, as silly as it is, one could infer Superman kills the guy who took Lois hostage, had it not been addressed in a following scene.

 

[Blader]

I'm okay with the idea that the batman in this movie has seen some shit and thus does kill people now, but it bums me out if that's the batman we're stuck with in this movie universe

It's not really clear to me what pushed Batman past the no-kill breaking point. Is it because he's older and war-weary now? Is it because of Jason Todd's death? Is it because Superman and Zod wrecked Metropolis?

The latter makes the least sense to me (why does witnessing alien-inflicted mass destruction in another city prompt him to start killing random mooks in Gotham?), but it's what Alfred implies is the trigger for "the fever...the rage" that's turning Bruce "cruel."

 

[WrenchNinja]

Batman shot Darkseid with a radion bullet in Final Crisis.

Darkseid was destroying the multiverse with his existence.

 

[Alienous]

It's not that I disagree, it's that with films there's a show me a body attitude with it all. I know it sounds crazy. To draw a comparison between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, in the former you see Batman drive over a police car. There's a brief shot following of the two cops alive but cramped in the car. Nobody brings it up. Now in The Dark Knight, Batman smashes into the cab of a garbage truck. No reaction shot from the driver. Lots of jokes about Batman killing that guy, yet in the text nothing implies the driver is dead. Because if he were killed, it would dramatically alter scenes to follow.

That's why in Batman v Superman, despite all the flash and noise in the incomprehensible chase scene, there's a benefit of the doubt about whether he killed. Again, it's crazy and sort of dumb. Had Alfred scolded Batman for almost killing, or outright killing, whatever the intent, at least there'd be an explicit idea of what happened. As it stands, you can infer he killed those goons, or you can infer they're injured...horrifically injured. To use another example within the film, as silly as it is, one could infer Superman kills the guy who took Lois hostage, had it not been addressed in a following scene.

He drives through the firey wreckage of an occupied car, and it explodes.

There is no inference needed. Batman kills during the chase. He also blows people up outside of where Martha is being held.

 

[The Adder]

Darkseid was destroying the multiverse with his existence.

And he still only put the bullet in his shoulder.

 

[MisterHero]

There have been many elseworld intepretations with a killer Batman. There have been many murderous pretenders to the throne. There have been a few situations where Bruce has been forced to let someone die. There have been times where Bruce has teetered over the edge and only stopped because something oulled him back.

There have not been any interpretations of a canonical Batman willing to kill to get what he wants since 1939. It's not who the character is. Not even in his darkest hour post-Jason.

 

[Bleepey]

And he gave a long speech about making an exception to his using a gun. Then proceeded to intentionally wing him while having a kill shot. It was Flash and then Superman who killed him.



75 years of character history



Perfectly valid. I'm taking exception with the idea that a murderous Batman is an equally accurate portrayal of the character.

Throughout his 75 year history there's notable precedent for him to kill. Again it's perfectly valid.

 

[Dahbomb]

My hope for Justice League:

*None of this "nothing happens in the first one and a half hour and then pack all action scenes in the last 30 minutes" non sense that MoS and BvS pulled. I want to see epic action scenes in the first act and 2nd act as well.

*Bright daylight scenes are actually bright and if they have to have scenes at night please make it better lit, couldn't see anything in that Doomsday fight or that Batmobile chase scene because of all the black crush.

*Please don't add in more side stories or more future movie baits. If they have to have dream sequences then please correlate to the story at hand and not bait future movies.

*Movie should not be more than 2 hour and some change, I want to see a lean action movie not a movie that tries to be a political thriller combined with a comic book super hero movie trying to juggle 5 different subplots at once. Also don't make it so long that you have to hack it up and crap on the editing of the movie.

*Needs more real dialogue among the cast, none of this "The Bat is dead bury it... Do you bleed? YOU WILL!" garbage. These lines work well in trailers but sound horrible and wooden in an actual conversation.

*Just don't add in quips while the characters are fighting in an intense battle... that thing will always be stupid.

 

[bearythebear]

My hope for Justice League:

*None of this "nothing happens in the first one and a half hour and then pack all action scenes in the last 30 minutes" non sense that MoS and BvS pulled. I want to see epic action scenes in the first act and 2nd act as well.

*Bright daylight scenes are actually bright and if they have to have scenes at night please make it better lit, couldn't see anything in that Doomsday fight or that Batmobile chase scene because of all the black crush.

*Please don't add in more side stories or more future movie baits. If they have to have dream sequences then please correlate to the story at hand and not bait future movies.

