Support NeoGAF

[Ninja Scooter]

as an interesting aside to this conversation about the "no kill" rule, I was just reading Paul Dini's new graphic novel "Dark Night" and he mentioned how he had an idea for an episode of Batman Beyond where Batman became so fed up with Joker but still had to honor his "no kill rule" so he built him a cell made of bricks in the bat cave and kept him prisoner there, but Dini mentions how they ditched the idea because it made Batman seem too cruel.

 

[J_Viper]

It's been a while since I've seen TDK, but doesn't Baleman tackle Harvey Dent off a fucking building in the end?

I mean, yeah, Battfleck's Batmobile scene was a bit much, but it's not the first time Batman has killed on film.

Are you guys gonna start complaining about Batman killing Parademons too?

 

[MegaManTrigger]

as an interesting aside to this conversation about the "no kill" rule, I was just reading Paul Dini's new graphic novel "Dark Night" and he mentioned how he had an idea for an episode of Batman Beyond where Batman became so fed up with Joker but still had to honor his "no kill rule" so he built him a cell made of bricks in the bat cave and kept him prisoner there, but Dini mentions how they ditched the idea because it made Batman seem too cruel.

Though they managed to create one of my favourite scenes in BB.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTmfnK6XDiA

 

[Discotheque]

It's been a while since I've seen TDK, but doesn't Baleman tackle Harvey Dent off a fucking building in the end?

I mean, yeah, Battfleck's Batmobile scene was a bit much, but it's not the first time Batman has killed on film.

Are you guys gonna start complaining about Batman killing Parademons too?

There's a huge difference between the murder presented in the Nolan trilogy and the snyder stuff. I don't get why people keep going back to it, seems facetious.

A better comparison would be the Burton stuff.

 

[Veelk]

There's a huge difference between the murder presented in the Nolan trilogy and the snyder stuff. I don't get why people keep going back to it, seems facetious.

It is. People focus on the most literal interpretation of the 'no kill' rule, trying to equate Batman's rampant disregard for life in this movie to things like Batman accidentally killing Harvey Dent because he was going to shoot a little boy in the head.

I feel that people don't see that BvS's Batman issues are more about tone and context and what it implies about Batman as a person. You can point to times when Baleman killed, maybe even hypocritically, but taking the film in as a whole, you can't accurately describe that Batman with the same terms as this new one.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

So I've never seen the original cut.

This felt a little over-long but I actually really enjoyed it.

 

[IconGrist]

So I've never seen the original cut.

This felt a little over-long but I actually really enjoyed it.

Yea, you feel that 3 hours lol.

 

[cr0w]

It is. People focus on the most literal interpretation of the 'no kill' rule, trying to equate Batman's rampant disregard for life in this movie to things like Batman accidentally killing Harvey Dent because he was going to shoot a little boy in the head.

I feel that people don't see that BvS's Batman issues are more about tone and context and what it implies about Batman as a person. You can point to times when Baleman killed, maybe even hypocritically, but taking the film in as a whole, you can't accurately describe that Batman with the same terms as this new one.

Jesus fuck because it's not the same goddamn Batman.

If you want to get literal, a kill is a kill, regardless of the reason. You can't excuse one because you find it justifiable if you're going to pick this hill to die on.

 

[Ashhong]

It's pretty nihilistic, I think. If his parents death means nothing, and he became batman out of that, then he really did just do so so he could hurt the people he went up against while knowing it did nothing to actually help anyone. It makes it sound like he only became batman out of spite.

It unfortunately fits with some of the movies dialogue too. Bruce is partially going after superman to protect "his legacy" because with him around, everything he did was meaningless. All those lives he saved over the course of his career, all the people he helped, (assuming he did so) they don't mean anything to him apparently.

He never says it's to protect his legacy. It's funny because they have an entire conversation about this and somehow you twist it into something else.

Bruce is going after Superman to save the world. He says that this is his most important he will do, that it will be his legacy. He says how criminals are like weeds, but this is about saving the world. There is no indication whatsoever that he was nihilistic before this movie and before Robin's death. There is also no indication that he isnt though. Everything changed when Superman came around.

