Should Batman Kill?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 мар 2024
- Recently Zack Snyder went on the Joe Rogan Podcast Experience and get into the weeds concerning his version of Batman including all the killing. Does Batman having his no kill rule make him a god? Highly recommend five stars. Thanks for watching
Check out bigsandwich.co for early videos, bonus podcasts, movie commentaries and video game let's plays
Extended Audio Edition ► • The Legend Of Zorro (E...
James' Twitter ► / mrsundaymovies
Maso's Twitter ► / wikipediabrown
Edited by Laurence ► / laurence_hisee
SUBSCRIBE HERE ►► bit.ly/1IQB3kh
TWP iTunes ► podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast...
TWP Direct Download ► play.acast.com/s/theweeklyplanet
TWP RUclips Channel ► goo.gl/1ZQFGH
Patreon ► / mrsundaymovies
Amazon Affiliate Link ► amzn.to/2nc12P4
T-Shirts/Merch ► www.teepublic.com/stores/mr-s...
#Batman #ZackSnyder #JusticeLeague 
Развлечения
A smarter comic fan than me pointed out, evil superman and evil batman are boring. Power always corrupts people. What makes batman and superman interesting is the fact that they do have power AND they have an impeccable moral code. Its much more interesting to watch someone struggle with doing whats right rather than solving all their problems with the easiest answer.
Exactly. It’s literally what makes them superheroes
Yeah but good Superman especially can get boring(Slightly less so with Batman)
So to stop them being so boringly perfect they need stories where they have no choice but to kill, and this can serve as a moral life lesson that makes them value life more.
@@IamBrixTMIf u really think about it they not heroes at all. They just cause billions in property damage (mostly superman) which isnt heroic at all. Imagine superman flies through your house while u eating then just gets up and leaves?
So Snyder Superman , which is a Superman that kills . Kinda proves the point that superhero’s that don’t kill are inherently more interesting as they have to work around the issue of having another punch fest
@@mogamadrifaatabrahams8643 Superman doesn't fly through homes, he's thrown through them. He doesn't choose to create obscene amounts of property damage, it's a collateral effect of fighting bad guys that wan't to destroy the entire world lol
To me the question has never been "Why doesn't Batman kill the Joker?" It's been "Why hasn't Gotham City executed the Joker?"
Exactly
Batman shouldn't be judge, jury, and executioner, and he knows that. He's just there to protect civilians and detain criminals.
It also makes me think of Batman being present for Joker's execution. He wouldn't be comfortable with it, but if the city wanted it he *might* allow it to happen despite their weird rivalry-relationship. It'd be like the end of Arkham City but with more agency on Bruce's part. It's an interesting premise to think about.
Leftist city that banned death penalty and second amendment.
I mean that is easily answered. Corruption. You are also missing the point of the question.
It’s not “ joker is a bad guy so why doesn’t Batman kill him”.
It’s “ **IF** Batman has no qualms about killing random henchmen it makes no sense that he wouldn’t also kill the Joker who is by comparison significantly worse.”
He's a paranoid schizophrenic. 🃏
What do you expect to learn from him?
I'm pretty sure netflix counts it as a "View" when 10 seconds of a preview of it plays while you are in the main menu, or immediately once a movie auto-starts after a previous one ended
Like Musk's "unregretted user minutes" which counts anything appearing onscreen for any length of time
Weird beef with Netflix 😂 they’re billions in debt but yes their view count is the problem with Netflix 😂 they won’t even exist in the next decade cuz they can’t get the debt down
I find hilarious the idea that netflix told Snyder that Rebel Moon had more viewership than Barbie just to keep him happy, lmao.
what's more funny is that games workshop hasn't gone after him or netflix for copyrights... he hardly even hides that Rebel Moon is 40k fanfiction...
He didn't even explore the "what if" of Batman killing in his movies. He just does it for shock value, and then has the big heroic scene at the end of JL where they all stand triumphantly as if one of them in the group isn't a billionaire making weapons in his basement to slaughter dollar store thugs.
The fact that Joel Schumacher did better with exploring that idea like 30 years ago and with the same type of studio interference is astonishing. Yet people will quickly shit on Schumacher and praise Snyder.
Zack "my Batman could get r*ped in prison" Snyder.
Says it all.
@@ivanagustinortiz5237 You're probably thinking of Batman Forever. A movie that, while flawed, had Bruce accept both his identity as Bruce and Batman as one. Instead of going with the usual framing of "Bruce is the Persona, Batman is the character."
@@leithaziz2716 yes, and the plotline of Batman adressing he killed his villains before so he's seen as a vigilante that has to be stopped (it was sidelined and almost deleted in it's entirety).
Thats your problem with this shit movie? :D:D:D I mean we must all have priorities i guess:D
Y'know, Daredevil made that exact scenario Snyder was talking about:
Putting your Hero in a no-win situation where someone has to die.
Frank literally chained up Daredevil to a ledge on a building, ducktaped a gun to his hand, grabbed a murderer from the Irish mafia and said "Shoot him, or I will." and y'know what Daredevil did?
He shot the chains that was holding him, knocked out Punisher, grabbed him, threw them in an elevator and as he was running down the stairs, fought like twelve different people who were ALSO trying to kill him, ALL WHILE he was injured, tired and the gun was still strapped to his hand and he never pulled the trigger (aside from the aforementioned breaking chains).
That is what a Hero does, they find another way out of their situation, where they don't have to kill someone.
Yeah, also that's like a million times cooler that Daredevil just killing a dude.
Zack snyder needs to watch daredevil and take notes.
Frank still killed the guy tho
@@Reaper-ft4wj ...Okay I guess I miss-remembered the scene a little, I thought Matt put both of them down the elevator.
But he STILL didn't kill anyone.
Frank's goal was to make *him* kill, not that he can't save everyone, so maybe I should've worded it better, but my point still stands.
So he James Kirked it?
Problem I have with Zack always being "Well I want to do it cause you told me not to." That's not some daring auteur, that's an English student basing all essay writings on what his teacher told him wouldn't work
Yet he needs to put a Jesus reference in everything he makes. Maybe if we tell him he SHOULD do that he'll stop doing that.
