Bat Brand of Justice

[Dagenspear]

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.

I haven't so much seen branding listed as him killing them by those who don't like the movie.

I've seen those who are against the Knightmare scene. But it's not something I think much about. It's a dark future dream or something.

-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.

I don't think that necessarily plays when Batman comes at them and I don't think we have much to say he needs defense in that.

I think we see paramedics seemingly trying to save someone's life. Though I can't be certain. Though I focus more on him just attacking and hurting what I guess are security guards enough for them to need that.

I think we don't have much to say he was in danger in the batwing. Though I think it's more needlessly reckless and violent than anything and puts Martha's life at risk in doing it.

-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.

I'm not even sure he died.

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.

I think him planning it like he did and even nearly doing it, only to be stopped by seeing Clark as a person, could be an issue. I don't know if this is brought up much though, but I don't think having a character that I'm supposed to see as a heroic figure at some point be trying to kill another heroic character based on his existence is something some want and asks questions about whether he can be trusted.

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.

I think it's more to show that it's something he struggles with and doesn't want to do. Maybe he'll break it (Nolan), or maybe it'll never say something either way for the most part (Burton). But I think having it and showing the character struggle with it works more for me, than the character just being that way due to events that we haven't seen and the movie not showing people react to killing, but to the branding.

[The Laughing Fish]

I found this great rebuttal by a fan in response to the clickbait hack media taking Zack Snyder's words out of context on the subject of Batman killing recently at a fan convention, even going so far to post the full transcript of what he said.

Source: https://www.hypable.com/zack-snyder-does-not-think-killing-makes-batman-cool-or-heroic/

[Dagenspear]

I found this great rebuttal by a fan in response to the clickbait hack media taking Zack Snyder's words out of context on the subject of Batman killing recently at a fan convention, even going so far to post the full transcript of what he said.

Source: https://www.hypable.com/zack-snyder-does-not-think-killing-makes-batman-cool-or-heroic/

I don't get why him doing that with Watchman means he should do it with other characters.

I get it. Batman is supposed to go through a situation. But I think, and this guy seems to think so too, Batman's made to be a villain. And I think doing that asks questions the movie doesn't answer. The situation isn't dealt with to me. It's bears that idea, but doesn't resolve it to me. Does this mean this Batman can go back to that? Why should others trust his judgement if he can? The movie paints over those questions to me about how men are good. Men aren't good. That shouldn't be the point. Why does believing in humanity mean you don't kill? What are the consequences for this? Not just for Bruce personally, but also for others? Would Gordon have turned him away or tried to arrest him him? Would he have turned himself over to the cops? Truly repented and found God? Would Alfred have been angry and hurt by his fall? Other batfamily members be unwilling to trust him? I don't think all these questions would be answered because they weren't or at least personally explored for Clark in MOS or BvS in regards to the destruction of Metropolis and to killing Zod to me.

Realistically, I get it, Batman would fall short, but what else? I don't think the movie showcases those consequences. I think the situations feel to me like Batman's put in them for the sake of it, not dealing with it.

[thecolorsblend]

I found this great rebuttal by a fan in response to the clickbait hack media taking Zack Snyder's words out of context on the subject of Batman killing recently at a fan convention, even going so far to post the full transcript of what he said.

Source: https://www.hypable.com/zack-snyder-does-not-think-killing-makes-batman-cool-or-heroic/

I don't get why him doing that with Watchman means he should do it with other characters.

I get it. Batman is supposed to go through a situation. But I think, and this guy seems to think so too, Batman's made to be a villain. And I think doing that asks questions the movie doesn't answer. The situation isn't dealt with to me. It's bears that idea, but doesn't resolve it to me. Does this mean this Batman can go back to that? Why should others trust his judgement if he can? The movie paints over those questions to me about how men are good. Men aren't good. That shouldn't be the point. Why does believing in humanity mean you don't kill? What are the consequences for this? Not just for Bruce personally, but also for others? Would Gordon have turned him away or tried to arrest him him? Would he have turned himself over to the cops? Truly repented and found God? Would Alfred have been angry and hurt by his fall? Other batfamily members be unwilling to trust him? I don't think all these questions would be answered because they weren't or at least personally explored for Clark in MOS or BvS in regards to the destruction of Metropolis and to killing Zod to me.

