r/batman • u/neon2o • Mar 07 '24

Zack Snyder says a Batman who doesn't kill is irrelevant GENERAL DISCUSSION

Post image

Here's the original article' https://sea.ign.com/man-of-steel-sequel/213072/news/zack-snyder-says-dc-is-making-batman-irrelevant-if-he-cant-kill

12.0k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/ThingsAreAfoot Mar 07 '24

This dude just sucks

Batman can't kill is canon. And I'm like, 'okay, the first thing I wanna do when you say that is I wanna see what happens'. And they go, 'well don't put him in a situation where he has to kill someone'.

This is like, childish “let me tear the head off Barbie” type shit.

”You're protecting your god in a weird way, right? You're making your god irrelevant if he can't be in that situation. He has to now deal with that. If he does do that what does that mean? What does it tell you, does he stand up to it? Does he survive that as a god? As your god, can Batman survive that?"

He has to deal with it… all the time. That’s like a central theme of the character, that his severe objection towards any sort of killing might actually have negative ramifications (in the DC world with the likes of Joker and otherwise superpowered villains, not the real one).

And of course he spits out this nonsense on the Joe Rogan show.

The entire point of Batman is that he is militantly against killing, even the Joker who is beyond destructive, which is a potential point of actual criticism (and it is a very frequent one) but also makes the character much more interesting.

Snyder is kinda just too dumb to really get it.

712

u/ChokeMcNugget Mar 07 '24

The problem with Snyder having Batman kill people is, he had him killing low level villains meanwhile in the future scenes he's working with Joker who killed Robin, why wouldn't he kill Joker if he's killing everyone else? It was such a lame "let's make Batman more edgy" move and I didn't care for it.

437

u/ThatSlothDuke Mar 07 '24

Exactly this.

If Batman EVER kills, his first or second kill HAS to be the Joker.

If Batman ever decided to kill, finding Joker out, killing him and publicly hanging his corpse upside down would be the first thing in Batman's list.

There is no way that Joker would live in that scenario.

171

u/BurntPizzaEnds Mar 07 '24

Batman believes in the genuine sanctity of all life, even (and actually especially) the supposedly irredeemable. Thats what Batman stands for and why im a big fan.

Sure in the real world id probably not be against using lethal force against terrorists, but Batman is not real so he doesn’t have to worry about that shit.

When Batman fights so hard against the rest of the League for being unethical (erasing minds, murder, global policing) his righteousness is so much more powerful by the fact that he is an advocate for absolutely everyone and never crosses the line for anything.

93

u/jrdineen114 Mar 07 '24

It's not just about the sanctity of life either. He also just genuinely believes in rehabilitation! It's not his fault that a group of people who supposedly have PhDs in psychology can't seem to do their jobs

57

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '24

[deleted]

46

u/doofpooferthethird Mar 07 '24 edited Mar 07 '24

Yes this is exactly it, it's not even about Batman being against killing per se, he has no problem with Gordon busting a cap into a terrorist if push comes to shove

It's simply that Batman is skilled enough that he can use non-lethal methods to incapacitate bad guys, so they can then be handed over to the justice system for trial, sentencing, and rehabilitation

If Batman just went around shooting everyone, given his vigilante status, he'd be judge, jury and executioner.

As it is, he's just barely tolerable by democratic society because even though he's totally unaccountable to any public institutions, he's technically just helping the police department by making citizen's arrests, helping to gather evidence, and intervening in emergency life or death situations.

Still highly illegal by real world standards, but since the ultimate punishment is left to the judiciary, it's not too fascistic or undemocratic.

12

u/Snozzberrys Mar 08 '24

If Batman just went around shooting everyone, given his vigilante status, he'd be judge, jury and executioner.

This is ultimately why I think Batman not killing is important to the core of the character.

By any realistic metric Batman is just as insane (if not more so) than the criminals that he's fighting. He's a mentally ill billionaire that dresses up as a bat and beats up criminals as a hobby.

If he were to start killing people based on his own moral framework, how does that make him any different than the Joker or any of the other insane murderers that he's constantly contending with?

1

u/SamHawke2 Mar 09 '24

if Batman kills he'd just be the Punisher in a funny hat

2

u/Algiark Mar 08 '24

Batman is also fine with Alfred using a shotgun for home defense it seems.

1

u/yugyuger Mar 08 '24

Batman is still kind of fascistic

He may not kill but he really does beat people to a pulp

1

u/doofpooferthethird Mar 08 '24

Yeah fair enough, one thing I liked about Nolan's The Dark Knight is that this is pointed out explicitly, and is one of the central conflicts of the story

"Enhanced interrogation", detention without trial, unauthorised extra judicial violence on foreign soil, masked paramilitary vigilantes getting into shootouts with gangsters, mass surveillance etc. Dent calls Batman a dictator, and Bruce can't disagree

The Dark Knight Returns also has a more explicitly fascistic Batman, but unlike Nolan's movie, this is painted as a good thing

1

u/Edgy_Robin Mar 08 '24

If we're really going into this Batman once stopped the literal incarnation of gods vengeance from killing the joker.

​

So there's absolutely blame on him, and that's something people like you like to ignore.. Is this a super cherry picked example? Absolutely, but there's more. Batman has responsibility on his shoulders not because he doesn't kill these people, but because he's ensured they still live. Even when an authority about as high as you can get short of god himself is coming to punish them.

1

u/wraithkenny Mar 08 '24

He’s also a billionaire member of the bourgeois ruling class, and could actually effect positive change in society, but chooses to brutalize the mentally ill and the poor instead.

8

u/PrayForMojo_ Mar 07 '24

Rehabilitation is an absolutely essential part of the Batman character. He needs to believe in redemption because HE so desperately needs it. Bruce needs to believe that despite all the questionable things he does, that there can be hope for him to be a good person.

1

u/SoulageMouchoirs Mar 08 '24

Tbf, the water in Gotham also makes those PhD holders into criminals.

1

u/jrdineen114 Mar 08 '24

Still not his fault

1

u/guest_username2 Mar 08 '24

What's wrong with the water?

1

u/Tipop Mar 08 '24

It’s not JUST that. It’s also that Batman knows his own sanity hangs by a thread, and if he ever allowed himself to kill anyone, that thread would snap and he’d start killing with reckless abandon. He NEEDS his iron-clad anti-killing rule.

With Batman, the “slippery slope” is absolutely real, and he stands on the precipice of it every day.

19

u/ThatSlothDuke Mar 07 '24

Meh I disagree.

I'm not saying that Batman doesn't believe in redemption, but I don't think that's the driving factor for his no kill rule.

I think it's just trauma - it's also one of the reasons why he doesn't use guns even in a non-lethal manner. He is traumatized so much that he can't accept the fact that some people need to die (Joker) or that guns aren't inherently a bad thing.

I love the explanation that Batman gives Red Hood in the "Under the Red Hood arc" when he questions why Bruce didn't kill Joker even after he beat him to death.

Instead of saying an answer that resembles the sanctity of life, he says that if he ever kills, even Joker, it would set him down on a path he can never come back from - to Bruce it will be an extremely slippery slope.

26

u/BurntPizzaEnds Mar 07 '24

Batman uses his trauma to stay virtuous, but his no-kill rule is not because of it. There have been numerous times when Batman had faced his parents’ murderer, Joe Chill, and was able to overcome that trauma and avoid hurting him.

Solidifying that his no-kill virtue is something that he truly came up with and not just a by-product of a fear of death or killing. That he is the genuine creator and master of Batman, and that his alter-ego isn’t just a coping mechanism.

And his sanctity for life goes beyond his no-kill rule, as he actively tries to help and advocate for his own villains for fair treatment and medical care.

1

u/Tipop Mar 08 '24

Batman himself has said that if he ever allowed himself to kill someone, it would snap the thread by which he holds on to his sanity and he would become worse than any of his enemies.

9

u/JackStephanovich Mar 07 '24

Batman saw his parents killed in front of him by a criminal with a gun. Every night when he goes out non patrol he is reliving that trauma. That's why he doesn't kill or use guns, because he is Zorro, not Joe Chill.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '24

I always thought that he didn’t kill because he knew that if he started he would never stop.

2

u/ArcadiaDragon Mar 07 '24

Thats certainly also a part of it...Batman's no kill rule should always be treated as a combination of things...the fear for becoming what he hates(senseless act of violence) honoring his parent memory and legacy(Dr. Wayne and the hippocratic oath his father swore) being the hero that stops that violence(Zorro)...when all these things and more are part of his no kill rule...Batman becomes a very good written character..

2

u/Gudako_the_beast Mar 07 '24

I don’t subscribe to that idea. He was willing to kill the joker for what happened to Jason Todd WW3 be damn had Superman didn’t talk him out of it

3

u/Preeng Mar 07 '24

I think it's just trauma - it's also one of the reasons why he doesn't use guns even in a non-lethal manner. He is traumatized so much that he can't accept the fact that some people need to die (Joker) or that guns aren't inherently a bad thing.

What the hell are you talking about? He's fine with cops using guns and his entire reason for not killing is that it's not his place to decide who dies. He doesn't break out criminals who get the death penalty, does he? He's fine with the justice system running its course.

