So what exactly was wrong with him killing criminals?

So what exactly was wrong with him killing criminals?

It's almost like he has a no-killing rule or something.

>B-b-but Batman totally killed THESE FEW GUYS BEFOR-

No, shut the fuck up. His no-killing rule was established early on and has become an incredibly important part of his character. Batman does not kill and will in fact, save criminals if they're in danger of losing their lives. Across all 75 years of the character's history, this has been more or less consistent. Pointing out the legitimately few times he actually did kill someone (mostly in alternate continuities, at that) does not change the fact that Batman has NEVER just straight up killed fools left and right. It's the courts' decision to decide who lives and who dies, not his.

His parents died because of guns, he has a no-kill rule.

Moviefags

Because he's a hardcore pragmatist that has a plan for absolutely everything except for how to stop repeat offender supervillains.

>It's the courts' decision to decide who lives and who dies, not his.
And it's the polices' job to stop crime, not his.

Would people care as much if this Batman was advertised as an Elseworlds version? New universe, new canon, right?

Nothing

And he would let them if they could
There wouldn't be a batman if the police were effectively doing their job from the get go

Problem is, I don't WANT an Elseworlds out of a live-action adaptation, at least not now. I don't want to see a 'different' take on Batman. Elseworlds work because they take the audiences' familiarity with the character and flip them on their heads due to different circumstances that lead to them acting differently. That's why they're alternate takes on these characters.

But with a cinematic adaptation of the comics, you kinda just want to see the most iconic version adapted. You want to see these characters in-canon. You want them to follow storylines set in the 'main' canon.

But the courts are obviously not effective at doing their jobs either ergo he should also take over for them.

Too much with the guns and the movie was so damn grim there was no variation, plus it was so inhuman it was hard to give a shit. If they'd given him a few more human moments and shown at least the smallest out amount of self-doubt before that Martha moment it wouldn't have really been that bad.

Basically it wasn't really that big a deal and the no kill rule has always been a bit more of a suggestion than a rule, about intent not result. Batman has allowed people to die and accidentally crippled and killed people both in and out of comics. It's just the movie itself was about a conflict between two grim, tortured dudes in a grim, troubled world applying excessive force to bad guys with their extraordinary abilities, and it was really hard to see why they were fighting in the first place.

Oh, bullshit, there has been as many incarnations of him that at the least don't care about manslaughter and/or killing in self defense. And as long as he doesn't become the Punisher, there is little danger of him changing beyond the point of recognizing him as Batman. Just accepting that sometimes to kill is the hard choice that has to be taken. Hell, outside the comics he pretty much always kills, and I would question the quality of the continued life of some of his thugs even then.

In every single movie incarnation he is responsible for or lets villains die. I can't think f an exception. Nolan 'I don't have to save you' Bats. Burton 'fucking set you on fire' Bats. Now Bat of Manslaughter. Hell, despite what the 'detective mode' of the Arkham game says, a lot of thugs die in those games.

The only reason (main setting) comic Batsy never kills is because it's hard to write new villains. Simple as that. And it's stupid and something that ruins the long-term plot.

>Oh no. the Joker is on the loose. What will happen? Some no-names will get killed, mayhem will occur, and then he will end up in Arkham. Rinse and repeat for-fucking-ever.

There is a reason the Joker dies in practically every Elseworld.

-sigh-

Because Batman is mentally damaged. And he knows it. He knows that he lacks the self control to stop. If Batman killed a rapist, then he could justify killing a mugger. If he kills a mugger, he could justify killing a litterbug or Jaywalker. He wouldn't have the capacity to stop. It's his great strength - his tenacity and his relentlessness. So he knows that he needs to keep himself in check because once he crosses that line he won't stop. He won't quit. It will be the law according to Batman, and he knows that nobody in Gotham except one or two members of the Justice League can stop him. Batman has always been one centimetre away from becoming one of his villains. He's on the precipice.

He doesn't have the mental fortitude to be objective as Judge, Jury and Executioner.

Then there's the whole story aspect of it.

If Batman killed his villains - what reason do his villains have for being alive? If Batman is happy shooting guys just doing their job with a tank, why is someone like Joker still around? If Joker is too tough for Batman to handle then how is Batman a badass?

