Latest Entertainment News Headlines

Geoff Johns says Justice League will address murderous Batman from BvS

09.08.2016

BATMAN V SUPERMAN is a divisive film, to say the least. I myself was not a fan (even though I had loved MAN OF STEEL previously), but I understand it has its followers, and that's cool. However, something most people can agree on is how egregious it was to see Batman straight up murdering people. Like, a lot of f*cking people (it's honestly what personally turned me against the film).

Luckily I (and many fans) are not alone. Geoff Johns agrees, and even elaborates on the problems with the approach Warner Bros. had been taking the  DCEU in an exclusive interview with The Wall Street Journal. Here's an excerpt: 

Mistakenly in the past I think the studio has said, ‘Oh, DC films are gritty and dark and that’s what makes them different.’ That couldn’t be more wrong,” Johns said. “It’s a hopeful and optimistic view of life. Even Batman has a glimmer of that in him. If he didn’t think he’d make tomorrow better, he’d stop.

Further on in the interview, he mentions how the new JUSTICE LEAGUE film will curtail a lot of Zack Snyder's previous “controversial flourishes" (like the Knightmare Sequence and Batman, you know, killing people). So there's that.

This is great news! While Batman has killed in the comics and in previous movies (which is something I know I'll read in the comments), that doesn't make what he did in BvS not egregious. For one, most of the Batman killing examples are from either the original comics in the 30s-40s (before he was a fully developed character and was a basic Shadow-clone) or were in the Burton/Schumacher movies, which had less-than-respectful takes on the source material (other examples in the comics, like throwing Ra's Al Ghul into the sun or trapping KGBeast to starve, were either pre-Crisis or retconned).  After Nolan's earnest, and for the most part, respectful take on the source material (any deaths were at least accidental), to go back on that seemed a step backwards. Furthermore, it makes Batman basically The Punisher (and really, if Batman kills people why is Leto's Douche-Joker still allowed to live?)

But the main point to take away is that the DC films will focus on a more hopeful and optimistic tone, and that WB will stop chasing the grim-'n-gritty dragon. 

And that Batman won't be straight up murdering people. I don't think that can be repeated enough.

JUSTICE LEAGUE will be released in theaters November 17th, 2017.

So you guys excited for JUSTICE LEAGUE, or is it three strikes you're out?

 

CLICK IMAGE TO OPEN GALLERY & SEE MORE PICS...

Extra Tidbit: Ben Affleck actually met Christian Bale while both were coincidentally buying Batman Halloween costumes for their kids. Affleck asked Bale for advice, from which Bale responded to make sure Affleck can pee out of his costume.

RECOMMENDED MOVIE NEWS

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

1:07PM on 09/09/2016
This is why Deathstroke will be the perfect villain for this Batman. Take all his morality and regard for human life and Batfleck is really no different than Deathstroke. The comparison between them will make for an interesting story.
This is why Deathstroke will be the perfect villain for this Batman. Take all his morality and regard for human life and Batfleck is really no different than Deathstroke. The comparison between them will make for an interesting story.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+3
11:34AM on 09/09/2016

Character Arc? (BvS spoilers)

I think people are so caught off guard by Batman killing people that they fail to realize there was a reason for it. Batman had basically given up, comparing criminals to weeds, an unending battle. He even calls himself a criminal, brushing off Alfred when Alfred asks him if he's living by "new rules." It's only after Superman sacrifices himself that he realizes there's still hope. His speech at the end of the film about "being better" is about himself just as much as it is about people in
I think people are so caught off guard by Batman killing people that they fail to realize there was a reason for it. Batman had basically given up, comparing criminals to weeds, an unending battle. He even calls himself a criminal, brushing off Alfred when Alfred asks him if he's living by "new rules." It's only after Superman sacrifices himself that he realizes there's still hope. His speech at the end of the film about "being better" is about himself just as much as it is about people in general. Should there be consequences for his murderous actions? Probably. But personally, I thought that his character arc was very well done.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:22AM on 09/09/2016
If people are still having a hard time with this Batman, they're really going to have a hard time when, if at all, Fox makes the next Wolverine actually how he's suppose to be.
If people are still having a hard time with this Batman, they're really going to have a hard time when, if at all, Fox makes the next Wolverine actually how he's suppose to be.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:07AM on 09/09/2016
I love how everyone forgets that Keaton's (kick ass) Batman deliberately killed in his movies. Ring a "bell" anyone?
I love how everyone forgets that Keaton's (kick ass) Batman deliberately killed in his movies. Ring a "bell" anyone?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:09AM on 09/09/2016
Who gives a crap at this point? The character is already ruined in this "universe", same with Superman.
Who gives a crap at this point? The character is already ruined in this "universe", same with Superman.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
9:44PM on 09/08/2016
I've gotten to the point where I just switch my brain off when it comes to watching a DCEU movie. So my exceptions isn't too high. I think these films will garner more respect over time. Marvel set the bar pretty high and so did Nolan for superhero films.
I've gotten to the point where I just switch my brain off when it comes to watching a DCEU movie. So my exceptions isn't too high. I think these films will garner more respect over time. Marvel set the bar pretty high and so did Nolan for superhero films.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:35PM on 09/08/2016

