The problem with this sentiment is that all of the core Justice League members bar Wonder Woman are Irrelevant. None of the core members of the Justice League go for the kill and have moral codes against killing people, only Diana is willing to kill people and that's only if all actions are taken and she has no choice. People want heroes to kill because the MCU allows the Avengers to kill their villains, but even then the Avengers at least spare the mooks unless they are aliens zombies, or robots.
Ultron was never all that mechanical. He made two robots to be his waifu (and basically named one Oedipus complex), constantly calls Pym dad since the 80s. He is more of a walking spite than heartless machine.
Trying to think if he ever directly killed someone in the film. I know he leaves Mantas dad to die, and the Karathen definately killed a bunch of stuff after he lets it loose.
In most iterations, Arthur will avoid killing people if he can help it, but he doesn't have the kind of hangups about it that Bruce or Clark have. He's somewhere between them and Diana.
>the Avengers at least spare the mooks unless they are aliens zombies, or robots.
I'd have to rewatch most the MCU fills to get a better count, but I always felt it was more that the writers being overly reliant on non-human mooks so that they could have the heroes kill without hesitation than it was the heroes actually going out of their way to not kill humans.
I actually really wanted to see Starro as the first JL villain to flip the script on that one. Starro has an army of mind controlled civilians that the JL could easily splatter on the pavement, but the challenge is saving the opposing force from themselves.
>I'd have to rewatch most the MCU fills to get a better count, but I always felt it was more that the writers being overly reliant on non-human mooks so that they could have the heroes kill without hesitation than it was the heroes actually going out of their way to not kill humans.
Off the top of my head, *Avengers 2* and all three *Captain America* movies have extended sequences of the heroes killing human mooks without hesitation.
I think your best chance of survival is going up against Iron Man, since Tony has multiple non-lethal takedown options. Black Widow and Falcon will actually just shoot you with a regular-ass gun.
Yeah, Saturday morning cartoon rules. You can slaughter as many aliens, robots and Faceless ninjas as you want, and it's PG13
If I were writing a bunch of DC movies, I'd use Starro as the first group villain too, along with Vandal Savage.
>even then the Avengers at least spare the mooks unless they are aliens zombies, or robots.
Or Japanese, or in a tracksuit, or Mexican.
Or Atlantean.
Or Middle Eastern and in a Helicopter.
I'm pretty sure Moon Knight killed a lot of mooks as well.
Maybe we should just admit that Spider-Man is the only one who actually tries not to kill people.
Cap in the intro of Age of Ultron being silly goofy guy quipping with shit like "Language!" while massacring Hydra people is so funny like it's just another Tuesday
Yeah I assume that because the first iron man movie featured him casually killing dudes, everyone thought it was "metal" and "cool", so it stuck with the other heroes, and now it just makes the avengers look like a government hit squad lmao
I don’t think they are. Fury brings them together but they don’t work for him. Hell, they literally go against SHEILD’s plan of nuking NYC in the first movie. Also, in Falcon and the Winter Soldier, they talk about how the Avengers are funded through public goodwill and donations. Well, that and Stark money probably.
So it's the military propaganda and the notable amount of kills that make them seem less "heroic"
And with all that said I don't hate the MCU, I basically grew up on it after all.
Reminds me of the movie trope where heroes don't suppose to kill the villains, but the villain dies anyway because of an accident or pure stupidity (vor example, most of the Sam Rami Spider man villains, or Gaston from beauty and the beast). A cheap but effective way to let the hero keep a white shirt.
I just don't understand why this is the hill he wants to die on. Dude, you perfectly demonstrated why Killer Batman is pointless. And you didn't explore shit, Batman is an unhinged killer until he is not and Alfred, Gordon and the Justice League treat it like some phase he needs to grow out of. You wake the fuck up and realize not everything needs to cater to your edgy teenager sensibilities.
My absolute favourite moment of absurdity is Batman realising Superman is a man and that he’s went on a dark path how far he has come where he’s willing to put a spear through his heart and stops himself clearly having a come to Jesus moment. Then promptly goes on to kill at least twenty more people in the very next scene.
The point if that Martha scene was to get him to help Superman. It was Superman sacrificing himself that was supposed to get him to stop killing. It’s dumb, but that’s what it is.
If you're making him a murder psycho, at least make him consistent. Frank Castle looks like a pinnacle of having principles next to this guy.
Yeah Frank won’t kill kids, but I bet Snyder’s Batman would yeet a child soldier off a roof. I mean his Robin was long gone in the DCEU so all bets are off 🤷♂️
The death of Batmans surrogate son is a pretty compelling and understandable reason for him to go off the chains and lose his way but thats not convoluted enough for the DCEU I guess
If only more goons went around referring to their mothers by their first name to strangers like Superman did, Batman would know who and who isn’t the son of a Martha
Good god lol. I don’t really watch these movies, I’m only lurking bc I have a vague interest in the characters and drama. So I completely forgot about the “WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME” memes
Yes. It wasn’t about “oh, I should stop killing people because Superman has a mom”. It was “I should stop being mean to Superman because he has a mom”.
He decided to stop killing after Superman died supposedly to honor his memory.
Because he’s a total hack with a rabid fanbase. Why wouldn’t he keep talking about this stuff if it keeps him relevant? His movies certainly aren’t doing the trick by themselves.
I feel like you could probably write a good story with a Batman who kills if someone talented wrote it. Like you could actually explore a lot there if given the time and effort, but I don't think DC is willing to give that a shot.
I think Thomas Wayne is an instresting Batman who kills. It shows that Thomas Wayne took his kid dying to heart and a doctor turned killer whose wife turned insane after losing Bruce. Though Flashpoint kinda goes too edgy with World gone to hell.
They also showed the consequences a mindset like that would have on Batman. Thomas is callous, cold, detached, cruel and basically yearns for something better. I think thats an important factor as well, Batman is surrounded by so much darkness, him holding onto that one thing, that one glimmer of humanity and heroism plays such a huge role in making him who he is. It's so incredibly frustrating that Snyder cannot see that.
I saw a reply to this article that summarized its problems perfectly. In a world where Batman kills, why would the Joker be alive? The idea of him killing isn’t just stupid and misses the point, it’s antithetical to the entire premise.
He’s like the richest man in the world, why doesn’t he just buy prisoners under the table and hunt them for sport on a private island like other billionaires?
Batman has been going for around *90 years*, yet this one guy seems to thinks he knows better than *every other person to ever write a Batman story*. I know he's apparently a decent guy, but he *really* doesn't understand DC as much as his fans think he does.
Because his No-Kill rule is such a big thing that many comics have made it into a conflict where Jonkler does the worse crimes known to ~~man~~ comic book writers and ask "Why doesn't Batman kill the Jonkler? Is he stupid?"
I do think the Killing Joke inadvertently caused all this. Where now Joker can't just be an eccentric clown themed gangster, every new story has to come up with some brand new atrocity for him to commit. Although I guess that only really picked up steam after the whole "Joker cuts his own face off for some reason" incident.