*Movie should not be more than 2 hour and some change, I want to see a lean action movie not a movie that tries to be a political thriller combined with a comic book super hero movie trying to juggle 5 different subplots at once. Also don't make it so long that you have to hack it up and crap on the editing of the movie.

*Needs more real dialogue among the cast, none of this "The Bat is dead bury it... Do you bleed? YOU WILL!" garbage. These lines work well in trailers but sound horrible and wooden in an actual conversation.

*Just don't add in quips while the characters are fighting in an intense battle... that thing will always be stupid.

What about Lois Lane chasing a lead? I also need more scenes of Perry White complaining about print media.

 

[- J - D -]

When you toss gods and god-beings into the equation, the morality of "willing to kill" or murder is thrown into flux. Is killing something like the Anti-Monitor on the same level as killing a human, ethically?

Did anyone make a stink about Batman shooting Darkseid?

 

[esmith08734]

Are people really so upset about Snyder taking a different approach to Batman? I loved it. I've seen enough of the Batman that doesn't kill, does what's correct, is selfless, etc. I like that Jason dying has twisted Batman into being more ruthless. He's not killing random people, he's just not sparing the people in his way. He's not hell bent on killing people. If he knocks a dude out, he won't go in for the execution. But if a guy attempts to shoot him and he counters and shoots him back, I am fine with that.

After all, the movie acknowledges that Batman has changed several times and he wasn't always like this.

 

[maquiladora]

There are a handful of really awesome moments in this film but the vast majority of the running time is just a terrible, tedious mess.

 

[The Adder]

There have been times where Bruce has teetered over the edge and only stopped because something oulled him back.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Throughout his 75 year history there's notable precedent for him to kill. Again it's perfectly valid.

Notable precedent being him carrying a gun and letting mooks get hoisted by their own petard in his first year of detective comics before Joker, Robin or catwoman showed up in batman 1? I mean the handful of times it has happened, it's always retconned or in elseworlds stories because editors, writers, and readers know it's dumb for him to do it. this movie isn't the main continuity so clearly they can do whatever they want with him, but theres no need to act like he did a whole lot over the last seven decades

Are people really so upset about Snyder taking a different approach to Batman? I loved it. I've seen enough of the Batman that doesn't kill, does what's correct, is selfless, etc. I like that Jason dying has twisted Batman into being more ruthless. He's not killing random people, he's just not sparing the people in his way. He's not hell bent on killing people. If he knocks a dude out, he won't go in for the execution. But if a guy attempts to shoot him and he counters and shoots him back, I am fine with that.

After all, the movie acknowledges that Batman has changed several times and he wasn't always like this.

Jason dying causing Batman to completely change defeats the whole point. That's the whole conflict between the two of them when he ends up coming back.

 

[MisterHero]

There have been times where Bruce has teetered over the edge and only stopped because something oulled him back.

The only reason Lex didn't die was because the gun wasn't loaded. This also happened after Lex was defeated. Batman didn't need to do that; he wanted to. Comics Batman has the League to support him; in these movies he does not.

Do you really honestly care about Lex's mercenary bad guys anymore than CG aliens or robots?

There is a respect for life angle in there, but eventually this Batman has to kill or get killed. Or at least, that's what he thinks before Justice League.

 

[Bleepey]

Notable precedent being him carrying a gun and letting mooks get hoisted by their own petard in his first year of detective comics before Joker, Robin or catwoman showed up in batman 1? I mean the handful of times it has happened, it's always retconned or in elseworlds stories because editors, writers, and readers know it's dumb for him to do it. this movie isn't the main continuity so clearly they can do whatever they want with him, but theres no need to act like he did a whole lot over the last seven decades


Jason dying causing Batman to completely change defeats the whole point. That's the whole conflict between the two of them when he ends up coming back.

DC continuity is totally messed up. I see DC continuity as a collection of Elseworld tales rather than say Marvel where you have Daredevil where it pretty much has the same continuity for the past 30 years. Not to say there ain't a lot of confusing shit in Marvel's timeline.

1) Despite you downplaying it, Batman killing happens often. With notable and writers seen as the definitive batman writers. Frank Miller and Bill Finger being the most notable ones. Again I like how you ignore the previous films 2) Shit being retconned doesn't necessarily make a previous action non canon. Bucky was dead for many years, him being brought back is a retcon but there was a point in time when it was canon. Same thing for all those Robin's that die and come back.