People don't understand that "breaking the rules" isn't just automatically an interesting thing to do, you need to have an interesting and compelling reason for WHY you're breaking them, and that requires actually having a deep and nuanced understanding of why those rules were made in the first place.
Everytime I get upset about my writing quality. I remind myself there's a studio out there that let Zack Snyder mutilate Superman and Batman for almost a full decade. All the maturity of a grown man banging his toys together not cause it's meaningful but just cause he wants to for some kinda of wish fulfillment. The kind of person to unironically quote a Superman villain. The boneheaded, uneducated british thug who got the full force of why making Superman kill you for no reason is a decidedly dumb thing to do..
Everytime I get upset about my writing quality. I remind myself there's a studio out there that let Zack Snyder mutilate Superman and Batman for almost a full decade. All the maturity of a grown man banging his toys together not cause it's meaningful but just cause he wants to for some kinda of wish fulfillment. The kind of person to unironically quote a Superman villain. The boneheaded, uneducated british thug who got the full force of why making Superman kill you for no reason is a decidedly dumb thing to do..
Everytime I get upset about my writing quality. I remind myself there's a studio out there that let Zack Snyder mutilate Superman and Batman for almost a full decade. All the maturity of a grown man banging his toys together not cause it's meaningful but just cause he wants to for some kinda of wish fulfillment. The kind of person to unironically quote a Superman villain. The boneheaded, uneducated british thug who got the full force of why making Superman kill you for no reason is a decidely dumb thing..
Zack Snyder's Spiderman: "with great power comes NO responsibility!!!"
I really feel like Snyder only understood the surface level meaning of return of the dark knight. That run was never the status quo.
1. It's The Dark Knight Returns, not Return of the Dark Knight.
2. Regardless, Batman literally doesn't kill anyone on The Dark Knight Returns, so it doesn't matter if it's status quo canon or not. Objectively Batman does not kill in The Dark Knight Returns and it's a straight up misinterpretation to say that Batman kills anyone in that comic.
@HOTD108_ the book in the 80s was used to show batman in new light far removed from the campiness that came before. I dont feel that book is the essence of batman.
Feel like Snyder saw cool edginess and ran with it
Snyder doesn’t have a deep understanding of any themes, character depth, or symbolism really just look at his movies. Rebel Moon is so surface level especially with how it introduced “main” characters and expected us to care and, that zombie movie he made is so basic. Hell, even Watchmen had a surface level understanding of the characters. He’s just an overrated director that gets paid too much money for mediocre movies.
@@SSJacksWolfall film adaptations are just that; adaptions based off the source material. Besides the Bronze Age of comics and elseworld stories his no kill rule is has been well established for quite a while.
I'm convinced Zack Snyder has never understood beyond the surface level of any comic book. He certainly didn't understand what was driving Watchmen.
This video should've been only 10 seconds in which James goes "No, he should not" and Maso saying "the end".
What bothers me about statements like this is that the person making it always acts like they're a subversive visionary for saying it, when they are making an extremely obvious point that people have been making for years. Every edgy middle schooler thinks Batman should kill. Every nihilist thinks that Superman would actually be evil or Captain America would actually be racist. Maybe. But the stories are interesting because the characters are going *against* what is obvious. If someone's fighting armed criminals, it's way easier to be armed themself, but it's more interesting if they have to work around the disadvantage they're put in. Superman's humanity is what makes him compelling. Captain America's values and how they affect his life and character are why he continues to be relevant, in the US and Beyond. I'm so tired of the same obvious character twists repeating over and over, presented as fresh each time. Sometimes they work, but you have to have a good story in addition to the subversion. "What if Batman but gun" is not enough. The shock value's gone.
Thank you.❤
Exactly. It comes across as immature to have all these evil versions running around and it's getting boring to be honest.
The idea of trapping Batman in a situation where he has no option but to kill - and as a writer not finding a way for him out of it - speaks more of the writer's lack of creativity than the character's.
By all means ''go against the obvious'', just dont ask me to suspend all my disbelief along the way.
@@orchoose For a superhero story?
Or maybe they just wanted to make a video about the topic and its not that deep? I dont think these guys would prefer a captain America comic where he’s racist
Minimum two people are always watching anything on Netflix is a peek into what Netflix tells its own board of directors lol
There are always two watching; usually a boy and his dog or a girl and her cat #stereotypes
I'd argue that half the time not even one person is watching.
@@parkmannate4154”This is my dog. His name is Chill.”
yeah I love it when corporate reality distortion field BS leaks into the pubilc discourse like this
why would they even care, unless 2 people are paying?
It's just stupid when they make the good-guy kill randos and fodder, but then let the main villain live at the end.
He can kill 37 guys who are barely a threat, but then takes the moral high ground when he faces the Joker.
That's why, even without being accurate with the no killing rule, Keaton's Batman is at least more consistent than Snyder's take. He kills goons AND kills the main villain. Not as good as not killing at all, but again, consistent.
It is stupid, but this is sadly how things have worked for most of human history. The victorious king might forgive his treacherous cousin and spare her life. Can't do much for the thousands of peasants who have already been killed on both sides fighting a pointless war.
@@alexanderwill2847 Yea, but that's politics and family. I don't agree with the politics, but at least I understand the point.
It really doesn't make sense for batman to go out of his way to preserve the lives of certain bad guys. But then he'll kill non factors. Especially when he's doing it to distinguish himself from killers.
It just doesn't add up sometimes.
@@alexanderwill2847I dont think situation you described here is relevant, king in your example can have practical and logical reasons to forgive traitor unlike batman
This really bothered me in guardians of the galaxy 3
If you believe Batman should kill, just read Punisher.
Joker killis innocent people because Batman won’t kill hin
@@tmac731 Sounds like you'd enjoy reading Punisher
Wayne Enterprises is a military contractor. Where do you think Punisher gets his weapons and how he got his hardened attitude? Militantism. How is Bruce contributing to the military industrial complex not killing?
@tohuvavohu The military kills all the bad people so Batman doesn't have to. Logic, man, logic!
@@tohuvavohuthat’s not always what wayne enterprises is, like in the dark knight trilogy isn’t the military division just a scheme to make new batman stuff
The fact that he brings up the Kobyashi Maru from Star Trek as an interesting no-win-scenario he wants to put Batman through, but completely misses that Kirk beat the no-win-scenario and refuses to acknowledge it could ever really happen, is wild to me. Did he even watch the movie?
