All the bad guys Batman kills in 'Batman v Superman' in one video

The minute I walked out of the premiere of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice I knew that Ben Affleck's Batman was going to be controversial. Affleck, in my opinion, is THE Batman, but he killed a lot of people in the movie. That's something that doesn't sit well with some fans.

So how many people did he kill? 21, according to a supercut Mr Sunday Movies put together of every Batman kill in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. You can check out the cleverly edited video above.

Before I ask for your opinion over the whole Batman killing thing, here's what Zack Snyder had to say about it:

As we learned from recent Justice League set visit reports, Batman probably won't be as brutal anymore. The death of Superman has inspired him to be a better person. But what did you think of all his killing in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice? Did it bother you? Let me know in the comments below.

337 comments

isaaclian11

July 3, 2016

People trying to justify Batman killing and pointing out the people he's killed in previous movies in 3...2.....1

Fares Mhaya
July 3, 2016
It doesn't need justification, though you can understand where this Batman is coming from. But this isn't New Earth, this is the DC Extended Universe Earth. Saying that Batman shouldn't kill is like saying that Flashpoint Batman shouldn't either. I'll admit that it bothered me at first, but then I realized that I couldn't have the Batman I wanted on screen, and accepted Snyder's creative choice. Hopefully it'll change in the future.
1. TomDJ
  July 4, 2016
  Wasn't Flashpoint Batman, Thomas Wayne? His dad?
  1. Fares Mhaya
    July 4, 2016
    Yeah, but still just because it's not Bruce doesn't give him a license to kill.
    1. TomDJ
      July 4, 2016
      Yea I know. True true. Just different guy, different morals. I would be hard pressed to call him batman as it's a different person altogether.
    2. Fares Mhaya
      July 4, 2016
      Truth be told, I was looking for an Elseworld killer Bruce Wayne to use as an example, I just couldn't think of any.
    3. NinjaGamer13
      July 5, 2016
      Yeah. You know why?
      Because Batman not killing is a definitive part of the character.
      The movies tend to miss that, just as they miss a lot of things.
      I'm still waiting for a comic accurate Batman to be shown on screen....
    4. Fares Mhaya
      July 4, 2016
      Injustice' Lex Luthor is a good guy. I suppose it's because the circumstances determine the morality of the character, not the character itself that does so.
2. Fares Mhaya
  July 4, 2016
  Why doesn't Normal Batman just carry electrified tasing-paralyzing projectiles with him and why doesn't he cut off the limbs of the criminals once he's done with them so they can't do anything in the future? Normal Batman's M.O. is also out of the window if we think about it too much. As for the essence of the character itself, I agree that it's undermined by the killing, but that's something to be accepted as it does not defy logic and requires no justification.
  1. Fares Mhaya
    July 4, 2016
    I agree with that, I see Ben Affleck's Batman but I don't see my Batman entirely fulfilled. I just can't find a reason to object the changes carried by the creative team behind BvS seeing that they are completely entitled to make those changes as long as they make sense, logically and story-wise. As Snyder stated, this isn't a "I'm here to kill you" Batman, this is a "I don't care if you live or die" Batman. And that doesn't conflict with his M.O. seeing that he's not aiming to kill, but to incapacitate criminals with his ninja equipment of choice, no matter the consequences. The only aspect of it, in my opinion, that you can object is the reason Snyder chose to make the change, not the change itself. If he were to give Batman a pink Batsuit, I personally won't find myself entitled of deeming it wrong, as long as it's supported with good reason. seeing that it would be considered an Elseworld Batman. But I would find myself entitled of disapproving Snyder's decision of going with that change in the first place, if you're getting my point. I think that the same logic applies here.
3. NinjaGamer13
  July 5, 2016
  Batman not killing is not just a randomly assigned hero attribute generic to most characters. It's a core part of the characters personality and motivation. It's a founding factor.
  When Bruce suffered loss so unfairly and at such a young age, he wanted to ensure he could do all he can to prevent that from happening to others.
  Flashpoint Batman isn't Bruce Wayne, so it's not really an apt comparison. In almost every other Batman Elseworlds take (really, the movies are the only consistent exception) Batman doesn't kill. You can put him in any time period, make him a detective, make him a vampire, make him a terrorist....he doesn't kill.
  That the Snyders decided to give us a take on TKDR as the opening for the DC extended universe, is very sad. That comic was a commentary on comics at the time, a subversion of type.
  Batman doesn't kill, and he shouldn't in this movie, even if he is depressed and angry.
  But then, that's OK. This isn't really Batman. Batman is the worlds greatest detective, and would have figured out that 'White Lotus' was a ship almost instantly. Batman doesn't kill. Movie Batman still hasn't been seen on screen. Maybe one of these days we will get a real Batman movie.
JAG2045
July 4, 2016
Or that its ok because he killed some people waaaay back in some 1939/1940 issues (never mind the other 70+ years of comics with the no killing rule!)
1. residentgrigo
  July 4, 2016
  His last canon comic kill was in 2014 during Batman: Zero Year. He accidentally burst Dr. Death´s heads.
  1. JAG2045
    July 4, 2016
    But as you say that was an accident, there's a difference between that and knocking a guy into a vat of chemicals like he did in Detective Comics 27
    1. residentgrigo
      July 4, 2016
      He kicked the guy into the acid again in Detective Comic 27 Vol.2. The coic hints that that person became the joker, so who even knows what it means as it contradicts Zero Year.
      I don´t think that any of us want a murdering Batman but having his kill (indirectly) is his Modus Operandi.
    2. JAG2045
      July 4, 2016
      Detective Comics 27 vol 2 isn't actually canon, it was a retelling of Batman's origin from the original 1939 story as an anniversary issue (hence why that story implies the criminal becomes the Joker)
      The rest of the stories are celebrations of Batman as a character but are not really part of the "main" DCU
  2. residentgrigo
    July 5, 2016
    And the point of this film to bring him to his lowest point, as in the late 80s when Jason died. It was Superman who stopped him from murdering the Joker for revenge, but he had no "net" in BvS, which was the point.
    1. residentgrigo
      July 5, 2016
      He has some proxy kills and some not, who cares. Zack also said:
      "So, I TRIED to do it by proxy." It only matters that Bruce snapped some time before the film.
      DKR, Kingdom Come, Red Son, Injustice and so on wouldn´t exist if artists weren´t alow to interpret the source material. The medium wouldn´t have even survived the 40s... What sort of comic fan are you? Are some of the biggest US comic of all time "wrong"?
    2. residentgrigo
      July 5, 2016
      Um, i praised DKR and the rest. Do you even read my posts?
      One can also deconstruct from scratch, most authors do, but that isn´t the case here, as MoS is centered on the theme of hope. Snyder´s Superman even did more global good than ALL the life action Superman films combined and this is a credited DRK adaptation. Supposedly not the last as only 2 books got adapted, if Forbes is to be trusted. Miller also likes Batfleck. How is the creator of "this" Batman now off base? Bob Kane was a fan of Burton´s Batman, who straight out enjoyed murder. Are you now challenging the creator of OG Batman too?
      You also suggest that films have to play by different rules than everyone else but the, often violent, ongoing toon film line is close to a decade old and features entries as Gods and Monsters and a direct DKR toon. That adaptation had Bruce coerce he general into suicide with his own gun! And then there is the executive producer of BvS + constant on MoS. Take it away Geoff John:
      http://i.imgur.com/XRqYihp.jpg
    3. residentgrigo
      July 5, 2016
      So you want to question my love for my favorite short form comic of all time? Aha.
      No that i read up on Miller interviews and vidoes on it, or anything... Or that i read it over 10 times. Or that i know how high caliber guns work due to my military background. Miller´s Batman is and always was a deconstruction, deal with it:
      “You were the one they used against us, Bruce. The one who played it rough. When the noise started from the parents' groups and the sub-committee called us for questioning... you were the one who laughed... that scary laugh of yours. "Sure, we're criminals", you said. "We've always been criminals". "We have to be criminals".
TomDJ
July 4, 2016
Or incorrectly stating he killed in the Dark Knight Returns and that's who he's based off!
1. TomDJ
  July 4, 2016
  "no he didn't" what?
  1. TomDJ
    July 4, 2016
    I said he didn't kill people . "Incorrectly stating"
    How can I assume you read the comic if you can't even read my comment?
    1. TomDJ
      July 4, 2016
      You're....sorry? uhh, I've never encountered this on the internet before. Ummmm, appology...accepted?
      <3
      Yea I remember reading that too and some commentators thought Batman also killed the Joker, which was also false. Absolutely agree
    2. TomDJ
      July 5, 2016
      He probably only watched the movie. Unfortunately he's knocked out and never seen, or heard, from again. So it's easy to assume. In the comics he plainly states that killing the leader would cross the line and he proves that with the joker that he hasn't crossed that line yet. Tell him to read the comic lol
    3. TomDJ
      July 5, 2016
      Well he sounds like a lost cause. Now that I think about it, I think they even state in the comic that the Mutant Leader is expected to stand trial later on. So there's that too.
    4. DeanDouglas
      July 5, 2016
      Batman killed the mutant holding the baby in tdkr. Batman fired the gun the next panel shows the dead mutant with blood splattered on the wall behind him.
      You haven't read the book..
    5. TomDJ
      July 5, 2016
      That's been debunked. The news reported a shooting that day but not a murder. The bullet went through the mutant's shoulder but didn't kill him.