 

[Alienous]

The only reason Lex didn't die was because the gun wasn't loaded. This also happened after Lex was defeated. Batman didn't need to do that; he wanted to. Comics Batman has the League to support him; in these movies he does not.

Do you really honestly care about Lex's mercenary bad guys anymore than CG aliens or robots?

You're missing the point.

It's less about the killing, and it's more about Batman doing it. And even then, moreso the fact that it doesn't seem that important within the plot. This massive thing for the character to do, and the film is sort of "meh" about it. So they've forfeited being able to have Batman put in a killing dilemma for what? Blowing up a few cars?

If The Joker taunts Batman for not killing him, and he doesn't, bullshit. If they attempt Red Hood, bullshit. They've backed themselves into a corner narratively for no good reason, and at the first hurdle of the DCEU. It makes Batman less of an interesting character for me (he's Punisher Lite in the DCEU), and for no good reason. They did nothing to address the fact that this is a dude who swore not to kill in the depictions that define the mainstream view of him - and a character who is powerless if not for his discipline. And he breaks his rule for Lex Thug #4? Why? For what?

 

[WrenchNinja]

DC continuity is totally messed up. I see DC continuity as a collection of Elseworld tales rather than say Marvel where you have Daredevil where it pretty much has the same continuity for the past 30 years. Not to say there ain't a lot of confusing shit in Marvel's timeline.

1) Despite you downplaying it, it happens. Shit being retconned doesn't necessarily make a previous action non canon. Bucky was dead for many years, him being brought back is a retcon but there was a point in time when it was canon. Same thing for all those Robin's that die and come back.

That's...exactly what it means.

 

[Ahasverus]

If The Joker taunts Batman for not killing him, and he doesn't, bullshit. If they attempt Red Hood, bullshit. They've backed themselves into a corner narratively for no good reason, and at the first hurdle of the DCEU.

Who said Batman didn't try to ill the Joker and he escaped? as I sad, let's wait until the next bat story to call bullshit or not.

 

[The Adder]

Who said Batman didn't try to ill the Joker and he escaped? as I sad, let's wait until the next bat story to call bullshit or not.

Then he's either incompetent or Joker is no big deal (since if Bruce is in the murder business Joker would be dead ten times ovef BEFORE he ever even tried for Jason).

What's even Joker's motivation for finding Bruce a compelling opponent now?

 

[- J - D -]

I'm ready to see a live action Batman straight up murk The Joker, especially if its the damaged one of this cinematic universe where Batman's already Blasé about "manslaughter".

 

[Alienous]

Then he's either incompetent or Joker is no big deal (since if Bruce is in the murder business Joker would be dead ten times ovef BEFORE he ever even tried for Jason).

What's even Joker's motivation for finding Bruce a compelling opponent now?

To corrupt him. To bring him to the point where he willingly breaks his one rule. To force Batman to ...

oh.

I'm ready to see a live action Batman straight up murk The Joker, especially if its the damaged one of this cinematic universe where Batman's already Blasé about "manslaughter".

If they commit to it good on them. But I doubt it. Nope, "you're going to Arkham", probably.

 

[maxcriden]

Do we know when or if the movie will come to steaming including HBO?

 

[Alienous]

Do we know when or if the movie will come to steaming including HBO?

It's already steaming. A steaming pile of shit.

 

[Smokey_Run]

You're missing the point.

It's less about the killing, and it's more about Batman doing it. And even then, moreso the fact that it doesn't seem that important within the plot. This massive thing for the character to do, and the film is sort of "meh" about it. So they've forfeited being able to have Batman put in a killing dilemma for what? Blowing up a few cars?

If The Joker taunts Batman for not killing him, and he doesn't, bullshit. If they attempt Red Hood, bullshit. They've backed themselves into a corner narratively for no good reason, and at the first hurdle of the DCEU. It makes Batman less of an interesting character for me (he's Punisher Lite in the DCEU), and for no good reason. They did nothing to address the fact that this is a dude who swore not to kill in the depictions that define the mainstream view of him - and a character who is powerless if not for his discipline. And he breaks his rule for Lex Thug #4? Why? For what?

I walked away from the film with the interpretation that the IDGAF Batman we saw in the film showed up in the past 18 months with the Black Zero event serving as his ultimate breaking point. Alfred gives the speech about how he's changed with Superman on the screen beside him. I thought it was pretty clear all these changes were fairly recent and due to Superman.

As for "Why break the rule for Lex Thug #4?" Because Bruce thought he was saving the entire planet by eliminating Superman.