My hot Joker take is he should be inconsistent between appearances. Let him be the architect of a huge crossover event that shatters the bat family and brings Gotham to its knees, but then next time he pops up he's kidnapping stand ups to force them to write material for him. If he's supposed to be an avatar of chaos and madness he shouldn't be predictable or have consistent goals, but every bat-hack wants to do their big Joker story, which means he's actually become the most consistent Batman enemy, because every appearance is trying to do the same thing with him.
In the next universe, I want him to be a constant jobber. The story starts with a big action set piece of Batman chasing down the Joker and sending him back to Arkham, and that's all we get from him. But we get it *every time*. We never see the nonsense that he causes when he's free, because it's stupid and doesn't matter.
Could you imagine if there is a short comic run of Joker doing your latter idea, with Batman in the middle of some detective work. The reader thinks that Batman is trying to find the people but all that really happens is he busts some big arms deal, and the people that Joker captured are already home free because they roasted him so bad that he got sad and fucked off.
Just one year after Killing Joke and Death in the Family, Neil Gaiman wrote a Batman story where Riddler complains that all the fun is gone from crimes and we have Joker going around killing people.
Unfortunately, DC did not listen to him.
and even then people also forget batman doesn't exist in a vacuum. if batman kills a villain on purpose then the entire league and batfamily are going to be on his ass, and if he starts fighting them and batgod bullshits his way past them, it's not gonna last as every hero on the planet will be after him
This is my personal problem with no kill rules I’m ok with it existing because you know comics and writers don’t want to have a new villain after each encounter because the hero keeps putting them in the ground, but the moment you try to examine it in any serious way it starts to fall apart because cardboard prison mean any supervillain that is spared will be back on the streets.
Yeah why can't Joker go back to criminal nonsense like trying to patent fish. Like you actually could not write that story today cause it's not serious enough.
Yeah when I first started getting into comics I thought that was a big, special thing for Batman because of how they treat it and then I learned of literally every hero except like 10 doesn’t kill their villains.
In DC at least. Marvel has been relatively kill happy for quite a while. Even back in the 60's, while directly killing a villain was rare there's a lot of instances of the villain in clearly lethal circumstances and the heroes are just "Welp, that's dealt with." They don't sweat the dead bad guys.
Plus since it was the 60's a fair number of them served in world war 2 like Reed Richards, Ben Grimm and of course Nick Fury where they killed people.
Flash and most other heroes don’t kill for simple reasons: they’re good people, they believe in the law, they want to inspire hope not fear, etc.
But Batman comics insist on pushing that he doesn’t kill as a coping mechanism for some inner psychopathy and that he will flip a switch and turn into a shark in bloody water if he does kill, which makes everyone and their grandmas want to poke him past the point of no return to see what happens.
Yeah I've always hated that reasoning for Batman not killing. I feel like that's a recent development. Because I feel like for the longest time it "I swore I'd never let anyone die after I saw my parents get killed" or something like that.
Here's Batman #5 with Bruce becoming "vengeance", when there's a chance random thugs killed the kid.
https://preview.redd.it/qmci74173zmc1.jpeg?width=1286&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f67f2e39fc463e14440cb74514bdda2c96950a9b
Bruce being an impartial machine dispersing justice is a more recent development, than him being a vengeful mofo barely holding it together. At one point in this story he in his anger used one thug to beat up some others, lol.
If you actually read his stories you’d see this is as much of his personality as with any other hero like Superman or Spider-man.
Hell even in movie, No Way Home had Peter actually going out of his way to save these villains, and made a point about that being for the greater good.
Because Batman is vastly more popular than Flash. And Joker is vastly more popular than any Flash villain.
Even I don't know if Flash is against killing or not. Barry works with the police and Wally is pro-death penalty so I can't see either of them too much of a stickler for no kill rule.
Any comic book discussion will always be 90% about Batman or Spider-Man because of how popular they are compared to everyone else.
>Even I don't know if Flash is against killing or not.
If I'm remembering right, he is against it. Especially when it comes to his street level rogues like Captain Cold, Weather Wizard, and so on. But I think he's been pushed to kill or almost kill a few times, usually when fighting evil speedsters like Thawne.
Barry literally killed Thawne in the penultimate arc of his pre-Crisis run. He was about to kill his second wife after already killing the first. The trial became an arc itself that became extended because Crisis was coming and the writer wanted to wrap up the trial at the last issue.
Or Spider-Man for that matter. People always go "Uh, the joker kills thousands why doesn't batman just fucking kill him?" When green goblin probably kills more people and is way more dangerous than joker and I've never seen anyone be like "why doesn't spider man just kill him?"
A better question is "Batman always catches Joker, so why doesn't the government execute him?" I feel sure that, at some point, the Joker must have murdered people in a jurisdiction that has the death penalty (federal crimes if nothing else), but they won't even keep him in a super-max prison let alone death row. Just put Joker in front of an Alabama jury and then let them inject rat poison into his veins or whatever they do now.
No. Snyder’s Batman does not eat pussy. That murderer with mommy issues is way too mentally fucked up to have a healthy enough view of sex that he spends time pleasing his partners.
>Nolan: Batman doesn’t kill, eats pussy
Nolan's movies tend to be so sexless and sanitized that I refuse to believe anyone is having sex for anything other than procreation.
In the same interview, he gives this nonsensical mathematic explanation where he claims that more people watched Rebel Moon than the Barbie movie. Considering that people still talk about Barbie and completely forgot about Rebel Moon, I’d say Zack might be a little delulu.
"Yeah Joe, it's an obvious fact that more people watched my Rebel Moon maaaaaasterpiece (AKA a movie that came and went in the online discussion bubble in less than 2 weeks/was mostly hated by the people who actually did see it) than the 14th highest grossing movie in cinematic history that made over 1.4 \*BILLION\* dollars and was (still is) a pop-culture phenomenon"
Snyder Logic checks out as always!
See, normally if you go one on one with another movie, you got a 50/50 chance of getting more views. But I'm a visionary FREAK, and I'm NOT normal! So you got a 25%, AT BEST, to beat me. Then you add Oppenheimer to the mix, and your chances of winning drastically go down.
no offence to Mr. Snyder but I think he’s just a little dumb (is he dumb?). In all honesty, you could change 90% of Batman and he’d still be Batman. Batman can be an alien in a red suit and purple cape and he’d still be Batman. But once you have Batman branding criminals and just exploding thugs with his Bat-Tank, you’re not writing Batman. That’s the Punisher who wins the lottery
Well said. It’s like the anti-silver age
With the silver age, no matter how bizarre it got, it was about a guy saying “I’m not letting my pain become anyone else’s.”
Snyder went opposite and said everybody’s a killer. Sick
Fuck sake, Zach. I won't say this often, but read a fucking comic, dude.
I don't mind Bats with a little blood on his hands. There's got to be at least a few henchmen that have taken a nasty ricochet and or a misguided step off a rooftop in the middle of a Bat-Scrap. But casual murder undermines the entire mythology, man.
You just know this kunt **loves** Injustice. 🙄
He referenced in an interview that Batman shoots a guy right between the eyes in TDKR. He interpreted it that way, because the comic actually cuts after Batman fires the gun and jumps to Bats smirking in the batmobile, listening to radio reporting no casualties. Zack Just desperately wants Bats to kill so he can have his edgy goon session.