Kerk Lastnameless

July 3, 2016

Yeah, keep on rubbing salt into the wound....

Zoom

July 3, 2016

well there you have it. He killed 21 people (at the least). Spin that every way you like but that makes him a serial killer and criminal. Not any different from the Punisher for example. Now I am not making a statement wether this is good, bad, justified or an insult to the character - just stating what is an actual fact.

BatmanNewsChris
July 3, 2016
Christian Bale's Batman killed 15 people according to the same guy who put together the Batfleck video.
Batman killing in movies is nothing new, though I will admit that Affleck's Batman was definitely more careless about the whole killing thing. He gave 0 f*cks, but it was part of the story. He was supposed to be out of control, in order to be inspired by Superman by the end of the movie.
1. Zoom
  July 3, 2016
  Like I said I did not make any judgment as I am well aware of the fact that his Batman is supposed to be devoid of hope and having lost his ideals. I get the why. He is the Batman that Joker always wanted him to be (So actually Joker has won in the DCEU - well until Superman died that is).
  Btw the fact that Keatons Batman and Bales Batman also killed a whole lot of people in their films always was one of the key factors why for me they never did the character justice. well at least Bales Batman had become rather adamant about non killing by the end of the trilogy. Still neither of those two were ever THE Batman to me for mainly this very reason (as well as their lack of fighting and detective skills)
  1. Rust
    July 4, 2016
    There's so much more to Batman than whether or not he kills. To me, this isn't a feature that makes or breaks an interpretation. I think it's a valid take - and in this case, it's a very interesting character arc for him.
    The classical early 40s Batman comics are no less enjoyable for me because he kills, nor are any of the Burton/Nolan movies.
    1. TomDJ
      July 4, 2016
      "There's so much more to Batman than whether or not he kills"
      I agree, him killing is not really that much of an issue. It can be explained away. What I didn't like that he treats killing as "removing inconveniences". If anyone is in his way, then he has no problem blowing them away. Him, killing Martha's captor was understandable, but him mowing down people in the batmobile and batjet was just silly.
2. Dumb Cunt
  July 4, 2016
  I just wish the movie did a better job with it, because the film never questions his killing and makes it unclear if he ever had that rule here
  1. BatLuuk
    July 4, 2016
    Alfred asks: "New rules?" while showing the newspaper which has a headline about the BatMark being a death sentence to prisoners. So they did kind of explain it, didn't delve deep enough in it tho
    1. Dumb Cunt
      July 4, 2016
      I guess... I though that was referring to the branding, as that was before he was murdered in prison.
  2. Prise Fiter
    July 5, 2016
    They should have had one extra scene before the Kryptonite chase scene where Superman stops Batman from branding another criminal. Clark smashes Batman through a wall and flies him to some rooftop before telling him to stop terrorizing the people of Gotham.
    Batman would empty his utility belt like their first encounter in Justice League's New 52! after which Superman says, "There's a reason they don't shine your light in the sky anymore. You're getting people killed. If you don't stop how you do things, you're going to have to stop entirely."
    Batman would then say something like, "You don't get to tell me how to do my job. My mission has never spilled into the streets where innocents get hurt. How many thousands died while you were 'saving' Metropolis?"
    Superman shows visible hurt at Batman's words as Batman grapples away.
    1. TomDJ
      July 5, 2016
      That would have been interesting. I didn't like how easily they figured out the Kryptonite weakens Kryptonians. There was no mention of Kryptonite in Man of Steel so how would anyone know that it's irradiated chunks of rock from Krypton? The first scene we get is them experimenting on Zod with it, but it would have been better if it should them trying a number of items, to no avail, and one of the scientists had a kryptonite ring (which would cause damage to the body) and motivate Lex to search for more kryptonite .
      Smallville did a good job of this as Lana Lang had a Kryptonite necklace, she didn't know what it was, and Clark would always collapse around her. So the characters came by it almost accidentally.
      In the UE it also explains that the bomb wheelchair was lined with lead, which is why Superman couldn't see it. Well how did Lex know that Superman couldn't see through lead?? Just another example of trying to explain something while raising more questions.
      Batman having an initial face off against Superman and throwing everything at him with his utility belt would be a great scene and establish a greater tension between the two characters.
    2. Prise Fiter
      July 6, 2016
      There was no such thing as kryptonite in Man of Steel, it was formed when the World Engine failed or exploded. They already had a sliver of it, recognized it was radiating something, and that Zod's body decayed in its presence. The giant hunk of it was a recovery of quantity, not the discovery itself.
      X-Ray machines can't see through lead. It's reasonable to assume Superman's x-ray vision can't either.
    3. TomDJ
      July 6, 2016
      Ah the Kryptonite thing makes sense. I didn't realize they retconned the substance.
      As far of as the x-ray vision. Superman was never seen using it. There was a glimpse of it in MoS when he was a kid and struggling to use his powers. The heat vision made sense because both him and Zod use it while fighting each other. It's just a little convenient that Lex knew so much about both Clark and Bruce, and it was mostly done off camera or prior to the events of BvS
3. residentgrigo
  July 4, 2016
  I would argue that (Post Crisis) comic Batman was only seen in the Battle of Metropolis and during his interrogation of Lex. And that´s the point. He has been at war for 20 years, yet Gotham grew worse. Jason got murdered, Barbara might have been crippled, his father´s mansion was demolished and then Superhero 9/11 happened right in form of him. How could he NOT have snapped and turned into a deconstruction? The House of Wayne "fell" but we all know this one:
  http://quotesta.com/wp-cont...
4. Bats2012
  July 4, 2016
  The video for TDK films covers 3 whole movies that were centered on only Batman. A lot of the things the kill count video counted are also more open to interpretation than the things we see in BvS.
  This is from one movie that wasn't even just about Batman. None of his choices to kill play any important part in the story.
  There's a difference between a Batman who may cause a death or two as the least worst option and a Batman who kills merely out of convenience.
5. meamwayne
  July 9, 2016
  Whether he kills people or not, he should never be shooting people with guns. His aversion to using firearms isn't an outgrowth of an aversion to use of deadly force; it's a thing unto itself. He can use any other deadly weapons. He can work with the cops who all carry guns. He can keep a gun in the house for Alfred to protect himself in case of a catastrophic security breach. But Batman himself should never use a gun to shoot a guy.
David Manning
July 4, 2016
Just to compare, Keaton's 1989 Batman killed at least 17 (possibly more in the factory), and don't forget he pulled a KGBeast and blowtorched one clown and literally strapped a bomb onto another in Batman Returns.
I think we can all agree that Batman has always been portrayed as a murderer on film.
1. David Manning
  July 5, 2016
  perhaps I should clarify, I meant that Keaton torched that clown with the batmobile (in Batman Returns) like KGBeast would with a flamethrower. Hence, Keaton "pulled a KGBeast"
Prise Fiter
July 5, 2016
Nearly every person who died as a result from Batman's actions was trying to kill him. Isn't that justifiable homicide?
But in all honesty, there's a point to Batman killing in this movie. He's been Batman for 20 years. Close friends, people he considered family have left him or have been killed. He's hardened, jaded, and as multiple characters in the movie have pointed out, only recently become brutal, and angrier than before.
In Tim Burton's Batman and Nolan's Batman Begins, that is a brand new Batman who starts off his career with murder.