 

[Discotheque]

No shit they're different batmans. I think veelks post is very aware of that too honestly.

I don't think there's anything wrong with going that route but they should have done a better job of letting the audience know why he's so bloodthirsty now. Especially if he just completely pivots for the sequels. They gotta explain something here soon. Some stuff in here felt half baked

 

[Ashhong]

No shit they're different batmans. I think veelks post is very aware of that too honestly.

I don't think there's anything wrong with going that route but they should have done a better job of letting the audience know why he's so bloodthirsty now. Especially if he just completely pivots for the sequels. They gotta explain something here

Agreed. Just a little bit of explaining would get rid of all of these complains. Maybe a news story saying something like "Has Batman gone rogue?" with a newscaster explaining how the once non-lethal vigilante is now becoming aggressive. But that might not work in this world where Batman is still somehow merely an urban legend.

 

[ugoo18]

Yea, you feel that 3 hours lol.

Felt the other way lol, the TC really took it out of me. A friend and i saw the TC together and we were so tired after watching it that we fell asleep, didn't feel the length of this cut however.

 

[IconGrist]

No shit they're different batmans. I think veelks post is very aware of that too honestly.

I don't think there's anything wrong with going that route but they should have done a better job of letting the audience know why he's so bloodthirsty now. Especially if he just completely pivots for the sequels. They gotta explain something here soon. Some stuff in here felt half baked

Eh, to each his own. I felt the explanation given for each was enough. I don't need a ton of exposition past that. If others require something more I understand that though.

 

[Ashhong]

Eh, to each his own. I felt the explanation given for each was enough. I don't need a ton of exposition past that. If others require something more I understand that though.

I think the Robin suit 100% should have been explained a bit more. What does it mean? Did Robin die? Did he quit? If that was the turning point to drastically change the morals of Batman, it should have been explained. What we got is enough for die hard fans, but that's not how a movie should be made imo.

 

[IconGrist]

I think the Robin suit 100% should have been explained a bit more. What does it mean? Did Robin die? Did he quit? If that was the turning point to drastically change the morals of Batman, it should have been explained. What we got is enough for die hard fans, but that's not how a movie should be made imo.

Nah I get that but my perspective is a little skewed since I knew exactly what that Robin suit meant immediately. Explaining it would be like beating me over the head with information I already have.

But it has to be explained to the audience who doesn't know though. So what's the compromise? A throwaway line? A dedicated scene? How much is too much (for the knowledgeable) and too little (for the unaware)?

 

[Veelk]

He never says it's to protect his legacy. It's funny because they have an entire conversation about this and somehow you twist it into something else.

I'm pretty sure there is a scene in the movie where he states this is partially about him making his legacy with Alfred going "What, all the past shit doesn't matter then?", but I don't have the film with me right now. Maybe someone else will argue the point.

Jesus fuck because it's not the same goddamn Batman.

I don't think I said otherwise. I just don't like the character for it. I think he's an asshole because of it. I don't think that's an irrational stance to have.

If you want to get literal, a kill is a kill, regardless of the reason. You can't excuse one because you find it justifiable if you're going to pick this hill to die on.

This is simply bad logic, because if you're seriously arguing that the motivation and intentions of why someone does what they do aren't significant to informing us about their character, then you're essentially saying that soldiers are the same kind of people as terrorists. That George Zimmerman is not distinct from someone who legitimately has to defend themselves in order to preserve their lives. That there is no difference between Joker who kills for fun and Batman who kills as a matter of practicality.

No, context matters. If you seriously, honestly think it doesn't, you're a scary individual.

Agreed. Just a little bit of explaining would get rid of all of these complains. Maybe a news story saying something like "Has Batman gone rogue?" with a newscaster explaining how the once non-lethal vigilante is now becoming aggressive. But that might not work in this world where Batman is still somehow merely an urban legend.

A good explanation justifying his current situation would certainly help, but when you get to the end of it, Batman with empathy for even criminal scum is a far more interesting character to me than one without. And yes, I am fully aware that this is only my opinion which reflects my personal tastes and is therefore not an objective statement that an asshole batman is objectively wrong.