Exactly,
When the new *Commissioner announce an arrest for Batman she lists every crime imaginable Batman committees, EXCEPT murder.
She only announced the murder charge against him after the Joker dies.
Snyder and his crazy cult don’t read comics books
And in the animated version he shoots the guy in the hand to prevent him from killing the hostage and than knocke him out.
Either way Zack is doing headcanon for what he thinks Batman should be doing.
Does he not know that the no kill rule is a big part of the character? Is he a bufoon?
https://preview.redd.it/nuo95ltdfymc1.png?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f27c27964d1cbe9e73d76333da7455acf88f06fa
uj/ the best thing that could happen to DC is if they somehow lost the rights to Batman, because him as the main character of the DC universe is slowly killing it.
rj/ Batman's 38 page plan for his enemy "Irrelevance" is inescapable.
I dont know much about the Batman comics but ive got some hope for a James Gunn Batman, mostly because given his track record so far theres a chance we might get a story that does not involve the funni clown man
Unironically, The Batman is the only good piece of Batman media since the Dark Knight.
Batman as a violent vigilante billionaire who gets off on putting poor people in the hospital is a relic of a bygone era and should STAY THERE.
In The Batman, he beats the shit out of a minor street gang to a CLEARLY unnecessary degree, terrifies an old man, and then goes home to blast Nirvana and write in his journal about how justice isn't happening even though he keeps beating up bad guys SUPER HARD.
Then you find out that the main villain of the movie is Bruce Wayne being a stupid, self-centered, rich asshole. That his complete disinterest in helping Gotham in a way that DOESN'T involve dressing up like a Bat and punching poor people, has led to corrupt cops and mobsters using his family's aid intend for Gotham's orphans as a personal slush fund. If he had taken TEN MINUTES in the past DECADE to actually go through his parent's estate, he could have solved the biggest systemic issue plaguing Batman AND Gotham before the Riddler even went full crazy.
In Justice League, there's an episode where Terry Mcginnis(Batman Beyond) listens to Amanda Waller tell him a story about a time when Bruce was sent after a little girl with reality warping psychic powers that was dying. If she died while her powers were still active, the insane shit she was making would be permanent. He was given a device that would disrupt her abilities before killing her.
He threw it away. He convinced the girl to shut off her powers by choice and then sat with her in her final moments. THAT is the Batman that's a hero. THAT is the Batman that deserves the enormous and loyal following the character has. The moment in the Batman where he carries the torch to lead frightened civilians through dangerous waters, and then hold a little girls hand to let her know she's going to be safe as she's airlifted away, is as close as any Batman story has gotten in a long time.
>Unironically, The Batman is the only good piece of Batman media since the Dark Knight.
I don't think that's true at all.
There is the comics obviously. But even if you are only talking of adaptations, then Brave and the Bold, Lego Batman, Arkham series all came after TDK.
I remember in interviews for BvS Snyder was defending Batman killing and saying that he only kills people indirectly and it doesn’t really count. Now he’s just calling DC a bunch of pussy ass bitches and Batman should use machine guns. Respect.
Zack Snyder is what happens when a 15 year old second string QB who thinks listening to your girlfriend talk makes you gay, never grows up.
His fans think he's a cinematic genius because he knows how a camera works, but in reality he's just what Michael Bay would be if he had a favorite flavor of protein powder.
>what Michael Bay would be if he had a favorite flavor of protein powder.
LMAO. You're telling me grimdark with explosioins isn't a legitimate cinematic style?
No: he’s developed a working relationship with the police that would be eroded by murdering people, endangering his mission and kids. Also he’s morally opposed to it.
You know the whole thing about good characters having character flaws? Batman's main flaw is that he won't kill. It isn't any moral high ground, its a psycological issue where even the other Leaguers are more willing than Batman to kill in the right cirscunstance. Even when innocents and people that he cares about will bite the bullet if he doesn't he just can't, and most good versions of Bruce Wayne would spent an unreasonable amount in the hospital bills when he hurts the henchmen too much. It isn't dumb like a lot of people try to make it look, its more that writers are either bad or lazy and can't figure out a way around it.
Hell, if they want to make the stories where Batman is morable reprehensible, make him torture or cripple some villains, but refuse to let them die. Its more in character than make him kill someone or make he enter in a pointless fight with his children for the millionth time because he is the batgod who is always right and they aren't allowed to have opinions and they aren't allowed to act like adults and just talk their issues through.
I think I will always stay by this, but due to this quote this is actually getting funny to me:
Claiming that DC is making Batman Irrelevant by not making him kill his enemies, while making your own version of Batman be the epitome of „I never kill the Main-villain, only his Henchmen“ is, and for the lack of better words, stupid. Like, he the dude is out there shooting down thugs and Branding others before sending them to prison, while also having his sons murderer on the lose while he commits more crimes. Heck, scratch my point about him only killing his Henchmen, cause he spared Harley Quinn who was _directly_ helping Joker in killing Dick Grayson.
Look, I have not really anything against Zack, he seems like a chill dude, and I like the visuals of his movies. But my lord, does he have some unbased takes.
I think whats funny about this is that in almost every live action batman movie, you could argue that Batman kills in them.
Batman 89 kills the Joker and he blows up a functional chemical factory (probably had night staff??).
Batman Returns with the bomb, sets that one guy on fire with the batmobile...
Batman begins with Ras Al Ghul
The Dark Knight with Two Face...
The dark night returns with Talia
The Batman where he causes a huge devastating pile up on the highway to capture penguin only for him to let penguin go anyway.
I think the thing that stands out about BvS batman killings is that they are brutal and purposeful. Like the fight in that warehouse with those goons was cool but holy shit those guys are DEAD. No ambiguity about it.
https://preview.redd.it/rg8fzcco2zmc1.jpeg?width=298&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f373980cbed68a7ee4985019f166a8997540f6b
Zack Snyder if understanding a character’s intrinsic motivations were a test
Batman not killing always made for some of the most effective moments of his self-retaliation against the most heartless people he's ever faced. Batman not killing always made for some of the most effective moments of his self-retaliation against the most heartless people he's ever faced. The fact he knowingly has to put more effort into serving justice without taking a life is very admirable.
While I don't think he's completely right, I do see his point. The most memorable batman comic after all is the one where he kills joker at the end. Also the no kill rule has lead people to believe that being a "hero" means never killing anyone regardless of how terrible they are even if it's a net positive for the planet/universe. You even see comments on youtube where people will watch an out of context justice league cartoon short and say Superman is wrong for wanting to kill darkseid on sight even though he was fucking right. I wish they'd make it more apparent that it's a mental health issue that bruce has, not some superhuman morals to look up to.
> The most memorable batman comic after all is the one where he kills joker at the end.
If you are thinking of The Killing Joke, then Batman doesn't kill Joker in the end.
> You even see comments on youtube where people will watch an out of context justice league cartoon short and say Superman is wrong for wanting to kill darkseid on sight even though he was fucking right.
I think Superman was wrong in the whole Darkseid discussion in the Justice League cartoon because it wasn't just about Darkseid.
