Everyone Batman Kills in BvS (and why it matters)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2024
- Clickbait headline: You Won't Believe How Many People This Hero Killed!
Batman kills a lot of people in Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice. A lot of people. Piles. The bodies do, indeed, hit the floor. Here we've compiled all the non-dream-within-a-hallucination casualties Batman racks up during Batman vs. Superman.
Written and performed by Dan Olson
You know the worst part? Thug B's mom was named Martha.
nah, all the other thugs batman didn't kill had mothers named Martha. He ran background checks on every single one of them, and selectively killed everyone that didn't have a mom named Martha.
Man, I said that as a joke, but stranger things have happened in comics.
nooooooooooooooo
Top Five Names for Baby Girls in Greater District of Gothamopolis:
1. Martha
2. Martha
3. Martha
4. Martha
5. Judith
...
92. Lois
BEST. JOKE. EVER.
"WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME?!!!"
Lets not forget he completely intended on killing Superman as well
Well, yeah, but he doesn't see Superman as a human, he sees him as a weapon of mass destruction, so there's that.
Samael Blackstone one thing i wish Batman or anyone would have brought up is Superman killed Zod they should have talked about that
Darkest Iron the problem i have with that killing is that the movie never brings up an idea of killing and it just comes out of nowhere
Darkest Iron which makes sense since Snyder and Goyer wanted it just so there could be a punchier ending
Darkest Iron and theres another problem Superman never once tries to direct the fight out of the city he even flew Zod miles into the small town earlier in the film crashing him right into a gas station most likely at least injuring somebody
Just a note in case it hasn't been mentioned (it probably has but whatever), Henchman I who was hit in the head with a crate left a blood splatter on the wall in the ultimate cut of the film, so he's most assuredly dead in canon.
I definitely remembered that particular henchman leaving a large bloodstain on the wall from that crate when I watched it in the theater.
The crate also bounced off of him like it was made of rubber, which is stupid.
Did their heads get thrown into wall with enough force to leave a blood splatter on the wall?
Kyle Prescott Yeah, everyone likes to say that Snyder makes heroes realistic, which is hilarious for a number of reasons, one of which being that Snyder doesn't seem to understand basic physics, like, at all. How did Batman swing a crate that was twenty feet behind him with a cable, over his head and into another mans head? How is Batman able to swing Superman around in huge circles? etc. Snyder = Dumb.
Sam Cannon probably because he didn’t kill in the past pre Jason Todd. Batman is in a dark place since his death.
In the extended cut, Thugs H and I leave clear blood-splatters where their heads impacted, several of the thugs' necks crack and go full 90 degrees pretty violently too.
And didn't Batman go back to Thug N to stab him in the gut? That's what I heard happened.
shadowninja222 I thought he just punched him
Maybe. I just watched the scene on YT. It sounded like he stabbed him, but I can't be sure. Either way, though, that seemed unnecessarily excessive.
+shadowninja222 What would he have stabbed him with? I'm fairly certain he punched him in the balls.
In the extended edition he goes back to N and punches him in the gut or the balls or something.
"Don't worry about all the entrails Robin, I've my got trusty *Criminal Revival Spray* to put ALL those giblets back where they belong!"
"Holy Blood-soaked corpses Batman! That's Swell!"
"BAT" Criminal Revival Spray - with a huge label on the can
I absolutely HATE it when people - especially Snyder - try to claim that Batman didn't "murder" anyone. That it was all (at worse) "manslaughter." Batman shot up a car and drove though it as it exploded. How is that NOT murder!?
For the heck of it, I actually researched the main differences between 1st Degree & 2nd Degree Murder verses 1st Degree and 2nd Degree Manslaughter. Yep, Batman committed murder. No reasonable doubt about it. >:-(
It's not murder because murder requires pre-meditation. You have to have decided and planned to kill someone BEFORE you do it for it to be murder. Batman did cause the death of that man but it would have been manslaughter at worst because he didn't specifically target the person; he shot out the car. At best it could be ruled justifiable homicide in self defense because the guy in the truck opened fire first.
Mr Schinkie, if you don't know the key differences between the categories for homicide, there is a link at the end of my message. It explains them in simple swift detail. (I apologize if this comes out on your end as one long, giant paragraph. UA-cam has been acting funny.)
Yes, Batman MURDERED those henchmen.
1 = A major component in discussing a physical conflict is the instigator. The classic "Who threw the first punch?" The conflict STARTED when Batman rammed down one of the vehicles of the convoy. Batman attacked the convoy without warning, provocation, or authority. Not only did he attack first, but he also pursued the criminals as they tried to drive away. Pursuit is a form of escalation. Batman was clearly the instigator. Therefore, everything the criminals did afterward was technically self-defense.
2 = Batman is a vigilante. He had zero authority to monitor, track, pursue, or attack the criminals. Therefore, all of Batman's antics were illegal. It doesn't matter how terrible the henchmen were. In the eyes of the law, it was one criminal person attacking other criminal people.
3 = In several states, a person can be charged with homicide if a death occurs during a crime. Imagine a person robs a bank and a random customer gets scared and dies from a heart attack. The bank robber can be charged with felony murder. Batman utilized the Batmobile and the Batwing for his attacks: unregistered urban assault vehicles, each with hood-mounted twin machine guns. This means that not only were Batman's vigilante behavior illegal, but the vehicles and equipment he was using were also illegal. With so much illegal actions on the part of Batman, any and all of the henchmen deaths could warrant felony murder charges. That includes the occupants of the vehicle that crashed into the big rig truck.
Yes, the criminals also had machine guns. But remember, Batman instigated and escalated the conflict. The criminals were trying to escape and defend themselves. Therefore, Batman was the greater guilty party.
4 = Here is the most important consideration: MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!! You don't have to plan or intend or seek to kill someone to be charged with murder. Malice aforethought overrides pre-mediation. That basically asks, "Was the assailant aware of his actions and the potential consequences of his actions?"
If Jack Black or Bruce Willis instigated a barroom fight, they would be prosecuted differently than if Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee instigated a fight. Although all the men are actors, Chan and Lee practiced martial arts for the majority of their lifetimes. Chan and Lee know how to fight effectively and know the potential consequences if they fought someone.
In BvS, the movie clearly states that Bruce Wayne had been Batman-ing for 20 years. He was so incredibly skilled that he could harpoon and use a crumpled vehicle like a ball & chain against another vehicle. Batman also had a tracer on the lead henchmen's truck, so he could maintain his pursuit. If necessary, he could locate and attack the criminals again in the future. (Which he did at Lexcorp.) In other words, he had a plan of attack and a back-up plan of attack. Batman had malice aforethought.
SUMMARY = Batman instigated the conflict without provocation. He escalated the conflict by pursuing the henchmen. He was a vigilante with zero authority. He used highly illegal equipment and vehicles. Many people died in direct relation to Batman's illegal activities with his illegal equipment. He has malice aforethought because of his 20 years of combat experience and the use of a tracking device.
CONCLUSION = BATMAN MURDERED THOSE HENCHMEN!!
Here is the link = Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter.
www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/homicide-murder-manslaughter-32637.html
I will not argue with any of your points, save for one.
Batman did not ram the car first. The henchmen fired at Batman first. While it doesn't counteract the escalation statute it certainly must have some impact on other aspects of the, "case".
However there is a little bit of contradiction or at least confusion in whether or not he has any authority. Suicide Squad shows him arresting Deadshot and taking Harley Quinn in. How could he do this if he didn't have something worked out with the authorities. If not he could never be part of any case that resulted in a conviction, if any of them even made it to trial.
Ugh.. I've been thinking about this all day and it doesn't get any less confusing. I've found a few articles that touch on the issue using other Batman films as examples and the more I look into it the less clear cut it gets.
Michael Schinke Hello again, Mr Schinke. I apologize for the late delay. I was ill. Thank you for reading what I offered. Here is my followup.
1 = If you carefully watch the events of the Batmobile sequence, it starts with two of the cars - named A and B in the video - of the convoy paused at the dock entrance gate. The Batmobile suddenly turns on and attempts to ram the cars. Car B drives forward, exposing Car A. The Batmobile collides with Car A
Yes, there was a thug in Car B that (somehow) had the reflexes to start firing at the Batmobile. However, it is clear by Batman's decision to begin driving while Cars A and B were directly in front, the Batmobile's speed, direction, and lack of breaking that Batman fully intended to ram both cars. This means that Batman fully intended to commit vehicular assault without provocation or authority but only hit one car instead of both. Since Batman instigated the event, the thug that opened fire was indeed defending himself.
2 = In an episode of the 90s animated series, a criminal was convicted but his sentencing was minimized because he was caught by Batman. Yes, the vigilante status of Batman does make prosecution difficult but far from impossible. Many of the people that Batman captures are career criminals, often with incriminating evidence on their persons.
Deadshot was a high-priced assassin. He would be wanted for numerous counts of murder, with evidence and statements already filed. Harley Quinn is an accomplice in Joker's escape from Arkham, which resulted in the murder of dozens of medical staff and guards. There is no telling how many other crimes that Harley participated in with the Joker, but we know that she was an accomplice to Robin's murder. (She murdered a truck driver in a deleted scene.)
Therefore, the how and when of Deadshot and Harley are apprehended would be almost irrelevant. There is more than enough charges and evidence to take them to trial. Similar can be said for the numerous thugs that Batman attacked throughout the movie. I doubt all of those guns they used were legal firearms. They were accomplices in an illegal smuggling operation too. Plus there are the additional unknown crimes that each thug might have arrest warrants for. In other words, the Girl Scouts could have captured the villains. It wouldn't have made much difference.
3A = No, this version of Batman does NOT have any kind of authority. Even if he has an arrangement with Gotham police, he still doesn't have an official law enforcement status.
Stepping out of comic books for a moment, how many movies and tv shows are there about cops that team with non-cops to investigate crimes? Psyche, Charmed, Kung Fu, Elementary, Castle, 48 Hrs, Central Intelligence, Foul Play, The Hard Way, Cop and a Half, The Mentalist, iZombie, Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot, the list goes on and on. At best, the buddy has a private investigator license and/or is a former cop. Aside from those characters, the non-cops don't have any actual authority. The only Batman that has really had authority was the 1960s television show. Batman and Robin were officially deputized agents of Gotham. Pretty much all other Batmen, from the comics to Tim Burton to Nolan to the numerous animated shows have been vigilantes that Gotham City officials turn a semi-blind eye away.