An author I follow on Twitter once said something I found pretty good narrative advice. It went something along the lines of "If your character a dark, hardcore grizzly badass and then place him in a situation where you have to be be a dark, hardcore, grizzly badass to succeed, you've effectively nullified the tension." I feel this is that kind of situation here.

 

[Sibersk Esto]

Maybe one of those fancy schmancy dream sequences. Could have replaced the giant bat coming out of Martha Wayne's grave dream, since that's like "baby's first Batman nightmare scene".

 

[Discotheque]

Maybe one of those fancy schmancy dream sequences. Could have replaced the giant bat coming out of Martha Wayne's grave dream, since that's like "baby's first Batman nightmare scene".

movie got hella excessive with the dream sequences lol. could have cut that one and the knightmare one and the film and it's pacing would be better off for it.

that knightmare shit raises far too many questions to the audience, especially if they don't bother following up on that mad max dystopian timeline in future movies. plus it's obvious flash is sending him a message from the future...but then why show bruce wayne waking up from it, do they want to confuse the audience into thinking that was a dream too? and doesn't the flash's message confirm that superman really is a threat after all? damn mess. it's an interesting movie overall imo but like i said a lot of this stuff comes out half baked and they needed to rethink it.

apparently terrio and snyder disagreed on keeping that scene in, ultimately zack won for the worse. aside from the cool fan service that scene just does not work.

 

[Ashhong]

I'm pretty sure there is a scene in the movie where he states this is partially about him making his legacy with Alfred going "What, all the past shit doesn't matter then?", but I don't have the film with me right now. Maybe someone else will argue the poinT

Yes, that is what he says. But that's different than what you were saying in the post I quoted. He wasn't "protecting" his past legacy, he was making it.

I just feel you are really twisting his words. Yes he says this is the most important thing he's ever done, but it doesn't mean fuck the other hundreds I've saved. He is going from small time gotham villains to fucking Superman. It doesn't make him nihilistic to think that the others haven't mattered as much as this

And to your other point, isn't empathy what stopped him from killing Supes?

 

[Discotheque]

he said "criminals are like weeds, you pull one out and another takes it's place"

this batman is absolutely a nihilist, he's felt that his work ultimately did not matter in the end. that's fine imo, it's something i expect a 20 years in Batman to kind of feel like in film.

 

[Ashhong]

Nah I get that but my perspective is a little skewed since I knew exactly what that Robin suit meant immediately. Explaining it would be like beating me over the head with information I already have.

But it has to be explained to the audience who doesn't know though. So what's the compromise? A throwaway line? A dedicated scene? How much is too much (for the knowledgeable) and too little (for the unaware)?

Indeed, it's a very fine line between too much info and too little. I think this is the risk theyre stuck with since they decided to skip solo movies.

A line or two would have been perfect in my opinion. It could have been thrown in when Alfred was lecturing him about Superman, or when he was looking at the suit. Have Alfred come into the scene from behind Bruce, say something along the lines of "you need to let it go. It wasn't your fault". Done and done.

Nah I get that but my perspective is a little skewed since I knew exactly what that Robin suit meant immediately. Explaining it would be like beating me over the head with information I already have.

But it has to be explained to the audience who doesn't know though. So what's the compromise? A throwaway line? A dedicated scene? How much is too much (for the knowledgeable) and too little (for the unaware)?

Indeed, it's a very fine line between too much info and too little. I think this is the risk theyre stuck with since they decided to skip solo movies.

A line or two would have been perfect in my opinion. It could have been thrown in when Alfred was lecturing him about Superman, or when he was looking at the suit. Have Alfred come into the scene from behind Bruce, say something along the lines of "you need to let it go. It wasn't your fault". Done and done.

he said "criminals are like weeds, you pull one out and another takes it's place"

this batman is absolutely a nihilist, he's felt that his work ultimately did not matter in the end. that's fine imo, it's something i expect a 20 years in Batman to kind of feel like in film.

I honestly don't think he meant it to be that cynical. Somewhere in between. Yes criminals just keep coming, but he's at least saved the ones in the past. Now it's time to move on to the final boss.

