@@sunday1409 I agree with you. I always imagine them reminiscing in their own sick way as old men about their battles. I don't think either of them can truly let the thrill of the chase go. Robins & Batgirls will go on to have families, Harley will eventually grow a spine and leave her abuser but Batman and Joker are addicted to the each other.
Batman not killing is what’s makes him so interesting. It’s interesting to see how far a villain can push Batman no killing rule such as in BTAS episode “The Underdwellers” where he becomes extremely tempted to kill the Sewer King or The Killing Joke where it’s implied that he kills the Joker and it also makes Red Hood more interesting because he was trained raised by Batman but he doesn’t honor the no killing rule because while Batman wants to redeem his villains Red Hood wants to prevent innocent people from ending up in the same situation the Joker put him in.
the perfect counterargument I heard about his opinion: "Put Batman in a situation that he must kill" what he do to get out of that situation?! "he kills" and that's terrible writing 101 ladies and gentlemen.
No, that's honest writing. Of course people who dishonestly calling themselves "fans" while outright denying 88% of all Batman versions thus far Including version by actual people that created the character, of course you wouldn't understand anything about honest writing and instead will call it lazy or bad.
@@FirstnameLastname-my7bz Since, when bad writing is equal to "honest writing" (and what exactly that even means) and no version of Batman, kills except a few "Elseworlds" versions that are not even Bruce Wayne such as Flashpoint Batman.
@@maxnetirtimon4121 *every* version of mainstream comics Batman killed except 1941-1969 period and new52 ones, and since "everything is canon" current motto at DC he also did in modern comics, doesn't matter if particular writer or "fans" want to pretend these moments never happened. Of course you wouldn't know what honest writing means, again, not unexpected considering how many hoops of mental gymnastics you willing to go through just to gatekeep 88% of character's history from the rest 22% while pretending to be fan of the whole character. Granted if you even aware of these instances in the first place.
@@FirstnameLastname-my7bz Besides the point that NONE of the mainstream version of Batman killed (I mean if you read comics like Snyder does it doesn't surprise me that you think that way he literally thought in Frank milers Dark Night Returns he headshot the mutant holding the baby hostage) and besides that all superheroes were very different than to their present self and usually for the worst take Superman, for example, he was a bully who let Jimmy forcefully be married to a Gurilla and made Loise Lane fat so he could fat shame her just so he can teach her a "lesson" in humility and... which means till the 60s he was far from the Boy Scout We know and love him for it AND because everything is canon now this doesn't means we WANT to see an a$$hole superman TODAY and don't even let me start on how WonderWoman USED to be. you don't have a point here body. and still you didn't answer my question about honest writing.
Speaking of finesse, I also dislike when I see Batman punching people in the face until they’re unconscious and fall to the ground. It just breaks my immersion because that totally has the capacity to kill someone and Batman just does it anyway. I would much prefer to see him incapacitate people by breaking their limbs and such, as it’s more realistic and also stylish. I’ve just always thought a shot of Batman catching someone he’s rendered unconscious and lowering them to the ground would look super cool and also kinda scary. Idk. The Arkham games specifically is what made me have an issue with this in general. Realistically he’s killing like 99% of the people he does all his fucking combos to its absurd
In fact in *lethal* Batman comics by Gardner Fox (ie guy that actually gave him his first gadgets including batarang) he used sleep gas bombs (when he could) for a reason, If he wanted to take person non lеthally. Simply because it was time before multiple generations of people were pozzed with notion that violence can ever be perfectly safe. Especially violence administered by human without x ray vision and faster than speeding bullet reflexes to have any real control of force administered in a critical moment. There's a reason why in 1941 Ellsworth didn't just bаnned kills and kills with guns, but also extensive bеatings and kidnаps and torturе. It's funny when Zack is criticized by "fans" of comics that don't care about no kill code in Avengers movies (they have one too in comics since beginning and even in Superior Spider-Man it was important issue), while Zack (maybe Nolan and Reeves too) is The only director not pretending that violence or killing is a light concept that isn't worthy of any sort of attention. In MCU they literally quip after that (which Batman and Superman, and Robin DID in original pre 1941 comics, but DC Comics characters =\= Marvel characters, there's no post Avengers Captain America comics with Steve cracking lighthearted one after throwing brainwashed good guy from helicarrier, *even Ultimate Steve * didn't do that) And only one director to ever make truly non lethal superhero by All of her fights was Patty Jenkins in Wonder Woman 84 (but not in 2017). Which is also actually true to the very concept of the character by her actual creators, unlike this notion that Superman or Batman never nixed anyone or never Attempted to or that they both would rather place Their own feelings over safety of the people or safety of their own, which was never true for either creator's vision, maybe only for Finger in particular after Actually 100% non lethal 1941-1969 period in comics. Killings resumed in Bronze Age and Wonder Woman killed anyone for the first time only in Bronze Age either, nowhere earlier.