Realistically, I get it, Batman would fall short, but what else? I don't think the movie showcases those consequences. I think the situations feel to me like Batman's put in them for the sake of it, not dealing with it.

Putting aside the completeness of Batman's character arc in BVS, sometimes I wonder if you grasp the difference between writing for television and writing for film.

[Dagenspear]

Putting aside the completeness of Batman's character arc in BVS, sometimes I wonder if you grasp the difference between writing for television and writing for film.

My perspective on something like that is that if a movie is trying to present a story, I think that it shouldn't expect me to trust it when when I think it doesn't complete that story. I don't think MOS or BvS really dealt with the consequences of the destruction of metropolis in a strong way. Why should I trust it to do something other than that with Batman from movie to movie? I want the movie to give me an idea in where we're headed. Maybe Bruce's line at the end instead is: " You were right. Men aren't good. But that's not the point. Fighting in spite of that is. I lost sight of it. He showed me that." I remember hearing how Batman was going die or something in Snyder's ideas, which while it does put it into perspective what Snyder did with him, I think is more going there to try and get an easy out for the character. A speech about men being good I came to the impression that the story's not gonna hold Batman's actions against him and have him have consequences for those, outside his guilt anyway and what he does to himself.

[The Dark Knight]

I get it. Batman is supposed to go through a situation. But I think, and this guy seems to think so too, Batman's made to be a villain.

I mostly see it as a good guy using rougher methods on bad guys. I think that's the way Gordon and other members of the Bat family would look at it, too. Batman's rage made him a more effective crimefighter at the detriment of his humanity. That was the trade off.

Does this mean this Batman can go back to that? Why should others trust his judgement if he can?

Yes, under the right circumstances. Batman is a control freak and that component needs to be satisfied for him to be of a sound mind. The arrival of Superman pushed Batman's buttons.

He can be referred to as the most dangerous man alive for good reason. Doubting his judgement only makes him more interesting as a tortured loner, so I don't see much of a downside there.

[thecolorsblend]

I don't think MOS or BvS really dealt with the consequences of the destruction of metropolis in a strong way.

Yep, okay, we're done here, thanks.

[Dagenspear]

Yes, under the right circumstances. Batman is a control freak and that component needs to be satisfied for him to be of a sound mind. The arrival of Superman pushed Batman's buttons.

He can be referred to as the most dangerous man alive for good reason. Doubting his judgement only makes him more interesting as a tortured loner, so I don't see much of a downside there.

I think the movies weren't going to deal with that idea. And that the end of BvS didn't deal with it. Maybe they would've, but I thought the end of BvS was painting it as he's reformed and trusted now.

Yep, okay, we're done here, thanks.

Batman dislikes Superman for it and there's that guy. The government and society doesn't seem to have an issue with it. Clark I think doesn't express any guilt or issues about it, or about killing Zod. And I think MOS doesn't do that either. Clark yells out and cries and is fine in the next scene.

[The Dark Knight]

I think the movies weren't going to deal with that idea. And that the end of BvS didn't deal with it. Maybe they would've, but I thought the end of BvS was painting it as he's reformed and trusted now.

I think SnyderLeague would've had a more psychologically tormented Bruce than what we were given. Being trusted but having functional depression, with it culminating in the finale.

Attracting the parademons being his good death, ala burning up his race car at the beginning of TDK Returns. Whereas in the released version Batman seems overly ambitious to the point of being stupid.

[Dagenspear]

I think SnyderLeague would’ve had a more psychologically tormented Bruce than what we were given. Being trusted but having functional depression, with it culminating in the finale.

Attracting the parademons being his good death, ala burning up his race car at the beginning of TDK Returns. Whereas in the released version Batman seems overly ambitious to the point of being stupid.

From what I've heard/read, that basically matches up, but it seems like an easier way out in the story to me than I'd have preferred.