I'm ok with either interpretation

 

[Veelk]

Yes, that is what he says. But that's different than what you were saying in the post I quoted. He wasn't "protecting" his past legacy, he was making it.

I just feel you are really twisting his words. Yes he says this is the most important thing he's ever done, but it doesn't mean fuck the other hundreds I've saved. He is going from small time gotham villains to fucking Superman. It doesn't make him nihilistic to think that the others haven't mattered as much as this

I'll have to rewatch the scene, but given how obsessed he is supposed to be about Superman, I don't think that's totally off base to infer that he is mentally off kilter a bit and, in that moment, means exactly that. I'm not saying this as a negative of the writing, because that's what obsession does to people. It's defined by it's irrational fixation on something. We've also seen how he talks about the past. He focuses only on how nothing's worked out, how he's made no meaningful progress on crime, how there are no good people left, how he memorializes how Robin died, not how he lived. So him implying that he honestly doesn't care about his past and looks to this as the only thing of significance he's gonna do with his life makes sense.

So that you don't go off on me, I'm not saying this is the definitive and factual interpretation of the character. But for me, BvS simply has no line of credit to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially when the movie hammers the nihilistic descriptions he gives about his past and how obsessed he is Supes. This interpretation makes the most sense to me. Maybe he feels differently after "Martha!", but in that moment, it's how I see his mental state in that moment.

 

[J_Viper]

A better comparison would be the Burton stuff.

Does Keatman kill anyone in those? I only have vague memories of the first, and I don't think I've seen Returns.

It is. People focus on the most literal interpretation of the 'no kill' rule, trying to equate Batman's rampant disregard for life in this movie to things like Batman accidentally killing Harvey Dent because he was going to shoot a little boy in the head.
.

If that's the case, then Battfleck killing KGBeast was justified as well, yet I still see complaints about that scene.

No shit they're different batmans. I think veelks post is very aware of that too honestly.

I don't think there's anything wrong with going that route but they should have done a better job of letting the audience know why he's so bloodthirsty now. Especially if he just completely pivots for the sequels. They gotta explain something here soon. Some stuff in here felt half baked

I imagine JL will cover none of this and pretend like it never happened. It's probably for the best.

 

[fritolay]

When you are watching a movie, and there is a background humming noise, sound and music that you know means something big is about to happen. Well they do that over and over through the whole movie. That is really stupid.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

If that's the case, then Battfleck killing KGBeast was justified as well, yet I still see complaints about that scene.

The complaint is selling a "changed" Batman who ultimately resorts to old habits. It's like...what's the point of changing if you're just going to do the same things?

 

[Dash_Riprock]

When you are watching a movie, and there is a background humming noise, sound and music that you know means something big is about to happen. Well they do that over and over through the whole movie. That is really stupid.

Inception Noise is the worst fucking thing. Its really ruined every action/Sci-Fi trailer, now it spoils moments in the films themselves.

 

[Veelk]

If that's the case, then Battfleck killing KGBeast was justified as well, yet I still see complaints about that scene.

I can't speak for others, but I haven't talked about that scene in particular much.

I think it was badly done insofar as how it was framed. Snyder seems to have a problem setting up scenes where killing someone is the only possibility without feeling contrived. In MoS, people have pointed out how there were many ways that Superman could have diverted the lasers from the family. Fly up, block the vision, etc. Especially since snapping someones neck like that takes way more effort than most other options. If he is able to snap his neck, he should be able to prevent his head from turning. Same thing with the KGBeast. Batman shoots him, and then is able to drop the guy he's holding as a meatshield, run over to Martha before the KGBeast can do anything. You'd think he'd fire his cannister the moment Batman got off the shot. Or else you'd think he'd just shoot him in the head instead of risking Martha being burned by exploding the gas tank, in case he isn't able to make it in time. But if KGBeasts reaction time is so slow that he can't do anything in the time it takes Batman to shoot and cross the room to him to shield Martha, then it feels like a nonlethal takedown was plausible. Just run over to him and punch him out before he gets the shot off. It makes it seem when he declared his intent, Batman was looking for an excuse to kill him rather than needing to.