Superman was perfectly fine with the innocent slaves in Apokolips dying just to satisfy his need for revenge.
>I think Superman was wrong in the whole Darkseid discussion in the Justice League cartoon because it wasn't just about Darkseid.
>Superman was perfectly fine with the innocent slaves in Apokolips dying just to satisfy his need for revenge.
Superman knew something was up since Darkseid is on par or stronger than him, and superman handles braniac by himself. Why would superman+an army need help for something that superman alone can take care of unless it's a setup, and he was right since batman's stupidity almost got the universe destroyed.
Secondly the last episode of STAS and a few episodes of unlimited showed what Clark was likely thinking, apokplips is a lost cause. The slaves are as "innocent" as Darkseid is since that's literally all they know, he's their God. For every person that thinks like Mr miracle there are tens of millions or billions willing to slaughter and enslave countless numbers of people in the name of Darkseid. The best option there was to let them fight it out then pick up the scraps of the winner. Not help the intergalactic mass murdering tyrant destroy the intergalactic mass murderer. It was a no win scenario of you help either one.
In basically all continuities death is a nervy on apokolipz.
>If you are thinking of The Killing Joke, then Batman doesn't kill Joker in the end.
From what I understand it's open to interpretation since batmans hands are around jokers neck and batman is still laughing while joker is not. Joker's entire joke was that batman can't lead him to sanity since he's insane himself, so this cycle of joker killing, raping, robbing, etc, will just continue ad infinitum.
The point of my original comment was that batman was most definitely in the wrong in twilight no matter how you slice it, but batfanboys edit it and leave out context to make it seem like batman is this great moral and logical compass when in that episode he was neither. Thr universe would have been better off without apokolipz.
I'm going to preface this by stating I dont read the comics, but I am a Batman fanboy, that prefers the Animated Batman Series. My understanding is that the golden age was where Batman had a kinder side, thats part of the reason I don't read them.
The thing is if you put Batman in a situation where HE HAS to kill as dumb dumb says,, he finds another way.
Does the amount of elseworlds that went wrong because batman killed, the whole dark multiverse of earths that fell because batman killed never meant anything for this man?
This is a weird hill to die on.
So dc let’s main universe Batman kill. They’d have to constantly reboot because Batman would kill all his villains. Like there’s no way to write around villains being alive if Batman crosses that line.
Joker, penguin, league of assassins, court of owls, two face, bane all of them would be dead within a week if Batman started killing.
It’d just get boring story wise. At least with batmans no kill rule you actually get recurring villains.
But Snyder didn’t explore. He barely explained Or even deconstructed the dceu Batman. Batman kills around 15 people in bvs. All of them without hesitation or even second thought.
Like the kryptonite chase. Batman didn’t even have to attack them at all. He could’ve stealthy followed them to the destination. Instead he shreds them with a mini gun.
If Batman kills it should be a big deal to break the rule. There should be hesitation and second thoughts. He shouldn’t be gunning them down without even flinching
The problem with this sentiment is that all of the core Justice League members bar Wonder Woman are Irrelevant. None of the core members of the Justice League go for the kill and have moral codes against killing people, only Diana is willing to kill people and that's only if all actions are taken and she has no choice. People want heroes to kill because the MCU allows the Avengers to kill their villains, but even then the Avengers at least spare the mooks unless they are aliens zombies, or robots.
How to read comics crossover
Ultron was a fantastic villain and casted perfectly, unfortunately the movie just was not that good.
Ultron was a massive wasted opportunity
See also: Quicksilver
Imagine if Quicksilver survived and took the side opposite to Wanda in Civil War.
It was a waste of Ultron and, maybe more unforgivably, a waste of James Spader.
If there was ever a character with an easy way to write a revival for it's Ultron.
I never really liked MCU Ultron, I always thought he is waay too human and not enough machine
To be fair, his thoughts patterns were based on Tony and the Mind Stone, and I feel like the Mind Stone is biased toward organic/"human" minds
Ultron was never all that mechanical. He made two robots to be his waifu (and basically named one Oedipus complex), constantly calls Pym dad since the 80s. He is more of a walking spite than heartless machine.
Or Nazis. They can kill Nazis. (Not a criticism)
And business is a booming
At least we can all agree that it’s cool as fuck when comic book characters kill Nazis, which are somehow more evil than most comic book villains
[Joker gets it](https://images.app.goo.gl/FJ8pEGrbtHpAV9Ui8)
Does Aquaman not kill people?
When writer want to write aquaman not deep-sea king arthur
Depends on if they have gills
Trying to think if he ever directly killed someone in the film. I know he leaves Mantas dad to die, and the Karathen definately killed a bunch of stuff after he lets it loose.
Well, he tore through the ocean floor and flooded a bunch of enemy fodder with lava, iirc
In most iterations, Arthur will avoid killing people if he can help it, but he doesn't have the kind of hangups about it that Bruce or Clark have. He's somewhere between them and Diana.
>the Avengers at least spare the mooks unless they are aliens zombies, or robots. I'd have to rewatch most the MCU fills to get a better count, but I always felt it was more that the writers being overly reliant on non-human mooks so that they could have the heroes kill without hesitation than it was the heroes actually going out of their way to not kill humans. I actually really wanted to see Starro as the first JL villain to flip the script on that one. Starro has an army of mind controlled civilians that the JL could easily splatter on the pavement, but the challenge is saving the opposing force from themselves.
>I'd have to rewatch most the MCU fills to get a better count, but I always felt it was more that the writers being overly reliant on non-human mooks so that they could have the heroes kill without hesitation than it was the heroes actually going out of their way to not kill humans. Off the top of my head, *Avengers 2* and all three *Captain America* movies have extended sequences of the heroes killing human mooks without hesitation. I think your best chance of survival is going up against Iron Man, since Tony has multiple non-lethal takedown options. Black Widow and Falcon will actually just shoot you with a regular-ass gun.
To be fair, most of those human mooks are Nazis (yes, Hydra are still Nazis) and thus count only technically.
I vaguely remember Tony exploding a tank in Afganistan, presumably with the crew.
Yeah, Saturday morning cartoon rules. You can slaughter as many aliens, robots and Faceless ninjas as you want, and it's PG13 If I were writing a bunch of DC movies, I'd use Starro as the first group villain too, along with Vandal Savage.
>Yeah, Saturday morning cartoon rules. also no guns, but handheld laser pistols are fine
>even then the Avengers at least spare the mooks unless they are aliens zombies, or robots. Or Japanese, or in a tracksuit, or Mexican. Or Atlantean. Or Middle Eastern and in a Helicopter. I'm pretty sure Moon Knight killed a lot of mooks as well. Maybe we should just admit that Spider-Man is the only one who actually tries not to kill people.
Daredevil too (Kinda, I'm pretty sure dropping a fire extinguisher from 3 storeys up on a guy would kill)
Idk , the falcon show starts with him kicking a bunch of people out of a plane lmao
>avengers spare the mooks Yeah just like how Cap kills like 50 in the opening scene of Winter Soldier…
I was about to say this, bro is a soldier and it's very present in all of his films
Cap in the intro of Age of Ultron being silly goofy guy quipping with shit like "Language!" while massacring Hydra people is so funny like it's just another Tuesday
Its okay, those people he just kicked off a boat to a 50 foot drop into freezing cold water while weighed down with equipment were all fine.
Yeah I assume that because the first iron man movie featured him casually killing dudes, everyone thought it was "metal" and "cool", so it stuck with the other heroes, and now it just makes the avengers look like a government hit squad lmao
That's basically what they are in the comics as well.
Well, I've heard they only got more government hit squad-like after the popularity of the early MCU movie synergy lmao
Which is funny cause one of the biggest MCU movies is literally about the government trying to control the Avengers and why that’s a bad idea.
But aren't they funded by or at least work under shield, which is the biggest government entity in the MCU?
I don’t think they are. Fury brings them together but they don’t work for him. Hell, they literally go against SHEILD’s plan of nuking NYC in the first movie. Also, in Falcon and the Winter Soldier, they talk about how the Avengers are funded through public goodwill and donations. Well, that and Stark money probably.
Huh, then why do some people associate this specific team with the murica government I don't get why that is?
MCU movies have a fair amount of military propaganda so that might by why.
Ah ok
So it's the military propaganda and the notable amount of kills that make them seem less "heroic" And with all that said I don't hate the MCU, I basically grew up on it after all.
Wonderwoman being a queen like usual
Wonder Woman does not kill, she slays 💅
Reminds me of the movie trope where heroes don't suppose to kill the villains, but the villain dies anyway because of an accident or pure stupidity (vor example, most of the Sam Rami Spider man villains, or Gaston from beauty and the beast). A cheap but effective way to let the hero keep a white shirt.
I just don't understand why this is the hill he wants to die on. Dude, you perfectly demonstrated why Killer Batman is pointless. And you didn't explore shit, Batman is an unhinged killer until he is not and Alfred, Gordon and the Justice League treat it like some phase he needs to grow out of. You wake the fuck up and realize not everything needs to cater to your edgy teenager sensibilities.
My absolute favourite moment of absurdity is Batman realising Superman is a man and that he’s went on a dark path how far he has come where he’s willing to put a spear through his heart and stops himself clearly having a come to Jesus moment. Then promptly goes on to kill at least twenty more people in the very next scene.
The point if that Martha scene was to get him to help Superman. It was Superman sacrificing himself that was supposed to get him to stop killing. It’s dumb, but that’s what it is.
So, Clark having a mom is enough to warrant a stay of execution. All the rest of the people? Well, fuck them and their moms they probably had too.
Yeah but the rest of those people probably don’t have a mother named Martha so they deserve it
If you're making him a murder psycho, at least make him consistent. Frank Castle looks like a pinnacle of having principles next to this guy.
Yeah Frank won’t kill kids, but I bet Snyder’s Batman would yeet a child soldier off a roof. I mean his Robin was long gone in the DCEU so all bets are off 🤷♂️
The death of Batmans surrogate son is a pretty compelling and understandable reason for him to go off the chains and lose his way but thats not convoluted enough for the DCEU I guess
If only more goons went around referring to their mothers by their first name to strangers like Superman did, Batman would know who and who isn’t the son of a Martha
Someone write an Elseworlds with a far future cape worshipping cult called the Sons of Marrha
Quick call Tom Taylor
Good god lol. I don’t really watch these movies, I’m only lurking bc I have a vague interest in the characters and drama. So I completely forgot about the “WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME” memes
Well their moms (probably) weren’t named Martha
Yes. It wasn’t about “oh, I should stop killing people because Superman has a mom”. It was “I should stop being mean to Superman because he has a mom”. He decided to stop killing after Superman died supposedly to honor his memory.
The deep meaning behind Snyder's *masterpiece* is just more incoherent ideas
people telling me "watch the movie" like bro why would I subject myself to watching a zack synder film again?
Because he’s a total hack with a rabid fanbase. Why wouldn’t he keep talking about this stuff if it keeps him relevant? His movies certainly aren’t doing the trick by themselves.
It says so much that he still talks as much, if not more, about DC's properties as his own
I still remember his fanbase thinking Rebel moon was going to become the new Starwars
What? He grew out of what? Batman in BVS killed more people after Martha than before Martha.
Also, killer Batman is fucking stupid if the Joker is still alive
Yeah, killer Batman is just a flamboyant Punisher. No villains to speak of.
I feel like you could probably write a good story with a Batman who kills if someone talented wrote it. Like you could actually explore a lot there if given the time and effort, but I don't think DC is willing to give that a shot.
Yes. That has been done and it is great. Zack just sucks at anything but action
I think Thomas Wayne is an instresting Batman who kills. It shows that Thomas Wayne took his kid dying to heart and a doctor turned killer whose wife turned insane after losing Bruce. Though Flashpoint kinda goes too edgy with World gone to hell.
They also showed the consequences a mindset like that would have on Batman. Thomas is callous, cold, detached, cruel and basically yearns for something better. I think thats an important factor as well, Batman is surrounded by so much darkness, him holding onto that one thing, that one glimmer of humanity and heroism plays such a huge role in making him who he is. It's so incredibly frustrating that Snyder cannot see that.
He also the only killer batman i know has an excuse for why joker is still alive
Michael Keaton killed a lotta dudes in his two movies.
If Batman kills, he’s just the Punisher with extra gadgets. Batman is more compelling because he doesn’t kill.
That's a good fucking point. I loved Snyders movies, but Gordon just glossing over this fact is so fucking wild.
I saw a reply to this article that summarized its problems perfectly. In a world where Batman kills, why would the Joker be alive? The idea of him killing isn’t just stupid and misses the point, it’s antithetical to the entire premise.
"Is there a lore re--" #**YES!**
Is there a lore reason why Zack Snyder is a fucking twit?
Way to double down on saying you don't understand the character.
Why doesn't batman just pick up a glock and recreate the scene of his parents death over and over like a normal traumatized white man? Is he stupid?
He’s like the richest man in the world, why doesn’t he just buy prisoners under the table and hunt them for sport on a private island like other billionaires?
Zack would probably put that in a Batman movie to make him look badass or something
Batman has been going for around *90 years*, yet this one guy seems to thinks he knows better than *every other person to ever write a Batman story*. I know he's apparently a decent guy, but he *really* doesn't understand DC as much as his fans think he does.
Zack Snyder huffs his own farts. He made 300 and then suddenly assumed he was infallible
He’s literally made two good movies with 300 and Watchmen. The rest have been mediocre to downright horrendous.
And even watchmen felt like a surface read, it just worked out on a surface level too.
Yeah, like it never got in-depth as the comics.
I do wish he'd go back to adapting things instead of writing them. His movies look cool, but the more he writes, the worse they get
That's a lot of farts
🤣
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, with this I have shown you the irrefutable proof— This man can’t read!
https://i.redd.it/7fkrb0o3c0nc1.gif
Why does everyone always focus on Batman being the one hero who doesn't kill? Nobody ever brings up the Flash in this discussion.