Going back to the DCEU, if Batman actually had some kind of real authority in Gotham, then wouldn't Clark Kent have spoken with Commissioner Gordon or the GCPD press representative first? Kent was concerned about civil liberty violations. Wouldn't step one be to interview Gordon? The Mayor? The District Attorney? Instead, Kent as Superman got up in Batman's face and said, "The Bat is dead. Bury it." That's because Batman is a vigilante.
3B = Even if Batman did have some kind of official law enforcement status, he still couldn't go around doing whatever he wanted. As much as Hollywood wants to claim otherwise, cops can't go around being protocol ignoring, shoot 'em up, "Make my day", "It's been revoked" badass, with only angry Black police captains to yell at them for a few minutes.
In reality (for lack of a better word), cops can't go around ramming their cars into suspects' vehicles. Cops can't go around landing their cars on top of suspects' heads. Cops can't go around using suspects' cars - with people still inside the cars - as wrecking balls against other suspects' cars. Not only can't cops do those kinds of things, but federal agents, military operatives, and secret service can't do much of that stuff either.
The only people that can do as they please are super spies, like James Bond, Ethan Hunt, Jack Bauer, or Commander Shepard. You know, folks with some kind of license to kill and/or only answer to head-of-state kind of deal. The reason why spies can have those deals is because the heads-of-state can disavow responsibility when the spies screw up.
Long story shorter, it would take an agreement with the Governor or President for Bruce Wayne to get away with all the assault and battery, property damage, high caliber weaponry, non-street legal motor vehicles, airspace violations, and homicides (whether manslaughter or murder) that he is responsible for. Don't forget, there isn't a statue of limitations for murder, so Wayne would need to have that authority to protect him from his 20 years of Batman-ing too.
Okay. That's all for now. Thanks again. Be well and party on dude! :-D
Snyder never said that Batman doesn't kill anyone, he was saying that he was trying to show that from Batman's own warped sense of logic and morality, he never killed anyone explicitly. The car is in his way, so he shoots the car. Its not his fault those guys happened to be in there! That guy is holding Ma Kent hostage with a flame thrower, so he shoots the tank. Its not his fault the guy was wearing it! I also hate it when people say "he never kills anyone!" because if judged by any modern standard, he is a murderer.
I really feel like a golden opportunity was missed here but having a batman who kills, rather than having a batman that doesn't kill and needs to struggle with the prospect that the only way to stop super man is to kill him, mirroring super man's struggle from the last film with killing zod.
Then again the whole film is basically industrial grade waste of opportunities for really interesting exploration of the characters.
it is, it's just done in reverse
Now that Batman does kill,WHY THE HELL is any of his rouges alive?
It's okay,Batman can turn his killing on and off,Which is one reason he claimed not to do it in comics.. "Once I start down that road",As if he couldn't stop. This movie shows us he can in fact decides,who needs to die and who doesn't. Then he just like..Oh,I don't do that anymore,to jail with you Luthor!
I dislike the No kill thing, but DC/WB doesn't even understand how much this character was written around his morality. Joker has 0 reason to be alive.
Stef Tep I have no idea...
The only thing I can think off is they simply planned for Joker to return for sequels.
Stef Tep I know this is late, but the difference between taking and neglecting to save a life is noticeable in all humans.
King The Batman you're talking about is functionally mentally stable and isn't going through a existential crisis, DCEU Batman is going through an existential crisisis and is mentally unstable with only Alfred to hang on to which is not enough. Something else set DCEU Batman on his spiral, what you're stating is if stable Batman starts killing he won't stop.
The best part of this is your dead pan description of these scenes hahaha. And jesus christ Batman, settle down
First time I watched this, I accidentally had it set to 1.5 speed and panicked. (Flashbacks to anxiety inducing college lecture halls XD).
Second time I had my screen turned off and was having fun just imagining the mayhem in the most comical way based on what he was describing.
look, if he wants to kill, that's ok. Different interpretation and such. My question is, why are the Joker and Lex Luthor still alive if that's the case?
デグレーットヒロX because he only enters the completely reckless path 18 months after the arrival of Superman. Alfred says "new rules?" So he has not encountered Joker while in this mindset and never was concerned with Lex until much later when he has set about going on a better path. how is this not painfully obvious?
What the fuck? Why? If Superman was the reason he goes Punisher, then why the fuck does he exact brutal murder on NORMAL PEOPLE rather than say Metahumans?
It makes more sense when people said that he went full Punisher because of Robin's death and even then that's a dumbass reason for Batman to drop his moral code.
Superman could do Batman's total life work in 20 minutes and combined with all the failures in his life, Robin's death, good people turning bad, criminals keep sprouting like weeds, he feels like a failure, weak and powerless. So he lashes out at Superman as the source. And in doing so he goes down a bad spiral of self worth and becomes careless.
I think its pretty well stablished in the movie that Batsy goes rogue after Jason died... you know, death in the family and all that.
I think the dialogue between Alfred and Bruce suggests that the behaviour we see is new, at least to this level of carelessness it is.
The worst part about Batman killing is the fact that The Joker no longer serves a purpose. Throughout the entire history of their conflict, Joker's ultimate goal was to break Batman's rule. Now that it's happened with no build up or any physical sense of transition, all tension has been stripped from every Batman vs. Joker conflict in the future films. It doesn't help that they've already butchered the character of Joker with that god awful Hot Topic juggalo tripe.
EDIT: To anyone going "his rule was only in Nolan!" you do realise that The Dark Knight was heavily inspired by 'The Killing Joke', right? Saying that Joker wanted to reduce Batman to be just like him is exactly the same as getting him to break his one rule. Also, having Batman kill just because the original comics did so is simply inefficient. There's a reason why it was changed, think about it rather than clinging to the 1940s.
Except in jokers first appearance bat man did kill his ass, but dc brought him back by popular demand. In fact batman killed more people during the golden age than he did any frank miller run.
Then of course there was the entire comic code authority from the silver age where every thing had to be child friendly, and the joker was more of a bank robber/prankster.
Actually I'm pretty sure the op was talking about the comics since he said and I quote " Throughout the entire history of their conflict, Joker's ultimate goal was to break Batman's rule."
I was pointing out that there have been multiple interpretations of joker over the years, and Leto's gangland version was probably intended as an updated version of golden age joker, which jack nickleson did way better.
That being said, even if the suicide squad joker was an entirely original character he still would have sucked. Not because of how he compares to the comics, but because comes across as Jim Carry on a cocaine bender doing a Marilyn Manson impersonation. That's not cool, it's not intimidating, and it's not edgy, it's just plain sad.
Not Spiderman golden age joker doesn't have this goal though that's the beauty of having a 75 +year history
ikr!!! totally screws w. the Tension & Suspence of Future Batman V. Joker Movies. Joker wants to show that everyone can break. that we're all a bad day away from turning into him. he plays sick & twisted mind games. not only did BvS they addressed Batman being ok w. Killing horribly, but they fucked up the Joker v. Batman Dynamic.
Not Spiderman Well said.
If Zack and the writers emphasized that Batman doesn't kill even criminals, and that makes the idea that he sees Superman as a monster rather than a man. That could have made the Martha scene even stronger, because now he sees that he has a mother, a lover, a childhood, etc.
Damn... that would have been cool
The Maaarthaaa scene was never strong. It was the weakest in all of the now-dead DCEU.
damn good point
I would like to hear @karnak333 elaborate on what is meant by, "could have made the Martha scene even stronger".
Are you suggesting that the Martha scene (which is widely considered by both fans and critics to be one of the most rediculus and poorly written scenes in all modern DC movies) is a strong scene? If you really think so, let's hear an argument for it. I've heard lots of in-depth arguments as to why it's a raging dumpster fire but I've never heard anyone suggest that it might be a strong scene before now.
excellent point!
They really don't do a good job of establishing Batman in the DCEU. If he's casually killing off random thugs, then how is any member of his rogue's gallery still alive? Why hasn't he snapped the Joker's neck in revenge for the death of Robin? Why didn't he brand Deadshot since he's assassinated a ton of people?
And I wonder if they considered what Batman's relationship with the police and the government is supposed to be like in the DCEU. Because if they're trying to build this gritty realistic world, then how can the police have a bat signal and basically sanction the actions of a vigilante who goes around killing people?
18 month obsession over Superman (cough * Alien=immigrant story) as a rich grumpy jaded wounded rich old man...
KingOfMadCows Same reason why he killed in Batman Begins and TDK but doesn't kill Joker, Ras al Gul (oops) or Bane
He's a sociopath who just leaves him alive for the sport of it?
Oleg Dettsel
But Nolan's Batman had character development. He wasn't the same person at the end of TDK as he was at the end of Batman Begins. He wasn't the same person at the end of Batman Begins as he was at the start of that movie. Remember, Bruce brought a gun to Joe Chill's trial with the intention of killing him. But he changed over the course of the movie.
***** But Snyder's Batman start killing at the end of MoS/beginning of BvS an then at the end of BvS he redeemed himself and find hope. Batman doesn't met any of his villains at this time. He should just go to Arkham and start massacre or something?
And again - at the beginning of TDK he defently killed 2 thugs in the car
Exactly right.
It isn't that you can't have a Batman that kills, there have been 'alternate universe' and even early 'mainline universe' intepretations that do exactly that. The problem Batman v Superman creates, and its a mistake I think Suicide Squad made also, is attempting unique intepretations seemingly without regard for how that impacts future movies when you're building a universe.