The point is Kirk couldn't beat the Kobayashi Maru without cheating, a exercise that strictly teaches you how to lose and maintain your cool.
@@marcelo2169 You know what else we know about the Kobayashi Maru...? Pretty much everything.
We don't ever _see_ this no-win scenario where Batman was forced to kill. It's not even alluded to. It's a critical moment of his characters journey, and it happens off screen and by implication.
@@marcelo2169 the point is the Kobyashi Maru test is so Starfleet can see how a potential captain would handle a situation in which they could not win. Kirk does not believe a situation like that is actually possible, and reprograms it so he can succeed, proving that even a situation designed to be unwinnable can be won. His exact words are "I don't believe in the no-win-scenario."
@@marcelo2169You forgot Batman cheats. Brave and bold Batman said that was final lesson Bronze Tiger missed.
No, he shouldn’t. If you want The Punisher, go read The Punisher. I don’t mind if Batman does it on rare occasion like basically killing Talia in Dark Knight Rises because well, otherwise all of Gotham dies (including her anyway, so not like Batman would be changing her fate) but that’s it. Hell, it’s why him and Superman actually can get along. Despite their differences, they’re two people who both want to save as many lives as possible no matter who they are.
"Making your god irrelevant" Wtf are you talking about Snyder. It's a guy in a bat suit punching criminals. He is so weird.
Well he's talking about how people treat their heros like a God and the comic world they live in like a religion
Snyder probably thought Manchester Black was the good guy.
He's always had this bizarre quirk of wanting to make anything he does about something greater, but when you step back and look at it it really has little to say other then "I did it."
@andriygriffin4782 Snyder is the definition of im14andthisisdeep
Sounds like something a bond villain would say while walking away laughing
There's a very easy way to justify why Batman doesn't flatline people. He's a vigilante. It was an uphill battle for the police to accept him as a force of good. Batman's cooperative relationship with Gotham PD is only really possible, because he does not commit life deletion on criminals, even if they deserve it. Even if Batman is justified in the situation? Law enforcement would still be unable to ignore it, if he did. He'd have to be put on trial for it, at the very least, because the fact that he's a vigilante means that this can't be simply dismissed as clear self defense. If he did that, the police would be unable to look past his vigilante nature and work with him. Every time he showed up to talk to Gordon, there would be a reporter asking him why they're not charging him and ignoring him. It would give the appearance that Batman is above the law, and many people would start to see it as corrupt and hypocritical.
The other big reason: Batman is a symbol against crime, and a lot of people look up to him. If he ended up flatlining a villain, even if they were the Joker, or Bane, or whoever, the public at large would see it as a huge deal. People would start to think that doing it is more acceptable. Other vigilantes Batman has inspired might imitate it, and start committing ex(trajudicial)cutions. It would have a far-reaching impact on the people who Batman inspires, and likely lead to the act itself as something that's seen as more publicly acceptable.
I don't really have a problem with Snyder's take, or takes where he DOES do it. I just get annoyed when people say there's no good reason for him to avoid doing it. There's a very good reason.
Also, after what Joe Chill did to his parents? Psychologically, he just never ever wants to become a person like that. Batman believes that he doesn't have the right to make that decision, and act as the arbiter of someone's life. The injustice of seeing it happen to his parents is what inspired him to become Batman in the first place.
The vigilante thing is a good reason.
But I don’t think the public would be outraged if he killed a villain assuming it was to defend someone - like a villain who’s gunning people down, Batman kills him, people would cheer (but yes it would be hard for the cops not to take him in for questioning)
@@BenRangel If they got the full context, that's possible. But it's likely that a lot of people would only get the headline. And people wouldn't be able to say Batman doesn't do it now.
I'm not bothered by him doing it in certain iterations, it's ultimately up to whoever is writing the character. I just don't like the argument about Batman having the rule doesn't make sense.
Instead of asking whether Batman should kill, we should ask ourselves whether Zack Snyder should make any more movies.
I can't believe that he keeps insisting that Rebel Moon is all original ideas
Zack Snyder is fine adapting other people's work like Dawn of the Dead, The 300, Watchmen, and Legends of the Guardians. But when he's left to his own devices, that's when things fall apart. He needs a good writing team and a solid source material to guide his films. As a visual director, while kind of a one-note, I do think he's alright.
After watching Rebel Moon, I’m beginning to think the reason we all thought the Snyder cut was so good was because the Josstice League came first. If that hadn’t come first we might’ve thought of Snyder’s version as just mid
@@casualfanatic4217 _"we all thought"_ The vast majority of people *didn't like* Zack Snyder's Justice League either.
@@BrokenNoahHmm, Sucker Punch was pretty good though for what it was. Was that original or based on anything else?
Snyder, there's a difference with like "oh I wanna put batman in a situation where he has to take a life" and "im just gonna run around with an AK and run people over with my fuckoff giant car on the daily"
Putting Batman in a scenario where he has to kill and then seeing how he responds would be interesting. That's what happens in Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow. But that's not what BvS is doing. Batman doesn't have to kill. He kills because he doesn't give a shit, and he doesn't respond to it because he doesn't give a shit.
Like captain America or iron man? 😂 it’s not because he doesn’t give a shit. It’s because the writers didn’t care to explore that aspect.
@@imanoldurango8213right and as a consequence what we perceive is that he does not give a shit. Actions speak louder than words and his actions in the movie clearly show him not giving a shit and the writers didn’t give any reason for the audience to believe otherwise.
The issue for me is that his batman was the maninline batman who massacres people, the MAINSTREAM bat should not be killing freely
Meh the no killing thing never struck a chord with me because well he’s killed someone’s in almost every Batman movie I’ve ever seen 😂 I get it tho.
@@imanoldurango8213yea but those movies wasn't building a big dcu. I still don't like those characters killing but I can just say will keaton and bale are kinda just elseworld stories. Again still didn't like them killing though definitely bale as he straight up acts like he has a no kill rule when he literally cause a huge explosion killing tons of league of shadows. And remeber he started that explosion so he didnt have to kill some dude like wtf lol.
I was under the impression that BvS was fallen Batman who stopped giving a shit because he lost everything, but by the end hes ready to try and trust again and not kill. But I'm an idiot and Zack just thinks he should kill.