I really do get the sense people don't want actual character arcs with superheroes and just want what they've always known from the very first second they appear on the screen. Debbie Snyder was right.

 

[Bleepey]

That's...exactly what it means.

I know what it means. But imagine if someone said, Bucky never died. Neither did Jason Todd? You'd laugh at them because at the time they were dead and only recently have they have been brought back.

 

[Alienous]

I walked away from the film with the interpretation that the IDGAF Batman we saw in the film showed up in the past 18 months with the Black Zero event serving as his ultimate breaking point. Alfred gives the speech about how he's changed with Superman on the screen beside him. I thought it was pretty clear all these changes were fairly recent and due to Superman.

As for "Why break the rule for Lex Thug #4?" Because Bruce thought he was saving the entire planet by eliminating Superman.

I really do get the sense people don't actual character arcs with superheroes and just want what they've always known from the very first second they appear on the screen. Debbie Snyder was right.

Debbie Snyder wasn't. It isn't about "seeing their heroes deconstructed", it's about "seeing their heroes" full stop.

If you don't want to make a film about Batman, don't. If you want to make a film about Batman you ought to consider some of his core attributes. If you're going to act against those, you ought to have a reason to. I didn't mind the Knightmare sequence, and I haven't seen any complaints about the killing in that, and Batman kills relentlessly. But there's a context and a reasoning to it - this is a Batman who is fighting a war in a world where his rules no longer apply.

Contrast that with Batman blowing up a car with goons in it, and driving through it, and I don't see the point. Why? What's the deconstruction there? What point are you making? That explosions are cool? All I ask is that straying from the source material is coupled with a reason. You've established that Batman is branding criminals, effectively sentencing them to their deaths. Why does that remotely matter when he's blowing them up also?

 

[Bleepey]

I walked away from the film with the interpretation that the IDGAF Batman we saw in the film showed up in the past 18 months with the Black Zero event serving as his ultimate breaking point. Alfred gives the speech about how he's changed with Superman on the screen beside him. I thought it was pretty clear all these changes were fairly recent and due to Superman.

As for "Why break the rule for Lex Thug #4?" Because Bruce thought he was saving the entire planet by eliminating Superman.

I really do get the sense people don't want actual character arcs with superheroes and just want what they've always known from the very first second they appear on the screen. Debbie Snyder was right.

That and with the Martha thing people really need to be spoon fed the most basic shit. I could say shit like, Captain America doesn't kill and cite all the times in the comics where he had that rule, however when I see Cap with the M16 or whatever in Avengers I go "huh" and keep it moving.

 

[Alienous]

That and with the Martha thing people really need to be spoon fed the most basic shit. I could say shit like, Captain America doesn't kill and cite all the times in the comics where he had that rule, however when I see Cap with the M16 or whatever in Avengers I go "huh" and keep it moving.

I've never known Captain America to be defined by not killing - I mean, he's a soldier. Batman is defined, in part, by his unwillingness to kill.

 

[Bleepey]

I've never known Captain America to be defined by not killing. Batman is defined, in part, by his unwillingness to kill.

What Captain America comics have you read?

 

[Alienous]

What Captain America comics have you read?

None where that has been a core character trait. He might have a reluctance to kill, but I've never known him to be defined by having a 'no kill' rule.

 

[The Adder]

I walked away from the film with the interpretation that the IDGAF Batman we saw in the film showed up in the past 18 months with the Black Zero event serving as his ultimate breaking point. Alfred gives the speech about how he's changed with Superman on the screen beside him. I thought it was pretty clear all these changes were fairly recent and due to Superman.

As for "Why break the rule for Lex Thug #4?" Because Bruce thought he was saving the entire planet by eliminating Superman.

I really do get the sense people don't want actual character arcs with superheroes and just want what they've always known from the very first second they appear on the screen. Debbie Snyder was right.

Bruce mistrusting Clark, thinking he's a threat to the world and doing whatever it takes to stop him, but in the end discovering that he is a better, more selfless man than he is. That's a character arc.

"I vowed not to kill, but now I kill, but now I'm not going to kill anymore" is just stupid. And "I just kill people" is missing the point of the character entirely.

What Captain America comics have you read?

Captain America is, and has always been, a soldier. He has no problem taking a life. He just has a higher benchmark for what necessitates it than normal people.

 

[IconGrist]

I think you guys are reading too much into the killing thing. BvS implies this is a recent development for him. Alfred scolds him for it. I don't think it was ever supposed to exist prior to or post BvS.