Also it's not only realistically he kills in video games, even Within video games he (or rest of his Robins) sometimes does Exactly same kind of punches or choking as Red Hood. With only difference when you looking at them Afterwards RH's detective vision will show 0 pulse while for Batfam they all just unconscious. And majority of Batgadgets in games inspired by Frank Miller (cape stunt is based on Dark Knight Strikes Again! ) and Burton films and Nolan ones.
Where I disagree is Batman should be put in a situation or killing, is an option because there’s that temptation for him to do it, only for him to then resist afterwards. Much like under the red hood. That makes for some of the best storytelling.
The idea that Batman is no better than the villains that he kills when he kills them is a little Chris idea that’s not rude. In reality we all know that’s not the case he saves lives they take it, but I didn’t create the character so
Well, keep in mind that Batman not killing is a recent phenomenon. He didn’t kill back in the day when I was first conceptualized, so it’s really not that much out of character.
I beg to differ from you because the film itself does both show but explain why that Batman kills and in such a reckless way; "The fear, rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel." "People are living in fear..." "Breath! This smell is fear! You aren't brave: men are brave." He didn't kill because it was cool but because he was desperate. At the very beginning of the movie he was put in an impossible situation never seen before (by him at least) where everyone he's lived and worked with were being killed with the Metropolis and the whole world being torn apart altogether. He wasn't merely afraid: he was desperate! And those who stood in his way were mere obstacles. And that was one of the best and interesting parts of how the movie showed an interesting contradiction: an inhumane man against a humane alien. However I agree that he wasn't portrayed questioning his actions after Superman's death when he realized he's failed with his own beliefs and that would be an interesting way to bring him back to the Batman we know.
I see your point but I can’t see any version of Batman seeing human beings as “mere obstacles.” I think he values human life too much but if that is the case, why let the Joker live?
@@SameBatChannel But that's exactly the point; there's no version of Batman whose fear has been pushed way beyond his morals could withstand because he's never been to a scenario where that's viable on the movies. Affleck's Batman has been retired for more than a decade. So whatever happened between the Joker and him was long before. What brought him to such madness was the kryptonian invasion. Such power, desctruction and the very possibility of world extinction... he's never been exposed to that. That's why he went for murder against Superman but not for his vilains.
@@cair037 I still don’t follow you. There was a kryptonian invasion so he decided to just ruthlessly kill human henchmen? Killing those people isn’t fear. He’s going out of his way to do it. He wasn’t backed into a corner.
@@SameBatChannel You're focusing on the kills rather than why they happened. They were consequences he didn't care because of a fear 'that turns good men cruel'. The objective was to kill Superman because he was an inhuman threat backed by humans. Lex met with politicians so as to create a kryptonite weapon using alien technology but the government didn't allow it. Humans defending its extinction bringer. That's exactly the point: he IS a Batman out of his way. It's Superman's humanity and sacrifice that brings him back on track. Take in account he was in Metropolis during Man Of Steel's event. He saw thousands die in front of his eyes. He could've been killed himself! He IS backed into a corner. If you think that's not enough to drive anyone nuts, I don't know what is.
The question you should be asking is: Why does the movie think its OK for batman to kill people? The short answer is the movie doesn't. Zach Snyder is putting Batman ideals to the test (your clip is asking that very question) like superman killing zad in Man of Steel. Snyder isn't a fan arbitrary rules. Rules for super heroes in a REAL world context are not bullet poof and he exploring them. The other question you should be asking is "Should people like Batman?" Ex:(in BvS - Alford and Bruce talking over the newspaper "Bat brand of justice!") so with that context and the Batman lore according to Bruce Wayne is Batman needs to be feared not Idolized. Batman isn't a Hero HES A Threat. He want to get rid of crime by force, to negotiate with crime with the only language it understands. In order to send that message and to become so feared he gonna have to hospitalize everyone that he sets his eyes on, and This also happens to be the only way a REAL life Batman would be able to put down a whole room of bad guys and make them stay down by making it physically impossible to get back up. The first issues of Batman are of him killing people with guns and other methods; his "CODE" doesn't come till like the sixties, because of the comic code authorities put a cap on the murdering. Then 30 years of Batman being kid friendly. That has to be over come and those thoughts have to be thrown out. But you would need to ask the question in a real world setting. What kind of person would a REAL Batman have to be? That part of the reason why this Batman is so thug-ish its keeping in line sprit of what Batman is. Which comes from Frank Miller himself. What also comes from Frank is Batman's care free attitude in indirectly killing of bad guys. If the Bad guys are associating with a thing that happens to blow up that not on him. So about the last part of the clip I think that irrelevant, the context is still there. Batman broke his code with using and killing a guy with a gun. Later in that same comic he swears off guns like he didn't just get done using one. And at the end of the comic he blames Jokers murders on his own inability to end the joker he then kills the Joker. To me the Dark knight is a commentary on how Batman lives in the minds of readers who still believe that Batman can BEAT people to a pulp every night and get away with it without killing anybody. without getting sick of putting away bad guys like joker away night after night and have the joker escape over and over to kill and hurt innocent people. His legend and his RULES of Batman are as much of a denial as the Jokers impossible suicide. This is the idea that Zack is Going for. that Batman's rationalization process that he goes though to convince himself of its not his problem if a guy gets blown up by his own grenade. Frank said "that his action are a results of his character being as old as his cranky legend."