But in terms of what it implies for the character, yeah, I don't care about the KGBeast scene all that much. At worst, its' a drop in the bucket of all the rest of the shit he's pulled.

The complaint is selling a "changed" Batman who ultimately resorts to old habits. It's like...what's the point of changing if you're just going to do the same things?

Yeah, pretty much. It's biggest offense is a failure to be a visual indication of Batman's character development.

 

[XAL]

I think the most egregious killing Batman did in the movie was the whole car chase thing where he unloads thousands of rounds of ammunition into an SUV that then it bursts into flames and explodes and rolls until it's a flaming wreck of twisted metal. And all the other vehicular deaths where the people in the vehicles are 100000% murdered in horrifying ways. It's just maximum lethality with a complete disregard for human life. The Batman in this flick is an unrepentant mass murderer for when "it looks cool". Not to mention all of the low level criminals he condemns to certain death by branding them as snitches.

Pretty sure with all the gadgets Batman has I'm sure there's some kind of bolas or emp sticky bomb that will just incapacitate or fry or disable the cars. But then again this Batman wouldn't even care to make those things because he's just gonna murder them all.

 

[Shaanyboi]

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?

When Darkseid does show up, Batman ain't going to be putting parademons in sleeper holds...

There's always been a difference between the criminals Batman fights daily; people who can be judged, incarcerated, maybe rehabilitated, and real forces of nature, other beings who act beyond Earth's systems of laws. You can't really put Ares or Doomsday in Belle Reve. Maybe the Green Lantern Corps can come down and take away some sort of intergalactic threats, but Batman IMO has always acted with the intent to show that the systems in place can work.

But again, when an alien invasion starts, he ain't firing rubber bullets. But he (and other Justice League members) aren't always going to toss compassion out the window when they can do otherwise. In Young Justice, they're fighting an alien hive that has been kidnapping and replacing civilians, but even when Black Manta's son betrays the Krolotaians and sets the cave to blow up, Superman still extends a hand to try and help them escape with their lives.

 

[XAL]

When Darkseid does show up, Batman ain't going to be putting parademons in sleeper holds...

There's always been a difference between the criminals Batman fights daily; people who can be judged, incarcerated, maybe rehabilitated, and real forces of nature, other beings who act beyond Earth's systems of laws. You can't really put Ares or Doomsday in Belle Reve. Maybe the Green Lantern Corps can come down and take away some sort of intergalactic threats, but Batman IMO has always acted with the intent that the systems in place need to be shown that they can work.

But again, when an alien invasion starts, he ain't firing rubber bullets.

Wouldn't it have been more interesting to see the Batman we know turn into the Batman that has to kill with guns - and what that looks like coming to terms with new rules of engagement and abandoning his moral code instead of him starting out as murdering maniac?

 

[WrenchNinja]

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.

Why would I laugh at them? Their deaths aren't canon anymore. They were faked in the case of Bucky and with Todd he was ressurected almost immediately, hell his old return was based off a retcon punch from Superboy Prime. That is the status quo now. Also I'd hardly call those recent events anymore, those stories are over a decade old now. We're further away from those stories than, I don't know, those stories are from No Man's Land or the Thunderbolts arrival.

 

[fritolay]

Batman decided not to destroy Superman, because he didn't want Superman's mom to die like his did?

 

[BadAss2961]

It's been a while since I've seen TDK, but doesn't Baleman tackle Harvey Dent off a fucking building in the end?

Batman New Jack'd his ass.

 

[Bleepey]

There's a huge difference between the murder presented in the Nolan trilogy and the snyder stuff. I don't get why people keep going back to it, seems facetious.

A better comparison would be the Burton stuff.

What about when he shot Talia?
Or killed Ra's
Or wrecklessly drove the tumbler into a truck

Only difference is Batfleck isn't a hypocrite.

 

[J_Viper]

The complaint is selling a "changed" Batman who ultimately resorts to old habits. It's like...what's the point of changing if you're just going to do the same things?

I personally saw it as Batman leaving his needless brutality behind, with the brandings and uh....car catapults. Him killing KGBeast was out of necessity, at least to me.

I can't speak for others, but I haven't talked about that scene in particular much.