Zoom

July 3, 2016

The irony that almost nobody sees with this movie is that Batman wants to kill Superman because he fears that Superman could lose control and go over the edge and become a killer - while at the same time that is exactly what has already happened to Batman himself. So basically Batman wants to destroy Supes because he could become what Batman already became ? Yeah thats not hypocritical at all lol. Oh Batsy how the Joker would LOVE this.....

BatmanNewsChris
July 3, 2016
No... Superman is a crazy, out of control alien with the power to wipe out the entire human race! Batman, is just a man. He can't do that.
1. Zoom
  July 3, 2016
  Except he isn´t as you surely should know by now. Superman is neither crazy nor out of control. You sound like Lex lol
  1. BatmanNewsChris
    July 3, 2016
    That was a Lex Luthor + Bruce Wayne combo quote
  2. Schuyler Finley
    July 3, 2016
    Lex sees Superman as a monster. Batman sees Superman as a ticking time bomb.
    1. David
      July 4, 2016
      Lex sees Superman as a cherry Jolly Rancher. Batman sees Superman as a low Rotten Tomatoes score that needs to be removed
OGmacrazy
July 3, 2016
Remember how powerful, well written, heart wrenching and surprising it was when we saw Batman, in the Hush storyline, almost beating Joker to death, after Hush drove Batman insane by tearing his life apart? How it was so fucking brutal how Batman was just pummeling the joker, and how sad it was for us to see him that way, almost crossing the line! And then Gordon stepping in and poiting a gun to his ally, making Batman realize he was about to step the line and become a killer, like Joe Chill and his enemies? Yeah, too bad that thanks to this movie, a scene like this in a future dc film is literally impossible (in this universe), since he has killed and he has gone over the edge (even though he came back from it)... Fanboys can defend this movie all they want, but this movie definitely hurt the dceu going forward (not to mention the fact that a future death of superman storyline is now absolutely made redundant and pointless)...
1. Mark
  July 4, 2016
  "Remember how powerful, well written, heart wrenching and surprising it
  was when we saw Batman, in the Hush storyline, almost beating Joker to
  death, after Hush drove Batman insane by tearing his life apart?" No, sorry, never read it. Must have been after I quit buying books regularly.
  1. OGmacrazy
    July 4, 2016
    Well, you can buy it as a standalone story, and it is worth it. One of the best Batman chapters, of all time.
2. Rust
  July 4, 2016
  How is it impossible? We already got a scene just like that in BvS, man. It's what Batman's story in BvS was really about. He had lost his way and a number of things (some unrevealed) have caused him to snap. He's going to kill Superman. He's beaten him into the ground, and then he has to have sense triggered into him so he doesn't fully become that monster. We got it. I thought it was well done.
  For all we know, Joker's teeth in SS may be connected to a Hush or Red Hood movie, so flashbacks are a thing too if you need a more literal adaptation instead of something new inspired by something old.
  1. OGmacrazy
    July 4, 2016
    Dude, he killed. That whole segment in Hush was about how Batman was ready to kill the joker, and when Gordon stopped him, he was shocked and horrified about what he was going to do. The fact that in the movie he killed without even caring, and doing so unnecessarily completely destroys any kind of chnace that we'll ever have a scene like that in the future, because it won't have any kind of weight.
    1. Rust
      July 4, 2016
      I felt that the scene where he was going to kill Superman had a lot of weight.
    2. OGmacrazy
      July 4, 2016
      Yeah, but mostly because Batman's motivations were well explored, and Batman's character had a more fleshed out arc in this movie. Superman in two movies has not had the development that Batman had in just this one movie.
Rust
July 4, 2016
It is hypocritcal, and that's the point. Batman has to realize how he's fallen and betrayed his own mission.
He's not perfect. He stumbles and learns, and I'm glad for that. That's part of what makes a character interesting and their journey memorable. It's part of what makes him relatable.

Zoom

July 3, 2016

Superman sacrificed himself to save the whole world just like he did in the comics. Doesn´t get more inspiring then that. I mean seriously people what does it take for you ?