It's far better for the story to have Batsy catch the bad guy then grapple with whether or not to kill them, only to take the right path at the last moment and be the hero.

he can help the police force get it's footing by helping them take in criminals
if he takes over the courts theres no room for gotham to learn to stand on its own
Gordon still gets to help reform the PD with batman being batman but removing the judical system and replacing it with batman doesn't work

>If Batman killed a rapist, then he could justify killing a mugger.
What if we wrote a Batman that just didn't do that thing you said? It would be pretty easy.

This Batman seemingly used to have a no-kill rule, though. His conversation with Alfred is pretty much about how he just doesn't care anymore. He's more jaded and cynical than ever, and he's lost hope(on this planet it's an S).

In the hands of a better director, this could have been a really cool interpretation of the character.

Every adaptation is an Elseworlds by definition if not explicit name. The people wanting slavish devotion to the source don't know what they want. It's that the movie was poorly done and the emphasis was on characters as concepts, not people. Honestly I think the only reason so many of us like Affleck regardless of what we think of the rest of the movie is because we're filling in our expectations of what Batman is. What actually happens on the screen is a lot of brooding and no meaningful interaction with other characters.

I've always felt that Batman shouldn't kill. Not that it doesn't sometimes happen - the reality of the superhero job, of beating the shit out of criminals - means that sometimes it happens. But Batman should never go out of his way to kill. He should always be trying not to, if possible.

I was actually okay with him killing. It was established early on before the movie premired that he would be a gritty, do-whats-needs-to-be-done vigilante.

Then keep the judicial system and Batman can just removes the supervillains.

I don't mine him Killing, but at least address it in the movie, give an explanation on why

well it's not very interested innit? compared to when he doesn't kill.
batman who kills? goes out, kills the guy, goes home
batman who doesn't kill? tries to use wit and intelligence to get his rogues to turn themself in. Most don't, but some do, and he tries to make sure they get help, and checks up on their progress,
if they have trouble getting a job after doing their time/getting cured, he tries to find somewhere in Wayne Industries they could work.

not to mention, a no kill rule acts as a barrier to writers, making it harder for them to just make a schlocky 'hero solves everything with violence' story, and encourages them to take the time to explore Batman's empathy. sure, maybe 4/5 of their stories will still be resolved by Batman punching the villain in the face, but if they have to think about Batman's no kill rule while constructing their story that can inspire them to include scenes of Batman rehabilitating other people, being empathic to the villain's goons who just want food and shelter, and to the villain's victims who also tend to be people in need

>Then keep the judicial system and Batman can just removes the supervillains.
thats what the fuck he does
He handles shit the cops can't, wont, or would never get to in time
he's a supplement not a replacement

But he doesn't. His rogues just revolve around the door in the system and come back for more.

Were you trying to say batman should kill his villains?
Because that bypasses the judicial system
You can't keep the judicial system and have batman become the judicial system

I just watched about an hour of it last night for the first time and there are bits of humanity with Bruce. Hell, even the line Alfred speaks to him about shit turning good men cruel has Bruce sort of react to it.

There are criminals besides supervillains dude. Batman didn't show up and put all the cops out of a job. Like you said Bats is a supplement.

This. This Batman has seen shit, has been through shit, and is clearly fucking tired of shit.

that doesn't mean he should be allowed to kill off supervillains because "oh we have plenty more"

No he should kill supervillains because they endanger innocent lives.

so do normal criminals

And he should feel free to figuratively pull the trigger on that too if he ever has too but we all know he'll never be put in that kind of situation.

But it should never be one man's decision who lives or dies
What's just or unjust
or who's guilty and who's not
it's why we have the judicial system in the first place
Also this post is relevant

Fucking this.

I thought of that, but even that was a very brief platitude that just didn't do enough. It was a half-snide half-sincere remark. Think about how we saw both Keaton and Bale have doubts, fall in love, have long conversations about being Batman. Characters have to talk with each other, they can't just quote TDKR out of context so fans can nod their heads at how profound it all is. There's no sense that Bruce is enjoying being Batman, or hating it, or doing it out of sense of duty. He's just Batman, and that's it. That's just not very compelling, and I don't find much moral conflict in him killing Luthor's random goons.

The sense I got is that in this universe is that really gloomy dudes exist to fight other gloomy dudes and if civvies get in the way, oh well. It almost felt like Kingdom Come but maybe before things got really bad.

They did, they just didn't do a very good job of explaining.

