Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (March 24th, 2016)

[GasparZizou]

I think the character should have started out that way, with no killing rule, then drop it. I can't see how in the comics after repeatedly catching and bringing the same villains in to Arkham makes any sense. Joker in the comics has come back like what? 20 times at least? Same for Penguin, Riddler, Two Face, Freeze etc... It just doesn't make sense in my eyes to keep him that way.

1. People mistakenly put the blame of villains recurrently escaping on Batman, it shouldn't be so.
2. Killing isn't your right, nor your duty, an idealist Batman who's driven by the sense of Justice wouldn't kill, Cap isn't driven by Justice, someone put the Marvel Universe this way once, and I think it fits: "Marvel's aren't superheroes, they're just a**holes with powers", I think "a**holes" in the way of flawed, everyday people, whom aren't beyond or above killing, which is one of the fundamental differences between the 2 houses.

You mention how Batman villains come back all the time, well, don't Marvel Villains too? Despite the lack of no-kill rule?

Now I don't disagree entirely with you, I think the only one who should have a no-kill rule should be Superman, and maaaaybe Flash and WW who have the physical capacity to rise above that moral standard, but Batman? It feels to me that in decades of crimefighting, Batman would've put himself in a kill or be killed situation a couple times, where his life depended on self defense.

It should never be a choice imo though.

 

[pturtle]

I don't blame Batman for the villains escaping, I blame him for repeatedly trusting a flawed Justice system time and time again which just does nothing other than prolong the inevitable.

Daredevil is basically Batman though, except his reasoning for not killing just seems more rational and believable in my opinion. I can understand Batman starting out with that rule, but to uphold that for years just comes off as completely stupid no matter how righteous.

Villains coming back in both universes is just lazy writing and a lack of creativity from writers but you know what, That probably proves my point even more, Batman should just start capping these fools since they're coming back anyway, it'll just be harder for them to come back though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[crows]

Jye WILL, Jye WILL like this

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

All heroes kill...and should be able to kill as a last resort in order to save innocent lives.

One of my favorite Batman lines in Begins was the, "It's not who I am underneath, but what I DOOooo lol) that defines me"

He can do a lot of things, but being a merciless cold blooded killer is not something that should define Bats. He's flawed...but he should know right from wrong considering his origin story. A Batman who doesn't believe in the justice system or isn't somewhat optimistic that things can change for the better is a Batman tha has truly given up...and that's worse than retiring.

 

[pturtle]

All heroes kill...and should be able to kill as a last resort in order to save innocent lives.

One of my favorite Batman lines in Begins was the, "It's not who I am underneath, but what I DOOooo lol) that defines me"

He can do a lot of things, but being a merciless cold blooded killer is not something that should define Bats. He's flawed...but he should know right from wrong considering his origin story. A Batman who doesn't believe in the justice system or isn't somewhat optimistic that things can change for the better is a Batman tha has truly given up...and that's worse than retiring.

I thought Nolan did a good job explaining Bruce's reasoning for not killing, but I'm okay with that Batman not being an executioner because he was only Batman for like a total of 2 years.

I'm not that knowledgable on comic Batman, but what exactly sparked the whole non killing rule? Was it just his parents death? Because of it is I just find that to be a really lame reason.

I can't see how it could be considered wrong if he killed Joker. He'd be saving 100s of potential lives in the process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[crows]

 

[Bardoon]

Batman's "code of ethics" lead him to believe that by allowing himself to kill, he sinks to the same level as his enemies. This started with the murder of his parents, and was a focal point for the development of his own "code" and continued on as he trained and became 'The Batman'. He considers himself "above killing" and by training himself to be the world's best martial artist and detective, he has essentially molded himself in the belief that he can work out the best possible solution to fighting crime while avoiding killing his enemies.

Early comics Batman had no qualms about killing. He kicked a dude in acid, snapped another guy's neck with a kick, etc. etc. Batman's "no-kill" code was formulated later on.

On top of it all...keep in mind that Batman/Bruce Wayne is a little nutso himself as well. A big argument is that with his "no-kill" code, all his enemies constantly wind up back on the street, killing again and causing the usual chaos they do. But Batman has his code and he can be considered a little insane to stick by it if you look at it from the optic that eliminating his enemies is better off than letting them get back on the street. He doesn't want to be labeled a 'serial killer' and ultimately, despite being a vigilante, wants to be seen as a 'force for good' in Gotham City. A city which 'reputedly' has a crappy legal system and is rife with corruption. If Wayne REALLY wants to help the justice system, he should look into funding better prisons, improving the justice system, or even running for office. HEY THERE DC! FREE STORY IDEA - HAVE BRUCE WAYNE RUN FOR MAYOR OF GOTHAM! Outside of the Detective Comics story from the 1950's and have him actually implement some change.

