Bat Brand of Justice

[The Laughing Fish]

I got an impression that the Gotham City police were divided over Batman's brutal methods in BvS.

On one hand, it seemed the police were enabling Batman's excessive violence, despite some scrutiny from the media. Even Clark in the UE, noticed this as he saw a cartoon sketch of a cop armed with a "baseball bat" while investigating Santos' death at the GCPD, and later threatened Batman not to respond if they light the Batsignal in the sky next time.

On the other hand, some cops had issues with Batman. One freaked out and shot at Batman at the house where Santos was branded, nearly hitting his partner in the process. The other cop mentioned "try not to shoot the good guys", which might mean Batman is bordering on complete outlaw territory...or it might mean he's trying to warn his partner not to be a clumsy and dangerous idiot, haha. Both cops look on with shock as they saw the mark that Batman left behind on Santos.

Even the cop at the GCPD who nodded at Clark to speak to Santos' girlfriend appeared to have some reservations over what Batman is doing, implicitly encouraging Clark, as a reporter, to gain further insight into how Batman is thought of becoming of a symbol of impunity as he is becoming intense.

[thecolorsblend]

I got the impression the police are split on the Batman. Some want him arrested yesterday, some are totally willing to look the other way. If there's a bat signal, he has some level of acceptance with the police.

[The Dark Knight]

Agreed. Same for the public. The best example is when Clark visits the apartment in Gotham. One woman says the only people who fear Batman have reason to. The other man basically thinks everyone should take no chances. Stay indoors and be safe. It's split. I think it's important to remember Batfleck has been around for 20 years. For the 'branding is OK' crowd, there's a sense of trust in him. He's a mysterious element but he has kept the people safe for a long time, and for that, he has credits in the bank. For the 'branding is not OK' crowd, there's a point where people lose the plot and must be stopped. The past means nothing and it's all about today.

Personally, I liked the branding plotline. Making the contrasts between Batman and Superman even greater than what they were previously. Making Batman a hardliner pushed to the extreme. Someone who really would raise the attention of Superman and generate debate such as this on the street. Someone who could also be positively changed from interacting with Superman. I think that's where the film succeeded. They were inspired by certain comics, such as TDK Returns and Kingdom Come, but did something fresh with the concept.

[The Laughing Fish]

I got the impression the police are split on the Batman. Some want him arrested yesterday, some are totally willing to look the other way.

That might also explain why Batman was hiding up in the attic when the cop found Santos all tied up, branded and beaten. He'd have no way of knowing if the cop would co-operate with him or not.

Personally, I liked the branding plotline. Making the contrasts between Batman and Superman even greater than what they were previously. Making Batman a hardliner pushed to the extreme. Someone who really would raise the attention of Superman and generate debate such as this on the street. Someone who could also be positively changed from interacting with Superman. I think that's where the film succeeded. They were inspired by certain comics, such as TDK Returns and Kingdom Come, but did something fresh with the concept.

I agree. It's too bad all of this gets ignored and misunderstood because some people genuinely thought the conflict between Superman and Batman was resolved thanks to their mothers sharing the same name. Between this and how  some people thought Martha was encouraging Clark not to care about humanity back at the farm, I can't decide which is the biggest screw-up by the audience.

[Dagenspear]

Personally, I liked the branding plotline. Making the contrasts between Batman and Superman even greater than what they were previously. Making Batman a hardliner pushed to the extreme. Someone who really would raise the attention of Superman and generate debate such as this on the street. Someone who could also be positively changed from interacting with Superman. I think that's where the film succeeded. They were inspired by certain comics, such as TDK Returns and Kingdom Come, but did something fresh with the concept.

Batman wasn't positively changed by interacting with Superman, because just interacting with a human person the way they do can't change people. Of course fighting and having something in common has nothing to do with interacting really. But it's funny that someone who brands people gains the attention of someone who smashes people through walls,

I agree. It's too bad all of this gets ignored and misunderstood because some people genuinely thought the conflict between Superman and Batman was resolved thanks to their mothers sharing the same name. Between this and how  some people thought Martha was encouraging Clark not to care about humanity back at the farm, I can't decide which is the biggest screw-up by the audience.

It's not ignored. Because there's nothing there. They don't really have any interaction like that. The conflict was literally resolved because their mom's had the same name. That's it. Batman wasn't inspired by Superman or his interaction with him in any way, because they didn't have an interaction that had any meaning to them as people. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[The Dark Knight]

I agree. It's too bad all of this gets ignored and misunderstood because some people genuinely thought the conflict between Superman and Batman was resolved thanks to their mothers sharing the same name. Between this and how  some people thought Martha was encouraging Clark not to care about humanity back at the farm, I can't decide which is the biggest screw-up by the audience.

Indeed. I know the haters can't stand it, so I'm going to say it. They simply don't get the movie. Period.

[thecolorsblend]

Personally, I liked the branding plotline. Making the contrasts between Batman and Superman even greater than what they were previously. Making Batman a hardliner pushed to the extreme. Someone who really would raise the attention of Superman and generate debate such as this on the street. Someone who could also be positively changed from interacting with Superman. I think that's where the film succeeded. They were inspired by certain comics, such as TDK Returns and Kingdom Come, but did something fresh with the concept.