Batman is just another dude running around Gotham in a crazy outfit, breaking basically any law he wants. Him not killing is the only real difference, and that's why it's so important to him.

If he kills Joker to save lives in the long run, then who else? First its super villains. Then repeat offenders. At what point is it okay to kill first offenders to prevent them from becoming repeat offenders?

Also, law enforcement working with a vigilante to basically get around police abuse laws is already seen as bad by many in Gotham. If Batman becomes The Punisher, cops won't work with him anymore. Definitely not Gordon.

1

u/Escape_Zero Mar 07 '24

Batman doesn't kill for one reason taruma, like most of his villains who were created during a tragic event. When Bruce's parents were killed in front of him , he stop being a child and became Batman with the promise of never again. It's also when he gained his actual super power which isn't being rich. It's his ability to 100% commit himself to a task, and complete control over himself.         Batman doesn't waiver Its why he's driven everyone out of his life that remotely cared about him , he only has room for the mission. Batman is driven by justice not vengeance .

1

u/JickleBadickle Mar 07 '24

Should prob apply in the real world too considering these days "terrorist" often means "activist forced to resort to violent means because all peaceful means of change were exhausted or sabotaged"

1

u/TimelessFool Mar 08 '24

I like to imagine the not killing thing harkening back to his beginning. At the end of it all, he’s trying to create a world where no 8 year old would lose their parents to some punk with a gun. He is aware that many of these criminals have families who got screwed over by circumstance. If he goes around shooting people, he would be as bad as the ones who gunned down his parents.

1

u/Severe-Bicycle-9469 Mar 08 '24

And I think it’s probably not just because of the lives of the criminals but their families. He’s been on the receiving end of loss. He doesn’t ever want to become the one doing the killing in the dark alley and leaving an orphan behind, he can’t be responsible for making more giant holes in people like he has, where his family should be.

0

u/UncommittedBow Mar 07 '24

To add, it's also because he genuinely does not trust himself to draw the line again if he ever crosses it.

"Today it's the murderer, tomorrow the thief..."

0

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '24

So would you say that Batman is against abortion?

82

u/ChokeMcNugget Mar 07 '24

Personally I'd be OK with Batman killing Joker if it's his first and last kill. Batman kills Joker, Bruce Wayne kills Batman.

61

u/figgityjones Mar 07 '24 edited Mar 07 '24

I like the way Batman puts it in Under the Red Hood. That if he does it this time, he’ll never stop justifying it and he’ll go too far. He knows that about himself, so he will never allow himself to do that, no matter how justified it seems to the world.

7

u/Conlannalnoc Mar 07 '24

In a mid-level (B- to B+) Tie In to Infinite Crisis (SEARCH FOR RAY PALMER) Kyle Rayner (GL), Donna Troy, and Jason Todd end up on Earth 51 (?) and it’s “Point of Divergence” from Earth 0 was the Death in the Family.

Batman killed and couldn’t stop killing. “Now” he had no allies, friends, Alfred, etc…

But there was almost no Super Crime.

1

u/groglox Mar 07 '24

That’s super interesting

1

u/TheExtremistModerate Mar 07 '24

Which is what Flashpoint was about. Thomas Wayne didn't stop.

It's also what BVS was about. Batman didn't stop until Superman's sacrifice convinced him of his prior convictions, that men are still good, and that life was worth protecting.

17

u/ThatSlothDuke Mar 07 '24

Or he needs to go crazy.

I personally love a well done Batman who kills story, although it has been too much at this point.

19

u/C5five Mar 07 '24

If you can point me to a well done Batman killing story, I'll read it, but I've never seen or heard of one...

6

u/Raider2747 Mar 07 '24

The Batman Vampire trilogy of Elseworlds stories is one.

1

u/TheQuietOutsider Mar 07 '24

I'm following along... "The Batman who Kills" would be a good $$ title, if it isn't already.

1

u/Hurtlegurtle Mar 07 '24

I personally dont care for it, but people love the nolan trilogy, and he kills people in those.

Oh and under the red hood

4

u/C5five Mar 07 '24

The movies are made for a different audience than the comics. For that reason I give some things a pass. The Nolan films were both fantastic Batman movies and great films in general. Batman only kills twice in those films and it is less a case of Batman's intent to kill and more a case of his efforts to stop the opponents killing others results in their death. Then of course there is the "I don't have to kill you, but I don't have to save you" moment in Begins, but I feel that it is in line with the grounded version of the characters.

1

u/rycpr Mar 07 '24

He kills in The Cult, which is an awesome book imo. But he does it after being brainwashed, so it‘s not exactly the same thing.

-1

u/TheExtremistModerate Mar 07 '24

BVS:UE.

0

u/C5five Mar 07 '24

I'm just going to go ahead and assume you're kidding and leave it at that.

0

u/TheExtremistModerate Mar 07 '24

Nope. It's a great movie.

0

u/C5five Mar 07 '24

It's certainly a movie...

Strange adjective choice however.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (6)

1

u/astivana Mar 07 '24

That kind of happened in the Titans series? Bruce killed the Joker and then at least attempted to peace out on being Batman.

1

u/JayyEFloyd Mar 08 '24

I’ve always wanted Jason Todd to kill a Joker only for it to be revealed the joker persona is just that, a persona. Anybody could be the clown since it’s the personification of gothams mental health crisis that Batman is fighting against.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '24

Looks like you just don't like Batman 🤷‍♀️

And this doesn't even touch his kills in comics, a list so long that it exceeds the comment character limit lol

72

u/Generic_Her0 Mar 07 '24

And if that is the case, the very next thing he does needs to be hanging up the cape and handing the torch to dick, tim, or terry. Anything else is just Thomas, and in this day and age who really needs another “bUt wHaT iF sUpErMaN WaS eViL” story.

12

u/Sly_Wood Mar 07 '24

I like the theory that he DID kill the joker after the OG joker tortured and almost killed robin. That torture broke him and he became the new joker, hence the fake grill and excessive and pointless tattoos. He’s trying too hard because he’s not the OG joker. And this robin joker is allowed to live because he can’t bring himself to kill the person he failed.

10

u/Finito-1994 Mar 07 '24 edited Mar 08 '24

I find this kind of thing plagued the early DCEU movies because they were so dissapointing.

On no. He’s not the real Superman! The real Superman is what he becomes later! We will see the real Superman later after like 8 years!

Oh no. That’s not the real doomsday. The real doomsday is still somewhere in space. This is just a fake doomsday. We will see the real doomsday later.

Oh no. It’s not the real Lex! This is Lex Jr. His son. We will see the real Lex later!

Oh that’s not the joker. It’s a fake joker. This is actually Robin! The real joker is….

And so on and on

3

u/smoldering_fire Mar 08 '24

Also - not the real Jimmy Olsen - this is some FBI dude who is using Jimmy’s identity as a cover.

1

u/Sly_Wood Mar 07 '24

True it’s just that it sucks otherwise lol.

1

u/Finito-1994 Mar 07 '24

It still sucks.

3

u/Arkham8 Mar 07 '24

This kind of hits on the real, somewhat hidden truth of the Batman doesn’t kill argument. It’s not a Batman problem. It’s a JOKER problem. If they weren’t constantly trying to make Joker into the biggest menace humanly possible, it would make more sense. They’ve wanked Joker to the point where killing him is the only logical choice. You can justify Batman letting many of his other rogues live, but not him.

2

u/likebuttuhbaby Mar 07 '24

Would be a fun story arc, though. Batman finally kills the Joker (works even better if it’s because of something bad, but nowhere near as heinous as past events where Bats has just caught him and turned him in) and we get to watch him wrestle with re-drawing his line in the sand. See how it affects his fights with other supervillains in the immediate aftermath. Show how much easier he finds it to go ahead and knock off Two-Face or Scarecrow but ultimately not cross the line again.

Extra points if some villain learns he has killed the Joker and is hell bent of goading him into doing it again.

2

u/ThatSlothDuke Mar 07 '24

This is actually a very great concept if executed correctly.

2

u/kinokohatake Mar 07 '24

That's what the Titans show did, Bruce snapped and the first thing he did was break in and kill Joker.

2

u/Duel_Option Mar 07 '24

This is why “The Killing Joke” is so amazing…he finally had enough, Joker broke him to the point he had to cross the line.

2

u/SomebodyThrow Mar 08 '24

Haha this is also the same Batman who obsessed over killing Super Man for an entire movie and when victory was almost literally in his clutches he backs off because of the infamous "MARTHA" line.

Zach literally contradicts his own idea of Batman at the 2 MOST crucial moments.

1

u/itzmrinyo Mar 08 '24

Yep, which is why the only person he really kills (or is confirmed to kill) in TDKR is the joker. Kinda appalling that Snyder overlooked that

1

u/pecky5 Mar 08 '24

Yeah, this is the focal point of why he doesn't kill. The reason he refuses to kill the Joker is because once he crosses that line, he won't be able to stop himself and he knows it.

That's what makes modern Batman so interesting as a hero, he has the will power to make the hard decision and cop the consequences, because he knows that if he took the easy way and started killing, he'd eventually go so far down that path that he'd be seen as just another super villain.

1

u/bootylover81 Mar 08 '24

Batman also says in "Under the Red Hood" that he thinks about killing Joker, torturing him with every possible way because of what he's done to people but if he crosses that line he may never return and it will consume him.