Zack’s fans always give him way too much credit. “But don’t you see?? Etc etc.” and then years later he’s in an interview “yeah I just did it cause I thought it would be mad!”
@@andriygriffin4782Batman fans give Batman writers to much credit. Batman’s no kill rules cause even more death, destruction, rape, murder, damages to property and traumatizing innocent civilians worse than Batman is. Batman knows these villains will escape eventually. And kill hundreds. Shite writing
you know nothing you are not an authority on anything stop speaking cause no one wants to hear you@@king_vision4085
@@king_vision4085It’s called it’s a fantasy world, you can believe he doesn’t kill and you can just say he doesn’t.
@@thomasjohnson1885 it’s called lazy writing.
I have no problem with the whole “Batman doesn’t kill people let’s play with that rule” exploring different scenarios and what he’d do in them
But have it be consequential explore it’s effects on the world and himself - don’t just go “well he kills people and he’s fine and it’s all okay”
Meh. Cops kill people in real life all the time and no one bats an eye. God forbid Batman do it in a fictional movie 🤣
@@imanoldurango8213you should bat an eye when cops kill people.
@@imanoldurango8213 Batman isn’t a cop.
@@imanoldurango8213do you think batman thinks if himself as a cop lol
@@imanoldurango8213Where have you been? Cops killing people have been an issue for years
So Batman can't kill because he's a psychopath who thinks that if he kills once he will keep doing it.
Zack Snyder asks the bold question: "What if Batman killed?" The answer? He keeps killing.
That’s not Zach Synder Batman and the reason for Batman no kill rule is stupid because if Batman killed joker, he really is going to fall and start killing everybody else? That’s dumb
@@tmac731two lunatics in an insane asylum is the analogy Mr J uses in one of the most important Batman comics of all time. Beyond that Batman wouldn’t have lasted as long as he did if they killed all his villains and Bob and Bill knew that back in the 30s when they brought joker back
@@tmac731It's what we call Sliding Off The Slippery Slope and Entering "He Who Fights Monsters" territory. When you look at The Abyss, The Abyss looks back at you. And Batman is already on edge for what has happened to him, what he does as Batman, and everything involved in Gotham. At if he did cross that line, he's certain he'd have a psychotic break and go insane. Batman is usually only one push away from going completely mental and psychologically he creates that barrier by commiting to his ideals. Cause he knows with his personality the outcome could create an even bigger monster.
@@blazcraz6992 so you mean to tell me Batman will kill somebody for breaking into a car just because he killed the Joker and he can’t turn back? That logic is stupid
@@tmac731 Yeah, that's usually what happens when you have a psychotic break . And it gets worse when it's based on rules you've made a vow to uphold. Psychologically the rules we dictate for ourselves are put into place to prevent us from becoming worse versions of ourselves.
What I'm saying is Batman killing anyone is a one way ticket for him to label himself fit for a nuthouse. He'd go insane. Like actually crazy. Cause his psyche is already that fragile and volatile that he'd devolve very quickly. Justifications become easy after you've already something terrible.
This interview convinced me that Zack Snyder is actually two toddlers under a trenchcoat.
Most directors should keep their mouth shut and not pick up a pen. The celebrity director who gets free reign to do whatever they want with an unlimited budget is the worst thing ever. Even good directors like Tarantino and Scorsese need to be reigned in or they make ungodly 3+ hour movies.
And both those toddlers are watching Rebel Moon on Netflix at this very moment.
Don't let his cult like fans read your comment. Most toxic fan base I've ever seen.
@@clarkmichaels822 Zach Snyder should certainly shut up, and not just in interviews. Some directors are interesting and intelligent people, watch any interview with Werner Herzog or Denis Villeneuve, but Zach Snyder is an obnoxious pretentious imbecile. Also not that it matters but it is "rein" not "reign".
The only superhero comics Snyder seems to have read are deconstructionist ones like Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns, which informs everything about his DC movies.
He also doesn't really understand the deconstructionist ones, he kinda seems to see "deconstruction" as "What if X superhero was bad"
I'm not sure he even thought about them, he just thought it sounded and looked cool, he even leaned into making the hyperviolence of Watchmen enjoyable when the comics were trying to showcase how bad it was...
oh and also looked at 300
Considering he thought Batman preferred using guns in the Dark knight returns, he probably just skimmed through the comic panels and didn't read it
@@Dr.Yakub22 or he read the sequel and Holy Terror instead, for good measure lol.
I remember hearing that he said he never really liked Supergero comics in his youth and that he was always more interested in the sexy fantasy stuff like Heavy Metal. He’s just a horny teenaged edgelord that never grew out of spanking it to paintings of busty girls in iron bikinis getting molested by snakes.
I personally love how he tried to claim that Sucker Punch was about empowering girls, when he alf of the action in that movie is slow-mo upskirt shots of twenty year old actresses.
Listen, if you want a more violent grounded Batman type character do like the rest of us and go to less mainstream characters,
Batman is Batman, he doesnt kill, that is a core characteristic, its not just "oh he looks cool and has gadgets"
Idk if Batman is crazy, he is in the DC universe after all
It's kinda a character based Ship of Theseus. If you take the core out of a certain character, are they even the same character anymore? So for Batman, that would be his No Kill Rule. You take that away, is he still Batman? Same name, same costume, same everything. In my mind, he's not anymore. He's something completely different cause he lacks what makes Batman, Batman. The structure and foundation of the "Ship" is wildly different that I'd label him a different character entirely. The mythos of Batman isn't the costume, the skills, or the look. It's the values that he's committed to that make him Batman.
@@blazcraz6992yes. Stfu. Captain America is inherently a better person than Batman. And cap kills. What does it really matter. You people act like you like Batman for the sole reason that he doesn’t kill when we all know it’s just because Batman is dope
@@imanoldurango8213 Well it's less about who is better and what traits makes each character that character. The set of ideals and philosophy that they follow that make them who they are on the page. Using Cap as an example, it's like when they introduced Hydra Cap and they took out the core value that made him Captain America. The result is, all things being considered equal, a completely different character because the foundation doesn't have the heart of Captain America. For Spider-Man, it'd be taking the responsibility out of him for no reason. Same for Batman, you can keep everything exactly the same except his willingness to kill. That's simply not Batman anymore, that's a different character because the idea of a "Batman" is someone who will not kill under any circumstance. That's what makes Batman, Batman.