There's the scene where Alfred confronts Bruce about his recent activities, how he seems to just recently have gone off the deep end.
>Bruce: We're criminals, Alfred. We've always been criminals. Nothing's changed.
>Alfred: Oh, yes it has, sir. Everything's changed. Men fall from the sky, the gods hurl thunderbolts, innocents die. That's how it starts, sir. The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men... cruel.

Basically, "Master Bruce, I understand that with all the shit going on, you feel like you need to change up what you've been doing, but you're kind of freaking me out now. You didn't used to be like this."

>But it should never be one man's decision who lives or dies
Pfft. Why not? Let's say the Joker killed like 50 people over the last 5 years. A conservative number probably. And he's highly likely to kill 50 more in the next 5 years. Just to punctate that point here he is right now in this moment about to kill more people. He's been in and out of the system and that obviously has failed. By not killing him this is allowed to go on. This is the decision he's making.

Also: That whole "I wouldn't be able to stop" shit is just a flimsy excuse anyway. If he has such great self control whats stopping him from deciding where the cut off is?

The problem with that is that it relies upon the audience assuming Bats didn't kill and wasn't all angry all the time. I have no way of knowing that. I can infer it because I know Bats is traditionally not quite this grim and also the camera lingers on the Jason Todd suit but none of that really tells us anything, while also being weirdly obvious and patronizing if you are starting from the comics perspective. It requires us to already be shocked at how dark he is, but he isn't any darker than Burton or Nolan Batman except in how much collateral damage he caused, and even that might be questionable considering Keaton blew up a factory and Bale blew up part of a parking garage.

At least it wasn't as bad as Nolanbats who had a no kill rule but still killed people in every move.

because he becomes a less interesting and totally different character?

its like asking
"so whats wrong with him joining the Navy and becoming a pilot?"

Besides the fact thats someone elses story....

exactly.

"the fans are just afraid of change" someone said.

Things would have to exist first....before they change...

>Things would have to exist first.
Haven't you heard about comicbooks?

The fact that he both used guns and killed people is what gets me. One or the other might be acceptable, but with both you have to ask what the trauma of his parents' death was, especially since the movie harped on about more than most do which is saying something. Either he should be so traumatized by their deaths that he refuses to kill, or he refuses to use guns.

I dont know what your implying. When ever i hit someone with my car, i just keep going. I just KNOW they are alive, i got skills like that.

Yeah, i would love to see this tool belt.
One gun, plus pouches of bullets.

Bruce trained for years ....to shoot people with a gun.
Batman trained in stealth...to break into their houses and shoot them in the bed.

Thanks, Batman!

Nothing, it was great. I never thought I'd like a Batman but here we are.

If Batman isn't gonna batmanslaughter someone every once in a while then he needs to lighten the fuck up.

yes. Were talking about the movie. Have you heard? Theres been a whole bunch of Batman movies out! Its crazy! Oh man, i envy you! Get to see them for the first time!

Right now, were talking about a movie called Batman V. Superman. I KNOW, RIGHT? IN THE SAME MOVIE!

Go see it, then come back to the thread, ok?

That's a long post for one sarcastic joke. Overstayed its welcome I say.
But anyway what you're implying is that a change of an established 75 year old character doesn't count unless its in the same medium. Which is stupid.

No you're stupid

that doesnt make any sense. If an adaption is wrong, its wrong.

Imagine if the Harry Potter movies, and their just like "nah, he goes to a normal high school, a magic highschool would be weird"

>why is Batman's Rogue Gallery still alive?

This was all fun & games to them until Batman had enough with the half measures. They probably stayed in Arkham or layed low knowing their next heist is going to be their last.

With Joker, who knows? Most likely knows that Batman isn't fucking around anymore & their next encounter won't end with a escort to Gotham

The Harry Potter movie adaptation did get things wrong. EVERY adaptation gets things wrong. But there are more to things than nerd's nitpicky details. Not every change is bad. Things can be played around with and still be a perfectly valid interpretations

I thought moviefags were the one okay with him killing?

...

He's a police consultant at best, it's like demanding these guys kill people.

Nigga are you kidding? The police consultants for him if anything.

>2000-kid

I thought he "didn't"?
Lex hired goons to kill the guys who were branded.

>I learned it from you okay! I learned it from watching you!

and tiny nitpicky things arent what were talking about, are we?