A Batman that kills also kills a great many potential Batman comic-to-movie adaptions they could have done. Now they're stuck with a Batman who ought to have reduced the Joker to ashes, and it doesn't seem to have been for a worthwhile reason - we don't get to have a "holy shit" moment where Batman crosses the line to killing in a future film now, because he explodes people without blinking in BvS.
and? every batman portrayal batman has killed so why does it matter? they have already explained a good reason why he started to kill and now they have shown a reason why he has stopped
there are no batman films where you think batman may cross the line and kill because he has killed in every batman film not including
the batman movie or batman and robin
Alienous also Jason Todd can't get mad at batman for not killing cause batman does
"Under the Hood" was a terrible story, and Jason Todd was right for criticizing Batman. By the way, Bruce is totally lying in that story: "A Death in the Family" firmly establishes that he is actively trying to kill the Joker, and it's a typical instance of Joker cheating death (by surviving a bullet wound to the chest and a helicopter explosion), not a case of Batman sparing him for ethical reasons. The only reason that Batman didn't tear the Clown Prince of Crime limb from limb immediately after Jason's death is that Superman prevented him from doing so to prevent an international conflict with Iran.
They can also still do Under the Red Hood, the approach would just have to change to trying to redeem Jason like Superman did Batman before he goes to far and starts killing innocents.
It's part of his narrative arc; he doesn't brand Lex in the end and states that he's inspired by Superman instead of being consumed by anger and existential crisis.
"It is important when approaching a text to approach it as it actually exists, and not as you hope or wish it exists" this is really good to remember, thank you!
"Sub-climax 3B"
Thank you for that, jokes at the expense of this movies horrible understanding of plot progression always make me laugh.
I thought the same thing.
"Nolan's Batman also Kills!"
Yeah, but Nolan's Batman TRIED not to kill.
Didn’t try so hard with Ra’s
Correct. But more importantly, you can't defend a putative mistake by pointing out that other people made the same mistake. This is called the "red herring" fallacy. We're talking about BvS, so bringing up Nolan's films is a distraction, not a defense.
@@JRA6192 Yes. I think this is the intent of the one and only scene in The Dark Knight Returns where Batman actually intentionally kills someone. It adds a touch of realism. In the course of stopping violent criminals, sometimes killing them is the right thing to do. That's why the police have snipers. But you do it consciously and only when you have no other choice. The car chase scene in BvS shows us a Batman who doesn't give a shit about killing people, even innocent bystanders.
BUT this could be seen as part of a character arc for Batman in the film, as I explained in my overly long comment above.
@@Sarcasticron I think the implied core of the defence here is "Nolan films are widely considered good films - Batman sorta killed in them, and people still liked these movies - You shouldn't criticize BvS for the deaths Batman caused"
@@The116thDoctor like in one time someone said , batman does not kill , the thing its sometimes batman dont stop someone to get kill by their actions , but is not the same , like the harvey dent
The Dark Knight interrogation scene but with Ben Affleck
BM: I only have one rule
J: Then that's the rule you're going to have to break to know the truth
BM: "snaps Joker's neck without hesitation"
"Abandoned doesn't mean empty" is a great line that I shall steal for my own superhero story.
Batman was initially conceived in the image of pulp characters like The Shadow, Doc Savage, The Phantom, Domino Lady, and so forth, all of whom took lives without a second thought. And indeed in the first Batman comics, he is portrayed as a gun-wielding vigilante who cracks jokes as he kills people.
Starting with the Silver Age Batman, however, we see the mythos modified such that Batman _never_ takes a life. And through the Silver Age through to modern canon, many writers have explored the reason why this is important: namely, that Batman may be the most dangerous man on the entire planet -- a planet which includes the likes of Superman, Wonder Woman, and Captain Atom, all of whom can destroys _worlds_ -- and cannot allow himself the luxury of killing.
Batman as an archetype exists as the fulcrum between nihilistic chaos on one side, represented by the Joker, and rigid oppression on the other, usually represented by Ra's al-Ghul. These characters turn up again and again in the canon because they represent what Batman could become should he fall either way, and why his self-imposed discipline is so important. But more than that, Batman has become as important a character within the collective unconscious as Hercules or Gilgamesh. He represents, ironically enough, the Superman -- the Nietzschean Ubermensch who rejects all external authority and holds himself to a rigidly-held internalized morality.
The reason why people object to Zach Snyder's version of Batman is because even though they may not consciously recognize it, on a subconscious level they recognize that his version is _not_ the same archetypal character. On an artistic level, the Snyder Batman may have merit, and may even be an interesting character to explore -- but he's not Batman. This would be manifestly obvious to anyone who has read Alan Moore's Watchmen and then seen Snyder's version. Alan Moore is on record as saying he did not intend for Rorschach to be the hero of the story, nor for him to be a sympathetic character. The purpose of Watchmen, and why it was so important to the comic book genre, was that it was a deliberate subversion of the superhero comic book tropes. Snyder, on the other hand, played Watchmen straight, clearly unaware of any of the deeper subtext Moore intended.
In the end, then, the reason Batman's willingness to take a life in Batman v. Superman is wrong is because on a subconscious level it _feels_ wrong. The Ubermensch must be held to a higher standard than ordinary humans. His will is both manifest and unbreakable; that's what _makes_ him the Ubermensch.
NoJusticeNoPeace Snyder asks, "if this Batman guy existed, fighting criminals above the law, using fear as his tactic as a coping mechanism to deal with his parents death, that saw good people become corrupt, that had a pseudo-son tortured and killed, and then suddenly is faced with a being on Earth more powerful than man, how would he react?" Snyder reasomably asks this question, and the answer that he concludes is that such as person who has dealt with trauma in such an unhealthy way would most certainly react in an even more unhealthy way.
But Snyder also asks, what would it take to get this person to begin to deal with his life in a healthy way? And he answers by saying that if Batman can connect to the best of humanity (the sacrifice of Jesus) then he can be saved and in turn can impact the world as a better person.
This would be far more meaningful if Superman weren't also an asshole.
That is factually ridiculous and you know it
+Folding Ideas You're looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope. Superman is _also_ poorly characterized, more in keeping with someone like Hyperion -- who was designed as a more "realistic" (ie/ less iconic and more violent) subversion of Superman. This brings me back to my initial criticism, that Snyder doesn't appear to understand that a subversion ceases being a subversion when it becomes the primary vehicle for the character.
Most people can't articulate it, but they prefer the Avengers because it's bright, colourful, and larger than life, all the things which make four-colour comics appealing. The Snyderverse just feels mean-spirited and small, which is I guess a commentary on modern culture when this is what's equated with "greater realism."
Dark and brooding doesn't have to mean small. I'm a huge fan of the O'Neil Batman. In fact he's my favourite version, the whole "creature of the night" Batman, with 30 foot cape and giant, pointy ears. Standing around on rooftops full of gargoyles in the rain and a slender acrobat's build rather than steroid monster helps make the character iconic and stylized -- and larger than life.
Honestly, Batfleck reminds me of Frank Miller's interpretation of Batman from All Star Batman and Robin and that's not a good thing. I think that Snyder never bother to read the comics and only look at the pretty pictures without understanding the context of those scenes he was using for his movie. Also, The fact that Bruce had to be reminded many times to hate Superman was very dumb. We just saw the Wayne Enterprise building got destroyed by Superman and Zod, wouldn't that be enough for his motivation? But no, the movie had to have a pointless dream sequence where Superman becomes a dictator. Speaking of Superman, he's very selfish because the only person he cared about is Lois and he only saves people when it's convenient for him. If it only took him a few seconds to go save Lois from falling, what's stopping him from looking for his own mom? Furthermore, Superman has no reason to say his own mom's name which felt very contrived. Lastly, I literally felt nothing when Superman "sacrificed" himself when he was killed by Doomsday.
People, who perform mental gymnastics to defend Batman's murders, truly terrify me.
What if they're just super flexible?
Арсений Брилёв You get scared awfully easily.
Kitnighty Easily? You mean, you don't get scared when you meet a bunch of people who think murder is OK?
Арсений Брилёв Weeeeeell, not usually...but especially not with fictional murder.
People have a weird relationship with fiction, where they support something in a story without even realizing how they should relate it to real life, or see what they would consider a crime in real life as a good device in fiction... I 'unno I'm not as smart as Dan, I can't explain it well
Point being, in my experience people see fictional murder differently than real murder, so I'm not concerned. I'm not too freaked out by people who just have a bad sense of baman's characterization.
...Also that comment of mine WAS pretty reationary, my bad. :(
Арсений Брилёв we aren't meant to defend his actions, Snyder wants us to reject them
Thank you for this tight and well-argued response to the debate over this topic. Initially, I thought that Batman recklessly killing people was a consequence of Snyder's reckless approach to the character: he claimed that in his primary inspiration for this film, The Dark Knight Returns, Batman kills people all over the place, when in fact he kills only ONCE and it's framed as "I had no choice" exception. HOWEVER, Moviebob managed to convince me that the intent of the story was that we were seeing Batman at his worst, and that the much-derided "Save Martha!" bit was supposed to be read as Batman symbolically saving his own mother, and thus a healing moment that enabled him to go forward as the Batman we're familiar with. But the film is such a mess that the narrative intent doesn't come across. Yes, after these events Batman decides not to brand Lex in prison--and POSSIBLY this is meant to tell us he's become less brutal--but nobody notices because we're too distracted by Lex's stupid "ding ding ding ding" thing or the fact that Lex magically knows both Batman's and Superman's secret identities, but never bothers to tell anyone or use this knowledge in any way. Or by the inexplicable decision to cast Jesse Eisenberg as a crazy Lex instead of an older, cool, calculating and charismatic Lex in the vein of Clancy Brown from the DCAU. I should probably stop before I get lost down the rabbit hole of bad decisions that ruined what should have been a great film...
Actually, Miller said the shooting of the Mutant Girl in "DKR"was non lethal and he made a mistake by leaving it up to interpretation(Batman shot her shoulder he said). Even the dialogue in the same chapter says it when Batman considers blasting the Leader point blank with the Bat Tank, that "it would be crossing a line I made for myself years ago." Then he says "Can't have a backdoor Alfred. I might be tempted to use it."when he climbs out to fight the Leader face to face. Not exactly something we'd expect to hear from a recent murderer, is it?
However, you can consider the Jokers suicide a murder if its because Batman broke his neck first and Joker took the advantage to break it the rest of the way. :P
The movie was doomed to sh'ttiness the second snyder was involved.