Watch the UE

As others have pointed out, the UE does a much better job at explaining this Batman and how he operates. The bat symbol branding led to deaths in prison because Lex paid people to do that. That was part of his plan to turn people against Batman, including Clark, as we later learn he already knows their identities. As Con_Man explains, he is does not pass sentence and execute in the movie, but there is collateral damage. In the scene where he steals kryptonite, well, there were better ways
As others have pointed out, the UE does a much better job at explaining this Batman and how he operates. The bat symbol branding led to deaths in prison because Lex paid people to do that. That was part of his plan to turn people against Batman, including Clark, as we later learn he already knows their identities. As Con_Man explains, he is does not pass sentence and execute in the movie, but there is collateral damage. In the scene where he steals kryptonite, well, there were better ways for him to attain that, but this Batman was clearly traumatized by the events in the climax to Man of Steel. Alfred and Bruce himself tells us that he has become compromised and is not who he used to be. It is also clear in Superman's death that the action brought him back to who he once was because he had found hope again. This movie and Man of Steel basically depict Clark, his mother, and Lois, as the sole optimists in a cynical hopeless world, but Superman's sacrifice wakes people out of that. How many times in the real world have large groups of people been inspired by such martyrdom? There are many, many instances of this. Again, these themes are explored much better in the UE, Snyder's intended version of the film and clearly the "correct" version.

Now Batman almost does pass judgment as executioner when he almost kills Batman. That was the decisive moment for Batman. At that point, he would have fully crossed the line and not come back, so, in a sense, Lois's intervention did not just save Clark, but Bruce as well. No, he did not spare him because their moms have the same name. The realization of him having a human mother reminded him of why he became Batman. This is symbolically foreshadowed in the nightmare sequence at his mother's tomb. Many people just want films that simply do right by the comics and don't take any risks of their own. I applaud the risks that have been taken here, even if they have not always been executed well. The botched theatrical cut is the work of a studio refusing to put out a three hour movie. It is the fault of men in suits, not of the artists. I am not saying the movie isn't perfect. Lex still sucks, as does Doomsday, and there still are Pacing issues and the film is overstuffed, but some of these criticisms are simply not justified by the UE, which shows that the movie certainly has depth, in spite of its flaws.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:52AM on 09/09/2016
In the UE Batman still knew that branding people = horrible death in prison and still did it anyways. It doesn't matter who was actually killing these people. That is evil to an extreme level. I keep seeing people try SOOOO very hard to spin this like a Trump campaign manager spinning the wheels to make things seem good.
In the UE Batman still knew that branding people = horrible death in prison and still did it anyways. It doesn't matter who was actually killing these people. That is evil to an extreme level. I keep seeing people try SOOOO very hard to spin this like a Trump campaign manager spinning the wheels to make things seem good.
3:19AM on 09/09/2016
Did he know though? Did Bruce actually know branded criminals were being killed? We don't actually know the answer to that. All we know is Lex was having them killed. The branding was pretty new as someone mentioned "he's branding them now?" so it's not like this was a long time coming. It is entirely possible Bruce wasn't aware of it, just as he wasn't aware that whats his face wasn't taking the money (guy in wheelchair lex blew up in capitol)
You could be right and Bruce did know, maybe I
Did he know though? Did Bruce actually know branded criminals were being killed? We don't actually know the answer to that. All we know is Lex was having them killed. The branding was pretty new as someone mentioned "he's branding them now?" so it's not like this was a long time coming. It is entirely possible Bruce wasn't aware of it, just as he wasn't aware that whats his face wasn't taking the money (guy in wheelchair lex blew up in capitol)
You could be right and Bruce did know, maybe I just forgot. It's 3 in the morning and I can't sleep.
8:20PM on 09/08/2016
I remember 15 or 20 years ago when a movie considered a "divisive film" was like an honor, cause people keep talkin about them for years. Now is bad to be divisive, your movie need to be simple, and stupid, and funny, just that. Apparently nobody remember anymore that thare are a lot of movies now considered classics, or very good, that were very divisive.
Anyway, I like BvS and I really enjoyed "killer Batman" lol. He did kill in previous movies and he did it in comics, so I think it's
I remember 15 or 20 years ago when a movie considered a "divisive film" was like an honor, cause people keep talkin about them for years. Now is bad to be divisive, your movie need to be simple, and stupid, and funny, just that. Apparently nobody remember anymore that thare are a lot of movies now considered classics, or very good, that were very divisive.
Anyway, I like BvS and I really enjoyed "killer Batman" lol. He did kill in previous movies and he did it in comics, so I think it's stupid to talk all that about that.
PS... I saw CIVIL WAR last weekend, and it's a solid flick, but it's also has as many problems as BvS.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
3:01AM on 09/09/2016
I like how people take over over half a century of comic lore that establishes Batman as an anti-gun hero who refuses to kill, then goods "Batman killing" to find that one or two panels of some non-canon comic showing Batman killing just to justify this awful movie.

Even if you take out Batman killing people, the movie was still a complete mess. It was horribly written, the characters behaved with very flimsy or no motivation (they only ever did things just to unnaturally move the plot
I like how people take over over half a century of comic lore that establishes Batman as an anti-gun hero who refuses to kill, then goods "Batman killing" to find that one or two panels of some non-canon comic showing Batman killing just to justify this awful movie.

Even if you take out Batman killing people, the movie was still a complete mess. It was horribly written, the characters behaved with very flimsy or no motivation (they only ever did things just to unnaturally move the plot forward), and the only thing that kept it from being entirely incomprehensible is knowing these characters history before ever seeing the movie (cause the movie sure as hell wasn't going to flesh out any character, it was too focused on the stupid Bullet mystery that the audience already knew the answer to from the get go).
8:09PM on 09/08/2016

Why?

Why is it so hard for people to understand that Batman being willing to kill in BvS is indicative of his descent into total darkness? He's spent 20+ years in Gotham, and what does he have to show for it? And with the arrival of Superman, he's lost all hope; Jaded Batman has suddenly become Murderous Batman. And it's not as if he was just murdering every criminal, he's just decided that if it comes down to you or him, it's gonna be you. "But why is Joker still alive?!" Well, because clearly
Why is it so hard for people to understand that Batman being willing to kill in BvS is indicative of his descent into total darkness? He's spent 20+ years in Gotham, and what does he have to show for it? And with the arrival of Superman, he's lost all hope; Jaded Batman has suddenly become Murderous Batman. And it's not as if he was just murdering every criminal, he's just decided that if it comes down to you or him, it's gonna be you. "But why is Joker still alive?!" Well, because clearly Batman wasn't always willing to kill. That's the whole point of his motivations in the movie, and the entire point of how it ends...with a sense of renewed hope. And the only way it needs to be "addressed" in any forthcoming films is to show that he's no longer willing to take the easy road and murder the criminals who are asking for it. There is literally no explaining that needs to be done.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:26PM on 09/08/2016
It's hard to understand because nothing in the film says that. No character ever says "Batman didn't kill before but now he does". It's was our first introduction to this version of the character and he lives in a universe where Superman snapped the neck of Zod. Until we're told otherwise, we have no reason to assume he wasn't always this violent.
It's hard to understand because nothing in the film says that. No character ever says "Batman didn't kill before but now he does". It's was our first introduction to this version of the character and he lives in a universe where Superman snapped the neck of Zod. Until we're told otherwise, we have no reason to assume he wasn't always this violent.
8:36PM on 09/08/2016
That's just not true, though. Firstly, Superman killing Zod is not a problem, in that Superman would be perfectly willing to kill something other-worldly in order to save humans on Earth. This is often misconstrued because it's framed within his first real experience as Superman, and he happens to be killing a fellow Kryptonian. And it very clearly affects him. So that's a moot point. Secondly, just because it's the introduction to this Batman doesn't mean that what we're getting is the way
That's just not true, though. Firstly, Superman killing Zod is not a problem, in that Superman would be perfectly willing to kill something other-worldly in order to save humans on Earth. This is often misconstrued because it's framed within his first real experience as Superman, and he happens to be killing a fellow Kryptonian. And it very clearly affects him. So that's a moot point. Secondly, just because it's the introduction to this Batman doesn't mean that what we're getting is the way it's always been. This is evidenced in more than one way: 20+ years in Gotham, he and Alfred discussing (more than once, mind you) that he's operating on some new rules, that things have changed, and that the situation seems to have only gotten worse over time. If you honestly need someone to say something along the lines of "Batman didn't kill before, but he does now," you might need to consider your own consumption of the product, and ways to improve critical thinking in regards to characterizations and story. I honestly don't mean that as an insult, it's just that if that's what it takes for you, then your powers of inference are severely hindered somehow. Further, we kind of DO get people saying that in one way or another: the aforementioned discussions with Alfred, plus in the added material in the Ultimate Edition, when Clark goes to Gotham and the tenant with the scratch-off talks to him. It's not that hard. The whole plot of the film (between Batman and Superman) hinges on Batman's willingness to take things further and darker than he's ever done. It's pretty clear cut.
3:12AM on 09/09/2016
The whole reason he wants to kill Superman shows his willingness to cross the line. Forgetting that this Batman already has about 20 times the experience Nolanverse Batman had, he probably started out with no killing and as the years went by, criminals are like weeds, they just grow back. He also said how many good guys stayed that way which could mean other vigilantes (Oliver Queen perhaps) that fought and fell to darkness.
We don't know yet, but it's pretty clear that this iteration of
The whole reason he wants to kill Superman shows his willingness to cross the line. Forgetting that this Batman already has about 20 times the experience Nolanverse Batman had, he probably started out with no killing and as the years went by, criminals are like weeds, they just grow back. He also said how many good guys stayed that way which could mean other vigilantes (Oliver Queen perhaps) that fought and fell to darkness.
We don't know yet, but it's pretty clear that this iteration of Batman IS willing to kill for the bigger picture. One: To get the kryptonite to use as a weapon (batmobile chase) and 2: Saving Martha at ALL costs.
I don't count the dream sequence since it technically hasn't happened yet, or may not at all.
I recommend watching the Extended cut, especially for the whole "branded gets you dead" part that gets very clearly explained. Batman doesn't get that guy killed. Lex does.
7:49PM on 09/08/2016

The stupid is aphixiating about this subject.

So, even though Batman killed in every previous live action incarnation (killed people more graphically in Batman 1989), suddenly there was an issue with this film. just like with anything else, there is an agenda going on that contradicts what many said before. And it's drawing out the cocky and stupid.
So, even though Batman killed in every previous live action incarnation (killed people more graphically in Batman 1989), suddenly there was an issue with this film. just like with anything else, there is an agenda going on that contradicts what many said before. And it's drawing out the cocky and stupid.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:14PM on 09/08/2016
Batman didn't just kill in the heat of battle, he had people murdered in prison. That kind of evil is what the mafia does, it's what Batman fights. Killing people in prison was the major turning point for Walter White into a full on villain. Batman can't go back to being the hero after that.
Batman didn't just kill in the heat of battle, he had people murdered in prison. That kind of evil is what the mafia does, it's what Batman fights. Killing people in prison was the major turning point for Walter White into a full on villain. Batman can't go back to being the hero after that.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:39PM on 09/08/2016
Who did he have murdered? He was branding people, but it wasn't so that they'd be killed. Their deaths were directly caused by Lex, via his use of KGBeast as a hired hand.
Who did he have murdered? He was branding people, but it wasn't so that they'd be killed. Their deaths were directly caused by Lex, via his use of KGBeast as a hired hand.
7:45PM on 09/08/2016
That was clarified in the extended edition
That was clarified in the extended edition
7:48PM on 09/08/2016
Someone didn't watch the extended cut.
Someone didn't watch the extended cut.
8:34PM on 09/08/2016
So you don't know what you're talking about is what you're saying?
So you don't know what you're talking about is what you're saying?
2:48AM on 09/09/2016
I only ever saw the extended edition, and it made it very clear that everyone Batman branded was horribly murdered in prison. And it was very clear that Batman knew this, and he branded them anyways. Alfred made a point of this to which Batman replied "Their just criminals". At the end he was about to brand Lex Luther to be murdered but decided against it (and I'm sorry, but once a character has people murdered, there is no coming back). And on top of all of that, it was such a stupid subplot
I only ever saw the extended edition, and it made it very clear that everyone Batman branded was horribly murdered in prison. And it was very clear that Batman knew this, and he branded them anyways. Alfred made a point of this to which Batman replied "Their just criminals". At the end he was about to brand Lex Luther to be murdered but decided against it (and I'm sorry, but once a character has people murdered, there is no coming back). And on top of all of that, it was such a stupid subplot to begin with.

Also, what is with everyone here pretending that the extended edition had all this stuff in it that wasn't in it? I've seen people talk about scenes "which magically fix everything" that simply were not in the extended edition at all.
7:04PM on 09/08/2016

About the topic at hand

I want to believe in Johns but in BvS, Snyder was supposed to address the issue that there was too much destruction in Man of Steel. He added even more scene of destruction in the film. A leopard can't change his spots.
I want to believe in Johns but in BvS, Snyder was supposed to address the issue that there was too much destruction in Man of Steel. He added even more scene of destruction in the film. A leopard can't change his spots.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:48AM on 09/09/2016
Yes and no. In MoS Metropolis has high casualties and as BvS starts off there that's all part of MoS. The only main destruction that happen are the Batmobile chase which is minor and the Doomsday battle, which while was destructive, Batman tells Wonder Woman that the Gotham Port is abandoned when she asks why she brought Doomsday back there as well as a mention that most people had left work so that area had low casualty rate due to that.
Yes there was still a lot of destruction, but from a
Yes and no. In MoS Metropolis has high casualties and as BvS starts off there that's all part of MoS. The only main destruction that happen are the Batmobile chase which is minor and the Doomsday battle, which while was destructive, Batman tells Wonder Woman that the Gotham Port is abandoned when she asks why she brought Doomsday back there as well as a mention that most people had left work so that area had low casualty rate due to that.
Yes there was still a lot of destruction, but from a certain point of view, less so wide spread casualty based destruction.
6:58PM on 09/08/2016

About that scene in Batman Begins...