Real world-wise: Some rumors abound that when the 'Comics Code Authority' was established, Batman was designated as a "no-killer" and it ultimately became a framework for the character. Also, when popular villains kept coming out, if Batman kept killing them, then it could damage the readership of the comic...hence why we see that the superheroes' villains are just as important as the superheroes themselves.

 

[jye4ever]

Jye WILL, Jye WILL like this

That didn't make a lick of sense.

 

[EVILFACE]

Meh, peps can love or hate this flick, but there is no denying this gif is the greatest of all comic book movies.

 

[GasparZizou]

I don't blame Batman for the villains escaping, I blame him for repeatedly trusting a flawed Justice system time and time again which just does nothing other than prolong the inevitable.

Here's the thing, it's only that flawed because comics need to sell.

Daredevil is basically Batman though, except his reasoning for not killing just seems more rational and believable in my opinion. I can understand Batman starting out with that rule, but to uphold that for years just comes off as completely stupid no matter how righteous.

I'm not a fan of DD, so I don't know why he doesn't kill, why doesn't he kill? Out of the 10 commandments or something? Because I don't find religious coercion to be a solid reason I lean more towards Batman's moral absolutism because it simply isn't your call to kill, because of reasons.

Villains coming back in both universes is just lazy writing and a lack of creativity from writers

I'd say it's probably just driven by sales, and a lot of these characters being fan favorite.

 

[crows]

Meh, peps can love or hate this flick, but there is no denying this gif is the greatest of all comic book movies.

second best

 

[Bardoon]

Daredevil is similar to Batman but he's got several other reasons:

-Murdock is a devout Catholic which we know has "Thou shalt not Kill" as one of the Ten Commandments. His Catholic faith is tied closely to the character and his storylines...we've seen it demonstrated in the Netflix series too.
-Murdock believes in the legal system despite being Daredevil. So much so that he's actually part of the legal system as a lawyer and actually believes that he can make a difference on "both ends" of the spectrum. He believes that when the 'legal system' works properly, it does what's right, but knows that individuals can subverse and pervert it...like his arch-nemesis Kingpin, who has constantly corrupted the legal system to avoid jail time/unwanted attention/etc. Knowing that people try to subvert it and that it doesn't always work as properly as it should, Murdock acts as Daredevil.
-Similar to Batman, it's a moral line that Murdock doesn't want to cross as he feels it takes him down to a criminal's level.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

That didn't make a lick of sense.

Sounds familiar

 

[pturtle]

Here's the thing, it's only that flawed because comics need to sell.


I'm not a fan of DD, so I don't know why he doesn't kill, why doesn't he kill? Out of the 10 commandments or something? Because I don't find religious coercion to be a solid reason I lean more towards Batman's moral absolutism because it simply isn't your call to kill, because of reasons.


I'd say it's probably just driven by sales, and a lot of these characters being fan favorite.

True, but the same tends to happen in superhero movies.

Why wouldn't religion be a solid reason? Daredevil was raised Catholic. To me, it's much more realistic and believable even if you don't agree with it. Also, Matt Murdoch is a lawyer, so he actually works within the system and deals with putting them away first hand. Overall Daredevil just works a lot better for me, that character is a much more grounded believable Batman in my opinion.

I the same goes for most Marvel characters though when compared to DC characters, like you said before most of them are just regular people that got powers which makes them more interesting to me.

I love Batman's world, the villains, the aesthetic, the gadgets, the history I love all of that, but Batman as a character I just don't find interesting in most cases. I like Nolan's Batman only really, that's the only time I found the character interesting and believable. It's funny but I think Nolan's Batman is probably what Marvel comics would have done with the character of they ever got the rights and sort of rebooted him

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Prime Clone]

Related to Bats' no-killing rule is that he doesn't use guns, which made the Knightmare sequence all the more interesting (I guess extreme times call for extreme actions).

Also in BB he plans on revenge killing until Rachael intervenes.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

True, but the same tends to happen in superhero movies.

Why wouldn't religion be a solid reason? Daredevil was raised Catholic. To me, it's much more realistic and believable even if you don't agree with it. Also, Matt Murdoch is a lawyer, so he actually works within the system and deals with putting them away first hand. Overall Daredevil just works a lot better for me, that character is a much more grounded believable Batman in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, except for the blind part

I think Punisher is the most grounded and realistic "superhero" there is because someone like him, with his skills, outfit, and motivation can exist in real life...and they probably exist.