>winnickfag

In my eyes: yeah kinda.
If anything is the problem the Batbranding is a bit over the top edgy.

...

>So what exactly was wrong with him killing criminals?

Nothing. But it means it's a version of batman slightly harder than average Frank Miller. And that's really limiting, especially if you've got the rest of the league there.

I mean, there's nothing WRONG with more Injustice or Flashpoint, but it means that all the other characters tones are going to be fucked up and dark.

See also: Superman's dad.

>kills criminals
>doesn't kill the joker or his bimbo
at least be consistent

Some retards dont understand how time works, and how people can change for the worst based on bad experiences.

Character development is a foreign concept for capeshitfags.

>Who's guilty and who's not
That's fucking stupid though
I disagree with batman killing people but that's a dumb point
>guy just robbed a store or mugged somebody or something
>GEE I WONDER IF HE'S GUILTY I SURE CAN'T DECIDE THAT MYSELF
If you catch somebody literally in the act of breaking the law, then they're guilty dude

I want to discuss Batman killing in the Arkham Knight DLC. Should i feel bad for wanting to see Ra's dying behind bars, Nyssa safe and the League of Assassins war stopped?. Everyone says it's a choice the Arkham games Batman canonically would never make, but even him wanted his followers to let him die. Even if you choose to help Ra's, Batman destroys the Lazarus pit, so he only delyed Ra's death one more time.

Keaton Batman was ruthlessly murdering people way before this movie was a fucking thought. That dude was throwing motherfuckers off buildings and blowing them up with bombs and shit.

Either him or Superman one should have been less of a violent asshole so they'd actually have a basis for their conflict.

Considering it's used to depict how Batman in this world has gone entirely suicidal, apathetic, cynical and for all senses and purposes has lost all hope for his mission, there's nothing objectionable about it. This is a guy who let the Wayne mansion go decrepit. Alfred doesn't even live with him anymore. He's at the end of his rope and it's ugly, he's turned more brutal, stopped mostly caring as much about his no-kill rule because he sees it's just another reason why he's failed to make a difference. That's the point, this Batman is not your Batman, he's a Batman who failed his own mission and only gets saved from the darkness by Superman at the very end of the movie, an act that inspires him to become his old, happier guy again.

But of course let it for autistic comic fanboys to REEEEEEEEEEE in unison when they do not understand things like characterization and emotions because this version doesn't match 100% to their own personal rated PG headcanon.

Burton Batman threw a guy off a tower, dropped the Joker off a tower, shot two guys with the Batplane's cannons, blew up a factory with a bunch of goons in it, lit some clown henchmen on fire, stuck a bomb in a henchman's pants before kicking him into a pit to explode, etc.

Nolan Batman blew up a building with a bunch of ninjas in it, knocked Ra's al Ghul to a ledge and then refused to pull him up from the fall that killed him, threw Two-Face off a building to his death, gunned down the League of Shadows goon driving the nuke truck, and killed Talia al Ghul by forcing her truck to crash.

West Batman was just a savage in general.

If anything it would have been unusual if Batfleck DIDN'T kill anyone. Every previous cinematic Batman has done it.

This. At this point he might as well be a rich boy Punisher-lite with the way he was handled in the film.

>rich boy Punisher-lite

Sounds accurate for Batman.

>Every previous cinematic Batman has done it.
that just makes it even more pathetic

Refusing to use guns is stupid and would just result in his death in real life. It also makes Bats look way too overly emotional, lots of people whose loved ones were killed by guns go on to become soldiers and police officers, these people shouldn't be considered to be way tougher than Batman.

It's a good thing that Batfleck isn't a dumbass and recognizes that mounting autocannons your plane and car counts as using guns.

explain

The only reason Batman has the no-kill rule is so writers can reuse villains.

Christ, after 75 years of Batman and he ended up killing every single villain you will go fucking insane trying to come up with new villains all the time without blowing up the universe all the time to reuse them again.

I am getting nervous just thinking about coming up with my own batman villain and the best I could come up with is some dude with a green suit and a banjo robbing banks.

can you imagine?

>why doesn't batman kill?
>why is batman killing?

Sometimes you can't win.

It's harder to capture than kill. Batman killing his enemies is easy and just devalues the entire point of being a superhero; anyone can kill the Joker, but only Batman can bring him in.

People that insist Batman kill people are small minded individuals that can't conceive of anyone more capable or skilled than they themselves are.