That scene Snyder apologists mentions every time someone talks about the "no kill" rule, where Batman chooses to not save Ra's Al Ghul... that scene SUCKED! I love Chris Nolan; I think he's a genius. I even love Batman Begins, the only Batman films that truly tries to understand its character. But that scene sucked, because it didn't respect the "no kill" rule, its spirit. Nolan and screenwriter David Goyer tried to have their cake and eat it too: respect the character's principles but still
That scene Snyder apologists mentions every time someone talks about the "no kill" rule, where Batman chooses to not save Ra's Al Ghul... that scene SUCKED! I love Chris Nolan; I think he's a genius. I even love Batman Begins, the only Batman films that truly tries to understand its character. But that scene sucked, because it didn't respect the "no kill" rule, its spirit. Nolan and screenwriter David Goyer tried to have their cake and eat it too: respect the character's principles but still have a Hollywood ending where the bad guy dies in an explosion. They failed. It looks as if Batman compromised his principles for some petty revenge.

I'm not alone to think that. Every reviewer I read who talked about the ending - most didn't since it's a spoiler - mentioned that scene and talked about it as a false note in an otherwise very good film. So it's not true that the rule was invented for Snyder. People are more pissed with him because, contrary to Nolan, he acted as if there was no rule at all. Like Damaske mentions, a Batman who doesn't mind using guns would not have any problem beating the Joker. The whole concept of the character completely breaks down if you allow him to kill.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:28PM on 09/08/2016
What Johns says there is exactly where I stopped liking Man of Steel. If he can put his money where his mouth is, then I think DC might have a bright future. But it could be just talk.
What Johns says there is exactly where I stopped liking Man of Steel. If he can put his money where his mouth is, then I think DC might have a bright future. But it could be just talk.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:39PM on 09/08/2016

Lol

So many man children on this site who love it when their heroes kill. I'm guessing yall are Republicans.
So many man children on this site who love it when their heroes kill. I'm guessing yall are Republicans.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:45PM on 09/08/2016
You're so ridiculous. Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans.
You're so ridiculous. Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans.
12:35AM on 09/09/2016
Two words for you, genius.....Ted Kennedy.
Two words for you, genius.....Ted Kennedy.
5:33PM on 09/08/2016

Light at the end of the tunnel

Finally someone gets it over there. That's the best news I've heard from this camp in years. Good luck Johns, I hope you'll be able to win back my interest in future films. I'd really like to feel psyched for DC Movies again.
Finally someone gets it over there. That's the best news I've heard from this camp in years. Good luck Johns, I hope you'll be able to win back my interest in future films. I'd really like to feel psyched for DC Movies again.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:42PM on 09/08/2016
Ya. With the great writers that they had for BvS, I'm sure they'll do a fantastic job at explaining that. And it will make perfect sense even though it makes no sense at all.
Ya. With the great writers that they had for BvS, I'm sure they'll do a fantastic job at explaining that. And it will make perfect sense even though it makes no sense at all.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:19PM on 09/08/2016
The past few months all your replies to me have been you not talking about anything I say, but instead just making fun of me.

That shows what kind of person you are.
The past few months all your replies to me have been you not talking about anything I say, but instead just making fun of me.

That shows what kind of person you are.
5:36PM on 09/08/2016
You need to grow up, ConMan. You're a sad individual.
You need to grow up, ConMan. You're a sad individual.
8:33PM on 09/08/2016
Hilarious thread.
Hilarious thread.
-4
4:24PM on 09/08/2016
"Batman, you need to stop killing people...or at least cut WAY back. Now get out of here, ya little scamp!"
Handled, Zack Snyder style.
"Batman, you need to stop killing people...or at least cut WAY back. Now get out of here, ya little scamp!"
Handled, Zack Snyder style.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:22PM on 09/08/2016

Everyone wants

I believe one of the issues, is that batman has such a rich, diverse history. Many iterations, Elseworld Spin-Offs, cartoons, tv shows etc that what 1 batfan might think is great, another might not. If youre a true fan, ( meaning you collect the comics, watch the shows, play the games and watch movies) youre going to appreciate any iteration of the no kill rule. @theconman nailed it. It made sense. There is even a line where he says " we tried doing it the right way and it didnt work" (to some
I believe one of the issues, is that batman has such a rich, diverse history. Many iterations, Elseworld Spin-Offs, cartoons, tv shows etc that what 1 batfan might think is great, another might not. If youre a true fan, ( meaning you collect the comics, watch the shows, play the games and watch movies) youre going to appreciate any iteration of the no kill rule. @theconman nailed it. It made sense. There is even a line where he says " we tried doing it the right way and it didnt work" (to some effect) showing the viewer that Batman is done with his rule. The great theme of Batmans no kill rule is that by not killing his villians, he allows more innocents to die. The Killing Jole is an amazing exploration of that theme.