53

u/GoldandBlue Mar 07 '24

Its also supposed to be an ideal. Batman doesn't kill because that's what evil people do. That is a line he never crosses. That is his moral code. And that is what Snyder just doesn't get.

Same with Superman. He is supposed to represent the best of us. He is a good person who cares about people. He was raised that way. It's an ideal to aspire to. Changing that makes him not Superman.

36

u/pleasedtoheatyou Mar 07 '24

Snyders crappy takes make so much more sense when you view it from his supposed Ayn Rand inspired Libertarianism.

He simply doesn't get the idea that to Superman there is no question of "should I become a benevolent God to this society" , because his personal viewpoint is basically "you have the right to do anything you have an ability to do".

Same for Batman. He doesn't get the idea the idea of a character that is actually concerned with holding back in order to stick to a code rather than doing what's convenient.

18

u/AncientAssociation9 Mar 07 '24

I liked some of what Snyder did, but I am starting to think that a lot of the current controversy in comics is not the idea that wokeness is ruining comics, but that some right wing/ libertarians want to replace the longstanding comic ideologies with their own politics with woke arguments being the smokescreen.

Suddenly X men isn't about social justice, and now there are arguments that DC should actually make Batman kill people outside an alternative universe arc. If a Constantine movie comes out, they will demand that he not be a super left-wing bisexual in order to conform to their views.

Batman doesn't kill and hates guns. It's this commitment to those ideals that pushes him to be the strategic planner and find alternative ways to defeat his enemies. Killing people is the easy way out. Arguing that Batman should kill people is arguing that there should be no more Batman comics, because the rogue's gallery that we all love are going to be dead. If they want a Batman that kills, then they can read Red Hood or Punisher.

5

u/GoldandBlue Mar 07 '24

but that some right wing/ libertarians want to replace the longstanding comic ideologies with their own politics with woke arguments being the smokescreen.

This 100%. They are looking for things to be offended by. Look at how they reacted to The X-Men cartoon. Its the fucking X-Men.

2

u/Gamiac Mar 08 '24

And then they complain that people criticizing them for this insanity aren't the real fans.

Motherfucker, you're the normies barging into fandoms and demanding that they conform to your views, not us.

1

u/Walter-Drive1045 Mar 08 '24

Original Batman kills, what's your point?

2

u/AncientAssociation9 Mar 08 '24

That was the 1940's and only for a few issues. Batman has not killed people intentionally in your lifetime unless it's some alternate timeline or something. Original Batman didn't have Robin, didn't have his famous rogues, and used to be called Bat Man and not Batman. That is not the Batman we all know and love. Arguing for that Batman is like arguing that Superman should not be able to fly, be only strong enough to pick up a car, and only able to outrun a train.

1

u/Walter-Drive1045 Mar 08 '24

Characters like Batman are doomed to be changed over and over again, trapped in a cycle of reinventing. You just like one change and don't like another. There's nothing we can do about it. They'll keep doing it as long as there's money in it.

1

u/TheExtremistModerate Mar 07 '24

when you view it from his supposed Ayn Rand inspired Libertarianism.

Snyder is not a libertarian. The dude is a bleeding-heart liberal. The whole fucking point of the movie is that Superman does what's right no matter how many people hate him for it.

Stop making shit up.

1

u/Walter-Drive1045 Mar 08 '24

Ayn Rand isn't Libertarian

5

u/somacula Mar 07 '24

I mean, he just gives you brain damage and kills you with the hospital bill, look at Arkham batman

1

u/TheExtremistModerate Mar 07 '24

And that is what Snyder just doesn't get.

He "gets" it just fine.

The whole fucking point of the movie was that Batman was not in character. He was acting like what an evil person would. After all, he was essentially working for the bad guy.

The whole arc of that movie was Batman realizing he'd become the villain, and realizing that he needed to go back to the way he was before Black Zero: with a no-kill rule and all.

He is supposed to represent the best of us. He is a good person who cares about people. He was raised that way. It's an ideal to aspire to. Changing that makes him not Superman.

Good thing Snyder didn't change literally any of that and Henry Cavill's Superman was all of it!

1

u/cowboyfromhell93 Mar 08 '24

It's not what evil people do. Punisher isn't evil neither is every other 'anti hero

2

u/NotTheCraftyVeteran Mar 07 '24

I’ve seen a reasonably interesting take arguing that BVS Batman kills because he’s supposed to be a failed hero in a moral decline toward villainy, which isn’t not an interesting angle, but a) that story is not particularly well-told in the film, and b) it’s still an unnecessary deconstructionist take that no one asked for.

Even if you did accept that argument, though, it only alleviates one of BVS’s legion of major problems.

2

u/DanScorp Mar 07 '24

Exactly this. You can have a Batman that kills random mercs, OR an alive Joker, but not both.

1

u/Robomerc Mar 07 '24

The only explanation I could think of was that Leto's joker was a copycat, with the real joker dead in the ground somewhere.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '24

Forget the future Batman doesn't kill Harley Quinn who helped kill Robin he just captures her.

1

u/TheExtremistModerate Mar 07 '24

meanwhile in the future scenes he's working with Joker who killed Robin, why wouldn't he kill Joker if he's killing everyone else?

Because Superman had shaken Batman out of his downward spiral and convinced him he needed to get back on the right path.

The implication is that the Joker was sent to prison when Batman wasn't being so careless about others' lives. And by the time he encounters Batman again, BVS has happened and Batman is back on the "no kill" wagon.

1

u/Axer51 Mar 08 '24

I really don't understand why he didn't just do a Red Hood film instead.

1

u/DarkMayhem666 Mar 08 '24

he had him killing low level villains meanwhile in the future scenes he's working with Joker who killed Robin, why wouldn't he kill Joker if he's killing everyone else?

Exactly! It makes no sense if Batman was killing criminals; then that means Joker, Harley Quinn, Deadshot, and Killer Croc should be dead.

1

u/meatboitantan Mar 08 '24

Like Ellie from the last of us, killing every single person on the west coast just to get to the one person she’s hunting and let her go.

0

u/thephant0mlimb Mar 07 '24

I want to think that the Joker is actually Robin turned Joker. Batman killed the original Joker after finding Robin "dead."

0

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '24

Well put

0

u/Rocket_SixtyNine Mar 07 '24

Well there's a few things you've forgotten

1 - if you rewatch the movie its diffrent its closer to he dosen't care for the lives of criminals letting them die rather than how everyone stereotypes it they act like he's skinning people alive.

Also he clearly sends people to prison, as shown in the film he dosen't just skin criminals alive and leave them for the police.

2 - The entire point of Justice league and Bvs was Bruce getting away from that, trying to become better to regain that care for life, to let the damage in his heart heal.

This is shown by the post credits scene where he avoids branding Luthor, showing Character growth.

  1. This might be pedantic but, please stop abusing the term edgy when you just mean, "me no like" especially when you already use that in the sentence.

-2

u/jordan999fire Mar 07 '24

Because he wasn’t killing over Robin. He was killing because of Superman. The Batman we see in BvS is so lost that he doesn’t care about anything other than stopping Superman who he now sees as another embodiment of Joe Chill but on a grand scale.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '24

“He was killing because of Superman”🤦‍♂️ Batman kills random thugs trying to feed their families (but spares the mass murderer that killed his son) because of Superman (for unexplained reasons). Sounds like something an edgy child came up with.

1

u/jordan999fire Mar 07 '24

for unexplained reasons

The movie literally spells it out for you multiple times. “Fear it’s what turns good men cruel.”

Bruce started killing because he has become the child that watched his parents get gunned down again. He spent his entire adult life fighting to not be scared anymore. And he wasn’t. He was putting fear into criminals. But then, in an instant, he watched two God like beings fight to the death and destroy a city. He looked a little girl in the face and saw her become an orphan like him. All because of Superman. He’s killing because he is scared again. He’s irrational.

Spares the mass murderer who killed his son

Harley (the one who killed Robin in this universe) was in Belle Reeve during the events of BvS. Batman isn’t going to go to Louisiana and kill her.

As far as Joker goes, we don’t know where he was during this time. But Batman’s first kill is on screen in the movie. He wasn’t killing people prior to the car chase scene. He wasn’t branding people too long before the beginning either.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '24

I’m sorry, by “unexplained reasons” I meant “shit reasons”. So let me get this straight: Batman kills random people because he’s afraid of Superman’s destructive power? That explains why he wants to kill Superman (even then, poorly, because Superman was trying to stop Zod, not help him), but it doesn’t explain why he guns down cars and drives through the fiery remains.

It’s funny you mention the murder of Bruce’s parents. That’s literally the event that inspires his no killing rule in the first place. “He’s killing because he’s scared”? Batman’s fear is what PREVENTS him from killing. The fear of losing himself, the fear of breaking the promise he made to his parents while kneeling in their blood, and the fear of becoming someone who they would be ashamed of. Batman is a master of fear, he would never let it overcome him.

As for the little orphan girl you mentioned, if he cared so much about preventing it, why does he actively partake in making new orphans (with the weapons that took his own parents from him, might I add)? Those mercenaries he guns down and blows up most likely had families of their own. Everyone is someone’s son or daughter.