Knight Radiant
July 3, 2016
Me personally more build up to that sacrifice would have been nice.
1. Zoom
  July 3, 2016
  True but that does not negate the sacrifice itself. It was his final step towards becoming the Superman we know. And once he returns I am sure that he will truly be the Superman everyone wants to see. Unless of course Terrio fucks it up lol
  1. OGmacrazy
    July 3, 2016
    Yeah, but it had no build up. We didn't care for this character. As someone who loves MoS, I didn't even know this Superman. He barely had development. Most of this is caused by the lack of dialogue Superman has (which Snyder thinks is appropriate, for no reason other than his lunatic mind). That scene may take this superman to the one we love and know, and may help with his development, as that last scene helped develop the character, but it also made any kind of an actual good death of superman storyline absolutely worthless. Hopefully, someone, some day, will adapt All Star Superman, and it'll actually be worth it.
    1. Rust
      July 4, 2016
      I was fine with the small amount of dialogue. I prefer characters emoting through facial expressions and body language, as well as choice and action, as opposed to exposition or speeches.
      To me, that was a small downfall of Nolan's Batman movies (though I love them dearly). I think subtlety is more powerful, and classier. The moments in Burton's Batman where you just see Keaton's eyes and he's standing there silent are so potent and iconic.
      I enjoy the idea of Superman as a troubled sentinel figure. He doesn't know what to say yet. He has to take all this weight on his shoulders and it's all thrown at him faster than he can articulate a response. So we just see it in his face, and in his decisions.
      The few words he does say mean a lot. I like that approach. And I figure he'll have something to announce to the world after he rests. :)
    2. OGmacrazy
      July 4, 2016
      Yeah, sure, I'm all for that, but he always had the same expression and there was no subtlety about this movie, in any way.
    3. neodymium
      July 4, 2016
      Yea. You haven't seen the ultimate edition. That's the actual movie. Everome else.is so over the theatrical cut already
    4. OGmacrazy
      July 4, 2016
      Yeah, the theatrical cut is the theatrical cut. One of the biggest mistakes about the movie was the fact that they went along and made a movie for a four hour script. That right there is a huge mistake and there was no way that could turn into a cohesive movie (no one would ever release the four hour version, so they knew they had to cut a ton of it). Also, stop pretending the ultimate cut is so much better and compeltely changes the movie. Yeah, it fixes the pacing (a bit), the editing (quite a bit), but the sloppy and heavy handed dialogue, huge ammounts of subplots that mean nothing and that villain are all present and accounted for.
    5. neodymium
      July 4, 2016
      Yea...actually the ultimate cut fixed most problems. If you disliked the characterizations then I can't help you there buddy. I enjoyed the unique takes on the characters in the context of the story, and even the plot points that unfolsed. The dialogue was also one of its better attributes. Better than the dialogue in most comic books in recent times. What you disliked is your personal perspective. Perhaps you should stick to the comics if you hate it so much? Just a suggestion
    6. OGmacrazy
      July 5, 2016
      No need to get defensive there. But hey! More power to you. Just don't watch too many movies, or else you'll be disappointed when you rewatch this one, with all it's glorious dialogue...
    7. neodymium
      July 5, 2016
      yeah, i dont need you to condescend. theres nothing disappointing about thoughtful dialogue. perhaps you should watch more films to get a better grasp of the concept
    8. OGmacrazy
      July 6, 2016
      What thoughtful dialogue? Forced religious metaphors? Expositionary dialogue? Heavy handed dialogue? I don't get it. i like it just fine, but the dialogue was weak.
    9. AquaCthulhu
      July 6, 2016
      Don't bother, neodymium. This is the same guy that mistook Diana's scrolling through an email as a live-chat where Batman was apparently sending those messages (Who are you? Where have you been?) after he turned on the Bat-signal and is waiting for Superman to show up.
      I had to make a video replicating that email just to show him how it works and he wouldn't talk about it after that.
      https://www.youtube.com/wat...
    10. neodymium
      July 6, 2016
      Lolol.. Wow
      Well, haters are gonna hate whatever the hell it is they hate
      I've never said this was a perfect movie, but I shouldn't have to. Just like no movie is perfect. But whats important is what I took from it. It's flaws were very miniscule. I got a lot out of it and really enjoyed the interesting spins of dialogue in the story. It was a huge improvement over man of Steel.
      I find that a lot of the complaints about the film are not even rooted in logic but in personal bias. And of course they nitpick about things unnecessarily, and I've never seen this amount of scrutiny directed at any superhero film. Ever. It's baffling but whatever. I don't give a shit who's right or wrong. I loved the film and I look forward to.more from Mr Snyder. Long may he live. Seriously. He looks terribly worn out. Feel bad that so many fools are treating him like trash.
    11. AquaCthulhu
      July 7, 2016
      Precisely! It's as if they forget what movies are made for: to be enjoyed.
      And go on to complain about things like how the Jeep that Bruce Wayne drives during the Ground Zero event wasn't out back then. It was a Youtuber and he said if he wanted to drive it back in 2013, he couldn't. It's hilarious how he forgets he's no multi-billionaire and that the extremely rich folk get to have their hands on goodies before they go into mass-production. A staggering majority of complaints are just as naïve.
      I believe Zack had been stressed a lot around March 25th but things look much better now. Even for him. Since the DC Films take place in a world where 'superhero' isn't defined I hope Zack has fun doing it. Hopefully, he will outlive all those fools.
Schuyler Finley
July 3, 2016
He did that in BvS and saved the entire planet in MoS.
1. Schuyler Finley
  July 3, 2016
  He saved the kid, those people in that flooded area, the bomb survivors, those astronauts, and Lex Luthor. Oh, and he saved the world again by killing Doomsday.
  1. Rust
    July 4, 2016
    So heroism is no longer heroism if the context it's taking place in is gloomy?
    If anything, him choosing to save people and do the right thing in the face of that controversy was MORE heroic than less.
    His origin and the world's reaction were the test; the question. Now that the questions are answered, the controversy of Superman will have largely subsided, so we can move on to what you personally want to see.
    I don't see the harm in him loving Lois, or the fact that she is his strongest tie to his humanity and he wants to fight primarily for all that. Kinda think it's beautiful.
    I also don't see the harm in the Jesus metaphor. It's accurate.
    Basically it sounds like you don't want hard questions or heavy struggles, which makes for a pretty boring, one-dimensional story. That's the very thing everyone complained about with Superman before, calling him irrelevant and behind the times (whether I agree myself or not).
    And yeah, of course he didn't fly away leaving those people to drown in the flood. That's not a plot hole. We all know what happened despite it not being needlessly spelled out.
    1. Rust
      July 4, 2016
      Sure, there was a lot of gloom, but he was still celebrated.
      They built a huge statue of him in 'Ground Zero'. There are news outlets practically worshiping him. Dozens of people at the space shuttle rescue reach out to touch him. At the end of the movie he had a huge funeral and -another- monument surrounded by flowers and people with candles in his honor. He even changes Batman's dark, broken heart and rekindles the good in him. People paint his symbol big and bright to call for his help. Lois takes a sincere moment to remind him of what he means to so many people out there.
      I would call that a celebration of his heroism. All of it isn't immediately in the moment of every tiny good deed he does, and opposing views are present and forceful, but celebration of the character as a hero is definitely in the film pretty thoroughly.
      Let's also remember that in the world of the films, 18 months passed between MoS and BvS. Superman is in the spotlight for his deeds at this point.
      Either way... Part of Superman's real strength is that he doesn't -need- a pat on the head whenever he does something. He does it regardless because it's important to him; because it's right. We saw that here in the face of all the criticism and the attempts to kill and sabotage him. As viewers, I think that should be cause for us to respect him more as a character, not less.
    2. AquaCthulhu
      July 4, 2016
      When he descends outside the Capitol building, there are all these people gathered in front of it. We see both ardent supporters and those opposing. I guess most people only saw the protesters.
    3. Schuyler Finley
      July 4, 2016
      True. We never actually see him complain about how the world mistreats him. We only see him question if he's doing the right thing and if he's truly up to the task.
    4. Kerk Lastnameless
      July 4, 2016
      Those are some parents he got. They really screwed him over. One hammered into his mind for years that he was destined for great things, but just needed to wait. And then the other tells him to pretty much ditch everything and just chill.
      Jesus definitely had better parents.
    5. David
      July 4, 2016
      Again you have no idea what symbolism, forshadowing, or pointed dialogue are. Man I feel that every time you get on heee it is merely to nit pick as you contradict yourself on multiple occassions.
  2. Schuyler Finley
    July 4, 2016
    A) He still saved the kid.
    B) So we're just suppose to assume that he left those people stranded in the water?
    C) In the theatrical cut, it looked there were no survivors, to me at least. In the UE, they show that there were survivors and Supes saved them.
    D) Again, he saved people.
    E) He saved Lex from being punched into the next universe by Doomsday.
    F) He STILL saved people.
    No matter how you twist it, Superman saved billions of lives in BvS.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      July 4, 2016
      But onscreen, Batman saves only one person. Those human-trafficking victims don't count by your logic since we didn't see Batman save them.
      Doomsday was a walking disaster. He was gonna destroy the planet if he wasn't stopped.
      Again, the film showed us Superman saving people. It's just that he wasn't basking in the praise like we've seen in previous superhero films.
    2. Schuyler Finley
      July 4, 2016
      Oh yeah, I forgot about the intro. But Superman still saved more people in BvS if you include the astronauts and Lex.
      You do know that DD can explode , right? He did it three or four times in the film. No human would've been able to get near. Why do think Batman hid during most of the fight?
      WW couldn't do it because she was keeping DD busy, and was holding him down. Superman couldn't hold him down because we saw him try that when the nuke was launched, and the best Superman could do was put DD in a choke hold.
      Because that's how people would treat a being like Superman Some would see him as a god while others would downright hate him.
    3. Schuyler Finley
      July 4, 2016
      Batman only had one gas grenade left. He had to use it wisely.
      We may not need a realistic depiction of Superman, but it's always good to see a new take on him so that audiences can find him interesting.
    4. Schuyler Finley
      July 4, 2016
      I and MANY other people find this version interesting. As one person said, on YouTUbe no less, this isn't about Superman becoming a hero, it's a man becoming Superman. We're seeing him becoming the Icon. Despite people spitting in his face, this guy still goes out of his way to save lives.
    5. Schuyler Finley
      July 4, 2016
      Because he wonders if everything he does matters. To him, it seems that no matter what he does, shit gets worse or people tell him that he should've done things differently. Him talking to his dad was to remind him that sometimes, his good intentions will lead to unforeseeable consequences. Heck, there's nothing wrong for him to seek advice form his parents. I'm sure he's done it countless times in comics and cartoons.
    6. Schuyler Finley
      July 4, 2016
      That was her way of telling him that he doesn't have to save lives. He doesn't have to bear the weight on his shoulders anymore. Supes' burden can break minds, and it's clear throughout the movie that he's mentally exhausted by it.
    7. Schuyler Finley
      July 4, 2016
      Same here.
    8. Rust
      July 4, 2016
      Superman surpassed the weight he bore in this movie. He outgrew what was weighing him down and causing him to question himself, and chose to persevere instead of quit and succumb to those questions.
      This is something I personally aspire to replicate in my life. When the going was at it's toughest, he came through and put everything on the line for what he believed in. As a symbol, that paid off for him. As a hero, he's redeemed for it.
    9. CmputrBlu
      July 4, 2016
      Well does he? He saved the word and people are bitching bout him. Most people would question whether it was a good idea to put up with that nonsense. Unless you see Superman as a Jesus character and not some person who grew up with human parents. And Krypton never seemed like a planet of saints or enlightened people. So not sure why he should be christ like figure
    10. Rust
      July 4, 2016
      You're acting like Superman has never been troubled before this movie. He has.
    11. neodymium
      July 4, 2016
      Don't feed the trolls man. This guy needs to be spoon fed everything. Let him go watch the cartoons or something . No point in trying to tell him something he doesn't want to hear
    12. David
      July 4, 2016
      You seem to make a lot of jnfounded assumptions. "Doomsday probably wasnt going to destroy the world." Really? You are a fucking moron. And saying ppl dont want their superheroes deconstructed is a dumb argument, as it is what happens in TDK when Batman had barely even been Batman after BB. Again your arguemtns are cliche and pussy grumblings with no logic
    13. David
      July 4, 2016
      Why do people who disliked the movie always talk about how many people disliked the movie, like there was some.sort of meeting and role was taken to know how many people hated it. I'm just sick of you and people like you with your lame ass everybody hated it comments. I insult you because your comments are a visceral assault.on my senses, especially when you are given proof as counterpoint and you refuse to accept them. Hate the movie, then hate it. Just shut the fuck up about it.
  3. David
    July 4, 2016
    Almost all of your issues show the obtuse idiot you are. You seem to need the movie to scream at you every dumb step and reason why and show every scene. You obviousky have never taken a good writing class, or learned that the best way to engage an audience is to show or even suggest so as to fully engage, whereas you want the movie to blatantly tell you in some overtly blatant and crude dialogue: he does this because of this.
    Yousir are a moron
  4. Ryan
    July 4, 2016
    When Doomsday is born it starts to go crazy and starts to go after Lex. Superman jumps in to catch the punch in turn saving Lex. I watched the Ultimate Edition last night.
  5. Ryan Brennan
    July 5, 2016
    When Doomsday was going to crush him in the chamber.
2. Rob_wesb
  July 4, 2016
  That's your problem: you want to see "Superman being Superman." What you really mean is that you want to see Superman be a specific Superman that you see in your mind.
  1. Rob_wesb
    July 4, 2016
    There are dozens of versions of Superman. All of them are different in some way. You're still talking about a specific Superman you see in your mind.
    1. Rob_wesb
      July 4, 2016
      Good one, but nope. Snyder's version of Superman is not an adaptation of any Superman. You may not like it, but he's as valid of a Superman as every other Superman in the comics and movies.
    2. Rob_wesb
      July 4, 2016
      Nope. He is a completely valid version of the character.
    3. Kerk Lastnameless
      July 4, 2016
      There are dozens versions of everything. That doesn't mean there is no best version. If the sign said "Hope," act like it.
3. Rust
  July 4, 2016
  MoS and BvS both had several examples of him rescuing and touching the lives of individuals other than Lois - and I mean other than the times he prevented a threat to the entire planetary populace.
  It's disappointing that people are so quick to overlook the very things they seek.
  1. Rust
    July 4, 2016
    MoS constructed him well enough for a deconstruction, and even if you feel it didn't, Superman is well known enough to the real world by now (after 80-some years of pop culture up-and-down reverence) that we honestly don't need to be patronized the rest of the way.
    It was the right time in the story - in fact the only time that makes the most sense; fresh off a huge controversial world-changing event that left people questioning him and wondering what he is.
    And, yes, BvS was interested in that... You even complained about one of the scenes being -too- messianic. lol
    Someone else already replied with a few examples and you've seen that, so I won't waste anyone's time repeating it.
    1. CECECEWC
      July 4, 2016
      I dont think youre actually listening to the points that are being brought up. You're just waiting to give a retort and to be the last person to speak.
    2. David
      July 4, 2016
      Didnt Jesus often commune with his father? Wasnt Jesus not rooted for but despised by the majority of people? You honestly have no idea what happened suring Jesus' mortal ministry, nor are you concious of the fact of what messianic means. Smh. You are a turd
4. Eric Boles
  July 4, 2016
  He saved an African village from being blown up by the U.S. government, he saved people from the flood and the little girl in the burning building like you said, he saved people after the Capitol building explosion, he saved Lex from Doomsday. But I'm citing the Ultimate Edition for most of this, not suse if you've seen it.
  1. Eric Boles
    July 4, 2016
    Yeah, that's what happens when studios decide they want shorter film. I watch the Ultimate Cut and wonder why they didn't release that in theatres, flows so much better. I blame WB more for what hit theatres than I do Snyder.
JAG2045
July 4, 2016
Except he dies in the comics when there was no other option but sacrifice (the whole League had been beaten by this point), in BVS Wonder Woman could have used the spear or he could have thrown it at doomsday like a javelin, the sacrifice itself was noble but senseless
1. Rust
  July 4, 2016
  The only way to be sure it not only hit successfully, but also punctured deep enough, was for him to thrust it directly and put every ounce of his remaining strength into it. The movie illustrates that it wasn't easy.
  Wonder Woman was the only one who had a means of properly subduing him, and there's no way Batman or any other human could realistically even get close to him.
  With the circumstances at hand, it was up to Superman.
  1. JAG2045
    July 4, 2016
    But its kryptonite, its already been shown it only has to be near a kryptonian to weaken/kill them so it could have been thrown, or as I said Wonder Woman (who's at least as strong as Superman) could have done it without being affected by the kryptonite
    1. Rust
      July 4, 2016
      Again, Wonder Woman and her lasso were the only thing capable of subduing Doomsday in this instance, so she couldn't have done it.
      And as you said, the kryptonite weakens him when he's near it. Do you really think he would've had the proper strength and coordination to throw it hard and accurately enough to do the job? He had to be sure, so he took no chances.
2. Schuyler Finley
  July 4, 2016
  WW was keeping DD distracted though.
  1. JAG2045
    July 4, 2016
    It wouldn't have been that hard for them to switch positions, heck Batman & Superman do that when fighting Hawkman & Captain Marvel in the "Public Enemies" arc of Superman/Batman, they even name the tactic which is "Castling" where you switch opponents
    1. Schuyler Finley
      July 4, 2016
      But Superman was still weakened from the Kryptonite. He wouldn't had last long enough to by WW time. And even if he did, how was he gonna hold DD so that WW could stab him?