I think it was badly done insofar as how it was framed. Snyder seems to have a problem setting up scenes where killing someone is the only possibility without feeling contrived. In MoS, people have pointed out how there were many ways that Superman could have diverted the lasers from the family. Fly up, block the vision, etc. Especially since snapping someones neck like that takes way more effort than most other options. If he is able to snap his neck, he should be able to prevent his head from turning. Same thing with the KGBeast. Batman shoots him, and then is able to drop the guy he's holding as a meatshield, run over to Martha before the KGBeast can do anything. You'd think he'd fire his cannister the moment Batman got off the shot. Or else you'd think he'd just shoot him in the head instead of risking Martha being burned by exploding the gas tank, in case he isn't able to make it in time. But if KGBeasts reaction time is so slow that he can't do anything in the time it takes Batman to shoot and cross the room to him to shield Martha, then it feels like a nonlethal takedown was plausible. Just run over to him and punch him out before he gets the shot off. It makes it seem when he declared his intent, Batman was looking for an excuse to kill him rather than needing to.

But in terms of what it implies for the character, yeah, I don't care about the KGBeast scene all that much. At worst, its' a drop in the bucket of all the rest of the shit he's pulled.



Yeah, pretty much. It's biggest offense is a failure to be a visual indication of Batman's character development.

See the thing is we can place those moments under a microscope as viewers, but if were to think about them from Superman's or Batman's perspectives, I don't think it's fair to pull the "well why didn't he just do this or that or this or that?" card.

Both of their decisions were done under vast amounts of pressure. Lives were literally on the line. I feel that neither hero had time to stand around and inner monologue about the possible ways to deal with their predicaments.

Why didn't Supes fly up? I don't know, maybe Zod was keeping down with flight magic. Why didn't Supes cover Zods eyes? I don't know, maybe a hand isn't enough to keep heat beams down.

That's kinda the thing with comic movies. You have to suspend your disbelief a bit.

As far as KGBeast, I do think his slow reaction time was due to his shock of Batman actually shooting his gas tank. I don't he saw that one coming.

 

[Bleepey]

He never says it's to protect his legacy. It's funny because they have an entire conversation about this and somehow you twist it into something else.

Bruce is going after Superman to save the world. He says that this is his most important he will do, that it will be his legacy. He says how criminals are like weeds, but this is about saving the world. There is no indication whatsoever that he was nihilistic before this movie and before Robin's death. There is also no indication that he isnt though. Everything changed when Superman came around.

"there's a new kind of mean in him" Black guy in the UE trailer
A lot of the Alfred-Bruce speeches reflect this being a new thing.

 

[Bleepey]

Batman decided not to destroy Superman, because he didn't want Superman's mom to die like his did?

Yes. He realised he was almost like Joe Chill.

 

[Veelk]

See the thing is we can place those moments under a microscope as viewers, but if were to think about them from Superman's or Batman's perspectives, I don't think it's fair to pull the "well why didn't he just do this or that or this or that?" card.

I don't know if I entirely agree, since those were both instances where the action clearly slowed down and they had opportunity to think things through a bit. Moreso than in the chaos of active combat. The fact that there were talking at all is evidence of this.

But honestly, that'd be okay, if it didn't mess up something more important, which Megaman brought up. Narratively, this is after Batman had his ideals turned upside down by Superman. This was were we are supposed to be shown that Batman has, in some way, been fundamentally altered. That his character developed. But his actions are the same as they've ever been. He still kills because he feels he has to. Maybe there was a way in which it could have been done to fit, but as it is, despite what the movie tells us, Bruce is the same as ever.

So regardless of whether you feel it justified itself as a "Kill or fail" situation, it's was a narrative fumble. It demonstrated, rightfully or not, that Batman still kills others because he demonizes them. Like he's done all movie. That's my real issue with KGBeast in particular.

 

[SwolBro]

Ok, i watched it again. Ultimate cut. It's even worse than i remember it. There's so much wrong with this movie.