How can the Suicide Squad exist in a world where Batman has no problems with killing criminals who don't surrender?

Did the cops/ other heroes bring them in? Then where's the need for Batman?

Just think of the amount of lives that would still be alive today if Batman killed the Joker.

And the lives that were attached, affected or gave birth to new life.

But, forget all the lives that will die when the Joker escapes again. We need to be a hero to the people who wont be effected by his mass killings.

1) Some people like the no-kill rule he generally respects in the comics

2) It was, supposedly, the result of a character arc we didn't get to see, we're only told he lost it somewhere down the line when Robin died and/or Superman became a thing

3) Because, again, we don't know exactly the context, people are confused wether killing is normal or unusual for this Batman. Example: Alfred complains about the branding but doesn't speak a word about Bruce killing with his car or with weaponry like the Batwing's gun. And for the branding, the Ultimate edition reveals it was only because of Lex's current conspiracies that those branded criminals died, further confusing about wether Batman's used to kill or not. Because if the brand-kills were out of his control, the machine guns weren't, and Robin had a freaking halbard

4) In case killing is normal for him, it feels weird long-time villains like Joker are still around. Makes it feel like he kills in this movie only because the director couldn't picture a different action scene

5) The director itself. Snyder's known for his juvenile views of what's cool or not so it doesn't feel like he really considered that Batman killing would be controversial. The fact that in interviews he claims the Batman from DKR "kills all the time" only confirm his ignorance/carelessness on the subject

6) It just leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth. It might be "mature" or whatever, but you can't blame people for being annoyed that one of their beloved hero is depicted as a deranged psychopath who's main objective is to kill left and right, including the other beloved hero


Now, you guys are perfectly allowed to call all of this autism or whatever, but if fans of the movie are allowed to over-analyze everything for the sake of proving the movie's too deep for general audiences then the same way people should be analyze why they didn't like the thing

Its really infantile to think that Batman or anyone else wouldn't kill some of these insane incredibly violent maniacs and thugs.

How do you think Batman would have tackled the Harambe situation?

>Just think of the amount of lives that would still be alive today if Batman killed the Joker.
I have. And I've weighed that against the number of copycats and even worse psychopaths that would arise from the power vaccuum.

>Just think of the amount of lives that would still be alive today if Batman killed the Joker.

That's a load of shit and you know it. Joker is alive because he sells.

>anyone can kill the Joker

Then why haven't they?

>this TRIGGERS the normies, muh one rule nolanfags and marvel drones

Thank you based Snyder

Yes. That's the real life reason but dumb fans try and attach an in universe reason for not killing Joker, such as "muh kill a killer same nunber of killers" which is fucking retarded.

Every time the joker breaks out he goes recruiting new people, the world does not stop when he is in prison.

Kinda sorta not the point. Folks are talking about in-universe reasons why to not kill the joker, and I gave a retort on why they should.

Not talking about real-life sales and such.

Batman not ever killing, even in self defense or heat of battle type situations mostly became a thing after BTAS.

Not muh

well if you've been handed a budget in the billions to do the latest adaption of a globally recognized franchise, you want to do a better job than all the previous ones so far, and you want to avoid retreading the same ground.

dwelling so much on this Batman's disregard for life...it's not pushing the envelope half as much as it wishes it was since we've already seen Batman kill and let people die. It's not groundbreaking, it's just more of the same. It's not impressive because that ground has already been broken with zero fanfare.

Why would you come here and try to wow your audience with all these reheated ideas? we've seen Batman kill on the big screen. We've seen Batman stop giving a shit about the law. We've seen Batman stop giving a shit about the consequences of his actions. We've seen Batman swallow his pride and admit he fell off the path.

it's too caught up in being grittier and harder than the movies that came before it, it doesn't consider that it's basically serving a quadruple sized serving of chocolate icecream for desert to people who have already been served chocolate icecream for breakfast and lunch. Too caught up in outdoing the other chefs to consider serving something other than chocolate icecream

...

Batman is lying when he says that he has a no-kill policy for moral reasons. We all know it's because if he killed criminals the crime problem would be solved within a couple of weeks and he would have no mentally ill or impoverished people to beat up.

plebs

Because it doesnt make sense for him to kill random thugs but leave the named famous villains alive

Learn to context. He kills in live or die self-defense situations, he doesn't go around murdering everyone he comes across