If "your" batman kills, or doesnt kill, Id say hes the right Batman. If he only does one, than you are projecting what your personal interpretation of Batman shluld be based on 1 iterarion of that pantheon of batman stories. Im my opinion, they are all the right versions. From Campy Adam West, to Frank Millers "Dark Knight Returns", to Batflecks "fuck it" additude.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+1
4:13PM on 09/08/2016
I donīt get it. Seemingly nobody cared when the big Boy Scout with the red cape killed in "Man of Steel" or destroyed an entire City in blind rage but now that Batman killed everyone cries about it. As already mentioned in the article Batman was far more ambivalent if it Comes to killing. Not only in his early Comics but also in Millerīs take. And this is NOT Nolanīs Batman. He already lost a Robin so I wonīt judge on this Batman without fully knowing this new approach on the character.
I donīt get it. Seemingly nobody cared when the big Boy Scout with the red cape killed in "Man of Steel" or destroyed an entire City in blind rage but now that Batman killed everyone cries about it. As already mentioned in the article Batman was far more ambivalent if it Comes to killing. Not only in his early Comics but also in Millerīs take. And this is NOT Nolanīs Batman. He already lost a Robin so I wonīt judge on this Batman without fully knowing this new approach on the character.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:35PM on 09/08/2016
Say what? A lot of people complained about Superman killing in Man of Steel. It's one of the reasons so many people, including myself, weren't a fan of it.
Say what? A lot of people complained about Superman killing in Man of Steel. It's one of the reasons so many people, including myself, weren't a fan of it.
3:57PM on 09/08/2016
Honestly, here is my interpretation of Batman's NO KILL RULE

Batman swore in Batman Begins that he would not be judge jury and executioner. That he would bring bad guys to justice. What that means is he wont murder someone. He wont look at them and make THE DECISION to end their life. He will leave that to the justice system. However, being Batman involves risk of collateral damage. He can hit someone in the head and give them a brain bleed. He can drive the batmobile and hit another car
Honestly, here is my interpretation of Batman's NO KILL RULE

Batman swore in Batman Begins that he would not be judge jury and executioner. That he would bring bad guys to justice. What that means is he wont murder someone. He wont look at them and make THE DECISION to end their life. He will leave that to the justice system. However, being Batman involves risk of collateral damage. He can hit someone in the head and give them a brain bleed. He can drive the batmobile and hit another car and the car crashes and someone dies. THAT is the risk of being Batman.

This article is pure genius in understanding Batman and his "no kill rule"

[link]
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:19PM on 09/08/2016
Keep in mind, Batman Begins has zero connection to the new DCMU so the whole "Won't do this" isn't even there are far as we know. At some point perhaps he decided to never kill and then as things got worse, he gave in to that darkness. Also, it's not the first time a Batman iteration has killed. Tim Burtons Batman killed in both films yet the love for those movies are pretty high.
It feels like BvS is a special case of hate where ANY excuse to hate it is valid enough even if other iterations
Keep in mind, Batman Begins has zero connection to the new DCMU so the whole "Won't do this" isn't even there are far as we know. At some point perhaps he decided to never kill and then as things got worse, he gave in to that darkness. Also, it's not the first time a Batman iteration has killed. Tim Burtons Batman killed in both films yet the love for those movies are pretty high.
It feels like BvS is a special case of hate where ANY excuse to hate it is valid enough even if other iterations killed.
Take Batman Begins again. Batman chose NOT to save Raz which in turn lead to his death. That's not a hero. He still had a hand in Raz's death, much like collateral damage in your examples with cars and brain damage, but he still CHOSE to let Raz die, therefore he disobeyed his "judge, Jury, Executioner" rule by valuing saving Raz as non-essential. To be fair, he made the right call imo, but he still had a hand in his death.
BvS Bats may straight up kill in his mid 40's, many many many many many times longer than Nolans Batman was ever Batman, so for him to start killing now after all these failed years, it makes sense.
5:28PM on 09/08/2016
"He can hit someone in the head and give them a brain bleed."

He can give them a brain bleed?...That's something that no one has ever said besides you. It's called brain damage or something like that. A brain bleed is not a term that has ever been used.
"He can hit someone in the head and give them a brain bleed."

He can give them a brain bleed?...That's something that no one has ever said besides you. It's called brain damage or something like that. A brain bleed is not a term that has ever been used.
5:31PM on 09/08/2016
a brain bleed is the type of bleeding a brain does that kills the cells in your brain due to intra-axial hemorrhaging. If you actually read a book or knew what you were talking about. You would have known about it, but because you are gigantic fucking bitch and feel like you need to get the last word, you spouted ignorance. Enjoy your day.
a brain bleed is the type of bleeding a brain does that kills the cells in your brain due to intra-axial hemorrhaging. If you actually read a book or knew what you were talking about. You would have known about it, but because you are gigantic fucking bitch and feel like you need to get the last word, you spouted ignorance. Enjoy your day.
5:33PM on 09/08/2016
@godmagnus, yea I am aware that BB is not part of the DCEU, but I feel like in that movie, they explain it the best. Also, in terms of the Ras Al Ghul situation, Batman couldn't save him. It was save himself or both of them die. So he said I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you. Meaning that he won't be responsible for his death because he is saving himself and Ras' death is on his own hands for what he tried to do to Gotham.
@godmagnus, yea I am aware that BB is not part of the DCEU, but I feel like in that movie, they explain it the best. Also, in terms of the Ras Al Ghul situation, Batman couldn't save him. It was save himself or both of them die. So he said I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you. Meaning that he won't be responsible for his death because he is saving himself and Ras' death is on his own hands for what he tried to do to Gotham.
5:38PM on 09/08/2016
"a brain bleed is the type of bleeding a brain does that kills the cells in your brain due to intra-axial hemorrhaging."