The extended cut does nothing for it and some of the added scenes actually made it far worse. I still enjoy Zimmerman's Superman theme a lot despite the rest of the score being terrible.

ok, i'm intrigued. will watch today.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

One thing I"m certain of is that Frank MIller has been the defacto inspiration for movie Batman (to varying degrees) for too long and it sort of culminated in BvS. Burton and Nolan both took important cues from stuff like TDKR and Year One, but Snyder went full Miller. I would hope whether it's in JL or in the Batman solo movie or whatever movies WB cooks up beyond this current universe that they start to move away from that.

 

[J_Viper]

I don't know if I entirely agree, since those were both instances where the action clearly slowed down and they had opportunity to think things through a bit. Moreso than in the chaos of active combat. The fact that there were talking at all is evidence of this.

But honestly, that'd be okay, if it didn't mess up something more important, which Megaman brought up. Narratively, this is after Batman had his ideals turned upside down by Superman. This was were we are supposed to be shown that Batman has, in some way, been fundamentally altered. That his character developed. But his actions are the same as they've ever been. He still kills because he feels he has to. Maybe there was a way in which it could have been done to fit, but as it is, despite what the movie tells us, Bruce is the same as ever.

So regardless of whether you feel it justified itself as a "Kill or fail" situation, it's was a narrative fumble. It demonstrated, rightfully or not, that Batman still kills others because he demonizes them. Like he's done all movie. That's my real issue with KGBeast in particular.

I'd have to check again, but it can't be more than a few seconds in between Batman breaking through the wall and "I believe you". I just don't see that as enough time to really think about non-lethal solutions.

As far as Batman's character flip, the infamous Martha moment, I saw that more as Batman finally realizing his irrational hatred and fear of Superman. He never pledges to Superman or to anyone else that he done killing.

If anything, it's the visit to Lex's cell that shows him walking a different path, with his refusal to brand Lex, his line about "treating the mentally ill with compassion", and even toning down the demonic voice mask.

But you're right in stating that the execution isn't all it should have been. Had there been more scenes covering Bruce's descent into madness and the possible guilt of his actions, well, we'd have one less thing to talk about with this movie.

 

[Sibersk Esto]

One thing I"m certain of is that Frank MIller has been the defacto inspiration for movie Batman (to varying degrees) for too long and it sort of culminated in BvS. Burton and Nolan both took important cues from stuff like TDKR and Year One, but Snyder went full Miller. I would hope whether it's in JL or in the Batman solo movie or whatever movies WB cooks up beyond this current universe that they start to move away from that.

I think The Dark Knight Returns Batman and his attitude is actually quite fun and human.

 

[fritolay]

Why was aquaman even in this movie? That guy sucks I hope they don't bring him in to a future movie.

 

[Dahbomb]

Why was aquaman even in this movie? That guy sucks I hope they don't bring him in to a future movie.

Breh I got some news for you...

 

[broncobuster]

One thing I"m certain of is that Frank MIller has been the defacto inspiration for movie Batman (to varying degrees) for too long and it sort of culminated in BvS. Burton and Nolan both took important cues from stuff like TDKR and Year One, but Snyder went full Miller. I would hope whether it's in JL or in the Batman solo movie or whatever movies WB cooks up beyond this current universe that they start to move away from that.

I'd like that. Still view Batman's arc in BvS is a condemnation of Miller's Batman, painting him as the lowest moral point of the character. Maybe Justice League spits on that idea.

I think The Dark Knight Returns Batman and his attitude is actually quite fun and human.

True but lots of it comes after meeting Carrie. Before his first showdown with the mutant leader.

Random thought. Whenever Robin is brought up, really hope Batman isn't referring to him as a soldier. Never liked that about TDKReturns.

 

[IconGrist]

I disagree about Batman's ideals being altered after his fight with Superman. It seemed that Bruce didn't change until after Superman sacrificed himself. "Men are still good." I feel that line had double meaning for him. 1, he acknowledges Superman as a man (escaping his xenophobia) which was a lesson he learned after the fight and 2, that despite Superman's ability to enslave mankind he chose to give his life for them instead (seen in many ways as the ultimate good deed). This gives Bruce a sense of hope that maybe his efforts in the last 20 years was not for nothing.

 

[Discotheque]

I'd like that. Still view Batman's arc in BvS is a condemnation of Miller's Batman, painting him as the lowest moral point of the character. Maybe Justice League spits on that idea.