I mean… he did cite a comic where Batman does kill and how he was inspired by it for his story. Everyone’s acting like he just did it to do it.
@@jacobaarum If you mean Dark Knight Returns, any killing in it is ambiguous at best, hes pushed to the edge at worst. They even showcased it in this video... did you watch it?
Its not like he just goes around killing people left and right in the comics as well
People are complaining because hes citing an elseworld as what Batman is about, and because he didnt even understand the source material hes using, its like he just skimmed through looking at the cool panels
You can’t have “Batman always wins because Batman” and and also have him kill whoever he wants. He’s just a dude, not the passage of time.
I personally think that Batman shouldn't ever kill. He's a man trapped in the trauma of watching his parents die in front of him, and he doesn't want anyone else to ever go through the same pain as him. However, I also see the story potential of him finally breaking his golden rule. He's stuck in such a situation that he can't Batman his way out of without taking a life. It should be an *extremely* traumatizing event for him, because he failed. Failed his mssion, his oath to his parents. It should be an event like in Batman Beyond, where it makes him reevaluate his whole self, even consider hanging up the cape and cowl.
Short Answer: No
Long Answer: Fuck No
Longer answer: LOL fuck no
Addition: but you cannot negotiate with a narcissist like Snyder, or his fans who are mindless zealots. :/
“Durrrr but Batman is killing people by letting the villains live durrrrr”
That’s the whole fucking point of why he’s an interesting character. Batman literally directly addresses this inner conflict in so many stories. Batman is literally a crazy person. A Batman that kills is rational and boring, there’s no conflict there.
Also, if you we want to be realistic, the Joker constantly breaking out of prison is completely ridiculous and only happens because the story demands it. In real life Batman wouldn't have to kill. Joker would just go to jail and stay there for the rest of his life.
Batman SHOULD bake some cookies, bat shaped. Baking is good therapy
Y'know I don't inherently hate the idea of Batman killing, but what I do hate is the idea that everything would immediately get better if he did, as if giving his villains (or heck, even just random jobbers) no reason to surrender would be at all helpful for Batman or Gotham.
Lmao the villains in Gotham know Superman exists and still aren’t afraid 😂 sooooooo there’s no real plausible explanation for crime occurring. In real life people would stop if there was a Batman and Superman
I think Snyder was too preoccupied with 'subverting' the characters, both Batman and Superman. Nobody actually wants to retell the original story, right, nobody has much respect and that little self-importance, not if they're a big name in Hollywood. Everybody has to make their mark, and Snyder made his mark with the Superman who frowns and the Batman who kills people.
Hopefully James Gunn changes that. These characters are beloved because of who they are and what they represent, and I'd love for those values to be the conduit for amazing films. Time will tell!
In the original comics Batman killed tons of people.
@@JayG724Yes, but people never like to bring that up
He only killed a few in the early comics. Even then it was already in the early 40s they decided to make it so he never kills.
Every important Batman story that informs our idea of Batmans character has a no killing rule outside of that, as far as I know
@JayG724
This happens in comics too genius
Elephant in the room is that, if we want to be realistic, Batman doesn't need to kill because in the real world prisons actually work and violent criminals are not breaking out every other weekend.
Batman's code is what keeps him interesting and it's what has kept him relevant for so long. Here's why.
He doesn't kill because his father was a surgeon. Bruce was there as a boy seeing Dr. Wayne healing criminals like Carmine Falcone. He wants to heal his rogues as his father did. It's not his right to kill, it's the people's, the system, the law, it's they who should put Joker in the electrifying chair. Breaking said law would turn Gordon against him as said in Batman Hush, one of his greatest allies and assets. He's crazy and believes that he'll basically become the Joker if he does kill. He's also part of the Justice League who also don't kill, it's their duty to set an example to other heroes of the DC universe. Batman's rogues are one of the greatest supervillains in fiction, and imagine how different it would be if he did kill.
I kinda wanna see the Alternate Future where Bruce Wayne is just a doctor who took the parting of his parents as a way to heal other's and to always find a way to do good.
Batman and Superman can kill if the setting and tone make sense for it. But at this point these heroes have been evil or kill crazy for so long that it’s no longer a subversion, it’s expected. Make them nice for a change.
No he shouldn't. But writers need to figure out a new method for fighting crime, cause the revolving door of Gotham clearly isnt working.
Worlds Greatest Detective / one of the smartest people on the planet.....cant figure out (or isnt allowed to) a better method at ending crime
Yeah but thats not a flaw with Batman's methods. That's just comic book writing.
@@maliklofton9148 What in the world does being a detective have to do with that? He catches active criminals and puts them in jail or they’re institutionalized. That’s how the law works and you deal with crime. If they escape, that’s the fault of the security and people who designed the prison/institution. Batman is doing everything right, he’s not a god (despite certain idiot writers/fans trying to make him basically one) who can magically convince people to stop doing something that’s been a part of humanity since the beginning.
@@OldManYellsAtClouds He does, there’s been plenty of comics that address that. Hell, the first arc of the New 52 reboot immediately opened with Bruce funding a massive project to improve the city economically. You want to criticize a hero for failing to utilize what they have? Peter Parker invents an incredible non-lethal weapon perfect for stopping someone right in their tracks, and despite being a genius he doesn’t think maybe, just maybe, the police could use to this great benefit? And if the criminals get their hands on it, great! Now instead of shooting someone they’re mugging or whatever, the victim is merely webbed up and can be freed. It’s a win all around!
Its not always a problem, depends on the writer, executive decisions, and canon at the time, but batman does usually have a bunch of reformed villains. It just takes time, and in comics, time moves very slowly, but even then in Batman: The Imposter #1, they showed the first night in Gotham without violent crime in 54 years
Batman is doing close to the best he can, because the world is written in a way to keep him doing the stories they want
but if you want a more socially proactive, reform the city Batman, you can look at Green Arrow stuff
I thought that was why Punisher was created.
The punisher series glorifies violence. Captain America kills all the time yet no one bats an eye because we aren’t told he has a no kill rule. We’re told Batman has that rule and he breaks it all the time 😂
@@imanoldurango8213 to be fair Captain America is a soldier... it's kind of his job to kill...
and The punisher is an veteran...