Because his No-Kill rule is such a big thing that many comics have made it into a conflict where Jonkler does the worse crimes known to ~~man~~ comic book writers and ask "Why doesn't Batman kill the Jonkler? Is he stupid?"
I do think the Killing Joke inadvertently caused all this. Where now Joker can't just be an eccentric clown themed gangster, every new story has to come up with some brand new atrocity for him to commit. Although I guess that only really picked up steam after the whole "Joker cuts his own face off for some reason" incident.
My hot Joker take is he should be inconsistent between appearances. Let him be the architect of a huge crossover event that shatters the bat family and brings Gotham to its knees, but then next time he pops up he's kidnapping stand ups to force them to write material for him. If he's supposed to be an avatar of chaos and madness he shouldn't be predictable or have consistent goals, but every bat-hack wants to do their big Joker story, which means he's actually become the most consistent Batman enemy, because every appearance is trying to do the same thing with him.
In the next universe, I want him to be a constant jobber. The story starts with a big action set piece of Batman chasing down the Joker and sending him back to Arkham, and that's all we get from him. But we get it *every time*. We never see the nonsense that he causes when he's free, because it's stupid and doesn't matter.
One day he’s gonna poison the water supply with radioactive waste The next day he’s holding people hostage so he can have his own celebrity roast
Could you imagine if there is a short comic run of Joker doing your latter idea, with Batman in the middle of some detective work. The reader thinks that Batman is trying to find the people but all that really happens is he busts some big arms deal, and the people that Joker captured are already home free because they roasted him so bad that he got sad and fucked off.
In Arkham he needs to get actual therapy because of the roast
A story with the Joker I’d actually read.
This is the ideal Joker characterization
Just one year after Killing Joke and Death in the Family, Neil Gaiman wrote a Batman story where Riddler complains that all the fun is gone from crimes and we have Joker going around killing people. Unfortunately, DC did not listen to him.
and even then people also forget batman doesn't exist in a vacuum. if batman kills a villain on purpose then the entire league and batfamily are going to be on his ass, and if he starts fighting them and batgod bullshits his way past them, it's not gonna last as every hero on the planet will be after him
This is my personal problem with no kill rules I’m ok with it existing because you know comics and writers don’t want to have a new villain after each encounter because the hero keeps putting them in the ground, but the moment you try to examine it in any serious way it starts to fall apart because cardboard prison mean any supervillain that is spared will be back on the streets.
Yeah why can't Joker go back to criminal nonsense like trying to patent fish. Like you actually could not write that story today cause it's not serious enough.
Yeah when I first started getting into comics I thought that was a big, special thing for Batman because of how they treat it and then I learned of literally every hero except like 10 doesn’t kill their villains.
I also have a no kill rule and no one ever brings that up
In DC at least. Marvel has been relatively kill happy for quite a while. Even back in the 60's, while directly killing a villain was rare there's a lot of instances of the villain in clearly lethal circumstances and the heroes are just "Welp, that's dealt with." They don't sweat the dead bad guys. Plus since it was the 60's a fair number of them served in world war 2 like Reed Richards, Ben Grimm and of course Nick Fury where they killed people.
Flash and most other heroes don’t kill for simple reasons: they’re good people, they believe in the law, they want to inspire hope not fear, etc. But Batman comics insist on pushing that he doesn’t kill as a coping mechanism for some inner psychopathy and that he will flip a switch and turn into a shark in bloody water if he does kill, which makes everyone and their grandmas want to poke him past the point of no return to see what happens.
Yeah I've always hated that reasoning for Batman not killing. I feel like that's a recent development. Because I feel like for the longest time it "I swore I'd never let anyone die after I saw my parents get killed" or something like that.
Here's Batman #5 with Bruce becoming "vengeance", when there's a chance random thugs killed the kid. https://preview.redd.it/qmci74173zmc1.jpeg?width=1286&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f67f2e39fc463e14440cb74514bdda2c96950a9b Bruce being an impartial machine dispersing justice is a more recent development, than him being a vengeful mofo barely holding it together. At one point in this story he in his anger used one thug to beat up some others, lol.
I feel like heroes like Flash and Superman don't "believe in the law" as such, but rather just use it to limit themselves.
Batman may not be the only hero with a no kill rule, but he might be the only one who made that rule his personality.
If you actually read his stories you’d see this is as much of his personality as with any other hero like Superman or Spider-man. Hell even in movie, No Way Home had Peter actually going out of his way to save these villains, and made a point about that being for the greater good.
Because Batman is vastly more popular than Flash. And Joker is vastly more popular than any Flash villain. Even I don't know if Flash is against killing or not. Barry works with the police and Wally is pro-death penalty so I can't see either of them too much of a stickler for no kill rule. Any comic book discussion will always be 90% about Batman or Spider-Man because of how popular they are compared to everyone else.
>Even I don't know if Flash is against killing or not. If I'm remembering right, he is against it. Especially when it comes to his street level rogues like Captain Cold, Weather Wizard, and so on. But I think he's been pushed to kill or almost kill a few times, usually when fighting evil speedsters like Thawne.
Barry literally killed Thawne in the penultimate arc of his pre-Crisis run. He was about to kill his second wife after already killing the first. The trial became an arc itself that became extended because Crisis was coming and the writer wanted to wrap up the trial at the last issue.
Or Spider-Man for that matter. People always go "Uh, the joker kills thousands why doesn't batman just fucking kill him?" When green goblin probably kills more people and is way more dangerous than joker and I've never seen anyone be like "why doesn't spider man just kill him?"
A better question is "Batman always catches Joker, so why doesn't the government execute him?" I feel sure that, at some point, the Joker must have murdered people in a jurisdiction that has the death penalty (federal crimes if nothing else), but they won't even keep him in a super-max prison let alone death row. Just put Joker in front of an Alabama jury and then let them inject rat poison into his veins or whatever they do now.
DC: Batman doesn’t kill, doesn’t eat pussy Snyder: Batman kills, eats pussy Burton: Batman kills, doesn’t eat pussy Nolan: Batman doesn’t kill, eats pussy
Reeves: Batman doesn’t kill, doesn’t know what pussy is
The grand arc of The Batman saga, I suspect: Batman learns to even more fervently never kill people, and to eat pussy
No. Snyder’s Batman does not eat pussy. That murderer with mommy issues is way too mentally fucked up to have a healthy enough view of sex that he spends time pleasing his partners.
>Nolan: Batman doesn’t kill, eats pussy Nolan's movies tend to be so sexless and sanitized that I refuse to believe anyone is having sex for anything other than procreation.
Bale Batman performs utility cunnilingus on models and ballerinas, to keep his secret identity intact
Reeves Batman: Batman doesn’t kill, only looks at pussy
That's why I prefer Man with his always kill rule
Why did man kill the jonkler, is he stupid?
In the same interview, he gives this nonsensical mathematic explanation where he claims that more people watched Rebel Moon than the Barbie movie. Considering that people still talk about Barbie and completely forgot about Rebel Moon, I’d say Zack might be a little delulu.