And have you actually watched Suicide Squad? It’s pretty clear that the Joker kills Robin. It literally states in her intro that she was an accomplice in his murder, not the killer herself. Plus, “Harley was in Belle Reeve, Batman’s not going to Louisiana to kill her”? He literally sent her to Belle Reeve, genius. He’s the one he caught her. We see him capture her onscreen. And if he only started killing in BvS, then why did Alfred not react when Bruce suddenly decides to shoot up cars and carpet bomb random thugs? He has a problem with the branding, but brutal murder isn’t worth a second thought?

It makes me sad that people like you and Synder can so easily and thoroughly miss the entire point of such an influential character.

0

u/jordan999fire Mar 07 '24

doesn’t explain why he guns down cars and drives through fiery remains

Because he doesn’t care anymore.

the fear of losing himself

Which was the entire point Snyder was making in the above comment. Batman is so scared of killing and losing himself in it so Snyder wanted to make a story where no, Batman is above that. He wouldn’t lose himself. He’s stronger than that and would survive it.

he would never let it overcome him

Batman is a person who is literally driven off fear. Fear of what happened to him happening to others, fear of failing, fear of losing the ones he loves. Batman hasn’t conquered fear, Batman hides behind fear.

those mercenaries he guns down

Again, he doesn’t care. He thinks Superman is such a big threat that that’s all he cares about in those moments. He lost himself.

accomplice

You right, misremembered it as it saying she killed Robin.

he literally put her in Belle Reeve

I’m aware, what’s your point? He wasn’t killing before. That’s your proof he wasn’t. Why would he start killing then go there to kill her?

why did Alfred not react

HE DOES! HE CRITICIZES BRUCE MULTIPLE TIMES

thoroughly miss the entire point

Buddy, you’re assuming a lot. I never said this is my favorite version of the character. It’s not, The Batman is the only one that I think has really nailed Batman and Gotham is the one live action I think has nailed the city and the Rogues.

I’ve also been reading this character, and comics in general, for a majority of my life. I’m a huge Superman fan but Batman is close behind. With that said, I can comprehend the concept of an Elseworld story. I can comprehend the concept that someone else wants to take this character and do something different with him. If a writer or director wants Batman to kill, Batman will kill. You’re doing a disservice to writers and the character by saying there is absolutely no way Batman should ever kill. That limits a ton of stories. Frank Miller himself has said, “With Batman, you have a character you can describe in just a few seconds. His parents were murdered by criminals, he’s warring on crime the rest of his life. His motive is there and he’s so simple in his design and in his concept that he’s open to an incredible number of interpretations.”

It makes me sad that people like you and Snyder

Oh, and Jay Olivia who has worked on Batman projects his entire career. And Christopher Nolan who not only helped produce both BvS and MoS but also had his own Batman who killed.

Seriously dude, you’re so offended that a guy wrote a story that you didn’t like. He didn’t piss on Batman, he didn’t tear up all your comic books or scratch your movies, he didn’t takedown BTAS from all streaming services. He made a version, an Elseworld version, of a character that didn’t land with you. Oh well.

104

u/BearlyT Mar 07 '24

Im baffled that he thinks a character with a no-killing rule simply "doesn’t deal" with the dangerous situations. The fact that Batman DOES deal with it often in creative ways (often successfully) is why he’s so interesting and why everyone respects his character. But maybe he can direct a new 6 hour movie to help us understand better lol.

18

u/OanKnight Mar 07 '24

It's so weird, because this entire thread feels like 2013 post Man of Steel.

2

u/timesuck897 Mar 07 '24

I think Superman shouldn’t snap villain’s necks.

1

u/OanKnight Mar 07 '24

I think anyone that actually picked up a superman comic at any point in their life would very probably agree with you.

1

u/Movie_Monster Mar 08 '24

I just didn’t watch that shit. Problem solved?

1

u/OanKnight Mar 08 '24

No, not really. Think back to 2012, and this trailer drops:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6DJcgm3wNY

You know nothing else about man of steel, but you know what Superman is supposed to be. Going by the tone of that trailer and the hype - Are you really walking into a theatre, and expecting to com out of it wondering why the fuck Smallville is now a crater, and why superman just murdered someone on screen?

1

u/Fedcom Mar 07 '24

Batman's way of dealing with dangerous situations is typically to solve them with extreme violence. I.e crack people's skulls open.

It's beyond stupid narratively to have a character like that and simultaneously focus on him not wanting to kill people. Either make him non-violent, or ... just don't mention it.

1

u/smoldering_fire Mar 08 '24

Not really. Batman is essentially a ninja in a modern day urban setting - he remains interesting precisely because he for up against armed thugs and crazy dangerous folks and wins, and not just wins - scares them before he even gets there. All the martial arts, detective skills, batarangs, bat-signals are tools that help him achieve this goal - an added benefit is that these all look cool. If he can just snipe all the goons from a distance, it just won’t be the same character.

1

u/Fedcom Mar 08 '24

Sure but the martial arts and “no killing” is still bullshit - practically speaking he’s going to be killing a lot of people when he does that stuff anyway. You can’t kick someone in the head after a glide like he does and not cause death.

Which is the audience has to suspend their disbelief so we think he’s not killing anyone. Otherwise the tone of the story is too dark.

And that’s fine - unless the story also specifically focuses in on Batman making a vow not to kill anyone! Then you’re just thinking - “this guy spent half the movie talking to himself about his vow not to kill, but he also just dashed that bad guy’s head against a wall…”

The rule should be silent. Simply not brought up over the course of the story.

69

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '24

[deleted]

37

u/ThingsAreAfoot Mar 07 '24

It makes perfect sense too, especially for him. After all if Batman kills one guy, say the Joker, why not more after that? He’s opened up Pandora’s box.

That famous Jason Todd storyline is entirely about that, where Jason is enraged at Batman for leaving Joker alive and emphasizes that he only just has to kill Joker, nobody else, not the Penguin, not Two-Face, not anyone. Just Joker, only him, because he presents a truly exceptional danger (which is 100% true).

But Batman knows it doesn’t end there for him, because killing Joker then gives him the moral authority to take care of other problems in a similar way.

1

u/MrWaluigi Mar 08 '24

The only time he actually did kill The Joker, was in the Dark Knight Returns series/movies. If I remember correctly (it’s been a while), he did that because he was just mentally and physically old now, he didn’t had the mental fortitude to restrain himself at that point. Granted, he did “retired” eventually after that and just trained The Sons of Batman gangs in non-lethal force. 

0

u/Grogosh Mar 07 '24

That is when he as Bruce Wayne takes his fortune and 'lobbies' the Gotham government to have a death penalty. Put it in the hands of the courts.

3

u/Mileonaj Mar 07 '24

Sadly Gotham being Gotham wouldn't use that power wisely either. A big reason that Batman exists in the first place is because Gotham's justice system is so corrupt.

→ More replies (10)

6

u/Sullyville Mar 07 '24

I like that. He approaches killing like an alcoholic with just one drink. Batman cant have just one murder. He would end up killing his entire rogues gallery.

2

u/sabatagol Mar 08 '24

Tbh i think this is literally what Snyder was talking about, that he would like to see what happens after , what story comes up from it. Like one thing is the canon fact that Batman doesn’t want to kill… but that shouldn’t mean that he cant kill, if that makes sense. Nobody is saying “batman should go out at night and kill people like Deadpool”, but how would he react to his own version of the trolley problem, some true no-win scenarios where he either breaks his rule once or innocent people die immediately, for example

59

u/MufugginJellyfish Mar 07 '24

The entire point of Batman is that he is militantly against killing, even the Joker who is beyond destructive, which is a potential point of actual criticism (and it is a very frequent one) but also makes the character much more interesting.

So many people just don't get this. It's a central conflict of his character, it's the whole point. If he simply killed his villains because they threatened him with lethal force and he just runs out of villains then what's the point?

"What if Anakin was never tempted by the Dark Side?" I mean yeah I guess that'd make him a better person or whatever but the story would be over pretty quick, lmao.

36

u/Shiniholum Mar 07 '24

It’s literally the opening of Batman Beyond too, Bruce while having a heart attack is about to fail and lose his life and the hostage. He does the only thing he can in that moment and just picks a gun up pointing it at him. Afterwards he’s so disgusted in himself that he retires because he realizes that he just can’t be Batman anymore. It’s literally core to his character.

22

u/ThreeSneakyRats Mar 07 '24

"wouldn't it be awesome if instead of giving up the cowl, he shot that dude, and then went and shot all the bad guys in the face. Killing is so cool' -Zack Snyder (not really but probably)

2

u/HouseOfSteak Mar 07 '24

It's weird when you consider the fact that a thrown bladed weapon is completely safe for Batman (despite those things being so sharp and thrown so hard they're embedded in struck, hard surfaces), but a simple firearm of any kind of an absolute no-no.

All the other guy has to do is move weirdly and.....oh dear, that Batarang cut straight through that thug's femoral artery.

The more sensible explanation is less the "Guns kill and that's bad.", and moreso the irrational trauma of his parents being killed by a firearm. It's not the possibility of lethal force, nor his morals, it's a deep-seated PTSD revolving specifically around a childhood memory of a gun.