This is the guy who made Batman change his mind completely upon learning that the alien killing machine's mother is named "Martha"! I won't trust his comic book take, like ever!
I mean, there have been comic books that have done even worse twists. Several have been done by DC.
Why Did You Say That Name?
@@1wayroad935 Yes, DC comics published stuff like _"Superman: At Earth's End"_ but the "Martha" plot point is still bad. Just because worse stuff exists, it doesn't become better.
@@1wayroad935 yes but those comic books didn't cost $200,000,000, they cost $5-10k and were made in a month.
That could have worked well in the hands of a good filmmaker, I mean, Batman realizing Supes at the brink of death cares about another human being more so than himself, perfectly fine reason to change Bats attitude...
It was just not well done on screen.
Jason to Bruce: "Yes, you can't stop crime, that's what you never understood. I'm controlling it... You want to rule them by fear but what do you do with the ones that aren't afraid??"
No. The whole point is to be able to strike fear in evil, not to kill. If his rogues keep escaping prison, then that is the government's fault and not his.
Hell, he should sue the city for negligence.
I too like the concept of a pre-formed superhero universe, where Batman has been fighting a while.. But its just violent Batman, no real superhero, just one antihero
Young Justice started with a team of sidekicks, heroes already here and fighting villains, but you dont need much explanation to understand the world. Like James Gunn seems to be doing with the many characters in Superman: Legacy
I thought TDKR Batman could be interpreted as having killed the Joker but having hallucinated him snapping his own neck due to his blood loss(as a result of the prior stabbings by Joker) and his mind not being able to cope with the fact he took a life. With him hearing the Joker laughing in the next scene despite him being dead further cementing the possibility for some readers. There's also the fact that Joker snapping his neck on his own despite being (allegedly) paralyzed by Batman prior doesn't make much sense in the eyes of a number of people, which makes me more inclined to believe the "Batman is losing it" theory, with him snapping the neck himself.
I think this topic is fascinating. Most of the time Batman fighting civilian criminals. Not an adjacent goal, just peeling away at crime. So would he go full Hammurabi and punish criminals, or serve them to the court? So by not killing he wouldn’t be contributing to grievous crimes.
But then there’s the aspect of criminals fearing him. Would criminals fear a man who can and would kill them or would they fear a man who’ll taken the to prison?
Killing makes it seem like he can’t control himself or gauge his limits. But then it would be interesting to see him get haunted by the people he’s had to kill, his murders starting to take a toll on him, depression etc.
... Spider-Man has killed with his radioactive what?!
Some dumb alternate future where MJ dies of cancer. Don't think it was ever tied to the mainline in any way. I hope not, at least ...
I'm fine with a Batman killing if he's not the main one like Ben Affleck was the main live action Batman at the time also one of the first people he wanted to kill was Superman even though he was doing good but he was scared of his power but yet Joker and other villains are still running around... okay
It's called The trolley problem anybody can face that conundrum
Batman and Superman were meant to be the best of us, Snyder just turned them into the rest of us….
It was a redemption arc for both
@@tmac731 Yeah, you're 100% someone who thought _"Martha"_ was genius.
@@beardedbear9901 Batman didn’t stop from killing Superman because they have the same name. Batman was blinded by his rage so when he heard the name Martha, it triggered his PTSD and when he found out it’s Clark’s mom he realized he became the enemy that killed his parents making Clark that helpless little boy in the alley with parents dead
@@tmac731 So, he only just found out his Mothers name in that moment? Weird. Because he clearly knew Superman was Clark Kent. But didn't check the names of his parents...? Shoddy detective work...
@@tmac731 And yes, that's a fine interpretation. Assuming we have to believe this Batman somehow never knew anything about Superman or his family up until this exact moment. Which stretches credibility.
In a world where most of the characters in superhero/action movies kill people without any remorse I just think it’s nice to have a few that go out of their way to not kill. Like Superman, Batman and Spider-Man. I would prefer more but at least give me those 3.
It's complicated. On one hand, I think he should. However, I don't believe he should be a cold-blooded killer deliberately going out to kill anyone; rather, deaths should only result from self-defense or situations like Ra's al Ghul's, where not saving him does result in his death. However, if he does kill even inadvertently, it robs the Jason/Joker moment of its tearful yet gut-wrenching impact. He does care a lot about Jason, but he isn't willing to cross that line and stay true to his conviction. That emotional depth is lost if he does. So you'd either have to completely change the character of Jason, which honestly you could; he doesn't necessarily have to die at the hands of Joker and feeling this emotional betrayal of Batman not killing the Joker even after he killed his son, as a sign that he never truly loved him, although even before his death, you could see the tension was there to part ways with Batman in the future and go in this anti-hero Red Hood direction. The reason for him choosing Joker's past identity could be different but still convey the same point to haunt Batman, or you don't use him at all.
Well, one thing we can all agree on is that Man would NEVER kill...
The real reason that Batman can't kill is because there are a limited number of villains in the rogue's gallery. Joker, Riddler etc.. And if Batman killed any of them then the popular rogue's gallery would go away. Therefore Batman can't kill because if he does then the Batman comic is also killed and DC stops making money off the Batman IP.
No. I want Batman putting bad guys into further destitution with medical bills and therapy instead.
Yep, it's his villains that use Arkham Asylum as a revolving door, who rack up the body count.
My headcanon is that Bruce Wayne has set up a foundation that pays the medical bills of those injured by that psychopath Batman
Is there a story about that?
@@aidanshea5942 I'm pretty sure that, or very similar, is literally _canon._
@@elliotyourarobot In the Injustice 2 game, Robin did call out Bats with his no killing rule as he seems to be fine with giving thugs traumatic brain injuries instead.
Comic-book wise, closest I could think of is from the Batman Year Two miniseries if I'm remembering correctly where he deliberately broke a petty thug's leg (or was it hip?) who happened to be an ex-football player. Any chance for that guy to get back into sports in any capacity is gone. He could have just subdued and tied the guy up.
My stupid joke aside, while it would be highly suspect for Bruce Wayne to fund hospital care for criminals Batman beats up, he do sponsor ex-cons that want to turn a new leaf and do hire them.