A brain bleed is not a term. A bleeding brain can happen, but it is never called a brain bleed.
"a brain bleed is the type of bleeding a brain does that kills the cells in your brain due to intra-axial hemorrhaging."

A brain bleed is not a term. A bleeding brain can happen, but it is never called a brain bleed.
5:41PM on 09/08/2016
[link]

funny how a newspaper and a quick google search confirms you are wrong and also an idiot.
[link]

funny how a newspaper and a quick google search confirms you are wrong and also an idiot.
5:49PM on 09/08/2016
You linked me to a news article talking about it. Not a medical journal or anything like that...So the writer of that article, who is not in the medical field, knows every medical term and uses one that no doctor will ever use?

You continue with the insults. Notice how not one time did I call you any names.
You linked me to a news article talking about it. Not a medical journal or anything like that...So the writer of that article, who is not in the medical field, knows every medical term and uses one that no doctor will ever use?

You continue with the insults. Notice how not one time did I call you any names.
5:57PM on 09/08/2016
i'm not resorting to insults. I am just resorting to cold. hard. facts.

i'm not resorting to insults. I am just resorting to cold. hard. facts.

6:11PM on 09/08/2016
You didn't back up your claim with any medical facts. Instead you backed it up with words from a writer of a news article... I pointed that out, and rather than talk about that, you continue to talk down to me.
You didn't back up your claim with any medical facts. Instead you backed it up with words from a writer of a news article... I pointed that out, and rather than talk about that, you continue to talk down to me.
9:39PM on 09/08/2016
You didn't back up your claim with any medical facts. Instead you backed it up with words from a writer of a news article...I pointed that out, and rather than talk about that, you continue to talk down to me.
You didn't back up your claim with any medical facts. Instead you backed it up with words from a writer of a news article...I pointed that out, and rather than talk about that, you continue to talk down to me.
2:57AM on 09/09/2016
The_ConMan that's kind of a cop out though.
" So he said I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you. Meaning that he won't be responsible for his death because he is saving himself and Ras' death is on his own hands for what he tried to do to Gotham"
He's still responsible for the death of Raz regardless if he was saving his own hide. If I choose to text and drive and I hit a car and notice that person is pretty well gonna die and I drive off, I am still responsible for the death, even
The_ConMan that's kind of a cop out though.
" So he said I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you. Meaning that he won't be responsible for his death because he is saving himself and Ras' death is on his own hands for what he tried to do to Gotham"
He's still responsible for the death of Raz regardless if he was saving his own hide. If I choose to text and drive and I hit a car and notice that person is pretty well gonna die and I drive off, I am still responsible for the death, even if I had stayed there. Saying "well him or me, well fuck it" still places blame on Batman. He deliberately kept Raz busy so he could crash the train. Why not say "So uh, I am totally gonna crash this train in to the underground parking lot so uh...we should leave now before it's too late". I don't disagree with what Batman did but it still makes him judge, jury and executioner.
5:30PM on 09/09/2016
ConMan...You posted a link from a news article where the writer used the term "brain bleed". You didn't post any medical facts showing that doctors use that term.

You don't want to admit being wrong at all so you ignore my reply stating that.

ConMan...You posted a link from a news article where the writer used the term "brain bleed". You didn't post any medical facts showing that doctors use that term.

You don't want to admit being wrong at all so you ignore my reply stating that.