 

[GasparZizou]

Why wouldn't religion be a solid reason? Daredevil was raised Catholic. To me, it's much more realistic and believable even if you don't agree with it. Also, Matt Murdoch is a lawyer, so he actually works within the system and deals with putting them away first hand. Overall Daredevil just works a lot better for me, that character is a much more grounded believable Batman in my opinion.

Because you're doing it out of fear of damnation, not because you think it's not right. (I'm saying this in the context of superhero stuff, not in the context of real life )

Sure, it's more realistic, because it's easier to find a guy who doesn't kill out of doctrine than a guy who who doesn't kill out of pure will and understood conviction.

I do agree that he's more believable than Batman.

I don't know about grounded, Batman is pretty well grounded, but I don't know much about DD.

 

[pturtle]

Well, except for the blind part

I think Punisher is the most grounded and realistic "superhero" there is because someone like him, with his skills, outfit, and motivation can exist in real life...and they probably exist.

Oh yea

I was speaking mostly about the character and motivation really, not powers, but yea Punisher all around is probably the most believable.

Because you're doing it out of fear of damnation, not because you think it's not right.

Sure, it's more realistic, because it's easier to find a guy who doesn't kill out of doctrine than a guy who who doesn't kill out of pure will and understood conviction.

I do agree that he's more believable than Batman.

I don't know about grounded, Batman is pretty well grounded, but I don't know much about DD.

I don't know, outside of Batman not having powers he just comes off almost as a robot to me. He's just too perfect and not relatable at all. That's just from the little I've seen in movies and cartoons though, I don't know about the comics. I know writers tend to over compensate for his lack of powers.

Even with Marvel characters like Wolverine I tend to like the live action version better because I find Hugh's version of the character much more relatable and real.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GasparZizou]

Oh yea

I was speaking mostly about the character and motivation really, not powers, but yea Punisher all around is probably the most believable.



I don't know, outside of Batman not having powers he just comes off almost as a robot to me. He's just too perfect and not relatable at all. That's just from the little I've seen in movies and cartoons though, I don't know about the comics. I know writers tend to over compensate for his lack of powers.

Even with Marvel characters like Wolverine I tend to like the live action version better because I find Hugh's version of the character much more relatable and real.

I don't think that's a bad thing, instead of being relatable they should be inspirational, but you're right, Batman is not supposed to be relatable, I always scratch my head when people say Batman is "more relatable" when compared to other superheroes.

I'm like, no:
He's got billions, you're poor
He gets tons of ********, you're a virgin or married
He's physically in peak, borderline superhuman condition, you've got love handles
He's a master of several applied sciences, you struggle to spell
He's a master 127 martial arts, you bump your toe against the table
He can be functional after days of sleep deprivation, you nap every day
His parents were killed by criminals, you still live with yours
Oh, but he's human, very relatable

Imo comic Wolverine it's much more relatable, he's more of an ass and he's ugly and short, Jackman has the tall and handsome thing going on.

 

[pturtle]

I don't think that's a bad thing, instead of being relatable they should be inspirational, but you're right, Batman is not supposed to be relatable, I always scratch my head when people say Batman is "more relatable" when compared to other superheroes.

I'm like, no:
He's got billions, you're poor
He gets tons of ********, you're a virgin or married
He's physically in peak, borderline superhuman condition, you've got love handles
He's a master of several applied sciences, you struggle to spell
He's a master 127 martial arts, you bump your toe against the table
He can be functional after days of sleep deprivation, you nap every day
His parents were killed by criminals, you still live with yours
Oh, but he's human, very relatable

Imo comic Wolverine it's much more relatable, he's more of an ass and he's ugly and short, Jackman has the tall and handsome thing going on.

That's a great post. Wolvey in the comics might be ugly but he was getting ******** from the best of them

Jackman comes off more human though, less animalistic which I like. I prefer to only see that side of Wolverine when he's about to fight. The problem I have with Jackman's Wolverine sometimes is that when he is about to engage in a fight he remains way too human. X2 mansion scene is still really the only scene that he truly sold the animalistic side of Wolverine for me. DOFP wasn't that bad when he killed those mob guys either but that Weapon X sequence in Apocalypse just wasn't well acted or shot in my opinion which is a shame because that scene had the potential to top Wolverines Mansion massacre.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk