It is not.
Two years ago he witnessed a near extinction level event that changed his perception of things.
Alfred even makes a nice speech about it lecturing Bruce about where he's gone wrong...
Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
It is not.
Two years ago he witnessed a near extinction level event that changed his perception of things.
Alfred even makes a nice speech about it lecturing Bruce about where he's gone wrong...
Good point, poor choice of words on my part. But this means that Batman is now free to kill The Joker due to his newfound disrespect for life?
Correction: hasn't aged a day in a century and not a scratch on her despite clearly having fought in WWI with nothing more than a seemingly primitive sword, shield and armor. From that alone one could surmise most of her power-set. Besides, there was clearly more in that database than just a set of photos. Lex has been clearly researching meta-humans for a while and has at least as many resources at his disposal as Bruce.
Did you leave the theater before the end of the movie?
How does he know she actually fought?
She could have just as easily been a wartime ancient greek cosplay prostitute.
How does he know she actually fought?
She could have just as easily been a wartime ancient greek cosplay prostitute.
Well if you want to be deliberately obtuse, how does he know the whole thing isn't a photoshop assisted hoax? The chick the the suspiciously deep knowledge of ancient artefacts and black market dealings could have just been an actress Lex hired to wind Bruce up.
It'd make about as much sense as anything else he does in this movie.
At this point he is still oblivious that Lex is actually setting him up.
Nice try though, I do have to give you credit for one of the silliest complaints about the movie I've read in a while, and there's no shortage of competition in that department...
Even if Batman accused Wonder Woman of not helping in Metropolis, and already believing her to be as powerful as Superman (which is a pretty big fucking if), he may still have gone onto killing her after he was done with Superman. We don't know. He didn't follow through with that plan, so why couldn't he have planned ahead and we simply didn't learn about it?! Why would we have?
As for silly complaints about the movie, on another board someone complained about Superman's swing that Batman blocked had too much power behind it, and Superman "clearly tried to punch Batman's head off there".
As for silly complaints about the movie, on another board someone complained about Superman's swing that Batman blocked had too much power behind it, and Superman "clearly tried to punch Batman's head off there".
No, but I'll admit to not remembering a lot of it. Did Bruce tell Diana at the funeral that he was done killing now?
He confronted Luthor at the end and chose to scare him in traditional Batman fashion rather than kill him.
"Men are still good. We fight. We kill. We betray one another.
But we can rebuild. We can do better. We will. We have to."
I'm not defending the characterization. I'm just refuting the flippant remark up-thread that Bruce's statement demonstrates "poor math skills."
As for why he doesn't kill the rest of his rogues gallery, I would agree that we're talking about vastly different levels of threat. The Joker has murdered a lot of people but he doesn't have the inborn capability of wiping out all life on Earth.
Although, I'm one of those people that thinks that Batman has blood on his hands because he still hasn't killed the Joker after all these years. I can understand killing as a last resort but the Joker has clearly shown (a) a willingness and indeed delight in killing others, (b) a complete inability & unwillingness to be reformed, and (c) an inability to be effectively contained in any correctional facility for any sustained period of time.
Yeah. Doesn't he notice Captain Kirk in the photo with her?
In my opinion, the film shows us a Batman that lost his way. He may have started out not killing, only scaring or hurting criminals, but after 20 years of crime fighting, a death of a sidekick, and what seems to be no hope of Gotham, changed him. He is now tired, broken, and ruthless. So far he killed and caused the deaths what criminals and murderers, but if he kills Superman, a good guy, then Batman would have crossed the line of no return. While many say he already crossed the line, Batman had killed in some of his previous movies.
As for Wonder Woman, I do not think he has any reason to believe she had the power anywhere close to Superman. He only found out she lived a long time and hasn't aged. In that picture, she held a sword and shield, and dressed in armor. Nothing suggesting she can level buildings or cause massive destruction like the Man of Steel.
As for the 1% thing, I think it has to do with the what's at stake. While I don't agree with it, Batman thought process goes something like this...
1% someone will steal another person's wallet = not a big deal.
1% someone will murder someone else = very big deal, must be stopped at all cost.
1% someone will destroy Earth or murder all humans = taken as absolute and must be killed. End of discussion.
And at the end of the film, Batman changed, even if it's just a little bit a first. Realizing he's the villain, he decided not to kill Superman and save Martha. After Superman's sacrifice, he may decided not the people anymore. Superman's humanity made Batman realize he lost his own, and start to get it back.
As for Wonder Woman, I do not think he has any reason to believe she had the power anywhere close to Superman. He only found out she lived a long time and hasn't aged. In that picture, she held a sword and shield, and dressed in armor. Nothing suggesting she can level buildings or cause massive destruction like the Man of Steel.
As for the 1% thing, I think it has to do with the what's at stake. While I don't agree with it, Batman thought process goes something like this...
1% someone will steal another person's wallet = not a big deal.
1% someone will murder someone else = very big deal, must be stopped at all cost.
1% someone will destroy Earth or murder all humans = taken as absolute and must be killed. End of discussion.
And at the end of the film, Batman changed, even if it's just a little bit a first. Realizing he's the villain, he decided not to kill Superman and save Martha. After Superman's sacrifice, he may decided not the people anymore. Superman's humanity made Batman realize he lost his own, and start to get it back.
Yeah, but he does kill anonymous henchman and generic villains, so for him to not kill his rogues seems a little odd. I guess we just have to pretend that none of his rogues showed their face during the window of time between "Batman becomes a killer" and "Batman decided not to kill any more." Probably a smart move.
All the movie Batmen so far have followed the "movie cop" rule where mowing down dozens of anonymous henchmen without a second thought is totally normal, but when you come to the main bad guy, suddenly the law is important and the good guys "bring him to justice".
In movie world henchmen aren't real people, they're obstacles so they don't count.
Did they? Keaton didn't seem to give a rat's about bringing his bad guys in alive, henchman or rogues. Kilmer (from what I recall) doesn't kill henchman but does "trick" Two-Face into falling to his death. Clooney...hell if I remember, but I don't recall him killing anyone. Bale didn't tend to directly kill anyone, but he didn't seem to care much one way or the other.
Affleck and Keaton are the only ones where I recall them really digging in and killing with reckless abandon. As much stick as I give Affleck's Bat and his regard for life, he'll never equal Keaton setting off bombs between the legs of goons, burning clowns alive, and attaching dynamite to fat guys.
Kilmer killed Two-Face in the same way that Bale killed Ra's Al Ghul. A "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" moment. This after Kilmer's Batman just demonstrated he could save 2 people falling down the long chasm, which he tricks Harvey into falling into.
Clooney killed no one.
Bale killed Ra's by leaving him to his fate on the train. Bale killed Two-Face by tackling him off a ledge, before he could shoot Gordon's son. Bale killed a grunt and Talia herself by shooting at the truck with the nuclear reactor in it. Each time he moved on without missing a beat. This despite repeating he doesn't kill people. You could also argue that Bale killed untold number of ninjas and prisoners (the ones in the cages) when he blew up Ra's house.
Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney are supposed to be the same person, and their main villain deaths fall more under the "villain causes his own death", which is also a common trope. Joker wouldn't have died had he not tried to escape or had the guy that built the cathedral properly secured the statue to the building.
He did try to save the Joker back at ACE chemicals before he fell into the vat, and he tried to stop Catwoman from killing Max Shreck in the sequel. Granted, he didn't try very hard on both those counts