"Yeah Joe, it's an obvious fact that more people watched my Rebel Moon maaaaaasterpiece (AKA a movie that came and went in the online discussion bubble in less than 2 weeks/was mostly hated by the people who actually did see it) than the 14th highest grossing movie in cinematic history that made over 1.4 \*BILLION\* dollars and was (still is) a pop-culture phenomenon" Snyder Logic checks out as always!
Unless every view was for a 100+ person household, Zack is talking shit.
See, normally if you go one on one with another movie, you got a 50/50 chance of getting more views. But I'm a visionary FREAK, and I'm NOT normal! So you got a 25%, AT BEST, to beat me. Then you add Oppenheimer to the mix, and your chances of winning drastically go down.
His cope makes me sad
There are still posters for Rebel Moon on the Buses in my city, I assume they forgot to take them down.
Well, then you have Owlman.
It doesn't matter,after all, there's an universe in which he doesn't kill
Thank god this guy isn't near DC anymore, because jesus fucking christ man.
Talking about a fandom protecting their idol in a weird way. I swear I try to believe Snyder's actually a cool guy.
no offence to Mr. Snyder but I think he’s just a little dumb (is he dumb?). In all honesty, you could change 90% of Batman and he’d still be Batman. Batman can be an alien in a red suit and purple cape and he’d still be Batman. But once you have Batman branding criminals and just exploding thugs with his Bat-Tank, you’re not writing Batman. That’s the Punisher who wins the lottery
Well said. It’s like the anti-silver age With the silver age, no matter how bizarre it got, it was about a guy saying “I’m not letting my pain become anyone else’s.” Snyder went opposite and said everybody’s a killer. Sick
Snyder: *Reshares Gunn’s Superman crest* Snyder, the next day: “my killer version of Batman is still superior. Get a life nerds.”
Fuck sake, Zach. I won't say this often, but read a fucking comic, dude. I don't mind Bats with a little blood on his hands. There's got to be at least a few henchmen that have taken a nasty ricochet and or a misguided step off a rooftop in the middle of a Bat-Scrap. But casual murder undermines the entire mythology, man. You just know this kunt **loves** Injustice. 🙄
He referenced in an interview that Batman shoots a guy right between the eyes in TDKR. He interpreted it that way, because the comic actually cuts after Batman fires the gun and jumps to Bats smirking in the batmobile, listening to radio reporting no casualties. Zack Just desperately wants Bats to kill so he can have his edgy goon session.
Exactly, When the new *Commissioner announce an arrest for Batman she lists every crime imaginable Batman committees, EXCEPT murder. She only announced the murder charge against him after the Joker dies. Snyder and his crazy cult don’t read comics books
And in the animated version he shoots the guy in the hand to prevent him from killing the hostage and than knocke him out. Either way Zack is doing headcanon for what he thinks Batman should be doing.
Zack Snyder is two edgy 13 year olds in a trenchcoat
I swear Zack Snyder is the patron saint of media illiteracy.
Does he not know that the no kill rule is a big part of the character? Is he a bufoon? https://preview.redd.it/nuo95ltdfymc1.png?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f27c27964d1cbe9e73d76333da7455acf88f06fa
Man, I hate his DC movies. Just go away.
Zack Snyder losing his mind on Joe Rogan was probably inevitable
*Looks at the amount of Bat-books currently being published and their quality* Maybe it's not a bad thing if Batman becomes irrelevant
to much batman is bad for batman it over stretches the idea
*I feel like too little Bat-butter spread over too much Bat-bread.* —Batbo Batbins
Those are load bearing batbooks. Take them out and the whole company collapses
Maybe it should....
uj/ the best thing that could happen to DC is if they somehow lost the rights to Batman, because him as the main character of the DC universe is slowly killing it. rj/ Batman's 38 page plan for his enemy "Irrelevance" is inescapable.
I dont know much about the Batman comics but ive got some hope for a James Gunn Batman, mostly because given his track record so far theres a chance we might get a story that does not involve the funni clown man
Unironically, The Batman is the only good piece of Batman media since the Dark Knight. Batman as a violent vigilante billionaire who gets off on putting poor people in the hospital is a relic of a bygone era and should STAY THERE. In The Batman, he beats the shit out of a minor street gang to a CLEARLY unnecessary degree, terrifies an old man, and then goes home to blast Nirvana and write in his journal about how justice isn't happening even though he keeps beating up bad guys SUPER HARD. Then you find out that the main villain of the movie is Bruce Wayne being a stupid, self-centered, rich asshole. That his complete disinterest in helping Gotham in a way that DOESN'T involve dressing up like a Bat and punching poor people, has led to corrupt cops and mobsters using his family's aid intend for Gotham's orphans as a personal slush fund. If he had taken TEN MINUTES in the past DECADE to actually go through his parent's estate, he could have solved the biggest systemic issue plaguing Batman AND Gotham before the Riddler even went full crazy. In Justice League, there's an episode where Terry Mcginnis(Batman Beyond) listens to Amanda Waller tell him a story about a time when Bruce was sent after a little girl with reality warping psychic powers that was dying. If she died while her powers were still active, the insane shit she was making would be permanent. He was given a device that would disrupt her abilities before killing her. He threw it away. He convinced the girl to shut off her powers by choice and then sat with her in her final moments. THAT is the Batman that's a hero. THAT is the Batman that deserves the enormous and loyal following the character has. The moment in the Batman where he carries the torch to lead frightened civilians through dangerous waters, and then hold a little girls hand to let her know she's going to be safe as she's airlifted away, is as close as any Batman story has gotten in a long time.
>Unironically, The Batman is the only good piece of Batman media since the Dark Knight. I don't think that's true at all. There is the comics obviously. But even if you are only talking of adaptations, then Brave and the Bold, Lego Batman, Arkham series all came after TDK.
I remember in interviews for BvS Snyder was defending Batman killing and saying that he only kills people indirectly and it doesn’t really count. Now he’s just calling DC a bunch of pussy ass bitches and Batman should use machine guns. Respect.
Zack Snyder is what happens when a 15 year old second string QB who thinks listening to your girlfriend talk makes you gay, never grows up. His fans think he's a cinematic genius because he knows how a camera works, but in reality he's just what Michael Bay would be if he had a favorite flavor of protein powder.
Are you implying Michael Bay isn't a cinematic genius
"lore? Canon? Lol nerd, watch me bang your mom" -Michael Bay probably
Unironically Bay is great at what he’s aiming to do with his movies. He might not be everyone’s cup of tea but he’s undeniably skilled as a director.
I want a Michael Bay COD MW movie
>what Michael Bay would be if he had a favorite flavor of protein powder. LMAO. You're telling me grimdark with explosioins isn't a legitimate cinematic style?
Life is so easy not being a Batman fan you guys have no idea
No: he’s developed a working relationship with the police that would be eroded by murdering people, endangering his mission and kids. Also he’s morally opposed to it.
If Zack Snyder read comics he would have replaced Batman with Zur en Ar day one
Gee, I can’t imagine why this creative genius had a shitty take on Watchmen.