The bat-branding plays for me because it deepens Batman's connection to Zorro. It's a connection about which Bob Kane made no bones. A lot of Batman comes directly from Zorro. So a darker, TDKR-style Batman who brands his enemies in a very brutal way plays up the Zorro aspect and the TDKR aspect at the same time.

I wouldn't necessarily be as big a pain in the ass about the Zorro thing as I'm being right now... except CLEARLY Snyder had his thinking cap on because he made a point of including the Waynes exiting the Mark of Zorro before Thomas and Martha fulfilled their literary mandate (eg, dying in the gutter for no reason at all). Had Snyder not included that Mark of Zorro detail, had it been ANY other movie, I wouldn't mention the branding/Zorro thing. But since Snyder is mentioning it himself...

That might also explain why Batman was hiding up in the attic when the cop found Santos all tied up, branded and beaten. He'd have no way of knowing if the cop would co-operate with him or not.

Heh, I originally typed this same point in my post but I deleted it because I thought it would be better if someone else mentioned it.

And here we are.

[The Dark Knight]

Also worthy of mention is the fact Lex has these brandees shanked in prison. It's likely these deaths wouldn't have happened in the first place without his interference. Bruce probably doesn't care either way given his apathetic attitude, but nonetheless, Lex uses this to his advantage by sending the photos to Clark.

[The Laughing Fish]

The outrage over Batman's branding of criminals in BvS, as well as Clark trashing a creep's truck who was trying to harass that waitress in the bar in MOS, has made me question a lot of people's morality and priorities (which isn't the first time to be honest), because they seem to care more about fictional characters than real life controversies.

So, Batman branding Santos and a child predator as reported in a news bulletin in the theatrical cut is a touchy topic for some people, but a director like James Gunn repeatedly "joking" about wanting to rape women and children over a long period of time is nothing to get alarmed about? If I didn't know any better, it sounds like these critics are enabling this attitude in an industry that is rife with allegations and investigations over such abuse for years. The scary thing is I wouldn't be surprised if these Gunn defenders would still defend him even if he did abuse somebody.

Regardless, I'm not suggesting others should take matters into their own hands and seek retribution out there in the real world. Without due process, society would definitely be far worse off. All I'm saying is I'm annoyed people choose to ignore the narrative established Batman's actions and get bothered by a fictional story, while trying to excuse the behaviour of a man they don't even know in real life.

[The Laughing Fish]

Over the years, I've seen willfully ignorant fanboy morons making up excuses to justify why Batman's kills in previous movies aren't as deplorable as BvS. The most common excuse I've seen is Batman didn't "actively kill" in previous incidents.

Well, going by their logic, you can easily make the argument that Batman didn't "actively kill" in BvS either. Let's go through it together:

-Branding the sexual predator Santos: Batman caught the man who had enslaved these women in a dungeon. He's not responsible if the deviants he brands get killed in prison.

-The Knightmare scene: Batman was double-crossed and saw his army violently gunned down in the middle of a war zone. Focusing only whatever he does next overlooks the fact he'd be taken in as a prisoner of war, or worse, become the next one to be eliminated.

-The Batmobile chase scene: the crooks were the ones who opened fire at Batman first. If you can say Batman kills in self-defence in other movies, you can easily apply that logic to see this scene too.

-LexCorp raid: we only see people who were seriously injured or put in a coma after Batman stole the Kryptonite. Nobody died.

-The Warehouse scene: again, the crooks were the ones who opened fire at Batman first, and he retaliated by firing back while flying in the Batwing. Actually, if you have a look at how Batman first erupted from the floor during that warehouse scene, Batman could've been more brutal when he blew up some of the mercernaries' guns by getting them killed instantly. Instead, the bombs he set off disarmed those crooks and put them in a temporary state of shock.

Batman did indirectly cause a couple of them to die in a grenade explosion, but he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger. The idiot who unleashed that grenade was more responsible for endangering himself and his fellow gang members, let alone his own demise.

And yes, in the Ultimate Edition, Batman does kill that culprit when he threw that crate into that mercenary's face. But again, considering he was caught in a fight between life and death, you can still make an argument that he did it in self-defence.

-Killing Anatoli Knyazev: Batman had no choice but to stop Knyazev from burning Martha Kent alive. He had two options: either shoot Knyazev right in the head (as Zack Snyder was considering when he envisioned this scene), or shoot at the flamethrower tank. Batman chose the latter option, which would've given Knayzev a chance to survive if he had the sense to take his gear off immediately. If you look at that scene carefully, Knyazev looked as if he tried to pull trigger at Batman and Martha instead. Like the idiot unleashing the grenade, Knyazev was responsible for his own demise. Batman's goal was saving the hostage, not necessarily trying to kill the culprit.

The only moment where Batman comes close to actively killing anybody was his intention to kill Superman; which of course, he didn't go through with it. Other than that, I don't see how any of the kills would classify as "murder", as a lot of detractors claim. Despite how brutal his responses were, to call Batman in BvS "a pure cold-blooded murderer" is a stretch, in retrospect. Never mind the fact his decision to spare Lex from the branding in the end signals the end of his reactive approach to crime-fighting.

But I guess as long as a movie depicts Batman killing people either for laughs or have him paying lip service against taking lives but does it anyway, that gives the movie a pass, right? What a load of hypocritical, phony garbage.

To paraphrase the late Bill Hicks, I want these people to go and find a f***ing soul.