CmputrBlu

July 3, 2016

Wait they're going to count characters from a dream sequence? Sorry but this is such bullshit really. Let me know when he kills some innocent person. Speaking of which, the only person I took issue with him trying to kill was Superman. That I had a problem with. The rest need to get different day jobs.

BatmanNewsChris
July 3, 2016
No... keep watching.
1. CmputrBlu
  July 3, 2016
  My bad...I missed that :)
  The rest still holds
2. Danny Rodriguez
  July 3, 2016
  fucking people can't sit through a 2 minute video. smgdh
  1. CmputrBlu
    July 3, 2016
    I actually did but my brains were ahead (or behind) my eyes :)
  2. Rust
    July 4, 2016
    Probably just didn't catch the counter rewinded. Not a big deal; easy mistake.
Zoom
July 3, 2016
so everyone that is not innocent deserves to die ? And I thought Trump was bad...
1. CmputrBlu
  July 3, 2016
  If they're obviously bad guys in comic book movies then yes. You took issue with the death of Ra's al Ghul and Bane in Nolan's movies too? Cause really, you don't want to die don't try to destroy Gotham I say.
  I mean really, none of this is real life and so many incidental characters in so many other movies which no one ever says a thing about. Including almost every Batman movie.
  1. Zoom
    July 3, 2016
    You bet I took issue with the death of Ras. Bane not so much as Catwoman killed him and she does not have a no kill code. Still not even Selina runs around executing every criminal in town. Its one thing to kill a villain in battle who could easily kill you. Its an entirely different matter to run around killing villains just on principle as you seem to suggest.
    1. CmputrBlu
      July 3, 2016
      Had no problem with Ra's al Ghul, his fault. End of story. Wouldn't be expected to save Hitler either under the circumstances. I just don't take issue with the bad guys dying.
      On the other hand yes the car chase where he's pancaking cars with people in it was a bit TOO much. Lazy film making to rely on shit exploding etc. But this isn't a discussions bout Snyder's abilities....or lack thereof :)
    2. Zoom
      July 3, 2016
      thats the difference between normal people and HEROES. They are supposed to be better then that. They are the ones saving everybody - even the bad guys. To quote a wonderful line from the comics "We´re better then that. We don´t get to choose who we save. Or else what´s the point of being a symbol?"
    3. CmputrBlu
      July 3, 2016
      I choose to cut first year Batman some slack. :)
    4. Zoom
      July 3, 2016
      He does not kill anyone in the Year One comic book....
    5. CmputrBlu
      July 3, 2016
      I don't remember Ra's al Ghul coming into town trying to destroy Gotham in that one either or the same back story as Begins. Wonder if that wet behind the ears Batman might have decided not to save Ra's al Ghul either.
      We agree to disagree. :)
    6. Six By Six
      July 4, 2016
      Idk, man. Batman's symbol isn't about saving others. That's not how I see it. And that's not what Batman really does to be honest. He doesn't go out to "save" others (which he very much does anyway), he goes out to fight criminals, to stop them before they get a chance to force their evil upon the citizen of Gotham.
      The way I take it is because he's flesh and bone he will never be able to accomplish his goal. But as a symbol he will be incorruptible. Now, if I understand you correctly, you take that as Batman being "better" than law abiding citizens who has the means to stop criminals in their tracks and police officers, right?
      That's crazy. Way to downplay those heroes. Anyway, this is how I see it. The bat symbol was created to instill fear into the hearts of Gotham's evil; the criminal underworld that runs through the city. So that wherever the bat symbol is --whether it's drawn in chalk on the sidewalk, batarang in an alley, or shinning in the skyline-- wrongdoer's implicate that Batman might be lurking in the shadows. As for the law abiding citizens of Gotham, it's telling them that the times are changing.
      So the symbol really doesn't effect the killings or non-killings of Batman. Of course, Batman is extremely open to interpretation, which is why I wouldn't mind if he doesn't kill (though it equates him to perfection which then will become boring), but I truly believe that what I said earlier is what the bat symbol was made for. Otherwise why a "bat"? Bats doesn't seem "hopeful" or "savior-like". A badge on a police officer does, because it's a shield. A shield protects. Superman has his mytho's of the crest; a symbol of hope to the people of the world, telling them there's someone willing to save them at any cost, that there's still a better tomorrow, etc. But the bat symbol? Like I said, beware Gothamite evildoers, the boogeyman sees you.
2. Rob_wesb
  July 4, 2016
  There's a thing called self defense. In the real world, when someone is actively shooting at you, shooting back is not out of the question.

