It was less actively killing them and more not caring if they survived things while trying to catch them. Otherwise he would have just killed the crooks instead of branding them and sending them to jail.
Batman with Ben Affleck-- Rumors, pic, etc;
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
It was less actively killing them and more not caring if they survived things while trying to catch them. Otherwise he would have just killed the crooks instead of branding them and sending them to jail.
Well, he did use the machine guns on his batmobile to blow up cars. That's pretty actively killing. sure, he was also getting the cars out of the way, but still.
It would probably just be a bunch of cameos of the villains in cells at Arkham or in prison. (Assuming Batman hasn't just killed them all.) Remember how people were wondering if Aquaman, the Flash, and Cyborg would play major roles in Murderman v Negligenthomicideman, and it just turned out to be a few tacked-on video files.
But ... didn't we have lots of Batman movies with more than one villain in the past three decades?! Batman Returns had the Penguin and Catwoman, Batman Forever had Two-Face and the Riddler, Batman & Robin had Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy and Bane (with a cameo appearance by Jason Woodrue), Batman Begins had Ra's al Ghul and the Scarecrow, The Dark Knight had the Joker, Two-Face and, again, the Scarecrow, and The Dark Knight Rises had Bane, Talia al Ghul and Catwoman (though the latter as a hero, this time around). And that's not even counting comic-based realistic villains like Carmine Falcone.
Thinking about it, Batman '89 was the only Batman movie to date to only feature one villain.
^ I did say one or two and yeah, it's usually been two, often a main one and a secondary one. In any case, I was thinking that "lots" meant having all or most of the big rogues gallery members like maybe Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler, Mr. Freeze, etc. all at once.
Except Batman didn't kill people until around the time of BvS. The movie makes it pretty clear that he didn't use to be as violent as he was there.
Eh, that's not what I got from the movie, and there is no way that's what Zach "You need to learn that killing is bad, m'kay" Snyder meant. Batman probably killed just as often pre-*event that made him "darker" that I won't spoil* as he does during BvS. Even if he didn't, which is a HUGE if, he's got to have killed a bunch of them at this point. I got the feeling that the big event for Batman happened at least a few years before the events of BvS. Long enough in the past for him to have killed any villains who haven't been locked up the entire time. Joker and Harley Quinn are only alive because the WB wouldn't allow them to be killed by BatPunisher. Besides that, I wouldn't be surprised if he only had about 1/5th of his rogue's gallery left, if that. That's assuming he doesn't just sneak into Arkham (we know he can sneak into prisons and places like that because of the ending of BvS) and killed more of the villains in their cells, or shoved sane villains like Penguin into prison with his death mark.
I don't like to think about it, but Snyder made Batman this way. There have been several stories that said that Batman won't kill not only because its wrong, but because if he kills one criminal, he won't be able to stop. He can justify doing extremely lethal, violent things, and he'll have no reason not to. So, it really wouldn't make sense for Snyder's Batman to not go out of his way to kill every criminal he comes up against, at least when it comes to supervillains.
...and, again, the Scarecrow.
kirk55555 said:
It seemed more like he was let in.
What prison let's the murderous vigilante in to scare an inmate? I mean, its the Snyderverse, so its not impossible, but it seems unlikely.
It felt like they were ripping off The Dark Knight in that scene, as was the case (IMO) in a few places in the film.
Well, TDK's GCPD letting Batman, a character they knew at least generally didn't kill people and was at least unofficially an ally, interrogate a criminal is a bit different then letting BatPunisher have some alone time with Lex. Plus, Batman in TDK blocked the door to stop the police from getting in, so they obviously hadn't intended for him to have free reign to do what he wanted with Joker/
Yep. Heck, just about every other thing Alfred said in the movie was related to his observation of how Bruce has finally stepped well over the line he once tiptoed against. "That's how it starts. The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel." Batman wasn't always as ruthless as he was in BvS, and it's very strongly implied that it was the death of Robin combined with the events at Metropolis that finally pushed him over the edge. You can tell Batman's encounter with Superman has changed him by the end, when he didn't brand Luthor with his symbol, and when he told Luthor: "Men are still good."
I really hope they pick up that thread and run with it in Justice League and Affleck's upcoming solo movie. At first I wasn't happy about Batman being a killer but once I understood where they were going with it, I was okay with it.
That's a pre-existing loophole. Even Nolan's Batman blew the hell out of everything in his path while riding around on his bike, because that's what looks cool in an action movie. And that was a version of the character that was supposedly 100% anti-killing.
That's the problem with adapting superhero comics to movies. American action movies are so deeply immersed in the habit of portraying protagonists using deadly force, and they insist that adapted material conform itself to existing movie conventions. Which leads not only to things like superheroes killing, but things like superhero origin stories being turned into revenge narratives rather than stories about rescuers and protectors. Even Marvel's movies have their heroes kill the bad guys routinely (Ant-Man being something of an exception, though I think there were a number of unconscious bad guys who may have implicitly been left in the building when it imploded), although at least they remember to keep the action focused on protecting civilians.
I wasn't too bothered by I mean even Adam West Batman killed some henchmen in the 60's movie.
Yeah the movie pretty much explained that if you get turned back into the powder stuff your dead.
I agree action movies tend to push things in that direction even when it makes no sense, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that the marvel heroes 'routinely' kill. Cap seemed to try his best not to kill in Winter Soldier. The Avengers went out of their way to take Hydra prisoners in AoU. The big battle in Avengers 1 was all drones who were apparently computer driven, so that shouldn't even count as killing. Justin Hammer was arrested. Thor actively tried to save Loki in Thor 1. Red Skull actually killed himself (if he's really dead). I can't recall anyone dying in Iron Man 3 that wasn't killed by the bad guys, except for Killian who still wasn't actually killed by the hero.
There have been a few movies where I'd agree your description is apt (Iron Man, Guardians of the Galaxy being the most clear cut) but I don't think that extrapolates cleanly to the entire franchise.
Iron Man has gunned down a lot of bad guys in his films. One of the most famous action sequences in the first movie has him shooting down and blowing up a bunch of terrorists. IM3 has him mowing through henchmen and assassins quite casually.
Then there's the bit in Ant-Man where Scott and others are amazed that he went up against an Avenger and didn't die -- implying that the Avengers are perceived as killers by default. Maybe that perception isn't fully accurate, but it had to come from somewhere.
Then there's the bit in Ant-Man where Scott and others are amazed that he went up against an Avenger and didn't die -- implying that the Avengers are perceived as killers by default. Maybe that perception isn't fully accurate, but it had to come from somewhere.
Well, I did specifically mention the first IM movie. I don't recall the scene you're talking about in IM3, but then it's my least favorite marvel movie anyway, so I'll take your word for it.
The Ant-man argument is just ridiculous, though. People use death as a metaphor for losing a fight all the time and there is no reason at all to assume that Scott actually thinks the Avengers are cold blooded killers. In fact, if he suspected anything even remotely like that, then the post credit scene revealing his participation in the new movie wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.
Similar threads