This "artistic" choice has severely limited all of Batman's future encounters with super-villains. Why not kill Joker, Harley, Poison Ivy, Mr Freeze, Penguin, Catwoman etc? He never hesitates for henchmen so if he ever encounters and goes the non-lethal approach to a arch-villain then it will seem out of character and a dumb choice. NOTE: You could argue that he didn't kill Harley in Suicide Squad because he didn't have to, but we will see in future encounters.
Minus the road scene most of those "deaths" are very questionable. Who dies from getting punched in the face a few times? Or even pretty hard? If that fight killed as many people as he said all mma fighters would be dead. Watch some ufc or even mc folley getring thrown off a 40 ft steel cage and tell me getting dropped a floor would instantly kill someone. Theres only 2 people in that fight who were dead understandably maybe 3 if noone got the hanging guy down.
@@BigBeerus Well, if you'd listened to the video, he pointed out when they died versus when they were incapacitated. That's what 'casualty' means. Also, are you telling me the guys who were laying next to the grenade or the fuel tank explosion didn't die?
@@Lyoko1309 nope. Re watch stoopid. He literally counts them as dead
Because after Superman dies, Batfleck realizes his fall. It's a redemption.
Big Beerus well you may not die from being punched in the head but I think that dying from being blown to shreds by a machine gun and then exploding in a fireball of death is quite likely. What is your point?
I always considered the "no kill rule" as the essential line drawn between Batman and the loonies he fights. He's essentially just as crazy as they are, but not killing is what separates him from their madness, or surrendering to his own. Killing people will take him down that path and then he'd just be like the Joker from the opposite angle.
He’s shouldn’t kill because then gordon wouldn’t be able to work with him, but joker and scarecrow and twoface wouldn’t be missed if batman killed them.
@empireofthewolves9881 he dresses up as a bat and fights goons instead of using his money to prevent crime. He was fuckin nuts well before his no killing rule.
@empireofthewolves9881 I mean the no killing rule is the only thing that keeps him in the realm of superhero
Except it doesn’t, because killing villains does not make you “ just as bad as them.”
The problem with this film is not that he kills, it's WHY he kills.
The warehouse murders are justifiable. Whether you believe he's in the right to kill them or not, you have to admit there are enough stakes for him to consider this option. He's trying to save an innocent person's life that is in immediate danger (Martha). It's something that Keaton has famously done as his Batman, and even Bale on very rare occasion when he didn't have any other choice.
The other murders? Are completely nonsensical. The chase? There's no immediate danger in that scene to ANYONE. The people working for Lexcorp could have been a perfectly legal security company - they're not transporting any dangerous weapons. They're transporting a rock that's completely harmless to any person in the world other than Superman (a character which Batfleck already intends to kill - I'll get to that later). Not only is he able to obtain it later, making the chase completely pointless in terms of storytelling, he also starts a lethal attack by trying to ram his car into the security company. They respond with fire in self-defense and Batfleck proceeds to MURDER them.
He also tries to MURDER Superman, with complete intent and without any justification for it. He does it, understanding that Superman acts in the name of good (which has been established numerous times within the film and Batfleck acknowledges this in his conversation with Alfred). He does it because Superman MIGHT be bad in the future. You could argue that he does it because of inherent racism as well (the Kryptonians destroyed Metropolis and he blames the only living Kryptonian for that).
This is why this is the worst characterization of Batman on screen in history. Affleck isn't as bad in the role as Kilmer or Clooney... but in terms of characterization, those Batmen were at least coherent within their films and actually heroic, whereas Batfleck is a complete failure. He's an unlikable murderer, whose only real lesson at the end is... to not murder people? He doesn't even get his deserved comeuppance for the murders he comitted. To set up your main DC hero as that is just a terrible choice. If you're trying to paint your greatest hero as a villain in the film, that's fine, I guess, but give this story and logical conclusion and not just "oh, well, I learned my lesson". It's like Snyder really had a hard on for TDKR comic, not really understanding it in the first place and then trying to establish his Batman as that, without the whole process of showing how his Batman fell to such lows of lows.
And to think that some people say that this is the best Batman just kills me...
Nice but what you are missing is that Batman is the villain of this movie for most part, I am a big Batfan but I loved this.
Also, he didn't had reason to go so low? His parents died, Robin died, Metropolis was destroyed, he literally had scene in which whole of humanity was destroyed and there was random guy telling him that you were always right about him, also it's been 20 years of him fighting crime, just because he's the goddamn Batman doesn't mean he's not vulnerable to all these physical and mental problems.
I so agree. People love it because it's the newest, but I absolutely hated it from the second I saw the new costume and the weird grey racecar batmobile.One of the things you have a little wrong is the DKR version of Batman. That one has been proven to NEVER kill. Not once in the history of the comic.Miller even said he made a mistake because he left the Mutant Girls fate in the "I believe you"scene up to interpretation(they made it obviously non lethal in the animated film version with Batman shooting her hand instead of her shoulder).
See, if they made Batman way different, it would have been better. Have him afraid of Superman and angry for being an idiot and killing all those people and flying to fight the world harvester in the ocean instead of in the inhabited area of Metropolis. Have him consider killing Superman. The FIRST time he considers ever killing, because Superman, in this version, is not human to him. Have him consider it, battle with the moral repercussions. If he does it, have that be the start of his "redemption"arc because he realizes he made a mistake by murdering a man who wanted to save his mother. Have him "save MMmMMMMMAAARRRTHTHHHAAA"non lethally as possible. Have him gather a team to be the Justice League. No Doomsday needed. Wonder Woman can have her standalone film and not have it tied to Justice League. Theres no need to have sixty dream sequences.
And why does Batman gather the Justice League? Because he realizes his authority cannot be absolute. He can make histakes. He HAS made the mistake and now he has to atone for it.
This movie was just a rush to "Death of Superman"without any emotional buildup or attachment to the character of Superman(and the origin compared to comic Doomsday was awful)where we KNEW he would come back the second he died, and a rush to the battle in the ending of "DKR" without any of the emotional relationship built between Bruce and Superman, which is the main THEME of the bloody final fight of DKR! That is a battle of wills, with Superman being a government puppet and Batman showing Superman for once that he was beaten by a human, getting Clark to let him do what he needs to from the shadows. Instead, they take the dialogue and haphazardly cut it so it can match the scene, but it doesn't WORK in Snyder's version.
No, no, the problem is THAT he kills. The WHY is irrelevant.
And there is no such thing as a "justifiable murder", that's a fucking oxymoron.
And also there's no such thing as "no other choice but to kill", because there's ALWAYS another way. Fuck you for even implying that.
Assuming that Batman sets up a situation where people "accidentally happen to die" denies the only truly universal trait of Batman, he is a Holmesian detective who plans all action meticulously. This is how he can fight alongside powered heroes and beat powered foes. He did the math, he planned ahead, he knew what he was doing. This is why he was pivoted to not kill in the books, his intelligence, forethought, and planning in fights that end in death would only make him a serial killer.
You know it's funny Zach probably wrote Batman that way because he thought it made him look more intimidating and powerful when the opposite is true, any moron can kill/end a life but they could have demonstrated Batman's skills WAAYYY batter had they showed that through all these fights and conflicts he was able to end them all without killing anybody because think about how much improv and intutive thinking a person would have to do whilst fighting through a barage of thugs and gunfire. Imagine holding your own and winning without ever resorting to cheap instant wins such as just shooting or breaking a guys neck etc.... it would show Batman as more intelligent while at the same time making him seem 2x as strong and scary because the audience would have been fearfull watching him thinking "holy shit...if he really wanted to he could kill these guys...but he doesn't because he doesn't need to, *yikes* imagine if he didn't care about killing"
Idk this is all just my opinion but I think alot of people agree he would have been a better character in this franchise had they keept him from being an extremist vigilante...
No, dude, this isn't just your opinion. You're 100% objectively correct. It makes a character look infinitely more competent to solve situations without taking lives.
the warehouse scene was the best showcase of batman's skill. instead of thugs attacking him one by one as we see in the other batman movies, the thugs in thewarehourse scene are actually smart and attack in a pacl
It's nice to see the crates from Half Life 2 make an appearance.
I think that's just how crates look like sometimes.
Is it wrong for me to say that on the tail end of the Nolan movies, which had the thesis statement of "Don't kill people", this was the wrong creative direction to go with for Batman?
I don't mind Iron Man or Captain America killing terrorists, and in theory I don't mind Batman using lethal force to stop criminals in extreme situations, but to so completely jack knife away from the guiding principles of the previous incarnation while it is so fresh in people's minds just strikes me as silly.
What makes it worse is that if Batman does kill in this universe, why in heaven's name is Joker still alive? Cause if anyone is going to get killed by Batman it is that guy.
Joshua Pelfrey i think the conflict would be more interesting if the first time he breaks this rule would be a friend. It would mean more internal conflict for batman
You're right. It makes it seem like he doesn't kill people like the Joker because he likes the sport of it and nothing more...
You are right. :)
Joshua Pelfrey Alfred specifically says to Bruce "new rules" and tell us that this reckless Batman is just emerging due to Superman's presence. So we can assume since Superman's arrival he hasn't had a meaningful confrontation with the Joker
Planet G I don't think these movies are thought out enough for that kind of detail citing to be meaningful. Especially considering there is a confrontation with Joker and Harley in "Suicide Squad"
No, you see, Batman never kills anyone because he's firing rubber bullets. Rubber bullets can't kill anything, even if fired from a tank.
-Frank Miller is the worst thing to happen to Batman-
The problem is that it is a big deal, because the vast majority of the Batman canon treats it like a big deal. I also can't actually think of any of the animated stuff where he kills. Movies and comics, sure.
Rory Walker Why Frank Miller? Contrary to what pro-Batmurder fans claim, Batman is against killing in TDKR. They make a pretty big deal out of it several times.
Because he's against murder but shoots people with rubber bullets bigger than a man's head and drives a tank. The Dark Knight Returns is the epitome of the narrative bending over backwards so that nothing Batman does is lethal. Everything Dan complained about in this video is the kind of thing Miller's Batman would do, but somehow _still_ not be a murderer, even after putting normal human beings through concrete or hitting them with his car.
Not to mention that whole plot with Batman using his ridiculous plot powers to paralyze The Joker after putting a batarang through his eye and still leaving him alive, only for the narrative to follow that up with Joker somehow snapping his own neck and suddenly everyone wants to Batman to pay for killing a man in self defense.
God I hate TDKR.
Rory Walker that really shouldn't be enough to base his writing off, have you read the killing joke?
What does that have to do with anything?
It bothers me that death is treated so non-nonchalantly in Superhero films. Though Zack Snyder's DC films are the most extreme of this, with Snyder even going as far as believing Superman needs a origin to his objections to murder, the entire genre has a habit of hand waving over what can only be brutal murder.
So a no win situation is murder???
Robin Snyder shows us that we should reject violence. The MCU gloriifes violence by making it "look cool". How many people does Cap recklessly kill in CATWS by approving and leading a plan that has helicarriers destroy each other straight after giving a speech admitting that there are innocents on board.
Snyder wants the violence to feel more real, so we feel uncomfortable with it because it makes the hero who stands against it more heroic. On the opposite, Cap can not be considered heroic given he recklessly kills without rejecting his actions.
Snyder shows us that Batman feels contrition immediately after he shares his moment with Superman, and then by observing Superman he starts down a healthier path of reconciling with his past by being willing to find and work with allies. This shows us a Batman who is a better human being than ever previously depicted.
I'm not giving MCU a pass at all. It just feels so alien for characters in Snyder films to have a origin to their not killing ideology. Snyder's hero's exist in a world where people need to be taught not to kill and that just feels so fucking insane.
Robin again superman was put in a No win situation and he took no pleasure in taking Zod's life, also if just wanted to .end Zod he would of killed him the instance he got the upper hand. He was pleading with Zod to stop
The problem I have with this interpretation of BvS as somehow critical or cautionary of the aesthetic of violence, that you're supposed to be repulsed and takeaway some message about the cost of violence, is that it's indistinguishable from Snyder's films where there's no attempt at critical subtext of any sort.
The simplest explanation is that this is just what Snyder thinks is cool.
I mean, keep in mind that Todd McFarlane and Rob Liefeld spent the 90s creating stuff just as grim and violent and stupid as BvS because they thought they were writing the raddest comics ever made.
My feeling is that they should reboot the universe after having an movie where it's revealed that we're in the Justice Lords universe.
that would honestly be too clever for them to do
Justice Lords or have Flash reboot it via Flashpoint,but DC wouldn't dare let anyone but Batman lead the show.
Well, having a movie titled "Justice League" with a plot twist that they're "Justice Lords" will probably cause more damage for a potential reboot.
I doubt any studio exec at WB has ever heard of fucking "Justice Lords"
no dceu is awesome the way it is, this is a 45 year old batman that has had enough, if I wanted comicbook accurate batman i would read a comicbook
It doesn't make sense though that Batman's been going at it for 20 years and has no problem with killing but hasn't killed the Joker yet.
maybe it's because secretly he respects the life of The Joker more than nameless "thugs"
bravetherainbow that’s such a dumb reason. the joker has probably killed tons of people so why wouldn’t Batman kill him.
@@bravetherainbow joker is the exact opposite of batman in everything. How can he respect joker?
This same thought has been on my mind for a while. Batman didn't kill Joker after the death of Dick Grayson. Instead, he punched out his smile and send the bloody pulp to Arkham. He never directly killed, and when he did, he found ways to justify or disassociate from these killings. Remember, Bruce Wayne is mentally ill whether he acknowledges it or not. In his mind, he hasn't killed, and killing Joker or Superman would have made him "cross the line," this imaginary code he's constructed for himself. It is noble to give mercy to one's enemies, but what Batman is doing isn't mercy. It's justifying his means of delivering justice, and it's cruel. Alfred says as much. That's why this film, and Justice League, is Batman's redemption story. (I know Knightmare Batman straight-up murders and threatens to kill Joker slow, but that's off in the future so that isn't set in the timeline just yet).
This video is very impressive in terms of technical quality and content. You deserve more subscribers man, keep it up
I have my copy of Blue Lily, Lily Blue by Maggie Stiefvater on hand. Here's a quote I enjoy from a villain of the novel, an ambitious trophy wife named Piper, who is trapped in a cave after a rockfall and likely suffering some head trauma.
"It wasn't that Piper had been unconscious for hours. In action movies of the sort [her husband] had always hated and she had always loved, heroes were always knocking out henchmen instead of shooting them. It's how you could tell they were the hero. Villains shot minions; heroes knocked them out with a punch to the head. Then, a few hours later, they came to and went about their lives. Piper had read a blog post pointing out that this wasn't really possible, however, because if you were unconscious for longer than a minute or two, it was because you had brain damage. And that post was written by a doctor, or someone who said they used to be a doctor, or someone married to a medical professional, so Piper thought it was probably true. Truer than those action movies, anyway.
As she lay there in the cave, she thought about all the brain-damaged thugs in Hollywood, spared by dashing heroes who thought it would be kinder than killing them."
I think a much more sensible rule is that Batman doesn't use guns and doesn't intentionally murder people. It's the difference between necessity and collateral damage versus cruelty, maliciousness and premeditated murder. Batman in BvS doesn't kill out of necessity, accidentally, by inaction or by using their weapons against them. He often does it with the full intent of ending the other person's life. That's what makes his kills in BvS much more off-putting than in other adaptations and comic books.
exactly, it's the difference between a good, upstanding cop, who has to shoot a criminal because there is no other way to apprehend him, and a murderous cop, who shoots to kill at the first sign of resistance.
man do you people like the taste of jackboots or what
glad we have a superhero like Batman to explore the ideas of holding to strong principles like "don't murder people cruelly and for no reason"
@@sacredlamb3021 at what point is it "necessary" for cops to kill people with guns
Well said!!!
i appreciate the kitten at the end, i really do
its so goddamn fluffy 😢
Batman: "Superman is so reckless, and his fighting in our cities has caused so much damage and loss of life! This is why I hate him!"
Also Batman: *Lures a giant monster to a city which is then partially destroyed and murders numerous people instead of incapacitating or restraining them*
Having Batman kill casually undermines the dillema of killing Superman.The whole Batman goes against Superman is built up as the big event. But if you look at it from the POV of this Batman it would be just another day at the office. Is it really believable he would stop when he heard Martha if he's already used to killing regular humans? Or better yet would Batman view himself as the mugger who killed his parents? I mean in the story that was a simple robbery gone wrong. Batman wants to kill Superman on the idea that he's too powerful and potentially dangerous.(something the movie doesn't ultimately answer) Are we to believe a Batman used to killing who thinks he's on a mission to save humanity would suddenly lose it when hearing Martha? Really? Eh
Lmao that whole scene is so stupid i can’t believe some people actually view as some sort of philosophical deep moment. It’s literally just a cheap excuse for the fight to stop. The Martha scene is also implying that Batman’s reason for sparing Superman is not because he realizes that Clark is human and has a mother just like everyone else, but instead it’s just because their mothers have the same name? thus making Batman sympathize with him more or something??? it’s just a stupid coincidence. What if Superman’s mom was named Carol? Would Batman impale him without a second thought?
Yes really..... saying save my mom doesn’t do anything, Batman already acknowledges Superman has parents “I bet your parents taught you that you mean something” saying the name Martha hits a nerve, Martha reminds him of his mom. When he then told that Martha is Superman’s mom, it makes Bruce realize oh shoot this is a boy, like me, he came trying to save his mom, so he’s utterly disgusted by what he did.
“But... that makes no sense”
Psychology isn’t easy to understand, everyone’s mental psychological mind is different based on different circumstances and the individual person.
@@SAMSARALIVEEEEEE Wow what a pretentious comment
I think this might be the most important criticism of Batman killing
Yea, the whole thing kinda breaks down when you have to ask "okay but how many people did you kill on your way to try to kill him?"
Batman is my favorite example when I think about how much a character or any preestablished idea can be manipulated before it becomes something totally different.
people were saying Batman didn't kill anyone? Wow.
Delusions are a terrible disease. It destroys one's ability to access basic logic.
Batman didn't kill those people, his car, fist and batmo-guns did. Lel.
Some are even saying that the kills made using the Batmobile is considered manslaughter and not murder. Which is therefore apparently ok.
Because fuck logic.
The yellow-highlighted text says Batman didn't murder anyone. You responded by saying Batman indeed killed people. Murder is killing but killing isn't always murder. You... you do get that right?
I mean, I saw an interview with Zack where he claimed Batman did not kill people directly, only though circumstances. And he was the director.
Obviously that claim is entirely ridiculous. It would be like saying: Guns and People don't kill people, nor do bullets, nor does loss of blood; brains turning off kills people. So therefore it is not Batman's fault.
But I think it is interesting that the director of the film itself can't get behind his own interpretation of Batman. It is like he wants Batman to simultaneously be a moral beacon in line with the modern fantasy, while also getting "gritty and dark" action scenes. Congnative dissonance with who his characters actually are would explain a lot about that movie.
Worth pointing out that in the extended cut of the movie Thug I leaves a huge blood stain on the wall when he hits, indicating his head pretty much exploded on impact.
Lol ok soo 3 casualties and alot of injuries in the warehouse fight.... doesnt equal what he tried to claim at all
You are making TOO much sense. How has the internet not imploded as a result of your presence? You are a treasure!
If he kills then:
A) The joker should definitely be dead.
B) He wouldn't have a consistent rogues gallery (unless he's just been fighting petty crime for 20 years) and WB won't have a franchise.
C) The conflict arises out of his fear toward a being that kills w/out impunity - so he responds by killing throughout the film.
He only kills in this movie dummy!!!
I am so sorry for Zack Snyder's recent loss, and in light of this it kind of sucks that I have to say this next part, but everything in this video proves exactly why he is the wrong director for these movies. He is on the other end of the spectrum from Joel Schumacher, on a spectrum where either extreme is bad.
this aged well
@@arish_xo "Zack Snyder maybe understands superheroes better than Joss Whedon" is not the flex you think it is. Yes the Snyder Cut was better, but that was because Snyder at least isn't openly contemptuous of the actors and the source material. He still doesn't "get" Batman as a character. There's a reason why "Batman doesn't kill" is referred to as "the Batman rule" and that's because it's a defining aspect of his character.
@@numb3r5ev3n sure he doesn't get batman, but that doesn't mean he improved the 2017 movie by a mile. Im not saying it has zero flaws, but what he gave us was way better than what wb had in mind.
@@numb3r5ev3n and its important to note that there can be different interpretations of batman, but this one was where he went a rough road. Even Alfred made a comment about changing the rules.
I am SO GLAD, I stumbled upon your channel. This channel, MrSundayMovies and h3h3 are now my alltime favourites. THANK YOU!
For me, the most interesting version of Batman is one where not killing is one of his core beliefs, and a character defining one as well. This is a belief that can be used, and has been, to create great stories and conflicts within Batman narratives. It widens the range of emotional impact of deaths in the story, such as the times when he feels he has no choice, kills by accident or indirectly. For me it really is a defining characteristic of the Batman I enjoy the most, so the BvS one is harder for me to appreciate as is the case for many others I suspect.
They should bring all these henchmen back as vengeful cyborgs.
Huzzah you're back! I've missed your excellent analyses and content. Glad to see another video :) Keep up the good work!
That's one of the best UA-cam opinions on this film!
To be realistic there is no way for Batman to do his job without never killing anyone
3 years ago, you talked about all the destruction in man of steel.
BvS more or less adresses this.
Now you talked about batman killing people in BvS
Justice league will adress batman killing people in BvS confirmed.
I believe BvS only addressed this due to the criticism against MoS. MoS does not even present all the destruction as a bad thing. Just generic destruction that didn't show the aftermath. BvS did show the aftermath and they don't touch why Batman kills so many people. If they do address it in Justice League, it's only because of criticism against BvS.
a.i. Zack Snyder is a shitty director/producer.
Sangie Nativus MoS didn't need to show the aftermath of the destruction because the movie was about the birth of Superman and celebrating his arrival on Earth ( "welcome to the planet"), not on the pain the world had to endure to birth him. Like a mother baring a child those issues get dealt with some time after the joy of a new born is replaced with, "what next?"
That movie was so confused about what it was about that it's about everything and nothing all at once. It's a bad movie.
Folding Ideas not trying to defend the movie, just found it slightly amusing.
Oh, that was a response to Planet. UA-cam changed the dashboard's behaviour again.
Fun fact:batman has killed in every movie universe (yes even in the 1966 TV series), in the 1966 series he accidently punches a sailor henchman in which the impact turned him into anti-matter, disintegrating and killing him, obviously almost every henchman and villian that tries to fight batman dies, in the dark knight trilogy he blows up a group of league of assasins members, he technically kills ras AL ghull by not saving him from a train crash he helped cause, this probably shouldn't count but he throws about 3 dogs to they're death in the second movie, he accidently tackles two-face to his death, he shoots a league of assasins driver in the third movie, he accidently kills Talia AL ghul, batman has no problem shooting and blowing up lexcorp members and parademons in the dceu and 2017 justice league movie and batman accidently causes a car crash in the new the batman movie causing at least 4 deaths
In Dark Knight trilogy he killed those ninjas by setting off the explosives *before* he became Batman, that hardly counts.
I think Ras al Ghul was a situation where Ras could've saved himself by jumping off the train (at least in theory), but chose not to try. This is much like in the "Justice League Crisis on 2 Earths" cartoon film where the camera goes out of the way to show that Owlman still had time to disarm the bomb Batman teleported him with before it went off, he just chose not to.
I will admit that BvS' soundtrack was quite good, *especially* Wonder Woman's theme - I'm very glad they're keeping that track for her solo film.
"I'd rather lose sleep over the one person I killed than all of the ones I didn't save."
- Wraith, "Marvel's Spider-Man 2"
why any batman fan likes zack snyders movies is just beyond me
Here's the thing. Despite my objections to it, I would have been completely okay with Batman committing murder, IF THEY BUILT BATMAN'S CHARACTER UP TO THAT. Don't just throw it in like it's normal, actually treat it like a big deal and make him wrestle with that.
Can't wait for your justice league breakdown. I was so impressed with the over selling of cut aways to facial expressions.
Batman not killing is 100% a core rule. If he's a killer, he's not Batman. Even crazy ass Frank Miller knew that.
You do realize he killed countless people in his original like 650 comics right? Like tons of people. Almost casually. Try actually knowing about what your talking about. He kills a person a comic in his 1st 3
flashpoint batman killed and he was a great alternate take on the character.
I agree, I have no problem with Batman killing (hell, it would be boring to not see any killing). But in the context of the movie it makes Batman a huge hypocrite.
Alvaro Delgado That's the point. He fixes that in himself by the end.
Alvaro Delgado I'm opinion the difference between Superman and Batman is that Superman only killed criminals while in Metropolis many people including innocents died
@@jaji136 No, the OP showed us that at least one innocent bystander (the tanker truck driver) was killed in the car chase scene.
men , it will be better and more interesting if batman does not kill , because it makes a much richer character , what are you saying dude , go and see i dont know rambo
But you SHOULD have a problem with Batman killing. He's supposed to be a good guy, and no killing is his primary rule.
I was actually in the middle of typing that in some continuities such as dk Batman has very little regard for life but you brought it up good job. that was never the problem with it in bvs and I'm glad you brought it up
I interpreted this film as Batman basically being like the old, Frank Miller "I don't give a fuck anymore" Batman, and Superman reignites his lost idealism.
Of course, Batman is absurdly murderous in Burton Batman flicks, yet I didn't see many complaining about it. For some reason, they have a problem this time around, but back then, no one said a word.
The film wasn't especially popular. And the killing was a clear tonal choice. They then kill the Joker.
This seems more like a choice put of apathy. Him still having a rogues gallery makes no sense if he's fine with murder.
@@mnm1273 Are you saying that Batman from 1989 wasn't popular?
@@ElPayasoMalo It's a 7/10 film. Many Batman films were better receives. And as I've pointed out it being better the BvS is because of the tonal choice at least being well executed and internally consistent. They commit to it.
@@mnm1273 That movie blew the fuck up. Everyone had BAT-FEVER. It's not my favorite movie, but it was inescapable for quite a while.
@@ElPayasoMalo When I call it a 7/10 I am literally just describing its average score. You're a BvS supporter it seems of course an alright Batman film is going to seem great.
So, try to understand your biases towards text then leave them at the door while you explore everyone else's.
Gods, how come I've never learned about context in the way you teach it before I saw your episodes. Seems vital.
This was superbly edited and, unlike most BvS video essays, did not shove an opinion down the viewers throat. I do think it is pertinent to mention, however, that the widely accepted view of the cause of Batman's bloodlust is not for sake of character revision, but instead to apply to his character arc. Wayne's use of violence reflects his jaded personality and view of justice after the death of Jason Todd and the deaths of his employees during the black zero event. His sudden relaxed approach to killing is used in effect to lead up to the fight between Superman and his sudden realisation as to his position. The edit says it all, with the intercut scenes of the Wayne's murder and Superman's pleads as well as Affleck's enraged expression, it all builds to this moment and is then cemented with Superman's sacrifice. I do believe this was intentional as Snyder is enough of a fan to realise that Batman doesn't kill, using Bruce's renewed faith in humanity as a catalyst of this. Still, a great video.
Some folks do claim Batfleck didn't kill anyone, and I heartily disagree. The Batmobile careening through that trailer is the most cut and dry example. That cat ain't getting back up. That said, even more people claim this Batman defied some holy writ by killing, which is also ridiculous. Keaton and Bale have certainly killed onscreen with no such resulting fanfare. I'm a little dismayed you didn't put much any emphasis on this false purism. It cuts both ways, but arguably deeper on one end. Nolan masked Batman's occasional deadliness well in his trilogy, but it is there. The residual (and ultimately false) impression that Baleman never took a life carried over quite strongly when it came to criticism of BvS.
lawoftheeast thank you. I remember when Bruce sorta killed the league of shadows in batman begins but that doesn't count I guess lol. In a way it doesn't because of self defense but Nolanites have their blinders on.
HeatForce Just calling it like it is, man. The League initiates, Dent, Talia, and whoever was in that stolen camo Tumbler. One could justify the body count in TDKR as being weighed against the threat of a nuclear bomb, but that's very similar to how Batfleck saw Superman, a deadly paradigm shift when it comes to defending the planet. He was willing to tear through those women-trafficking mercs to get to his only known edge against the being who could level human civilization in a day.
I think part of the reason there's been such a stink over it is simply that BvS is not a good movie or at least a particularly entertaining one. That makes any faults in its characterization of its central characters stand out more and creates an army of internet warriors determined to spout out everything that is wrong with it.
Aaron Loyd Great isn't it?
Aaron Loyd Uou also have the immediate comparison to Dark Knight to deal with considering its it's considered batman perfection
To be fair (and pre-watching), Batman has killed or legitimately crippled people repeatedly in every incarnation outside of the cartoonish ones. "Batman never kills" is a maxim that gets thrown around, but only through narrative fiat does he not kill, and even then the consequences of his actions would reasonably be either death or a life of being unable to pay hospital bills and a life of agony. Or, you know, bleeding to death in the snow, because Arkham City and Origins and Knight all take place in winter, and there is _no_ medical assistance available, especially since they lock it down and get kidnapped by the Riddler.
Even in the Nolan films, it's incredibly likely that he killed several people when he willy nilly went and blew some cars up to chase after people. And that's not even mentioning the *_ludicrous_* amounts of property damage he inflicts, including blowing up cars and tearing through a mall with a machine gun motorcycle.
I guess what I'm saying is "Batman never kills" only works because the writers decide that no matter how much force Batman uses, his victims survive, and this is one of the reasons that it bothers me so much.
yeah
keaton
kilmer
bale
there versions of batman all killed
I don't remember the other direct ways that Kilmer and Bale killed anyone, but I definitely remember Keaton throwing a motherfucker off a building and no one cared or noticed. (Bale also punched a dog out of a building)
Rory Walker
kilmer basically killed two face by throwing the coin he indirectly killed him knowing he would fall off
bale killed talia, two face , multiple ninjas
and many more
You know, the editing being what it is, I never really thought about that. Talia died in a truck chase and Two Face died in a struggle, but yeah, those were kind of Batman's direct fault. And I completely forgot Batman didn't want to kill one guy so he blew up a monastery. Including the guy he didn't want to kill?
Rory Walker yeah and all the poor ninjas that got knocked out inside
"Batman in any given adaptation needs to be approached as he exists within that adaptation before that adaptation can be approached as it exists within the broader mythology"
Thank you.
I always had it down that in Batman v Superman we're seeing a batman at the end of his rope.
He's lost everyone he cared about (except Alfred) and having the no killing rule or holding back is what he believes got Robin killed.
Batman believes if he had been more brutal, just eliminated criminals by whatever means instead of bringing them to justice through the law Robin and others he cared for may still be alive.
Which is illustrated when Alfred remarks that the branding is a new tactic and that Bruce Wayne as Batman is on a downward spiral "Turning good men cruel"
we see more evidence of this nothing to lose Batmans downward spiral in the future visions. In which he kills indiscriminately with guns and hand to hand, A true nightmare.
We then get the Superman fight which of course gets to the point where Batman is all but willing to take a life as a means to an end, sort of preventing future loss by doing what he had failed to do in the past under his no killing rule, as I said the Batmam in BvS is still the same no killing Batman we all know, it's just we meet him nearing the end of his career, and no going down a path of self destruction under the false pretence that this is the only and best way to get stuff done "No one stays good forever"
I do believe what we'll see in Justice League is a more recognisable Batman, back to no killing after his fight with Superman made him realise he was no better than a man standing over a child after gunning down his parents.
Another thing that is important here is that Batman could argue and deny these kills. He disassociates with stuff like "it was the Batmobile that killed them, they were driving recklessly, he pulled out that bomb or that flamethrower," etc, but the only time he is actually going to commit a premeditated murder is when he goes to kill Superman. When Lois arrives and Bruce hears that name, Martha, he instantly realizes he's about to become exactly what he fears most. Due to his action or inaction, a mother named Martha would die yet again. He wasn't going to let that happen. As for the final battle in the warehouse, Batman is definitely still doing the same thing he always does, but I think that's mostly due to the fact that he's just trying to get the job done to save Martha in time.
@@joshuacroyle8005 shitty justification for Batman killing
@@danielalvarado3846 I agree! That's why Batman realizes at the end of the film how far he really fell, which is why he rose to the occasion based on blind faith (blind as a bat LOL) in the Snyder Cut. It's also why the Affleck-directed Batman movie was gonna have Bruce basically having a mental breakdown as he realized just how much he disassociated and justified his killings. It would have been a heck of a movie!
@@joshuacroyle8005lmfao no he had blind faith because snyder thinks Superman is Jesus and everyone should be a proselyte for him
@@kushastea3961 Batman's not placing his faith on Superman LOL he's placing it on hope. He's a more enlightened Batman in the Snyder Cut kind of like Christian Bale at the end of TDKR. He's more at peace but he's on a mission too. I almost wish the story had ended with the Snyder Cut without any cliffhangers or set-ups for the future, because thanks to the Flash movie and the planned Snyder Cut sequel Batfleck is gonna be dead in both the Josstice universe and the Snyderverse now lol
MURDER. And then, kitten.
This video is extremely good in a way I can't articulate. Thank you!
I feel like having Batman not kill will make his character better
This is like CinemaSins, but good.
:/
This is not what they do.Cinemasins are pretty good.
@@goldbrick9611 The entertainment they produce is good. The content really isn't.
@@gnupfo That's inaccurate.I think most of their content is lit
Batman: I'm batman, I don't kill!
Blueface: yeah ight
I'll say this. If Snyder didn't go "well he doesn't kill people directly so it's fine" then I wouldn't have had that big of an issue and I doubt others would have as well. I can't say for certain but I'm pretty sure both Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan didn't try to weasel out of their versions killing people in interviews. If you're confident in your product and the creative decisions you've made, own it.
Yeah, I think the truth is he wants Batman to kill people, but he feels like he isn't allowed to say that.
I wish he would just commit, this Batman kills people, it's brutal and kinda cool.
It's actually an interesting take.
I really think he would've gotten away with it if he JUST had Batman doing the branding-iron-on-rapists thing to kill them by proxy, since other criminals are the ones actually doing the deed. That's still about as far as you can have Batman go while having him still be Batman but I think fans would've grudgingly accepted it.
But then Synder went had had "Batman" kill EASILY a dozen people in that ridiculous car chase, including with machine guns. Blowing up the guy with the flamethrower was just a final "fuck you"
Let's be honest, the only reason why Batman kills is because Snyder wanted to be edgy.
Not even Moore, Morrison or Miller (the best Batman writters) did that kind of shit.
Wanting Batman to redeem himself doesn't sound very edgy.
@@inshalmusic If course not. He was supposed to redeem himself in Justice League.
@@zhengyingli Batmam has looked for redemptiom before without the need of being a mass murderer tho. That's just not knowing how to play with anything but extremes
@@maxxvii2037 How was Batman a mass murder? Besides, mass murderers in fiction have redeemed themselves before.
Superman destroys his building.
*Goes on killing spree*
Thug kills his parents.
Batman: Who cares?
am i the only one that thinks batman letting people die works in the context of this movie?
it gave him some character development and some much needed layers to bruce. bruce is mentally unstable and jaded from all the losses over the years, and the robin suit could signify his breaking point. there is also dialogue between bruce and alfred to outline this.
the batman we see in the film doesn't go out of his way to kill anyone, but he doesn't go out of his way to prevent their deaths either-- he has a mission to do and he will get it done by any means. if he is attacked by lethal force, he will return the gesture because in his eyes that person just demonstrated their potential to harm others and, thus, their safety becomes void to him.
I know this is a huge deviation from the classic batman ideologies, but by the end of the movie he gives a little speech to diana (wonder woman) about how they can become better now (paraphrasing) and demonstrates this with lex in his jail cell when he decides not to brand him. So in the end he has returned to the status quo of not killing. honestly, bruce is the only one in this film with an actual character arc. if in the next movie he is still killing then i will 100% agree there is an issue, but for now i think it works well in this ONE film.
*of course, this is just my opinion.*
It would have been nice if it was "I don't have to save you", and indirect killing via the brand.
But then Batman blows up mother fuckers and flings his car into their head.
Would you ever do a folding ideas episode about cat videos?
There's something strangely calming about hearing you analytically describe how brutally Batman has murdered people
Bale and Keaton killed several people, but Affleck was more blatant about it. Hell, even the Batman of the Arkham games breaks people's spines and leaves them in obscure areas to slowly die.
While on the whole I like the Nolan trilogy better than Batman in the Snyderverse, at least they don't have Batman kill in this movie while the movie itself seems to insist that he does not kill. It always kind of alloyed me in the Nolan movies. He definitely killed some people in the ninja house. He killed Ras at the end. 'I won't kill you but I don't have to save you' doesn't apply when you're the reason the train is crashing. He kills Harvey Dent. He kills Talia al Ghul.
That's not to say that given the circumstances he should NOT have done what he did. But it is an issue, however small, with the Nolan trilogy I take with them. Batman has one rule. That he breaks in every movie but they never really confront this.
Opinion: I saw BvS in 2016 when I was in sixth grade. Having loved Batman my whole life, sixth grade me saw the warehouse scene and thought it was awesome. Batman was jumping around punching people and throwing them on the ground. It was cool to me. The guns and deaths didn't bother me, since I pretty much ignored them because I thought I was watching something mature, and that made me "cool".
Now I'm a sophomore, and my view on Batman has changed with the years I've learned about him more. The interesting thing about Batman is that he can kill, but doesn't. This makes all his villain encounters so much more interesting, because you don't know if that encounter will be the moment he snaps or not. If Batman whips out a gun and shoots Joker point blank in the first movie, he has no build up. He's just as bad as the criminals he fights. Batman saves lives because he doesn't want the same thing that happened to him happen to anyone else.
When I see this film now, the warehouse scene is still cool. But, Snyder's Batman is not my Batman. I see Snyder's Batman as a Batman who has snapped. Therefore, the fights are cool, but Batman isn't as a character. To me, he's just as boring as Lex Luthor in this movie. Batman is the ultimate superhero not only because he's a man like everyone else, but because his morality is tested with every villain he goes up against. When his morality is abandoned, it's interesting for a while, and then it's nothing. He's a mindless killer. With morality, it's forever engaging, as his morality can be tested time and time again in new situations, and might have new results or impacts. I'm personally glad we have Robert Pattinson's Batman on the horizon. I think Matt Reeves will make a trilogy that might finally fully realize the full potential of a Batman with morals.
Great video by the way!
The thing you might be asking for is the prequel of Batfleck's Batman.
Like he has been at it for 20 years and snapped when Robin died.
I want to see what he did before he killed and broke his code
I cant really count the scene where he is beating up thugs in the warehouse. Yes in reality, some of them would most likley die frominjuries, but even in versions of Batman where he refuses to kill, there is stuff like that. There are all the parodies making fun of how Batman claims he doesnt kill people, yet will hit people in ways where could very well have died. I always make fun of Arkham Batman, because he wont kill, but he will just knock people out and leave them in the snow, or in some cases, knock them out and into water. He doesnt kill people, but he will use explosives to explode walls that they are standing in front of. Or in Dark Knight Returns, where he is in a giant tank, running people over, and his gun fire is causing explosions, but they explain it away when the gang leader picks up a bullet and notices that he is shooting Rubber bullets
However the stuff where he is shooting guns, and running people over, clearly signifies an intent to kill. I mean you cant shoot a car mounted machine gun at people and expect people not to die. Nor can you bash your car into them. And like you mentioned, he brands people knowing it will lead to their death. I personally think its a bad idea, because Batman is trying to claim the moral high ground over Superman, by saying Superman is dangerous. But that doesnt work when BAtman is a killer. If it was just a stand alone movie, Id be ok with the creative decision, but if you are trying to do a Batman vs Superman movie, it makes no sense for Batman to be so unhinged.
Marcus Adams Yea the stab is bad, but the head smashing, I feel like Batman does that, and the medium just ignores that at the lesst that guy is going to be in critical condition afterwards
It was probably the best scene in the movie, so I let most of it slide.