Arthas

July 3, 2016

OMG It was so funny XD
Cool editing, I can't stop laughing. the way rachel was watching, Gordon's end dialogue..hahaha

Bat-Mite

July 3, 2016

I still don't think the grenade thing counts. That was more criminal stupidity than Batman's actions.

MrValderviche
July 4, 2016
Batman did use a different criminal as a Batarang to stop the guy with the grenade. So, it still counts as one even if you don't count the guy with the grenade.
1. Six By Six
  July 4, 2016
  That terrorist had it coming.
  But if you disagree, tell me, what should have Batman done right in that moment with other terrorists breathing down his neck (with weapons mind you)?
  1. Kerk Lastnameless
    July 4, 2016
    Find a non-lethal way out. That's what Batman does.
    1. Six By Six
      July 4, 2016
      That's very vague.
      How would he do it?
      What is this magical "non-lethal way out"?
    2. Kerk Lastnameless
      July 4, 2016
      Don't know, and it's not up to me to figure it out -- I'm not the one telling the story.
      Drop this childish stupid ass "You think you could do better?" argument. I don't need to know how to figure skate in order to be able to tell that person not capable of making a double axel is not worthy of an Olympic medal.
    3. Six By Six
      July 4, 2016
      But you're here bitching and moaning that Batman should have done it the non-lethal way. I'm asking how, in that specific moment, can that be possible? If you can't answer that then don't bitch.
    4. Kerk Lastnameless
      July 4, 2016
      And I'm telling you to drop the bullshit argument. No, I don't have to know how.
    5. Six By Six
      July 4, 2016
      And I'm telling you quit your tired bitching. Then, stop moaning about it.
    6. Kerk Lastnameless
      July 4, 2016
      You first.
    7. Six By Six
      July 4, 2016
      Like a little kid. Lol. Alright.
    8. hussle simmons
      July 9, 2016
      Well the thing is though dude, the whole scene was constructed by Snyder and co....they never had to include that in the first place or progress the fight so that it led to that at all.
      They could've simply not done that, that's one way to make him do it in a non lethal way. It's not like that scene came from the comics or was mandatory to include
    9. David
      July 4, 2016
      No he doesnt. Batman trains to be lerhal. Otherwise it woukd be like Ben Stiller and the neighborhood watch fighting crime out thefe. You might mean fatal but again, Batman hones himself to be a weapon.
    10. Kerk Lastnameless
      July 4, 2016
      Clearly you haven't read a single Batman comic in your life.
  2. MrValderviche
    July 4, 2016
    I don't know. I haven't spent years training my body and mind for combat.
    1. Six By Six
      July 4, 2016
      But even if you did.
      You don't become perfect.
      At the end of the day, you're still human.
      You have to make split second decisions when your life or another's as at risk.
    2. MrValderviche
      July 4, 2016
      You are aware that Batman is a fictional character, right? He was written into that situation and he just as easily could have been given a non-lethal solution or been in a completely different situation.

StarTheory

July 3, 2016

I get that there will be times where you accidentally kill someone but shooting a bloody car and then driving through it is no excuse, that is straight up murdering.

Jimmy Two Times
July 4, 2016
Sure, nobody would deny that. But his extreme form of justice and brutality was important within the context of this story. I too am typically against a killer Batman; however, when the overall goal was to showcase how 20 years of not seeing results and then having your co-workers killed due to a Kryptonian punch-up would effect Bruce's already shaken psyche, it's at least understandable why he's gone more sadistic. Superman's sacrifice was his salvation, and he'll put those reckless methods behind him going forward.
1. StarTheory
  July 4, 2016
  "But his extreme form of justice and brutality was important within the context of this story."
  Which is still achievable without killing, Joker has won in this universe and i hope they don't adapt the Red Hood because that will make him the biggest hypocrite.
  1. Jimmy Two Times
    July 4, 2016
    Perhaps. I'm just saying that I didn't mind it so much in this particular story as a one time thing. But, as others have pointed out, he's consistently killed in pretty much every other film incarnation up to date, so the fact that this one did as well didn't really shock me, and at least there seemed to be a reason for it this time, is all.
    The Joker point is valid, and it will be interesting if it's ever addressed in any way going forward. If they do happen to go the Red Hood route, what I can say is that I have a lot of faith in Ben Affleck as a writer, and given his recent comments about wanting to perfect the script for his solo Batman film, I think it's a very positive sign that he's going all out.
    1. StarTheory
      July 4, 2016
      "But, as others have pointed out, he's consistently killed in pretty much every other film incarnation up to date,"
      Yes, accidentally, this time he straight up murdered.
    2. Jimmy Two Times
      July 5, 2016
      Accidently? Lol, no. There was nothing accidental about those.

Cmike

July 3, 2016

Batman killed and.........I'm over it. I mean seriously it's not that serious as it works within the story. Like most the only "kill" I was iffy about was when he smashed and dragged the car, other than that...the Knightmare sequence was an alternate future so those don't count...the guy with the grenade was an idiot and had that coming, batman didnt pull the pin on the grenade...KGBeast basically killed himself as batman shot the tank and if KG wasn't tryin to kill an innocent woman then he would've survived...other than that he was just wreckless in the batmobile scene...and when he shot up some of the trucks outside in the batwing, but lets be real he gave them dudes mad warning shotsnto the ground...they gotta make a choice. This is the real world and dudes are gonna die in action. Christian Bales batman blew up how many ninjas in the movie. Zack is just a guy that puts it right in your face and says that's how it is. Can't wait for JL

Schuyler Finley

July 3, 2016

Who here wants Batman to have a higher count.....or at least see him send more punks to the hospital?

BatmanNewsChris
July 3, 2016
Yes to putting more punks in the hospital. I don't want this badass Batman to go away completely. I love how brutal and intimidating he was in that warehouse fight scene!
1. Schuyler Finley
  July 3, 2016
  Even my dad agrees with me:Batman must continue to make criminals bleed.
  Also, like I told another commenter, I like how people are okay with Batman crippling people for life but those same people draw the line at seeing him kill fools.
  1. OGmacrazy
    July 3, 2016
    Yeah, kicking ass for sure, but the fact that you suggested that you want batman to just keep killing like a fucking criminal, is just sad. Guess Snyder really does have an audience...
    1. Schuyler Finley
      July 3, 2016
      Dude, I don't care what you say. Imma keep enjoying at seeing Batman break bones. If he kills, I'll be okay with it for the right reasons. I'm just expressing my excitement at seeing him work his craft. Besides, I was okay with him not killing anymore at the end of BvS.
    2. OGmacrazy
      July 3, 2016
      Batman breaking bones is Batman. Batman killing people, while doing so unnecessarily ("lol, let me just drag this car that I just ran over so I can smash another car with it, and then let me demolish another car with bullets and then just smash right through it")... Comic Book Joker would be proud of this Batman.
    3. Schuyler Finley
      July 3, 2016
      Still not caring, dude.
    4. OGmacrazy
      July 3, 2016
      Right mindset... Always closed.
    5. Schuyler Finley
      July 3, 2016
      More like I'm sick and tired of folks acting all high and mighty. You don't like Snyder's portrayal of Batman and Superman, that's cool, but you've been acting like an annoying ass towards folks that do.
    6. cjflan32
      July 4, 2016
      A lot of these people just aren't going to get it. And he had the nerve to call you closed minded.
    7. Rust
      July 4, 2016
      I don't enjoy the idea of Batman killing so much as I find the way it was done here to be a gripping and powerful plot point and character arc for him to overcome.
      That said: Batman has always been a criminal, whether he killed or not.
    8. OGmacrazy
      July 4, 2016
      I get that, but it could have been done without killing,is my point. I do agree that Batman was always a criminal, but he helped. Doing what Bats did for most of this movie, though, was just being a part of the problem.
    9. OGmacrazy
      July 4, 2016
      You do know that criminals will always exist. Killing some of them will only make the others prepare themselves better, go on quests for revenge, etc. besides, you are killing them, you are no better than them. Then comes much bigger questions like "what is the line between killing and crippling/arresting them? What if the man's innocent (maybe at the wrong time and wrong place, or under duress? What about this vigilante's state of mind? Or the civilian casualities? Or the damages to the city? Etc.). Batman or any vigilante have no moral or logical grounds to be an executioner themselves, from a realistic and sane point of view. As I've said before, he just becomes part of the problem.