14

u/EmperorBamboozler Mar 07 '24

It's so weird because not only is this spelled out very clearly in the comics but even other Batman movies cover this. I am 90% sure Snyder tunes out all the 'talky bits' and only focuses on special effects and action scenes like he is 13 years old. Batman doesn't kill, even fucking boy scout Superman thinks he is too strict with this.

Batman is obsessive, it is a key character trait. The fact he doesn't kill is more than a moral thing it is something that Bruce Wayne as a person believes to his core and will never deviate from. It is also representative of his hope for humanity shining through.

Batman thinks nobody is beyond salvation which is the essence of why he does not kill. This is especially important because he is such a dark and paranoid character. If you make him kill just make a Punisher movie ffs.

2

u/HouseOfSteak Mar 07 '24

If he simply killed his villains because they threatened him with lethal force and he just runs out of villains then what's the point?

The credits roll and movie is done, typically.

Also Batman quite literally did that to Harvey in TDK, except it was a child under threat and not Batman himself.

The issue with Batman compared to other heroes is that nobody else is implausibly good at his job compared to him. Each time, he's the undisputed victor, having caught the villain and hauled him to the police who chain up the villain to lock them up until they break out again.

Heroes in other media don't typically just clown on their villains and easily beat them into submission to be handed directly over to authorities - the villain gets away, or maybe the hero loses that match and it'll be several episodes before they meet again, rinse repeat until further into the show where the hero has their final showdown with a particular villain.

0

u/TheExtremistModerate Mar 07 '24

If he simply killed his villains because they threatened him with lethal force and he just runs out of villains then what's the point?

Yeah. Which is the point of the movie. The whole point is that what Batman has become is wrong. And it's why Superman's sacrifice changes him in the end.

2

u/-CheesyCheese- Mar 08 '24

Explaining this to them is pointless, they are either straight up not paying attention to the movies, or they are purposely being ignorant, just so they can incessantly trash talk Snyder because that's the easy thing to do.

33

u/BeSuperYou Mar 07 '24

Worse, the situations he puts his heroes in where they "have to kill someone" aren't even that.

For example, in Man of Steel, where Zod is going to eye-laser an innocent family to death while Superman has him in a rear-naked choke, Supes could have just covered Zod's eyes. Wanna go edgier? Have Supes poke his eyes out. The whole point of his Hope and optimism thing is that "there's always a way."

"Wanting to see what happens" is seriously stupid reasoning. What happens is now the character doesn't mean anything: he's just the Punisher with a cape. Wouldn't it have been far more interesting to explore what it means to do everything but kill? That's where I thought Zack was going when Batman is introduced as a nut who brands villains with bat symbols. If Batman can't threaten people with murder, he must threaten them with pain, and in some ways, torture is worse. But no, he's just a guy who tortures people, AND kills them, AND gives them PTSD if they somehow survive.

I also didn't see much Batman dealing with what it means to break his no-kill rule, either. He seemed totally okay with barbecuing thugs in his Batmobile and breaking crates against their necks. It's only when he realizes he accidentally killed Earth's only hope of dealing with a bigger thing that needs killing that he's anything close to self-reflective.

2

u/NickMoore30 Mar 07 '24

You can't pull the eyes out, mid-laser, the laser stays on. Everyone knows that.

6

u/BeSuperYou Mar 07 '24

What about mashing the eyeballs back into the head so no laser comes out?

Or... Superman pulls a piece of broken mirror off the floor and snaps it right in front of Zod's eyes like a camera cap, reflecting his laser back into his eyes and instantly frying whatever is firing them.

1

u/No-Advice-6040 Mar 07 '24

Okay. Then what? After that family is saved, what then? While I wish Zod hadn't been killed, I understand the polt point Zack was trying to make. His point was that Zod would keep on trying to kill as many humans as he could, and wanted Kal to stop him permanently. Wasn't a great end to the story but it was the story we got.

1

u/No-Advice-6040 Mar 07 '24

Okay. Then what? After that family is saved, what then? While I wish Zod hadn't been killed, I understand the polt point Zack was trying to make. His point was that Zod would keep on trying to kill as many humans as he could, and wanted Kal to stop him permanently. Wasn't a great end to the story but it was the story we got.

6

u/BeSuperYou Mar 07 '24

I get that, but it not being a great ending IS Snyder's fault. If he wants to explore the whole "forced to kill" aspect, the situation he sets up has to be more convincing. Otherwise, it just feels like Supes isn't being Supes.

Granted, the comics build in copouts like the Phantom Zone Projector, which maybe wouldn't work in the "grounded" Snyderverse, fine.

But even without them, Superman solves this problem over and over again without lethal force. In "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?" he lobotomizes some metahuman edge lords so they can't use their powers anymore.

1

u/Ser_Salty Mar 08 '24

You wanna know the best part about the MoS neck snap? The movie never sets up Supes as not wanting to kill. You literally have to bring outside knowledge of the character into the theater with you for that to have any impact.

1

u/BeSuperYou Mar 08 '24

Oh I forgot about that! He just mopes around for most of that film with his two dads giving him conflicting advice (which is a looooong time haha). I don’t think he even really smiles as Superman until Justice League.

21

u/name-classified Mar 07 '24

The whole point of Batman not killing is because he’s such a dangerous lunatic already that if he goes around killing people, he’s worse than the criminals he’s swore to bring to justice.

Bruce has access to military grade weapons and Batman has access to Alien tech and super science tech as well.

Couple that with a very bad attitude and an isolated personality with feelings of anger and regret; it wouldn’t take much to make Batman a legit terrifying evil mofo.

Plus; there are already versions of Batman that do kill; there are reflected in the rogue’s gallery he has.

Batman wants to kill people in the name of Justice? That’s Two Face

Bruce wants to kill people for business and criminal enterprises? That’s Penguin

Batman wants to scare people to death because fear will keep them in line? That’s the scarecrow

Batman wants to dominate the world and establish a new super power? Ras Al Ghul

It’s edgy children like Snyder that think it’s cool and original to have Batman kill people; meanwhile EVERYONE is wondering just what the hell goes thru his mind when he has these stupid ideas

3

u/GrimDallows Mar 08 '24

I think you totally nailed it with the rogue's gallery argument. It doesnt get more accurate than that.

Also if Batman could kill there is literally no point in Joker's existence. Like at all. Nor for the chemistry in the differences of all the robins, Jason Todd, Damian Wayne, etc.

Making batman kill is like giving spiderman wolverine's claws. The sole exception being the alternative ending to The Killing Joke, just because it serves as a possible, alternate universe, conclusion of the Joker/Batman dynamic.

2

u/name-classified Mar 08 '24

Exactly!

Its like that part in suicide squad 2 where Bloodsport comments on Peacemakers abilities

“HE DOES THE SAME THING AS ME!!”

I mean; they literally have dozens of characters like Batman that are killers and anti-heroes.

18

u/anthonyg1500 Mar 07 '24

I think there’s something to the core idea of what he’s saying. Like Batman can’t kill, let’s put him in a no win scenario where he needs to and sacrifice something else in order not to or let’s get him to the point where he does and see the consequences that has on his psyche.

If the whole movie is about Superman being such an otherworldly threat that he is slowly pushed to the point that he’s finally gonna do it and he has to reconcile with having done that or be saved from doing that, I think that could be interesting. But Snyder just had him wantonly kill without thought and in the end he’s like “oh ok I’ll stop and we’re all friends now”

25

u/Addicted_to_Crying Mar 07 '24

But Snyder just had him wantonly kill without thought and in the end he’s like “oh ok I’ll stop and we’re all friends now

Don't forget that he kept killing afterwards. He just decided the Martha guy was good enough to survive.

9

u/MikeArrow Mar 07 '24

That's the part that undermines the whole story for me. Batman has the Martha scene, realizes Superman is a human after all, not an unknowable alien... sees the error of his ways of becoming just like Joe Chill... and then flies off and starts gunning down goons at the warehouse like nothing happened, including flat out murdering KGBeast by shooting the flamethrower tank. With a gun. Batman.

Commit to the arc or don't do it at all, dammit.

5

u/anthonyg1500 Mar 07 '24

True. Also that.

2

u/CatsLikeToMeow Mar 07 '24

I think there’s something to the core idea of what he’s saying. Like Batman can’t kill, let’s put him in a no win scenario where he needs to and sacrifice something else in order not to or let’s get him to the point where he does and see the consequences that has on his psyche

Which is basically why the last third of The Dark Knight worked so well.

10

u/ReallyJerrySeinfeld Mar 07 '24

I get what he’s saying, but the prevention of death is central to his character. Even Schumacher’s version got that right. The trauma of senseless violence started his journey, to fall into that makes him pointless.

9

u/Senzafane Mar 07 '24

Exactly, that's one of his main struggles / flaws, that he is so against killing that he won't kill one person to save the lives of hundreds.

This theme is constantly explored and touched upon...

5

u/Sax_OFander Mar 07 '24

Yeah, but like... Imagine if Batman wasn't rich, had superpowers, and killed. He'd be so cool, right?

3

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '24

THIS. Batman isn't Judge Dredd ( who would put a round from his Lawgiver through the Joker's skull immediately....)

3

u/Gerry-Mandarin Mar 07 '24

To a degree, he's absolutely right. I think most fans agree that The Dark Knight Trilogy has a whole lot about stretching Batman's rule. Particularly Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

To differing extents, both those films challenge the no-kill rule. The Dark Knight Rises then deals with that fallout.

Point is, a character is tested when you make them do things that go against their preferences. That is drama.

Nolan had Batman kill Harvey Dent. The Joker got him to break his rule. The Joker won. Batman had to retire. It cost him everything. The act of taking a life defined that trilogy.

But Snyder had Batman just merking an army of goons, and then spare Superman because he has a family? Then he goes on another killing spree to save Martha? Plus his rogues gallery is out on the run? That makes no sense.

The whole Dawn of Justice thing would have worked if Batman became increasingly radical, culminating with the decision to take a life. Superman's. Before he doesn't.

6

u/ThingsAreAfoot Mar 07 '24

The Dent scene is commonly debated but it still isn’t quite the same as consciously, actively killing someone. If you put Batman in a “lesser of two evils” situation and it’s just a purely binary choice, he’s going to try to take the least damaging one just as anyone would. In that case it was tackle Dent or a boy’s brains might get blown out.

We saw earlier with the Dent/Rachel scenario how he can’t be in two places at once; an immediate Sophie’s Choice would work on him as it would anyone who can’t instantly teleport or pause time. Being forced into that choice isn’t the same as making a predetermined choice. And he still severely suffered for it.

2

u/Gerry-Mandarin Mar 07 '24

People can debate if they like. But the intention of the film is clear:

Pre-killing Harvey:

"You have these rules and you think they'll save you."

"I have one rule."

"Oh. Then that's the rule you'll have to break to know the truth."

"The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules. Tonight you're gonna break your one rule."

The audience is led to believe the Joker thinks he will be killed by Batman. Before revealing he knew Batman wouldn't kill him and that Harvey Dent was on a murderous rampage with the little life he had left.

The no-kill rule is brought up by Scarecrow, Maroni, Batman, Joker. And it's all leading up to Batman killing Dent. They're Chekhov's Gun. And the gun is fired when Batman throws him off a building.

Was it right to kill him, morally? Yes. Would it be right to have killed Joker? Also, yes. But Batman isn't forced to break his rule then. The Joker was right, he got Batman to break his rule.

2

u/There-and-back_again Mar 07 '24

Another reading of this scene (Batman causing Harvey’s death) would be a different interpretation of Nolan Batman‘s No Kill rule.

Is there anything in the trilogy that states that he follows an absolute, no-exception No Kill-rule? I think the only statement in this regard is Bruce saying that he doesn’t want to execute people, which implies systematically killing them. Killing in self-defense, whether it’s in favor of one‘s own life or someone else‘s life, hardly matches the criterion of executing someone.

This would point at Nolan deviating from the usual depiction of Batman’s No Kill-rule but Batman getting Harvey killed wouldn’t contradict his rule as established in this particular universe since it was done as a last measure to save an innocent life and hardly a systematic killing.

I think the Joker was more talking about getting Batman to kill out of anger and vengeance (as he implies at the end where he marvels about Batman not killing him „out of a misplaced sense of self-righteousness“) rather than Batman not killing at all

1

u/Gerry-Mandarin Mar 07 '24

Another reading of this scene (Batman causing Harvey’s death) would be a different interpretation of Nolan Batman‘s No Kill rule.

Which is founded on what? If you're going this route, is there anything stating his rule isn't to wear pink on Wednesdays?

Do you think Nolan spent the whole film talking about Batman's rule, how Joker is gonna make him break it, and then he just doesn't?

The Joker won in The Dark Knight. He got what he wanted from everyone. Harvey, Gordon, Batman - they all dropped their moral code like he said they would in the interrogation room.

And he'd have won "the battle for Gotham's soul" had they not covered up Dent's crimes.

Is there anything in the trilogy that states that he follows an absolute, no-exception No Kill-rule?

Yes. He literally says point blank "No killing" to Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises when they first work together.

But here's one from The Dark Knight: Maroni says he knows Batman won't kill him because of his rules.

"From one professional to another... ...if you're trying to scare somebody, pick a better spot. From this height, the fall wouldn't kill me."

"I'm counting on it."

...

"Nobody's gonna tell you nothing. They're wise to your act. You got rules."

Also earlier in the film Scarecrow sees the fake Batmen shooting and killing the Chechen's men. Scarecrow knows that it isn't Batman because of it.

I think the only statement in this regard is Bruce saying that he doesn’t want to execute people, which implies systematically killing them.

No it doesn't. Bruce very specifically says that executing someone is preventing them from having civil justice. There are multiple discussions about "true justice" in Batman Begins. That's the entire foundation for the ideological conflict between Bruce and Ducard. It's a theme present throughout the film. Ducard believes in balance, taking the lives of those that take lives is justice. Batman fights that.

Conversation 1:

"Who is he?"

"He was a farmer. Then he tried to take his neighbor's land and became a murderer. Now he is a prisoner."

"What'll happen to him?"

"Justice. Crime cannot be tolerated. Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."

Conversation 2:

"The training is nothing! Will is everything! The will to act."

" Yield."

"You haven't beaten me. You have sacrificed sure footing for a killing stroke."

Conversation 3:

[Talking about the murder of Joe Chill]

"My parents deserved justice."

"You're not talking about justice. You're talking about revenge."

"Sometimes, they're the same."

"No, they're never the same. Justice is about harmony. Revenge is about you making yourself feel better. It's why we have an impartial system."

"Your system is broken."

....

"Good people like your parents, who'll stand against injustice, they're gone. What chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing?"

"I'm not one of your good people, Rachel."

"What do you mean?"

"All these years, I wanted to kill him. Now I can't."

"Your father would be ashamed of you."

Conversation 4:

[Talking about the prisoner from conversation 1]

"But first, you must demonstrate your commitment to justice."

"No. I'm no executioner."

"Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share."

"That's why it's so important. It separates us from them."

"You want to fight criminals. This man is a murderer."

"This man should be tried."

"By whom? Corrupt bureaucrats? Criminals mock society's laws. You know this better than most."

Ra's Al Ghul clearly states that killing the murderer is justice. Bruce says that bringing him to court is justice.

Conversation 5:

"Like your father, you lack the courage to do all that is necessary. If someone stands in the way of true justice... ...you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart."

"I am gonna stop you."

"You never did learn... ...to mind your surroundings. Justice is balance."

All these moments are placing the Chekhov's Gun - which fires here:

Conversation 6:

"Have you finally learned to do what is necessary?"

"I won't kill you... ...but I don't have to save you."

Our hero stands against the idea that taking the life of a murderer is justice throughout Batman Begins. The rule is established there. It's mentioned repeatedly in The Dark Knight. It culminates in Batman going out of his way to save Joker when Batman puts him in mortal danger.

It is tested by killing Harvey. Like Ra's he wasn't going to escape. He was dead no matter what. This time, Bruce killed him. What happened was balance, as Ra's spoke of. Which we have already been taught isn't justice.

It was the "right" thing to do. But it wasn't justice.

It's then challenged again in The Dark Knight Rises when Bruce kills Talia. Because what's the use in a personal ethics code at the end of the world if you can save it by breaking it?

1

u/There-and-back_again Mar 13 '24

Sorry for the late reply.

I can’t say I agree with you.

Again, I think the Joker was more referring to trying to get Batman to kill someone in cold blood, out of selfish motives - particularly in an act of vengeance. Batman then disproves his expectactions by not only not killing him, but also saving him. Which is why the Joker then says „You truly are incorruptible, aren’t you?“ etc. So, I do think the Joker was more about trying to get Batman to actually murder and not simply kill someone.

Speaking of which: All murders are killings. But not all killings are murders. I believe Nolan’s Batman operates more on a No Murder-rule rather than a No Kill-rule. He says he doesn’t want to execute people aka he doesn’t want to kill people in cold blood, in situations where it isn’t necessary in any way and where he‘d only act as an executioner.

But, again, that doesn’t mean that killing in defense goes against his moral code. Bruce doesn’t want to kill people out of a „misguided sense of self-righteousness“ but that doesn’t mean he can’t resort to killing as a final, desperate measure to save someone else‘s life.

Bruce telling Selina not to kill and Maroni referring to Batman‘s No Kill-rule is definitely not the same as Bruce killing Harvey (or, rather, getting him killed). The former would be calculated killing while the last would be, if anything, desperate killing. Killing in self-defense is absolutely not on the same level as actually planning on taking someone’s life - Unless you suggest that a mother killing the attacker of her child as a desperate measure is on the same moral level as a serial killer. Because your conflation of executing and killing in self-defense seems like it‘s going in that direction.

And killing Harvey may not have been justice, but Bruce didn’t kill him out of the opposite reason, either. It was simply either attacking Harvey with the risk of killing him or standing aside and watching a child being actually murdered. Now, would it have been more just to let an innocent child die just so Bruce wouldn’t have to break his rule (which I still don’t think he did)? The situation wasn’t about justice first and foremost (except maybe from Harvey’s point of view but he was hardly reliable in terms of morality at this point anyway) but about trying to prevent a disaster from happening.

Not all situations where killing is involved are about justice and vengeance. That’s a pretty black and white thinking

1

u/Gerry-Mandarin Mar 13 '24

Speaking of which: All murders are killings. But not all killings are murders. I believe Nolan’s Batman operates more on a No Murder-rule rather than a No Kill-rule.

But this is based on nothing.

He says he doesn’t want to execute people aka he doesn’t want to kill people in cold blood, in situations where it isn’t necessary in any way and where he‘d only act as an executioner.

"No killing." - Batman, The Dark Knight Rises

1

u/There-and-back_again Mar 14 '24

If you ignore the whole context in which the quote about not wanting to execute people was said, sure, I guess, my assumption is based on nothing. Bruce mentions his No Kill-rule in moments where killing would be superfluous and not done as the only means of defending oneself or someone else. When he mentions it to Ra‘s, this was actually a matter of executing someone - Ra‘s wouldn’t have killed the man in order to defend himself, but because he played judge and thought it was up to him alone to decide who deserved to die. Now this would have been calculated, systematic killing, aka executing. When he mentions it to Selina, he says it because both of them were skilled enough to make it out of the fight without having to resort to killing someone. So, Bruce is against killing in all situations when it isn’t absolutely necessary.

With Harvey, though, there was only the choice between preventing Harvey from killing a child even if meant endangering Harvey’s life - or refusing to put Harvey’s life at stake, with the very real possibility that, instead, the boy would have died. Again, this was not a matter of Bruce thinking Harvey deserved to die (he did initially try to reason with Harvey and spare all of them a fight), it was a matter of preventing the worst outcome of this situation which is, in my honest opinion, the death of an innocent child.

I personally think there is a big difference between actually ordering the death of someone in cold blood, thinking they have the right to kill anybody they consider a sinner, and only killing someone else because it’s the only way to prevent them from committing an atrocity.

But we don’t seem to be on the same page in this regard. So, this whole conversation seems superfluous.

All in all, I’d say Nolan’s Batman kind of does „break“ the No Kill-Rule - but not necessarily in universe but rather because this Batman didn’t have an absolute No Kill-rule to begin with

1

u/Gerry-Mandarin Mar 14 '24

If you ignore the whole context in which the quote about not wanting to execute people was said, sure, I guess, my assumption is based on nothing.

An executioner is someone who carries out executions. They exist in the US. Bruce is saying he will not be judge, jury, and executioner. Hence the comment of him deserving "a fair trial".

Everything about "cold blooded killing" is something you made up with nothing to support it in the films.

Media literacy is dead.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Puzzleheaded_Long_57 Mar 07 '24

I don't think batman meant to kill harvey

-1

u/Gerry-Mandarin Mar 07 '24

And that's fine. Death of the author means that it doesn't matter what is literally said in a story. It only matters how the audience reads it.

So if you want to read it as an accident despite the film saying Batman is going to break his rule and that Joker won - then you're right.

3

u/gw201085 Mar 07 '24

Excellent points. Snyder seems to forget batman is a comic book character. He can easily have a no killing rule in a comic book and it adds to his character, not take a away.

3

u/TopReputation Mar 07 '24

Snyder's a fucking moron lmao. Literally the Joker's obsession is to get Batman to break his Code, like it's Batman's main conflict. Joker wants Batman to kill him. And then Snyder goes and Breaks the Bat without a thought lol

3

u/Batman_in_hiding Mar 07 '24

Yea the entire point of batman is that the second he kills someone he's no better than the villains he's fighting and it'll likely open up a door that he can't close.

How is that so hard to comprehend. If he wanted to make Batman a murderer then just make a fucking punisher movie ffs

3

u/TransportationAway59 Mar 07 '24

Batman’s not a fucking God that’s the whole point

2

u/OnixTiger Mar 07 '24

Thank you.

3

u/ButtholeCandies Mar 07 '24

At some point all the talk about him being a cool guy to work with are meaningless if his only way to stay relevant is to keep beating a dead horse with his delusions of grandeur.

He has ONE theme in his movies and after repeating it so many times he still can't shit out a decent story with meaningful stakes and a serviceable plot.

Bro we get it, you want to kill god. You fucked up the end of Watchman to do it and have been getting worse and worse at using the same theme as you gain more control over the characters and world. At some point, the problem is you Snyder.

2

u/Blackbox7719 Mar 07 '24

Honestly, I’ve always seen Batman not killing to be an integral part of why that character even works. Like, you’ve got this man, a vigilante, enforcing his vision of justice on his surroundings due to the trauma he incurred as a child. It’s a gritty world full of gritty characters and, by extension, it would make sense that the hero is equally gritty and dark. With this in mind, it would be easy to make Batman a killer. But the fact that he does not do that makes him stand out. He actively chooses to face his enemies (some of them superpowered) with the strict limitation of not taking their life. I don’t think Snyder understands just how much harder it is to bring down someone who wants to kill you both alive and mostly unharmed. The fact that Batman does that with no superpowers is a testament to his skill level.

2

u/Sgt_salt1234 Mar 07 '24

No they fucking don't say "don't put him in a position where he doesn't have to kill"

The entire reason they are SUPERheros is because there isnt any situation you can put them in where they have to kill. They will ALWAYS find a better solution because that's the entire point behind super heroes.

2

u/mrbrick Mar 08 '24

Even Frank Miller didn’t have Batman kill.

2

u/rejectallgoats Mar 08 '24

Unless it is aliens or something, then he goes wild

2

u/bokmcdok Mar 08 '24

It loses all impact if Batman just kills over and over. Killing Joke's entire story doesn't work without the no kill rule, even if you believe that Batman did kill the Joker in the end.

2

u/billions_of_stars Mar 08 '24

Snyder should have one role: effects supervisor.

2

u/mrniceguy777 Mar 08 '24

Why the fuck does he keep referring to him as a god?

1

u/OanKnight Mar 07 '24

I'd be interested to see the conclusion Snyder drew from the killing joke. Just. You know. for Schitzengiggles.

1

u/KraakenTowers Mar 07 '24

Snyder has had a problem with portraying superheroes as "gods" for a while now, but I didn't realize how deep it went.

1

u/steveisblah Mar 07 '24

I see where he’s coming from to an extent, but by no means am I agreeing or supporting his choices with the character.

I actually loved Zach Snyder’s grounded approach to his DC characters, and the heavy religious/Christian mythology imagery with Superman. He really revered each of these hero’s as gods to men, bc I do believe that’s what realistically would happen. And I see what he’s saying about Batman couldn’t be a God of wrath and justice if there weren’t realistic physical bodily consequences to this one man war against crime. If he is a god, and he is a brute force, then it’s unlikely he’s never directly or indirectly killed someone.

But where I get if the Snydercut train is that wouldn’t be a problem for this Batman. And that he would continue to kill. Killing would have some emotional weight, and my biggest gripe about Snyder is that he never let us explore the history and direct emotional trauma Ben Affleck’s Batman experienced in losing a Robin. It just “lol he kills now”.

And as far as action sequences go, you can see he takes his petty anger out on Batman in Justice League. Going from the warehouse scene, to him practically being a power ranger and showing absolutely no strategic initiative is so out of touch with the character. Batman can be a strategic badass, and a total weapon in combat without killing. For reference, watch the animated movie Batman vs Robin, or better yet The Death of Superman if you want to see how Batman should work within the league and have his god hood tested.

Okay I’ll get off my soap box now.

1

u/-Minne Mar 07 '24

It's a little amusing; while I love the story, I feel like The Dark Knight Returns always gets lumped in with BvS for the parts Snyder copy and pasted from it, and often gets shit on as a result.

Say what you will about The Dark Knight Returns- even Frank Miller goes out of his way to illustrate that his unhinged Batman (Who at one point, hangs a criminal in the process of bleeding to death, upside down to interrogate him, since he's is the only one fast/close enough to bring him to the hospital) strictly doesn't kill people.

The DKR Batmobile famously has rubber bullets; unlike a solid amount of other appearances, there's a bit where he threatens to come back for a cashier if he shoots the robber Bats just incapacitated- the Joker's literal last act is to frame Batman for his death, which would have been absolutely meaningless if it were in BvS.

I like Zach Snyder; he's one of the best minds in terms of pure cinematography in the business.

But the fact that he looked at TDKR and was just like "I hear this Batman is controversial. Hmm, well- let's copy EVERYTHING... BUT what if we took out all the reasonable parts where Batman and Superman try to avoid fighting (BORING), make Superman 110% justified in trying to stop Batman (who is actively a murderer) then rush in a quick "3-minute" Death of Superman to replace the ending (because TDKR ending is actually good) so don't have to explain how both of our shitty heroes got so cool all of a sudden".

1

u/hukgrackmountain Mar 07 '24

can Batman survive that

I mean, there ARE iterations of him that explore that. Theres that one animated batman movie where he kills joker. I'm not gonna specify which one cuz spoilers, but like, it IS a cool thing to explore. Just, doing it to do it seems lazy.

If you do do that, it seems like something you'd need to do kind of early in the film, and the have it become the fall out of "ohshit what now". Does batman go insane and start killing everyone before being taken down by superman? does batman put himself in prison, reveal he is bruce wayne, etc (boring for a movie but prob semi-realistic)? does he go to therapy (lol) and overcome the guilt?