Hello to the other Big Sandwiches who have seen this video early. What type of sandwich are you, and how big are you?
I'm a ten pound (weight not cost) rueben.
The Kobayashi Maru is only interesting because Kirk was the only one who beat it. Just like that kid who finally beat Tetris.
Also, how many views on Netflix can be attributed to people falling asleep with the TV on and Hack Snyder's Star Bores comes on? Sorry, but in theaters, that movie would have bombed hard.
Kobayashi Maru is also a subversion because Kirk had to cheat beforehand in order to beat it. So, in the end, it's still unbeatable on its base settings.
We tried watching with the missus 2 times... failed both times. Horrible movie. Still counts as views XD 😊
Even Christopher Nolan's Batman did kill despite claiming to have a "NO KILLING POLICY". He was ultimately responsible for Ra's Al Ghul's death by disabling the train's breaks and leaving him to die in the crash, he tackled Harvey Dent over a ledge and killed him in the resulting fall and finally he shot down Talia's truck and it's crash ultimately caused Talia to die (also worst acting in a death scene ever by Marion Cottilard lol).
Every iteration of Batman has killed in defence of his life or in the defence of others. There's a difference between killing in the heat of battle and cold blooded murder.
THANK YOU! *slaps on table*
I honestly think Nolan's "I don't have to save you" moment is kind of a cop-out excuse to take out Ra's. That's still murder. The Harvey Dent example is lot better executed in my opinion, where he was just trying to force Dent away from Gordon's family and it got out of control.
It's a lot more tragic while not making it look like he was out to kill him directly.
The only deliberate kill in The Dark Knight was Harvey Dent. Batman retired for 8 years after that. He wasn't just killing willy nilly. Snyder's Batman was using guns and killing goons for no reason. They weren't even a threat to him. Also a "Batman" who gets duped continuously by Autistic Lex Luthor, should not be anyone's Batman
@@kayenat10he technically deliberately killed Ra’s Al Ghul. He could have just grabbed him and grappled away
my thing is if Bats kills someone, don't use a gun. there are times when collateral death happens. Bats is about reforming his villains, he wants them to be better
2:09
I do the exact same thing. Whenever people b*tch about Batfleck k*lling criminals, I point out that BatKeaton and BatBale have done the exact same thing. And when they did it, no one was b*tching and whining. No one has ever been able to defend that point successfully
Oh wow it is the bat fella
I think a lot of people are missing the point. Batman should absolutely be put into situations where he has no choice but to kill and use everything in his power to get out of this situation. It's an interesting moral dilemma in which you wonder whether he truly will break his code or not in the moment.
As for Superman, I don't want to see him kill at all. His strongest asset aside from his just insanely stupid level op powers comes from having all this power and the strength it takes to not use it in his most emotionally vulnerable moments. I thought him killing Zod would have been more interesting if they'd played into the fact that killing Zod was the only way to ensure Zod was stopped followed by Clarks inner battle with himself over taking a life even if it's the life trying to exterminate the world.
I mean to be fair zod says he'll never stop.
When did that ever mean anything ? Zod could’ve just been put in a replication of krypton’s atmosphere and he be put back in a state of non supersized , this always for interesting interactions with Superman and the dark parts of krypton’s culture while leaving the door open for both of them to have interesting character arcs
“Allows” not always
Well the comics and even Arkham Origins often puts Batman in a “no win” situation. The way Batman tricks the unwinable situation and finds a way around it is what makes Batman Batman. That the hecking point
He'd be a more efficient punisher. If he killed, he'd be basic. And it would be too easy. And they'd have to come up with ridiculous reasons why joker, 2 face and such aren't deaf. Like he'd kill 50 henchmen but joker always gets away b4 he's killed
I think it's interesting either way. I grew up with Batman that killed in the movies and as a kid I also watched the Animated Series where he didn't. I found both to be rather compelling and I think that both are valid interpretations of the character. I don't think it has to be a zero-sum game where he just doesn't kill at all I think it's interesting to have iterations of both versions which just honestly leads to more variety in storytelling.
Batman should absolutely kill. But it should be a significant character moment when he does. It should matter and have meaningful impact. That's kinda the point of the no kill rule - to test it and have it mean something when Batman has to break it.
Or when he's close to break it. Batman beyond did it 25 years ago and with 5 or 10 minutes it demolishes Snyder's take.
@@ivanagustinortiz5237 Indeed. It's almost like Batman's a pretty well developed character who's on the fringe of being OP but he's got so many rules and red lines that it's a lot of fun to construct scenarios and stories where his rules are challenged and seeing how he reacts. I dunno. Wild.
Some people think he should at least kill the joker, but I think that even that is a bad idea. Because in almost every storyline where the joker dies, the world doesn´t exactly improve.
I've been watching you guys for so long that I forget the scope Sunday 's influence... haha great vid.
The reason Batman doesn't kill is the same reason Superman doesn't throw all his problems into the sun.
Why does it have to be Batman? With all the terrible crimes Joker has committed, why hasn't a random civilian just done it?
Or what if a cop shoots Joker and is completely justified?
Forcing Batman to take a life is BORING
Regarding Christopher Nolan's Death of Harvey Dent/Two-Face, Two-Face was already dead: not accepting treatment for the horrific wounds, shock would incapacitate him very soon enough within the time frames within the fictional depiction, sepsis and bacterial infections and all that sorts of stuffs would keep him incapacitated; a fall like was in Dark Knight shouldn't necessarily kill someone especially so quickly, but he was already very, very injured, so practical instantaneous dramatic-action death - Not Saving is quite different from straight up killing; circumstances can be designed by (a) writer(s) but they better be thoughtful
Zack Snyder has a wonderful talent of taking beloved near century-old characters and turning them into the least interesting, unlikable, grimdark versions of them.
Kinda odd How ben affleck was both daredevil and Batman, and in both ben affleck daredevil and ben affleck Batman they both start killing bad guys and later stop killing cause they learned a lesson in the end of the movie, odd How that happen to both dc and marvel movies including ben affleck
My favorite takeaway from all this is that Batman killing out of necessity is an interesting idea, but sadly the film adaptations of batman that kill have pretty much always done so out of convenience, which completely screws up the character's relationship with his villains.
There’s plenty of ways to explore Batman’s no killing rule that could be dramatic and engaging.
The problem is that Zack Snyder doesn’t want to do that. He just wants to make the coolest looking shot that he can and gives no regard to story structure, pacing, tone, or the implications.
He wants Batman to kill not to explore the story of a Batman who kills, he wants Batman to kill because it looks “cool”.
Zack Snyder sure says a lot of things.
Batman killing people is so much more boring than a Batman who refuses to kill. Killing is the easy way out, and to be a hero means to persevere and do what's right even when it's much harder. Obviously you can make an entertaining movie where the protagonist kills people (most action movies have the main character killing left and right, e.g. John Wick) but Batman isn't just an action character, he's supposed to be a hero, THAT'S the appeal.
Are you really a hero if you let a serial killer live constantly
Exactly what you said. Batman is a crazy person. This is the angle. Having Bruce acknowledge that he knows exactly how insane he is. He’s afraid of opening up that door because he knows what he is capable of. His insanity is pointed in the perfect direction with complete self control, but if he strays off coarse, he fears himself if he were to lose that control.
It’s like Gandalf not taking the ring. Through him it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.
Zack Snyder definitely directs some movies
No
Batman has been in plenty of no win scenarios but the reason he gets out of them (other than just because he's batman😂) is because he's not alone... He has allies and the bat-family to back him up(which when they do step in he feels bad for burdening them in his crusade.
I’m sure someone must have already said this but Batman in The Dark Knight Returns has the Joker at his mercy in the tunnel of love. Innocent bystanders are running away and they call him ‘murderer’ to which his thinks to himself “I wish I were”. Joker taunts him for being unable to kill him and then he kills himself. Afterward the GCPD issues a warrant for Batman’s arrest for Joker’s murder. (The irony being that he didn’t do it, of course).
Snyder fans are living proof that no matter how bad something is, there is someone somewhere delusional enough to like it
The correct awnser is no
It’s a plot point in dark knight returns that when the joker kills himself and it seems like Batman has killed him, that’s when murder is added to the charges against him. Seems like he didn’t kill the mutant he shot.
Personally I was fine with the idea that this Batman had lost the ideological battle against the Joker. His Robin has been murdered, he's been doing this for 20 years, it hasn't been an effective deterrent, violent crime continues, and he snaps. As a premise, I think that's interesting. The execution, however, I thought was a bit lacking. (Mostly in terms of Superman not talking it out and instead deciding to fight Batman, and Lex Luthor being Mark Zuckerberg meets the Riddler.)
YES.
Yes, Logically.
No generally, in regards to Historically Who the character of Batman IS Narratively.
Batman's true turmoil, is that criminals kill. Villains kill. And if Batman also kills, he risks crossing the line and becoming the evil that he fights against. To reduce that complex moral conundrum to a simplistic "Batman doesn't kill" mantra (especially when it is wielded with such absolutism by fans) is also very limiting for the character. That's not to say that Snyder got it right. Didn't have anything to say about Batman killing people. Not really. But they're absolutely is incredible potential to explore that moral conundrum with Batman as a character and Bruce. So it should not be an absolute that Batman doesn't kill. What's absolute is that Batman doesn't WANT to kill (although he certainly loves brutalising, maiming and horribly scarring people!). But what about that one moment where he does kill. Why did he do it, and what impact did it have on him?
That terrible writing imo. If your whole reason of not killing is because "I don't won't to become evil" that's stupid I'm sorry
@@wipe919 I didn't say "becoming evil". I said "becoming THE evil that he faces". Those are not the same things.
I always looked at it as Batman doesn’t *execute* people. Like it’s never his job to punish them or to apply justice. If given the choice between killing a bad guy VS capturing one, he’s compelled to choose the latter. But if it’s life-or-death, and he has no choice, Batman can (and should) kill.
A pragmatic super hero movie would just be an ordinary action film and I would like to see something else sometimes.
Sorry to sound trite, but I still think Nolan captured it succinctly in Batman Begins - "I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you."
That’s just murder with extra steps
Idk, if I asked the question, “what would happen if my god could kill” I feel like I could only ever have boring answers.
Batman can kill.
Its just boring for him to do that most times.
8:57 In the Star Trek Expanded universe they do have another captain who 'passed' the Kobayashi Maru. Ultimately what he did was blow up the Kobayashi Maru. When asked why, he stated that ultimately the whole situation looked like a trap, and if the Kobayashi Maru were captured by the Klingons a death by explosion would be more humane then capture/torture by the Klingon Empire. While ultimately not the best ending from a moral/ethical standpoint, it feels like a more utilitarian approach to the 'no win scenario'.
Batman’s always in the situation where he needs to kill… he doesn’t and that’s why he’s interesting.
Also that scene in the dark knight returns… he shoots him in the shoulder.
Only person he kills is the joker who technically kills himself.
Zack snyder is an 58 year old edgelord lol
I think Batman needs to return to being a street level gritty detective. With a no kill rule. But every once in a while being forced to kill because the alternative would be worse.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but Batman is not well served by being in the justice league. I want atmospheric crime/detective stories which occasionally pitch moral questions. I couldn’t be less interested in “How will Batman fight this impossibly strong monster who explodes planets every times it flexes its biceps? Idk probably throw a batarang at it, or invent a machine which magically defeats it”
Because you will be taking away one of the biggest things that makes Batman so iconic! Of course Batman CAN kill, but the fact that he's skilled enough and smart enough to not have take the "easy" way out is part of what makes him awesome. Plus his unflinchingly moral code also makes him awesome! Batman taking out a warehouse full of armed Henchmen is really cool, but him being skilled enough to do it without firing a single bullet or killing anyone, (but by using fear to make the other guys make the wrong moves so he can capitalize with his skills, for example) is the cherry on top that make him the best. It's one of the biggest reasons why he's my favorite.
The issue isn’t telling a story about a hero being brought to make an impossible choice, the problem is that Snyder doesn’t portray human life as valuable. Batman kills people until he decides he doesn’t anymore and it’s never brought up again.
It’s amazing how little I care about this topic that I will still click on the video just because Mr. Sunday Movies is the one covering it.
Theres superheroes that kills, some have a non killing rule, is there any superheroes that dont have a non killing rule but the character doesnt kill ALL villains? In the comics?