Aaron Sarnecky

July 3, 2016

While there's definitely cases of Bale's Batman killing people involuntarily, in general he doesn't execute people on purpose. Batman deciding who lives and dies like that puts him at odds with the police and the system.

You could count Ra's as an exception because he didn't save him, but are you really going to argue he shouldn't have risked killing in TDKR when the result would have been the death of millions of people?

Shawn J.

July 3, 2016

Some of you dickheads have no clue about Mr. Sunday Movies

Kerk Lastnameless

July 3, 2016

Uh..this reminds me of this shit. Back then I'd call Carlson a jackass. I mean, I still do, but damn was he right.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...

SA2

July 3, 2016

why do you even include the nightmare dream sequence?

OGmacrazy
July 3, 2016
To make fanboys stop the video immediately and whine about it. it actually worked.
Rust
July 4, 2016
Just as a joke. People are so uptight about this.

OGmacrazy

July 3, 2016

I get why they made supes kill zod in MoS. Superman had no other choice. It was to the death, since there was no prison that could keep zod emprisoned... And it gave Superman an actual reason to have a no killing rule. Great. But Batman killing just doesn't flow right. This should be the definitive Batman, and I get he was over the edge before the ending of the movie, but it shouldn't. Basically, the joker's mission is accomplished, and we've never even seen them together on screen.

Guy

July 3, 2016

The killing didn't bother me. His methods are justified with how fed up and frustrated he's been with the (seemingly) never ending crime in the many years he's been Batman. Even the "Dead Robin" accentuates this breaking point.

The only thing that bothers me about this film, is the amount of tension built between Batman & Superman. I felt they could've had more tension before the big fight. Although an actual fight between the two never happened in the animated "World's Finest" - the tense interaction between the two during that story's exposition was PERFECT.

Rob_wesb

July 4, 2016

The killing never bothered me. It's important to understand and embrace how Batman can vary depending on who is writing the story.

MrValderviche

July 4, 2016

I've come across that interview before, and I just have to say, Batman's no killing rule comes from the comics, not Burton's films. And Batman doesn't kill anyone in TDKR. Otherwise, it wouldn't make any sense for him to not be able to kill the Joker. I will admit the scene Snyder mentioned is a bit ambiguous, but the rest of the book makes it less ambiguous and it certainly didn't show a bullet hole in the mutant's head.

Speaking of a murder-y Batman not making sense, in the extended cut, we see that Luthor is making Batman look like a killer. Why does he need to do this if Batman already is a killer? We also see Clark talking to Gothamites and learning that Batman is considered meaner because of the branding. How does branding people make him meaner when he straight up murders people?

And having him lose his ideals because Robin and a few employees died is ridiculous. That's an incredibly weak-willed Batman. Someone who would rather go on a murder spree than deal with loss is not someone who should be on the Justice League.

Rob_wesb
July 4, 2016
"How does branding people make him meaner when he straight up murders people?"
He only killed Lex Henchmen and not normal Gotham criminals. It's impossible for you to imply that he regularly kills criminals when he normally fights crime.
1. MrValderviche
  July 4, 2016
  It's also impossible to imply he doesn't kill on a regular basis. All we've seen of this Batman is him being a killer. Since Snyder thought it would be edgy to make the new Batman the Punisher, there is no context for him not being a killer.
  1. Jimmy Two Times
    July 4, 2016
    It's heavily implied that he's at the end of his rope throughout the entirety of the movie, and that the losses he endured after the Black Zero event changed him for the worse. So clearly the Batman we got had only taken place within those last 18 months. Going forward, he'll be reverting back to his previous ways of bringing justice.
    1. MrValderviche
      July 4, 2016
      The only time the movie mentions Batman changing for the worst is when Alfred brings in the article about him branding people and has his little speech about powerlessness making people cruel. Then, Alfred watches him murder numerous people and he sits there and makes jokes. Yes, the movie explored Batman being at the end of his rope, but murdering people was never included in that. I'm sure it will be retroactively, though.
    2. Jimmy Two Times
      July 4, 2016
      It was also explored in the UC when you had Clark investigating, plus had that old dude with the lottery ticket stating that there was a new mean in him. Batman was always pretty brutal; he breaks bones, he hospitalizes thugs, and carries an arsenal of pain inflicting/incapacitating weapons. Having him actually turn to killing was bound to be the next step after that -- which ended up being the case.
Six By Six
July 4, 2016
I understand your frustration. But you have to comprehend things as they are. If life is any indication, it is that it can't always be what you want. But if I understand you correctly, what you want is the canon Batman of the comics. I can tell you this now, that will never happen. And if for some miracle reason it does, it won't be in our lifetime. Trust me.
Now, I think the idea of him being a "killer" stems from him indirectly killing criminals. Take that as you may, but he isn't really killing until the car chase scene, the warehouse scene, and him planning to eliminate Superman off the face of the earth. Other than that there are no real indication(s) that he's been "killing" before then.
I don't think Batman brands petty thieves, lowly drug dealers, or of the like.
The branding(s) are for terrorist, rapist, murderers, human-traffickers, and evildoers of the like.
He brands them to let people in prison know that this criminal did something truly horrific and let them decide of that person is worth living or not. At least, that's how I see it.
You can take this Batman as "weak-willed" which compared to the super-willed super-Batman of the comics, then, yeah. Lol. But as a human being, Robin was practically, easily imaginable, a little brother to him. Who knows what kind of close relations he had with his employees. Maybe it's just the ground-breaking shock that hundreds of lives was instantly taken and there was nothing he (who is the Batman) could have done.
Besides, the film(s) has to be grounded in reality. Way more grounded than in comics. What works for comics won't always work for the big screen. For example, Robin (Damian Wayne, a juvenile boy) might work for comics, but on the big screen it won't look good by any stretch. He would have to be a man for it to work. I look at Batman killing/non-killing sort of like that. Although I wouldn't mind it so much him NOT killing at all (though it'd be pretty boring since that then becomes the realm of perfection). But you understand? I hope I clarified it a bit.
1. MrValderviche
  July 4, 2016
  I had no problem with the branding. The worst part of about the killing is it ruins the whole idea of the branding.
  Imagine this: BvS is exactly the same, but Batman doesn't kill anyone except in the Knightmare sequence. Suddenly, it's a story about Batman slowly losing his ideals instead of one about him not having them. We see him being more cruel than he's ever been to criminals. In the Knightmare sequence, we see what he will become if he continues down this path. Then, when he's about to kill Superman, it's far more than that. He's also about to lose himself.

OptimistPrime99

July 4, 2016

So JUST to be clear, is everyone cool with Batfleck slaughtering Parademons? Because (spoiler alert) that's TOTALLY happening in Justice League. LOL After 20 years of crime-fighting, Batfleck had finally had ENOUGH OF PEOPLE'S SH!T.

You don't have to be brainwashed by a no-kill rule, that many writers choose to enforce with Batman. That rule along with Robin, was created to soften the character a bit, and make him more kid-friendly. But the Golden-Age Batman still happened. It's part of the character's history. In order to tell THEIR story, filmmakers should indeed be allowed to choose their own version. But showing a more confident and light-hearted Superman, along with a Batman who can conveniently beat the hell out of thugs, without actually killing them, is the safe and smart way to go for the DCEU. Keeping it symmetrical with the current DC comic books.