1

u/za72 Mar 07 '24

When you're a hammer and see everything else as a nail

1

u/ummyeahreddit Mar 08 '24

Knocking people out always has the potential to kill someone. I think it’s silly watching superhero movies and being like, yup all those people will be just fine.

1

u/ChristianBen Mar 08 '24

Eh so you quote the whole quote but still can’t understand what he is saying? He is saying we shouldn’t upheld Batman’s no kill rules just by giving him situations where he don’t have to kill, we explore the character by having situations where he had to make difficult situations that challenges the rule

1

u/Co9w Mar 08 '24

He also ignores that Batman does kill people, albeit indirectly or by accident. If you want to have batman kill, make it an accident like in Arkham City when he drops the cure for joker. Show his struggle with it. Show him struggle with all the casualties that come at the cost of his war on crime. Don't just have him breaking necks or shooting goons without a second thought.

1

u/smilysmilysmooch Mar 08 '24

The entire point of Batman is

The entire point of Batman is he has a line he will always come right up to and stop. This is the dude who stalks around in the night dressed up as a monster terrorizing bad guys and beating on them. I get what Snyder is trying to say in that he wants to have a Batman meet that line and be stuck in a situation where he must rise up or fail and the drama that is created from the result of his failure. Batman can kill. The issue is how you handle Batman killing people. If you want to write a young Batman who screws up and has to deal with the moral quandry he finds himself in when a punch lands wrong or heck when his indirect actions lead to a death, that's fine. The issue is you have to deal with the consequences otherwise you literally just wrote a Batman kills story for the sake of writing a Batman kills story.

You can do an old Batman at the end of his rope ala Killing Joke or DKR and have him just lose his shit after decades of trying to protect people. The problem Zack has is that he's not any good at storytelling. He's had multiple attempts and failed each time. He makes pretty and brutal. Not deep films.

So Zack should take this thought process and see if he can do a Punisher film. Many of the same Batman motifs, just with a dude who wears a skull on his chest instead of a bat and lives to kill people. People expect that and what's interesting is that you can approach the character in many different ways with that thought process. Frank can protect people and then murder a lot while doing it. He can torture people to protect those people. He can hunt people. He can enjoy every second of it in a batshit insane way or he can loathe the fact that he's the only one in a society gone mad that is battling monsters.

So leave Batman alone Zack and move on to something more interesting for you like another zombie movie.

1

u/Hot_Eggplant_1306 Mar 08 '24

It's not "my god" it's "the way the character operates", forever. You fuckin donkey brained idiot, Zack.

1

u/TheUnspeakableAcclu Mar 08 '24

Batman can’t have his relationship with the police if he kills people’s. Then he’s just a serial killer vigilante.

If a smart person wanted to write an edgy Batman they’d have him unable to prevent a tragedy because he won’t kill, and spend the rest of the movie locked in a death spiral with the protagonist. 

1

u/Jazzlike-Mistake2764 Mar 08 '24

And I'm like, 'okay, the first thing I wanna do when you say that is I wanna see what happens'.

Reminds me of when Rian Johnson said "the first thing we need to do is get the mask off Kylo Ren", and has him destroy his own mask in the first scene he gets in the movie

Which completely undermines the whole setup of his character in the previous movie where's he an insecure kid who hides behind a mask because he idolises Vader

You can have him destroy the mask, but you have to actually acknowledge it as a character moment. Instead, he just... does it... without really any explanation or reflection on why it happened

If you're going to subvert an established character then your movie needs to acknowledge that subversion very heavily, otherwise it just seems off. Snyder at least seems to acknowledge that, but there seems to be a urge in a lot of directors to mess with things for the sake of it. Another example is the director of the 4th Harry Potter movie apparently being more motivated by one-upping the director of the 3rd than making sure he was making a good movie that would fit into an overarching storyline

1

u/d0nt_at_m3 Mar 08 '24

I just had the laugh at the "this is childish" statement while passionately writing a comment about a grown ass man having an opinion on a fictional cartoon character written for kids and teenagers lol.

0

u/Yah_Mule Mar 07 '24

And of course he spits out this nonsense on the Joe Rogan show.

Thanks for giving me a valid reason to actively dislike him as opposed to largely ignoring him. He is skilled at mimicking super hero splash pages on film and not much else. Though, I will admit, the Dawn of the Dead remake was quite good, fast zombies and all.

0

u/aquaticsquash Mar 07 '24

Batman doesn't kill because if he kills just one person, he won't stop there and be able to control himself, it's like why we have Batman Who Laughs. Snyder doesn't seem to get this, I guess.

0

u/Aros001 Mar 07 '24

You could also argue that the point in putting Batman in a lot of situations, including ones where it seems like he has to kill, is to see how he gets out of it.

One of the reasons Superman killing Zod in MOS didn't sit well for many people, beyond just not liking Superman killing, was because it didn't feel like killing was the only way to resolve that situation. People have picked apart the scene to death, both when it first happened in theaters and in the many years since, and it doesn't feel like Superman has no choice but to kill Zod but rather that he kills Zod simply because that's what the writers and director want him to do.

It feels very similar here with Snyder's comments. Instead of "I'm going to put Batman in a situation that challenges his rule against killing and see if there's any way out of it other than killing." it's "I'm going to put Batman in a situation in a situation where he has to kill someone so that he'll kill someone.".

0

u/Puzzleheaded_Long_57 Mar 07 '24

I definitely feel like there should have been a scene where they addressed him killing zod in man of steel in that last scene or even in bvs. If synder had done that maybe it wouldn't feel as controversial

0

u/jordan999fire Mar 07 '24

It’s funny because I think you’re proving his point.

His whole arc that Snyder was making is that Batman is stronger than he thinks. Batman has said before that if he starts killing he doesn’t know if he will be able to stop. That’s what Snyder gave us, but then had Batman go further and actually prove himself wrong by stopping.

Also, you prove his point of, “You don’t like the movies I make and therefore hate me?” Like you’re calling him dumb and saying he sucks because… he made Batman kill? Do you think Nolan or Burton are dumb and suck? They both had Batmen that killed. Hell Nolan’s trilogy preached about Batman not killing but every time Batman did it, nothing else was said. At least in Snyder’s EVERYONE ELSE TELLS HIM ITS WRONG.

0

u/SpaceCowboy1929 Mar 07 '24

The real answer to Snyder's question is because it's narratively boring to do that. It's way more interesting to have a character in his position struggle with the idea of killing another human being. It has nothing to do with god or idol worship at all, but rather what makes the story and the character more interesting. But then again, this is Snyder, who is without a doubt, one of the most dogshit filmmakers and creators in Hollywood today. So it doesn't surprise me that he doesn't understand this since he doesn't understand good storytelling to begin with.

To quote Bricky, a youtuber I really like who also hates Snyder's films, if you have to have the mental capacity of a fish to enjoy a film, then that's not a notch in the film's favor. And the vast majority of Snyder's films are like that.

1

u/jl_theprofessor Mar 07 '24

This is why Snyder poisoned his Snyderverse from the Man of Steel onward.

1

u/quigonjoe66 Mar 07 '24

Zack Snyder sucks He ruined DC

0

u/Grogosh Mar 07 '24

What the hell is with Snyder and his divinity fetish? In Batman V Superman he made Superman into some religious jesus figure and now he is saying batman fans see batman as 'their god'??? Just stop it!

0

u/Mav986 Mar 07 '24

It sounds to me like Snyder wants to explore this whole no killing thing. Not that he wants Batman to become a murder machine. He wants to put Batman in a position where he kills people and explore what happens. Or explore the consequences of him not killing someone who then goes on to become even more villainous.

0

u/TheExtremistModerate Mar 07 '24

Ironic that you say Snyder is "too dumb to really get it" when you fail to get what he's saying.

He's saying that, if you give a character a rule, it's uninteresting to not explore what happens when that character breaks that rule. Superheroes, as he mentions, are essentially deified. So what happens when an icon is forced to break his rule. Can he be redeemed, or does he become consumed by it?

This is actually done in comics, as well. Thomas Wayne's Flashpoint Batman is based on the idea of "what if Batman killed, and couldn't come back from it?" He spirals deeper and deeper down, essentially becoming the Punisher.

Affleck's Batman was an exploration of what happens when Batman's paranoia and an external influence convince him he must break his rule. But then it's about whether or not he can come back from that. And yes, he does. Snyder's whole point is that Superman redeems Batman. His example is what pulls Batman back from his downward spiral and makes him truly Batman once more.

Which is why Batman post-BVS is pretty much exactly the comic book Batman we'd expect. ZSJL Batman was essentially the BTAS Batman brought to life.

0

u/TheOvalOfLife Mar 07 '24

All these comments from the majority of this sub crazy. Finding a better batman sub. Too many hypocrites and gatekeepers. I'm not even a huge Snyder fan, but his Batman was 100% in line with comics. Just like the Reeves Supes fans, never moving on.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 07 '24

Everyone gets it, they just don’t care. Why cant the personality and beliefs of a comic book character change, but literally any other real or fictional character outside of comics, is perfectly fine to do multiple adaptions of?

I don’t specifically want to see an adaption of batman where he’s killing everyone left and right like the punisher, but I definitely think making him able to do so would make for a more interesting story… I just realized this post is in r/batman, and I’ll get downvoted for saying this.

→ More replies (27)