Zack doesn't know Batman or Superman from a hole in the ground! Just listen to the guy talk he really sounds like teenager that never grew up and his movies show it....look no further than the monstrosity Rebel Moon 🙄
He doesn't show remorse because he's not intentionally deciding their fate in those scenes wanting them to die and so it's not on him, he is neutralising them and in some scenes like when saving Martha " has no other choice " like u said about Bale version , also he did blow up the whole league of shadows base to save himself . Batman's actions inherently cross the line of masnslaughter as far as morality goes . Snyder's version was essentially just more brutal in BVS after Robin's death on top of years of crimefighting weighing him down , while being okay with manslaughter like other batmen , with his first cold blooded murder being superman which he doesn't go through with and comes back from the brink . The others are essentially not him deciding their fate but them themselves as there was an immediate need to put them down whether one argues less brutal methods could be just as efficient or not . If he was intentionally finishing off criminals rather than just being okay with manslaughter he'd have k*lled Joker already , why is he still alive in future ? This is practically just like Bale but more brutal in terms of violence , he is okay with the deaths he ends up causing in a fight due to some immediate objective while not exactly wanting to as a punishment or judgement of someone's fate taking the absolute authority over life and death , again the first of that was going to be superman which he didn't go through with .
Bale intentionally offed a truck driver in the thrid film because he had no other alternatives. The nuke was on the truck and he had to stop the druck quickly. It also offed thalia Afleck drove into mercs with his car and blew up mercs with his plane with full intention. There were other options in both alfecks scanrios but these were his choices. He could have also done the same to joker but i guess not
Batman literally snapped the Joker’s neck in Dark Knight Returns-if you notice throughout the book, Batman is the only character that has gray speech/thought bubbles… that is until the Joker is laying on the ground in the amusement park after Batman beat him to a pulp. At that point, the Joker’s speech bubbles appear gray. This indicates that this entire conversation is made up in Batman’s head. He killed the joker, but justifies his killing of the Joker by imagining that it was actually the Joker that snapped his own neck.
And that is your opinion but if so it’s still hard for him to do such a thing and it’s at the very end of his Batman persona he is old. But I still hate this. It ignores the basics of the character.
Couldn't you make the argument that this was just an artistic choice to further draw parallels between Batman and the Joker? I think its an interesting theory and it works well, I just always interpreted it to further prove Joker's point that they aren't so different. I honestly go back and forth on this theory myself because on one hand, I think the story works better if he doesn't kill the Joker, but on the other hand it's really compelling. That being said, it's a far cry and (if true) a far more interesting story beat than anything Snyder did for Batman. I think in a universe where batman is openly committing murders, Joker wouldn't still be alive, and this is the case in the DCEU.
@@Ejerman it’s bad but okay let’s turn Batman into the punisher which already exists and as long as we allow Batman to kill whenever he wants the joker messing with Batman becomes so uninteresting.
First issue with what he said is your (god) he isn’t a god he is a man and to act as if he is someone’s god is to misunderstand the character at the basic level.
He’s referring to how superheroes are culturally the modern day mythic gods like the Greek gods were in ancient times. Batman obviously isn’t a god in terms of powers.
@@right8630Nope , he's right on point , that's the level Batman holds compared to other fictional heroes among lot of people , including me . Should or shouldn't be isn't the point here , it's how it is.
Zack doesn't know what the hell he's talking about...he sounds like a teenager that never grew up and his movies show it. Look no further than the monstrosity Rebel Moon 🙄