Schuyler Finley
July 4, 2016
Parademons are former people.
1. residentgrigo
  July 4, 2016
  He killed Parademons (Secret Six proved that they are "alive"), Talons (the process can even be reversed), Dr. Death and willingly kicked a man into acid in the Tec 27 remake who happened to survive. NOONE complained then.
  http://www.readcomics.net/i...
  http://www.readcomics.net/i...
  http://www.readcomics.net/i...
2. residentgrigo
  July 4, 2016
  Dennis O'Neil is the man who saved Batman form camp in 1969. His very first Batman comic included 2 Vampires who he killed, Zombies showed up later (Solomon Grundy may even count as A-list) and his Bruce even has a human body count, just read Batman: Shaman. Not "your" Batman, eh?
  1. residentgrigo
    July 4, 2016
    You mean the killing?
    The History of Batman Killing in the Comics (WAY more exist)
    http://forums.superherohype...
    and Does Superman really kill? (i again know of more)
    http://www.the-fanboy-persp...
    Do you REALLY want to compare WW2 propaganda to some of the most influential DC comics of all time, as the link will feature a lot of them. Or Snyder´s film. Come on!
    Batman and Robin´s take is the sole life action cinematic Bats who never killed and the "holy" Christopher Reeve (i like Superman 1 and Donner Cut 2 just fine) straight out murdered de-powered Kryptonains, violently beat a bully and the "forget me" kiss made the Returns pregnancy ultra messed. He also messed up the time stream twice.
    No way did we peak between 78 and 1997 (or 2006), and Nolan´s awesome Bats had a highly questionable moral compass + kills. Burton´s also good-ish take was arguably a mad man, to close off.
OptimistPrime99
July 4, 2016
Rant Time: Forget about psychopathic, yet still awesome, Keaton-Batman. We all know that the MCU characters are held to a lower standard. But what about Bruce Wayne while trying to escape, burning down the dojo that housed The League of Shadows, in Batman Begins? You literally see fake Ra's al Ghul die, and it's unclear that all of the other ninjas, managed to evacuate safely.
Having Batman decide to leave Ra's on the train to die, was an interesting move by Christopher Nolan. Talia, daughter of Ra's al Ghul (Miranda Tate) having knowledge of this, and yet STILL letting Batman tap that @$$, was an AWESOME move made by Christopher Nolan! And of course, Batman trying to save Jim Gordon's son, by lunging at Two-Face, causing him to fall to his death, happened. Fans pick and choose what they're willing to be okay with. And they certainly have the right to be inconsistent. LOL
1. MrValderviche
  July 4, 2016
  In the Nolan films, people only died when Bruce was forced to choose between them or someone else (Except with Ra's, but that wasn't really murder). In BvS, he killed multiple people so he could steal a rock he could use to kill another guy and he killed multiple people on the way to save someone. Those are completely different scenarios.
  Furthermore, the Nolan movies were a realistic interpretation of Batman. BvS was supposed to show THE Batman, the character who exists within a superhero universe. Many people, myself included, wanted the Batman we know and love to appear in BvS.
  I'm not sure what you mean by the MCU being held to a different standard. Their characters are usually extremely close to the comic book versions, which is something Batman has never been outside of animation and video games.
  1. Schuyler Finley
    July 4, 2016
    Which is Marvel has been making Tony act more like RDJ lately. All honesty, Cap is the only one who acts like his counterpart. Everyone else are just above having a better personality than wood. I'm not being asshole either. If you had a gun pointed to my head and told me to describe the personalities of the team other than Tony, Cap, and the Guardians, I would tell you that you might as well just go on ahead and shoot me.
  2. David
    July 4, 2016
    Couple things I disagree with. Im sure Battfleck Batman saw it as letting the criminals die in order to obtain the kryptonite, which woukd equate to letting the criminals die so that Superman can die so that no more humans die. So in the end it was more the criminals vs. all earth. At least thats what I think it woukdve been fkr me had I been in such a situation. Therefore, its just as valid as Nolan Batman choosing btwn the criminals and someone else as you put it
    Secondly, if these movies are up for a realistic interpretation then you cant deny that real world laws apply, ie, if you are responsible for someones death, even in an accident or not saving them, it is involuntary manslaughter. Possibly 4th degree manslaughter. So to say Batman isnt a murderer in his mkvies is wrong. According to real world man laws he woukd always be a murderer. Plain and simple.

Sean

July 4, 2016

All you dumbasses calling Batman a serial killer.

I guess that means every action hero that ever shot their enemy or every cop that ever shot an armed thug makes them a serial killer. You guys are all missing the point. Batman is taking out bad guys in order to save innocent people.

That doesn't make him some sadistic serial killer. He's one man in a costume taking out some thugs along the way. He figures, why not kill someone who is shooting at me. Obviously, the person that he kills is ok with killing so why can't Batman be ok with killing them back?

Bunch of pussies sometimes I wish TDK was never made. Nolan shoved the no kill cock so far down all your throats that you're never gonna get over it.

MrValderviche
July 4, 2016
Yeah. That's totally from The Dark Knight. Not decades of comics. Also, Batman is a vigilante with no jurisdiction. So, when he kills someone committing a crime, he's committing murder.
1. OptimistPrime99
  July 4, 2016
  It's more manslaughter, than murder. With Batman killing dudes that were actively using lethal force, against him.

Fastguy77

July 4, 2016

Snyder looks like an idiot by having Metropolis get levelled in MoS. Fixes his mistake by making it the reason Batman fights Superman.
Snyder looks like an idiot by having Rambo, sorry Batman killing non stop. Uses Superman's death the reason Miller's, I mean his Batman will stop killing.

Dude needs to choose a coherent direction for these films. It is sad how obvious critical reception molds this guys direction. Although it is a good thing cause he really doesn't have any.

Schuyler Finley
July 4, 2016
Well, if you have a bunch of Kryptonians fighting each other while a yellow sun is up, you're gonna see a crap ton of destruction.
1. Six By Six
  July 4, 2016
  That seems too complicated for them to understand.
  They can't comprehend such information.
  Their brain won't allow them to.
  Think about it.
  It's been three years since MoS and four months since BvS yet still they complain, bitch, and moan about things that were/are easily understandable, things of which were answered many times over.
2. Fastguy77
  July 8, 2016
  Yes, that is pretty obvious. Addressing it in the same film it actually happened would have also been an obvious thing...
  1. Schuyler Finley
    July 8, 2016
    But Zod and his men didn't care about the destruction. And you can't blame for not trying to minimize the damage since he was outnumbered and outmatched, and even when he did try to draw the Kryptonians away from Smallvile, they would throw him into another building.
Rust
July 4, 2016
I'm not convinced that BvS is a response to people whining about the destruction in MoS, but let me get some clarity on one thing:
Are you really complaining that Zack is open-mindedly listening to fervent criticisms and trying to make the following movies more along the lines that everyone has been kicking and screaming for him to do?
So he does things his way, you hate it. He's like, 'Ok, I'll do it your way to make you happy', and you hate him for that too?
That's a little unfair.
OptimistPrime99
July 4, 2016
Showing buildings being destroyed, definitely wasn't a mistake. It was Snyder unapologetically showing a "realistic" disaster alien invasion movie, that featured a non-perfect Superman, who was fighting for his life, and 9 billion others. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Alan Conn
July 4, 2016
U look like an idiot for thinking that this is a big enough deal to complain about.

MrValderviche

July 4, 2016

You probably should have paid attention.

John Sorensen

July 4, 2016

"some" fans...LOL

Kerk Lastnameless

July 4, 2016

It's a joke, buddy.

Casanova

July 4, 2016

coudn't care less about BvS Batman killings, I almost didn't notice it, I mean, I did notice on Nolan trilogy that was dumb seeing a crime fighter stopping criminals and guns with just karate kid tricks...

Pettlepop

July 4, 2016

Well he is one lucky super star https://youtu.be/u0xteXcQvG0

Mario

July 4, 2016

Not bothered at all,... anyway i like that Batman will be more "enthusiastic" next time we see him.

brian61992

July 4, 2016

Tres Swygert

July 4, 2016

I didn't have a problem with Batman killing the villains in this film. It gave reason that this Batman/Bruce Wayne has had enough of criminals not changing their ways (as they show they are more aggressive when they fight him) (and that he is tired of their actions toward society). It also gave a reason for Superman/Clark Kent to want to have him stop doing that (taking the stance that you don't need to kill someone like he did with Zod) (also, with the the help of Lex, it makes it look like Batman is prepping of the killings in prison).

Had Batman did not kill in this film, it would not motivate Clark to want to see Batman stop his way of 'justice'. It would also not push Bruce to do things differently for the future films.

Batman News Archive

All the bad guys Batman kills in 'Batman v Superman' in one video

337 comments

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year

Browse By Author