Stef Tep So you're trying to say he's the Punisher? Further proving my point he's a killer and he did stabbed someone in the chest killing him in cold blood. After all he's Vengance personified, which is what the Punisher normally is. Trust me he's really out of character in this terrible movie. You saying he's "vengance personified" even proved it. I've never ever seen a comic where Batman has an obnoxious car chase with drug dealers (whatever it is) blowing them up Michael Bay style. My bad he did. In ASBAR, the biggest meme'd of a comic ever (which I think is the inspiration behind Joker who was also shit) until MARTHA came along. It's even in the same shot of the film a knife inserting to his chest. Mind you I'm not even going to mention how he roasted them to death by exploding that russian dude who did nothing but got a backstory in the Ultimate Edition like a Roland Emmerich further proving he killed that same guy. Cause whether he was stabbed in the chest or shoulder he'd still be in pain to where he can't escape out of that massive Independence Days style explosion. Meaning he either died a painful death by stabbing in the heart or burning to death.
I would argue you on this but you're probably a DC Fanboy who'll keep arguing over a ridiculously boring and incoherent mess of 2 films (Man of Steel was good so I'm not discounting it as bad because its 2 follow ups are) until this dumb argument gets redundant and boring.
Dylan MacKinnon I agree actually with you right there. It was the best scene for sure!
Stef Tep Whatever floats your boat.
I have a question. Would Snyder's movies be "better" if he didn't try to philosophize and deconstruct everything and just have action for action's sake and silliness like Michael Bay?
Dwayne Nevels Maybe? the problem with these movies deconstructing everything is that they do it so poorly and BvS even as just an action movie is still really boring
Looking at his filmography, yes. Whenever Snyder tries to be clever it becomes an unbearable, dank slog through a half-remembered freshman philosophy class. Whenever he gives up on clever we get something that's still grim but notably more enjoyable, like 300.
I feel like that's one of the parts of Snyder that can't reall be seperated from him.
Also, a superhero movie being just dumb action would be terrible. Superheroes require at least some semblance of an idea behind them, even if it's not super deep. Only character who could get away with that is probably the Punisher.
+Folding Ideas This response undercuts a lot of what I enjoyed about the actual video. No one stays good in this world.
No. That's the other extreme and that isn't the problem actually for me. Him trying to philosophize and deconstruct everything doesn't make his movies bad. It's that he does that badly, without any real meaning to his philosophizing or any real intent to his deconstruction, is the problem. Which isn't even touching on the fact that his execution has been unimpressive.
The infamous neck snap at the end of Man of Steel is a prime example. It was edge, sure, but I'd have to do a headstand wearing beer goggles before I can see it as thought provoking or intelligent.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that die-hard fans of Zack Snyder's movies don't understand the concept of tone
I feel as though there was an attempt made at explaining Batman killing in the film, but due to poor writing and execution, it just didn't happen (or happen well enough).
1.Bat-Veteran/Alfred's Discontent
"Getting slow in my old age."
"20 years in Gotham"
"The rule's have changed."
"Turns good men cruel"
With these quotes we see that this "career" is nothing new. Bruce has been at it for a while now, with Alfred right beside him. In the scene where Alfred presents a newspaper of the Bat-Brand on the first page, he questions,"New Rules?" He then begins to chide Bruce on his recent affairs. I suppose this can imply that Batman hasn't always been the way he was in this film and that the Bat-Brand is indeed a fairly recent change in behavior.
2.Robin
Before heading out to Lex's party, Bruce glances at a defaced Robin suit, presumably belonging to the deceased Jason Todd. For the average comic book fan, this is a big indicator of why Batman is so extreme in his methods. After Jason's death, Batman took a far more brutal approach to his crime-fighting. Unfortunately, the Robin suit in this film was poorly utilized, as that 3-5 second shot was all we got for it. Had it been given a little more time and properly explained, things regarding Bruce's behavior might've been more understood.
If Jason Todd is already dead, then shouldn't Nightwing be around somewhere?
Nukestarmaster Minding his business in Blüdhaven most likely, or just leading the Titans. And it's not hard to imagine that Bruce may have been shunned by the rest of the BatFamily for how he's acting (especially since Alfred is already on the verge of doing so himself)
Carter-Dono With how the DCCU movies have been going, I can imagine that he will be introduced halfway through a movie with no explanation or backstory leaving everyone not familiar with DC wondering who he is.
You're probably not wrong.
Carter-Dono
It's kind of sad how badly the DC/Warner Bros. studio is making it's movies.
I hate this movie to the fucking core, but I really like the Batman in it. It's heavily implied that ~something like~ A Death In The Family and maybe ~something like~ The Killing Joke occurs before BVS, the events of which completely break him. He just stops giving a shit about his one rule. The movie communicates his brokenness fucking terribly though, and even though he's supposed to be "cured" by his run-ins with Supes and WW, there's no evidence given that he got his shit together.
Suicide Squad's Deadshot flashback takes place in December 2015, about a month after BvS.
He apparently went from murdering for the past 2/10/20 years to simply endangering children to achieve his goals.
.....is that a step up or down?
Bluemew1234 that's a step on a kid
Lex killed over 100 people, including one of his former employees for the single purpose of breaking Superman and fueling Batman's rage. But Batman does not brand him with a death mark. You would think that, or the "Men are still good" speech would. be evidence enough that he changed. I guess not.
"You would think that, or the "Men are still good" speech would. be evidence enough that he changed"
To be fair, it's kind of stupid that Batman apparently went completely cold turkey on killing in the span of about a month, especially when you consider the guy who inspired that change was willing to kill people when he felt it necessary.
Awesome video. No, not for it's content, which is by now fairly repetitive all over you tube, but for reminding me to watch this awesome movie once again.
If you not only think that Batman didn't kill anyone in BvS but think that it's "absurd" to think he did, you're fucking crazy. You're crazy and I want you on a watchlist of some sort.
I like the idea of Batman (and Superman, and a good number of heroes at this point) assuming the same status as, say, Robin Hood or King Arthur. There are people who will insist that Robin Hood or King Arthur have to be a certain way, but we have literally thousands of books/movies/plays/TV shows/whatever that portray these characters in different lights, and...DC has already done this with both the Bat and Superman by themselves. In official books/movies/TV.
The idea that Batman doesn't kill as some sort of a hard rule is interesting to me, because the failure to adhere to a point not previously agreed upon does end with both people criticising this movie (and other media) because Batman kills and also the justification of how he really didn't kill anyone. Both the people who will attack it for perceived inconsistency and people who will try to insist on consistency.
Is it even possible to leave behind the baggage we have for these characters? Like, to truly do so when we go into such criticism? I'm fine with Batman killing, but that may also be because I grew up around the time of the Michael Keaton Batman movies, where yeah, Batman kills. For a lot of people, Batman has "one rule," which either involves killing, guns, or killing with guns. Whether it's canon or not for them, it's clearly character defining.
Amaranth "stock character" is the phrase you're looking for
I think the problem most people have is that his gadgets are interesting because they have to be non-lethal. If he just used guns, he'd basically be The Punisher.
Your narration of the warehouse scene makes it much better. Ahh finally the batman who knows his job
What pissese of is he kills all the henchmen but not the brains of the operation like joker im assuming riddler and penguin or deadshot crok and Harley quin
He only kills in this movie he didn't kill anyone before or after
why did you disable the likes/dislikes?
What do you mean?
it seems like the option isn't there. can't like the video nor does it show how many likes it has thus far.
What?
ah. i've noticed that you disabled the likes/dislikes option on all of your videos not just this one.
Huh?
Lol you described that warehouse scene like an educational alphabet segment from a kids show
It was great watching snyder try to damage control and explain why this was justified lol.
He tried to make it sound like batman had no choice but to kill them and that they got themselves killed... yup... Totally believable lol.
Why didn't he kill lex then?
You know what annoys me? Comic fans say that Batman has never killed and why doesn't anyone stay true to the source material which is the comics. In the original Batman comics, Batman did kill. When first introduced in the Detective Comics #27
, Batman did not have any concern about the lives of his enemies. His first kill was in Detective Comics #27, where he knocked Alfred Stryker into a vat of acid. Batman continued to murder criminals, cause their deaths or leave them in lethal situations. In early comics Batman used to carry guns and had no problem killing people. Later on in several comics he is seen killing "because he has no choice" or occasionally because he thought the person was too dangerous to let live. Comic fans who think lethal force is against the core of Batman are living in a dream world. They just tamed Batman just to make it all kid friendly.
Robin's armor displayed as though he is dead, specifically killed by the joker, is a clear allusion to "death in the family". So in the world of BvS, batman has supposedly gone through this whole ordeal of robin being killed to spite batman's kill rule, and now (maybe because of that) kills goons indiscriminately. Batman is also shown to be competent enough to kill Superman. And yet, the joker lives.
Even if this weren't a batman story, Zack would have created a protagonist who kills everyone in his way but spares the person who murdered his adopted son just to spite him.
That is of course assuming he would have replaced robin's armor with something bearing the same message. Which to be fair I don't think he would have, since he clearly didn't get the message behind the robin reference himself.
You do realize that trying to explain story-telling, adaptation and cinema logic in general to the ubiquitous snyder fanbase in the internet is literally wasting your time, right?
I contend that it's possible to change the mind of a political opponent (and that's the core of this debate, politics); it's just very rare. Also, as Contrapoints and other politically-minded You
Tubers have pointed out, the people you're trying to reach when responding to irrational people (Snyder fans, Republicans, etc) in a public forum are the uncommitted onlookers. Look at it this way: If we DIDN'T critique the claims of BvS fans, other people might end up thinking they were RIGHT. The goal is containment, not conversion.
@@Sarcasticron Uhhh first off Snyder fans aren't irrational. Every argument we make and every claim Is rational and has clear reasoning behind it.
Yes because the Snyder fanbase already knows all those things.
@@thewitcherking937 Is this satire?
@@dorianleakey no.
Holy shit man respect for making the video
"We're Criminals Alfred We've always been criminals, nothing's changed"
New Folding ideas video! Life is worth living again
Yeah, we'll get to see the next one in 2019.
joke's on you