3:51PM on 09/08/2016

OH COME ON

Batman has ALWAYS killed. It's in every comic and numerous examples have already been cited from the previous films too. WHY IS THIS SO CONTROVERSIAL. I get it, the Nolan films had the lines "I'm not an executioner" and "No guns, no killing" etc.. But even in the Nolans', he killed, re watch the movies or go on YouTube to see clips showing this. So why is this such a controversial thing?!?!?!?
Batman has ALWAYS killed. It's in every comic and numerous examples have already been cited from the previous films too. WHY IS THIS SO CONTROVERSIAL. I get it, the Nolan films had the lines "I'm not an executioner" and "No guns, no killing" etc.. But even in the Nolans', he killed, re watch the movies or go on YouTube to see clips showing this. So why is this such a controversial thing?!?!?!?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:25PM on 09/08/2016
People have a hard on with ignorant bliss that Nolanverse Batman never killed. It's mind boggling. Deciding to not save Raz is still deciding Raz's fate based off what Batman had done to the train. He let him die, regardless if it was the right call or not, he is still at fault. It's no different than texting while driving and smacking into another car killing the other driver than driving off. Batman killed Raz. Batman beat the crap out of people that probably caused deaths. Batmobile
People have a hard on with ignorant bliss that Nolanverse Batman never killed. It's mind boggling. Deciding to not save Raz is still deciding Raz's fate based off what Batman had done to the train. He let him die, regardless if it was the right call or not, he is still at fault. It's no different than texting while driving and smacking into another car killing the other driver than driving off. Batman killed Raz. Batman beat the crap out of people that probably caused deaths. Batmobile destroyed roofs which I doubt Gotham had any "Batmobile on my roof" insurance. What if I had a budget and my roof was destroyed and I went bankrupt? What then?!
I enjoyed The Dark Knight, Batman Begins was alright and TDKR was pure shite, but I just don't get how people can think that iteration of Batman was squeaky clean.
5:37PM on 09/08/2016
Did you read the article? Most interpretations posit him as against killing. Deferring to previous films is supposed to mean something positive?
Did you read the article? Most interpretations posit him as against killing. Deferring to previous films is supposed to mean something positive?
3:00AM on 09/09/2016
The point is Batman has done both, comics AND movies. BvS is getting flack over killing where other Batman films did not. Besides, this article is mainly about addressing Batmans killing in BvS so mentioning the movies is fair ground.
The point is Batman has done both, comics AND movies. BvS is getting flack over killing where other Batman films did not. Besides, this article is mainly about addressing Batmans killing in BvS so mentioning the movies is fair ground.
3:45PM on 09/08/2016
lol gotta love how the author gets his panties in a twist about Batman killing people but then literally writes an entire paragraph about the exceptions to the rule etc in all the previous movies and comics etc etc lol um ok? lol

Listen BvS gave enough information. Joker killed Robin and after the events of the Zero Event attack on Metropolis, Bruce become disillusioned with his mission. However, after Superman sacrificed himself for mankind, he was renewed in his optimism to do good in this
lol gotta love how the author gets his panties in a twist about Batman killing people but then literally writes an entire paragraph about the exceptions to the rule etc in all the previous movies and comics etc etc lol um ok? lol

Listen BvS gave enough information. Joker killed Robin and after the events of the Zero Event attack on Metropolis, Bruce become disillusioned with his mission. However, after Superman sacrificed himself for mankind, he was renewed in his optimism to do good in this world.

Men are still Good. We fight. We Kill. We betray one another. But we can rebuild. We can be better. We Will. We have to.

He's not only talking about mankind. He's talking about himself.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
3:44PM on 09/08/2016
Disagree with the writer. You cite numerous examples of Batmam doing exactly what you say he doesn't do. Makes no sense. He has many iterations. You just don't like the current one, but it's better to say that than to say that's not who the character is. But I'm glad Johns has a handle on the universe and can focus Snyder back on kick-ass action, while someone focuses more on the themes.
Disagree with the writer. You cite numerous examples of Batmam doing exactly what you say he doesn't do. Makes no sense. He has many iterations. You just don't like the current one, but it's better to say that than to say that's not who the character is. But I'm glad Johns has a handle on the universe and can focus Snyder back on kick-ass action, while someone focuses more on the themes.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
3:46PM on 09/08/2016
lol I literally wrote basically what you did. Guess you pressed Enter first haha. Complains about A) and then gives excuses why A) is ok in other movies and comics. that is hypocrisy at it's finest.
lol I literally wrote basically what you did. Guess you pressed Enter first haha. Complains about A) and then gives excuses why A) is ok in other movies and comics. that is hypocrisy at it's finest.
3:50PM on 09/08/2016
Yeah. It's an incredibly strange and circular argument. Though I did like MOS better than BVS. I had no problem with this iteration of Batman and what he did.
Yeah. It's an incredibly strange and circular argument. Though I did like MOS better than BVS. I had no problem with this iteration of Batman and what he did.
3:41PM on 09/08/2016
I wasn't interested in this movie until I read this article. The author seems a little sensitive about batman killing people. Oh well, it's a fucking movie grow a pair bro. But your whiny article got me interested in this movie, so thanks. If it offends you and is too dark of real, maybe it's worth a view. sob sob cry, oh no, batman brutally murdered someone in a movie, life is over, nothing is real anymore. Sob sob cry. That's you.
I wasn't interested in this movie until I read this article. The author seems a little sensitive about batman killing people. Oh well, it's a fucking movie grow a pair bro. But your whiny article got me interested in this movie, so thanks. If it offends you and is too dark of real, maybe it's worth a view. sob sob cry, oh no, batman brutally murdered someone in a movie, life is over, nothing is real anymore. Sob sob cry. That's you.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
View All Comments

Latest Entertainment News Headlines


Top
Loading...

Featured Youtube Videos

Views and Counting