I like to believe stuff like this. But then Snyder with his awful ass explanations kind of shoots it all down whenever he speaks. Maybe he's just really bad at speaking. Because I thought he was really onto something with some of the BvS and Man of Steel ideas, they just need more fine-tuning to air out the inconsistencies in logic.

 

[Lokimaru]

Didn't the old black man say Batman had changed? Why do you need a news reporters to spell it out when their are already characters in the movie saying so. Do people just want Saint Batman all the time?

 

[Veelk]

If anything, it's the visit to Lex's cell that shows him walking a different path, with his refusal to brand Lex, his line about "treating the mentally ill with compassion", and even toning down the demonic voice mask.

In the TC, you may have had a point. In the UC, his character developed into an even worse person. In the TC, it was implied be branded people to kill them but the UC, it was just an exercise in sadism, which is bad, but he atleast wasn't actively circumventing courts to pass his own personal judgement like Clark thought...then we get to the end where he circumvents courts to personally pass judgement on Lex Luthor. His line about 'treating the mentally ill with compassion' is only set up to say how that's not something he will give Lex. Which I'll get back to in a moment, but as far as the bat branding thing, I've already made a few posts about it, so I'll just quote myself.

It all comes back to the fact that their fight just doesn't resolve the issues they purportedly have. Batman is still a sadistic fuck who is happy to play judge to the criminals he encounters. There was a scene with a spanish woman who admits her husband had his issues but was also a good man at heart, and during the warehouse scene, passed the part where Batman supposedly changed, it's fairly clear he's killing the thugs there. In some ways, post the events of the movie, Batman is actually worse than before, because the Bat brand thing was just a sadistic power trip for him before and Lex was the reason people who were branded got murdered. So he was just torturing them for fun, rather than actively subverting the sentence they were passed by people of court, which was the actual thing that Superman had a problem with the Batman over: that he was circumventing the law by passing his own judgement on criminals instead of letting the people decide. So not only is he still killing thugs if it's convenient, he explicitely intercepts Lex Luthor's sentence of being sent to a max security prison in order to send him to Arkham Asylum, where he states he has influence, specifically to inflict his own personal torture on him. So anyone who says Batman has a redemptive arc in this movie, he doesn't. He still does the same thing he did before, just pointed at the 'right' person this time.

Any character is salvagable, but only in the hands of a good writer. Zack Snyder isn't. His idea of a character gone good is Batman taking his same cruel and sadistic methods and pointing them at the right guy instead of the wrong guy. It's telling that in the UC, Superman is mad at Batman over a lie (In that he circumvents law to carry out his own sentences on criminals), but by the end, the lie becomes truth (Batman circumvents the law to carry out his own sentence on Lex Luthor).

In Zack Snyder's hands, his redemption arc is to do the thing Superman was angry over him doing and then preparing for the next invasion by an alien force (darkseid) because Lex Luthor scares him into it. What a turnabout.

So I don't think Batman is 'better' by the end, which brings us back to the compassion comment. Why, exactly, is Lex not entitled to compassion? He's been deemed mentally ill and not even fit for a trial (which makes no sense at all, people still get tried if they are mentally ill). True, Lex is an epic asshole, but if he acted out of mental illness, then the argument is that he isn't culpable for his actions. Batman doesn't give a reason why he's chosen to circumvent the system or why he has cause to hold Lex culpable. It just seems like he feels he's entitled to judge him where the people of Metropolis-Gotham are not, and he doesn't seem to have a cause to differentiate Luthor's mental illness from others except for his personal dislike of Lex Luthor.

 

[EhoaVash]

a problem i had with this movie from the get go is why this batman ...dumb??

He's suppose to be the world's greatest detective yet when Clark goes to talk to him to have a conversation about what lex did to his mother, batman goes all ape on him.

the batman i grew up with ( DCAU batman ) would try to have reasonable conversations before starting a stupid fight.

also FUCK i still can't get over the stupid Lois going into the water to get the rod scene, it was the perfect damn spot for aqua man to save her damn it instead the whole scene felt pretty pointless.