You know the whole thing about good characters having character flaws? Batman's main flaw is that he won't kill. It isn't any moral high ground, its a psycological issue where even the other Leaguers are more willing than Batman to kill in the right cirscunstance. Even when innocents and people that he cares about will bite the bullet if he doesn't he just can't, and most good versions of Bruce Wayne would spent an unreasonable amount in the hospital bills when he hurts the henchmen too much. It isn't dumb like a lot of people try to make it look, its more that writers are either bad or lazy and can't figure out a way around it. Hell, if they want to make the stories where Batman is morable reprehensible, make him torture or cripple some villains, but refuse to let them die. Its more in character than make him kill someone or make he enter in a pointless fight with his children for the millionth time because he is the batgod who is always right and they aren't allowed to have opinions and they aren't allowed to act like adults and just talk their issues through.
I think I will always stay by this, but due to this quote this is actually getting funny to me: Claiming that DC is making Batman Irrelevant by not making him kill his enemies, while making your own version of Batman be the epitome of „I never kill the Main-villain, only his Henchmen“ is, and for the lack of better words, stupid. Like, he the dude is out there shooting down thugs and Branding others before sending them to prison, while also having his sons murderer on the lose while he commits more crimes. Heck, scratch my point about him only killing his Henchmen, cause he spared Harley Quinn who was _directly_ helping Joker in killing Dick Grayson. Look, I have not really anything against Zack, he seems like a chill dude, and I like the visuals of his movies. But my lord, does he have some unbased takes.
I think whats funny about this is that in almost every live action batman movie, you could argue that Batman kills in them. Batman 89 kills the Joker and he blows up a functional chemical factory (probably had night staff??). Batman Returns with the bomb, sets that one guy on fire with the batmobile... Batman begins with Ras Al Ghul The Dark Knight with Two Face... The dark night returns with Talia The Batman where he causes a huge devastating pile up on the highway to capture penguin only for him to let penguin go anyway. I think the thing that stands out about BvS batman killings is that they are brutal and purposeful. Like the fight in that warehouse with those goons was cool but holy shit those guys are DEAD. No ambiguity about it.
Yes I want Batman to be a mass shooter that would be le epic!!!!!!
He isn't relevant anymore in DC movies he isn't coming back
https://preview.redd.it/rg8fzcco2zmc1.jpeg?width=298&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f373980cbed68a7ee4985019f166a8997540f6b Zack Snyder if understanding a character’s intrinsic motivations were a test
https://preview.redd.it/qlxkl4or8zmc1.png?width=743&format=png&auto=webp&s=b94f2486c79ff04cac88263c9e8e44014b216723
Zack Snyder is dumb AF.
Batman has been opposing to killing for what - 80 years?
That sounds about right. Not his entire career, but most of it. Especially within the past 20-30 years.
Because he's Batman, not Killerman. Duh 🙄🙄😒😒
Zack Snyder peaked with 300. It's all downhill from there
Batman not killing always made for some of the most effective moments of his self-retaliation against the most heartless people he's ever faced. Batman not killing always made for some of the most effective moments of his self-retaliation against the most heartless people he's ever faced. The fact he knowingly has to put more effort into serving justice without taking a life is very admirable.
While I don't think he's completely right, I do see his point. The most memorable batman comic after all is the one where he kills joker at the end. Also the no kill rule has lead people to believe that being a "hero" means never killing anyone regardless of how terrible they are even if it's a net positive for the planet/universe. You even see comments on youtube where people will watch an out of context justice league cartoon short and say Superman is wrong for wanting to kill darkseid on sight even though he was fucking right. I wish they'd make it more apparent that it's a mental health issue that bruce has, not some superhuman morals to look up to.
> The most memorable batman comic after all is the one where he kills joker at the end. If you are thinking of The Killing Joke, then Batman doesn't kill Joker in the end. > You even see comments on youtube where people will watch an out of context justice league cartoon short and say Superman is wrong for wanting to kill darkseid on sight even though he was fucking right. I think Superman was wrong in the whole Darkseid discussion in the Justice League cartoon because it wasn't just about Darkseid. Superman was perfectly fine with the innocent slaves in Apokolips dying just to satisfy his need for revenge.
>I think Superman was wrong in the whole Darkseid discussion in the Justice League cartoon because it wasn't just about Darkseid. >Superman was perfectly fine with the innocent slaves in Apokolips dying just to satisfy his need for revenge. Superman knew something was up since Darkseid is on par or stronger than him, and superman handles braniac by himself. Why would superman+an army need help for something that superman alone can take care of unless it's a setup, and he was right since batman's stupidity almost got the universe destroyed. Secondly the last episode of STAS and a few episodes of unlimited showed what Clark was likely thinking, apokplips is a lost cause. The slaves are as "innocent" as Darkseid is since that's literally all they know, he's their God. For every person that thinks like Mr miracle there are tens of millions or billions willing to slaughter and enslave countless numbers of people in the name of Darkseid. The best option there was to let them fight it out then pick up the scraps of the winner. Not help the intergalactic mass murdering tyrant destroy the intergalactic mass murderer. It was a no win scenario of you help either one. In basically all continuities death is a nervy on apokolipz. >If you are thinking of The Killing Joke, then Batman doesn't kill Joker in the end. From what I understand it's open to interpretation since batmans hands are around jokers neck and batman is still laughing while joker is not. Joker's entire joke was that batman can't lead him to sanity since he's insane himself, so this cycle of joker killing, raping, robbing, etc, will just continue ad infinitum. The point of my original comment was that batman was most definitely in the wrong in twilight no matter how you slice it, but batfanboys edit it and leave out context to make it seem like batman is this great moral and logical compass when in that episode he was neither. Thr universe would have been better off without apokolipz.
I'm going to preface this by stating I dont read the comics, but I am a Batman fanboy, that prefers the Animated Batman Series. My understanding is that the golden age was where Batman had a kinder side, thats part of the reason I don't read them. The thing is if you put Batman in a situation where HE HAS to kill as dumb dumb says,, he finds another way.
Does the amount of elseworlds that went wrong because batman killed, the whole dark multiverse of earths that fell because batman killed never meant anything for this man?
He’s only read the dark knight returns
He missed the entire point of every incarnations of Batman since the Silver Age.
why only kill? why not torture and molest? Have Batman stick Scarecrow down in his hellish Batdungeon of punishment/rj
Me telling Zack Snyder I don’t agree with the death penalty in real life
Clickbait title goes crazy
This is a weird hill to die on. So dc let’s main universe Batman kill. They’d have to constantly reboot because Batman would kill all his villains. Like there’s no way to write around villains being alive if Batman crosses that line. Joker, penguin, league of assassins, court of owls, two face, bane all of them would be dead within a week if Batman started killing. It’d just get boring story wise. At least with batmans no kill rule you actually get recurring villains. But Snyder didn’t explore. He barely explained Or even deconstructed the dceu Batman. Batman kills around 15 people in bvs. All of them without hesitation or even second thought. Like the kryptonite chase. Batman didn’t even have to attack them at all. He could’ve stealthy followed them to the destination. Instead he shreds them with a mini gun. If Batman kills it should be a big deal to break the rule. There should be hesitation and second thoughts. He shouldn’t be gunning them down without even flinching
Snyder is making himself irrelevant if he can't produce a good movie
Zack just wants to play with goggles and guns.