 

[Bleepey]

Bruce mistrusting Clark, thinking he's a threat to the world and doing whatever it takes to stop him, but in the end discovering that he is a better, more selfless man than he is. That's a character arc.

"I vowed not to kill, but now I kill, but now I'm not going to kill anymore" is just stupid. And "I just kill people" is missing the point of the character entirely.



Captain America is, and has always been, a soldier. He has no problem taking a life. He just has a higher benchmark for what necessitates it than normal people.

Yes I know he's killing but this comic shows but this continuity shows that he has a reluctance to kill (in this case it's a vampire).

 

[Doctor Decimate]

I watched it. It's a definite improvement that restores a lot of Superman's characterization, but I can sort of see the logic in cutting it; if Batman's investigation is rather slow and ponderous with few engaging plot developments, Superman's investigation is not much better. The first act in the theatrical cut is a poorly edited muddle with some interesting ideas, but in the ultimate edition those interesting ideas devolve into Batman and Superman being quietly, distantly horrified at each other while very, very slowly doing something about it. It feels laborious.

And strangely enough, I'm not sure if the trade-off is worth it. Like, it's better. But it's also slower, and I don't know if it's better by a wide enough margin to justify that increased length; to me, it's still a fairly middling movie, only a little less so. The buildup has improved, and yet the payoff is still an hour-long slog of back-to-back fight scenes. So is that worth an additional 30 minutes of my life? I'm leaning toward "no," to be honest. It also smooths over some plot holes, but it seems like they were the little Internet nitpicks that didn't actually matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. Some of the added violence also makes it feel even more unpleasant in terms of tone, which I realize is very much a personal preference, but still; the movie just feels nasty at times when it does things like point a flamethrower at an old woman.

 

[Alienous]

Yes I know he's killing but this comic shows but this continuity shows that he has a reluctance to kill (in this case it's a vampire).

Reluctance to kill =/= a 'no kill' rule.

Batman has a no kill rule.

 

[Bleepey]

Reluctance to kill =/= a 'no kill' rule.

Batman has a no kill rule.

Generally has a no kill rule.

 

[Lord Virgin]

This particular version of Batman has no 'no kill' rule (anymore). Why is that so hard for you people to swallow? We have had many interpretations where he did (and those broke the rule too mind you), so this one is different. So what?

 

[The Adder]

Yes I know he's killing but this comic shows but this continuity shows that he has a reluctance to kill (in this case it's a vampire).

Pretty sure that's about HOW he has to kill him, not THAT he has to kill him. It's not the "totally destroy" part he's balking at, it's the "only one way."

 

[Alienous]

This particular version of Batman has no 'no kill' rule (anymore). Why is that so hard for you people to swallow? We have had many interpretations where he did (and those broke the rule too mind you), so this one is different. So what?

So people don't like that aspect. I don't. The movie hasn't given me a reason to like the change. It serves no purpose in the story - it is ignored by the story, actually. Batman brands people - 'it's a death sentence!'. Batman blows people up... and...

I don't see anything to like about changing a core attribute of a character seemingly because you wanted explosions. I'm not against it fundamentally, but in execution. It's poor, and just a reason to have Punisher Lite in the movie. Batman probably wasn't cool enough for Snyder unless he killed.

 

[Tabby]

This particular version of Batman has no 'no kill' rule (anymore). Why is that so hard for you people to swallow? We have had many interpretations where he did (and those broke the rule too mind you), so this one is different. So what?

Pretty much. Batman 89 was worse than this by far, he smiled right before blowing people up.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Pretty much. Batman 89 was worse than this by far, he smiled right before blowing people up.

People don't like that Superman is so serious all the time, maybe if he smiled before blowing people up that would fix things.

 

[Discotheque]

People don't like that Superman is so serious all the time, maybe if he smiled before blowing people up that would fix things.

To be fair he did smile before he put that warlord through a couple walls lol

Man I can only imagine the shit burton would have had to dealt with if he released batman and returns in the Internet age.

 

[Bleepey]

People don't like that Superman is so serious all the time, maybe if he smiled before blowing people up that would fix things.

Probably should have smiled after killing Zod like in Superman 2.

 

[AxelFoley]

None where that has been a core character trait. He might have a reluctance to kill, but I've never known him to be defined by having a 'no kill' rule.

Uh, yeah he has. He's said many a times, "Avengers don't kill". Hell, he had a problem with Wolverine being on the team until Tony convinced him.