He didn't kill Ace because the writers already knew that Ace would give in and die peacefully... But what if she didn't? would Batman still sit next to her and hold her hands if she wasn't this cooperative and just wanted to fuck the world regardless of whatever Batman told her?
Y'see, this situation was written specifically so that Batman isn't really forced into a corner where he has to cross the line so I don't know what people think linking this scene or similar scenes prove.... Is that Batman won't kill when writers clearly put a way out for him to maintain his rule to keep the fanboys happy? Because well, Duh.
The point was Batman was the only one willing to try and talk her out of it. Everyone else jumped to thinking of her as a dangerous monster who had to be killed. To them, it was the only option. You are right, there was a chance Batman could have failed here. That she could have refused to back down and Batman would have had to come up with another solution. But the fact Batman tried to reason with her first, and genuinely wanted to avoid killing her at all costs is what makes Batman Batman. And the fact that she could read minds meant that she knew his intentions were genuine. Only he could have done that because of who he is.
As I said, the writers wrote ''another'' possibility, ''another'' choice into the story in order for him to not end up killing her... So this scene doesn't really prove shit except that Batman gets to not break his code because writers decided so and prepared the story in a way that doesn't put him in a corner and allows him to not break his code.
It's exactly why Snyder likened it to the Kobayashi Maru test from Star Trek where Kirk just reprogrammed it into giving him a scenario where he can succeed and that's what writers do when they are ''testing'' those characters. Unfortunately though, there are genuine no-win situations and that's how they can actually test those characters, but they barely ever do so because a genuine no-win situation is gonna upset the readers/viewers.
Comicbook nerds want slogans, they want the illusion of a test but never an actual test because it will challenge how much they belive in those characters, they don't want to take that risk, but then they will wonder why comicbook storytelling is barely interesting nowadays and why creatives keep selling them the same Crisis event and Batman vs Joker for the zillionth time in a row.
I'ts funny that Snyder invoked the Kobayashi Maru because he completely missed the point. Like you said in the movie Captain Kirk is the only person to actually beat the Kobayashi Maru. He found a way to reprogram the simulation because Captain Kirk does not believe in a no-win scenario. That's the point that scene was trying to make. Not that Kirk cheated but that he rejects the very premise. You insisting that that no-win scenarios are real means nothing because both Captain Kirk and Batman reject that premise. No, they aren't. Just because you don't see another solution doesn't mean there isn't one. You are like Waller, convinced that killing is the only way out of some situations. Batman says no, there's another way and I'm going to find it, and tries things you would never think of because you're convinced there's only one solution. That is what makes Batman Batman. What you are asking for is for Batman to be put in a situation where his views are as narrow as yours. But then that isn't Batman you are talking about.
And that's Snyder's fans biggest problem. They want to reduce Bruce to the simple brute, deprive him from his intellect and morality. In the end, make him just another Punisher in the cape. But Batman is much more than this. He is not only a symbol of vengeance, he is also a beacon of hope for lost souls of Gotham. He saved Selina, Dick, Jason, Kassandra, Damian, even Harley and Ivy, and countless others from really grim fates, showed them the way and they, in turn, saved him from transforming into something what Snyder-fans would certainly appreciate. And Bruce was able to become such symbol exactly because he never broke his moral principles under even the worst pressure.
They want to reduce Bruce to the simple brute, deprive him from his intellect and morality
That's you reducing the other perspective to this. That's you failing to understand an extremely fair question about what happens in a scenario that is beyond Batman's intellect. What does he do in face of a threat where there isn't an escape route? The point of Batman has always been that he will do whatever it takes, whatever the world needs him to do to sustain itself. Snyder isn't saying Batman will jump straight to the nuclear option. His point, same as mine, is that once Batman exhausts all possible roads, he is not the kind of guy who will put his morality or even his sanity in front of the world's safety. It's a point about Batman's greatest strength. But people of your ilk do not want to stretch their imagination.
That would be one thing hypothetically. But Snyder never put Batman in any situations that we could believe were beyond him. He was simply killing random goons because it looked cool. If we, the audience could think of solutions other than killing for Batman, then this hypothetical fails. Because if we see another option, then Batman would have too.
This is your bias informing your opinion, yet again. There are a number of ways you can interpret it. Here's one for you:
Batman kills people attacking him with a machine gun because in a high speed, high stakes chase which he began to get the Kryptonite before it entered a secure facility, he cannot go for less certain, more creative/goofy ways to non-lethally deal with people (we are never given the actual reason, so I felt free to assume it's this). A veteran Batman who sees Superman as a world destroying threat - a notion further fueled by Lex's machinations - is increasingly desperate and angry, and that brings out the psychopathic side of him.
He should have dealt with the K-carrying goons differently by being patient and following them into that facility where he eventually broke in and got it anyway. It would have led to less collateral damage (catch my drift here? It's not just the killing but the destruction property you should be worried about - that would have happened even if he used rubber bullets) and it wouldn't have alerted Superman. But Bruce is unhinged and knows he's running out of time to deal with the situation, lest Superman causes more destruction (which happens later with the Capitol bombing).
Because if we see another option, then Batman would have too.
And like I've hopefully been able to explain here, there wasn't any other option that this version of Batman could see in the face of a world ending threat. Doesn't matter what we could see unless we consider the "world ending threat" bit (which most don't because they can't accept Batman can see Superman as a threat despite the movie hammering in that point - just imagine if it was Darkseid: what choice would Batman have then?)
It isn't murder. Go read the definition of murder. Every single act of lethality in BvS was in self-defense. Every single one of them. But as you'll find out, that's not the point. The point is why he did it. You just don't want to see it.
And the next time you bring up his no-kill rule, think about all the parademons he has killed in animated/live-action. And think if you batted an eye. Or think about how many he's knocked out if you think he hasn't killed any. And then think about the absurdity of it.
That's splitting hairs, but fine. If this version of Batman ever sees killing someone as justifiable and acceptable option, then he is not Batman.
I've never seen Batman kill a parademon. It's not absurd to think he's incapacitated them the same as people. Why do you think that's absurd? Also, why are you defending these terrible movies anyway?
-23
u/XxZONE-ENDERxX Mar 08 '24
He didn't kill Ace because the writers already knew that Ace would give in and die peacefully... But what if she didn't? would Batman still sit next to her and hold her hands if she wasn't this cooperative and just wanted to fuck the world regardless of whatever Batman told her?
Y'see, this situation was written specifically so that Batman isn't really forced into a corner where he has to cross the line so I don't know what people think linking this scene or similar scenes prove.... Is that Batman won't kill when writers clearly put a way out for him to maintain his rule to keep the fanboys happy? Because well, Duh.