Batman Has To Kill? Right or Wrong?
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 03. 2024
- Zack Snyders comments about Batman having to kill have been reviewed with controversy. So lets set the record straight. Should he kill or not? Hopefully you can decide for yourselves after watching this.
Dragon Vault Games:
www.dragonvaultgames.co.uk
#batman #zacksnyder - Zábava
While the Batman 'No Kill rule' has been his best quality. There are time where he has to break that rule in order to protect the many.
When you have to encounter deranged psycho's in batman's world you have to ask yourself can you risk the lives of Gotham continuously in your belief.
"All of the people I've killed by letting you live." - Batman (DKR)
"I've never kept count." - Joker (DRK)
"I did!" - Batman (DKR)
"I know. And I love you for it." - Joker (DRK)
Zack Snyder not only made Batman a killer, he took the purest superhero, the ultimate symbol of everything good and pure in this world - Superman, and made him a killer too! Zack Snyder doesn't understand superheroes at all! He's so one-dimensional, like an old record player that can only play one tune - dark and gritty.
What makes superheroes so cool and unique and different from all other heroes and action heroes etc, aside from their superpowers, is exactly their no killing rule. That brings so much more depth and complexity to the characters, and makes what they do that much more challenging and, therefore, their example - that much more inspiring! That's what makes them SUPERheroes - not just their superpowers, but the fact that they are idealized symbols - impossible to achieve but worth striving towards nonetheless!
Any idiot, coward, or weakling can grab a gun and kill a few people. There's no strength or honor in that. That's not an example, an ideal to be inspired by and strive towards.
Bro Christopher Reeves Superman killed Zod in Superman 2, and Superman has also killed Zod in the comics. I swear you people don’t actually read comics and think Zack Snyder is somehow the first person to have these characters kill when he really wasn’t.
To answer your question @5:20 about if something traumatic happened to Batman that he gives up on his no kill rule was literally in the opening of bvs where he witnessed the Black Zero Event. How did you not get that? That’s why he has a hatred for Superman and after having the dream of the nightmare timeline where he sees a evil Superman (controlled by Darkseid) taking over the earth, that makes him fear Superman even more and why goes after the Kryptonite once after he found out it was his weakness and that Lex was going to make a weapon out of it.
And no you’re wrong about Christian Bales Batman not ever Killing in the dark knight trilogy when he did. He killed the members of the league shadows in Batman Begins, he killed jokers henchmen when he rammed the garbage truck with the tumbler, he killed Harvey Dent and he killed Talia and her henchmen when he shot their truck with the Batman wing.
My only issue with Batman’s character and no kill rule is why do the people he interrogates fear Batman thinking he’s going to kill them to get answers? If Batman tried to interrogate me by hanging my body over a skyscraper I already know he’s not going to drop me cus then he’d risk killing me which I know he won’t do cus he has a no kill rule.
I think they should keep Batman's no-kill rules as a firm boundary he puts in place, psychologically, but also accepts that in his crusade deaths may happen that are beyond his control. A Batman who tries, but also understands reality.
Batman fans are always gonna overreact and be unhinged when it comes to the stupid no kill role
There is a definite batman and that's BTAS batman portrayed by the best to ever play batman kevin conroy
Great video and great content well presented as usual. 👏
I also understand the amount and epic form of comments😊, but it is a broad topic with lots of subquestions that are interesting to discuss.
There is also a question of Batman's stage of crime fighting and age, so eventhough it is possible to envision a Batman character to become a veteran and to see less problems in killings, it can also mean a change in fighting style and letting the others do their work, that would probably mean the bigger role of the police or Robin/s/ in the story. Some change of style is maybe inevitable, and maybe this version of Batman is the most probable, maybe, but I still believe that no kill rule is great and that he would choose to stick to it and to remain a symbol of justice in even the worse circumstances.
My problems are some recent video games
Spiderman ps4 - knock a guy off a building and they magically get webbed to a wall.
Also a forced QTE where you had to save someone. My thought was why not change the story when you fail.
Arkham Knight - Batmobile weapons auto switch between lethal and nonlethal for unpiloted drones and human enemies.
Exactly we didn’t get to see that journey, The Robin that dies, according to Snyder Nightwing was the one that dies.
Hi 👋🏻 Jake! I’m of the opinion that people change over time, according to their experiences and ability to cope with them. Some coping may be different within the same individual, depending upon exactly what the said experience entails and the meaning to that individual. I think it’s perfectly logical that a newly minted Batman, freshly craving revenge, might start out killing. With some growing up & perhaps getting tired of killing, finding it senseless & unfulfilling to sate the desire for revenge, & instead turning to the side of himself that just wishes to save people like his parents and focus on that, along with his needing the challenge of strict self discipline, that he might come to the decision to not kill at all possible costs. To not become the enemies he want to stop. With even more years under his belt, whilst trying to impart some wisdom & pass crime fighting to the next generation, it’s still psychologically understandable that losing a young person he’s been pouring his care, heart & soul into helping/teaching, in such a violent manner, that it would rekindle old rage & add newer, more seasoned vitriol into the mix, especially after trying so hard to show the universe he didn’t want to add to the bad, and, perhaps, feeling it was a thankless existence that only punished him further & that he’d wasted years. So, the only way to continue to save future lives, for sure, was to completely end the threats permanently. Sounds like a character arc to me. Hell, he might even, in truly old age, fall back into the No kill stage again, especially considering his wanting to keep the new younger set of crime fighters from the physical, emotional, mental trauma of taking lives continuously, and the toll of the long term effects. Whatever reason, I could see it happening. So, people are changeable, even doing 180s (degrees of turning, basically to opposites), several times in life. I don’t think it’s waffling in the indecisive sense. Each change had reason & purpose. I’m not sure which route is ultimately best. But, it’s why I can accept Batman either in killing or not killing mode, depending on his time period or experiences & given whatever universe or alternate one that is being portrayed. Thanks if anyone got to the end of that.
Well said 😊
@@thebatcave111 Thank you. I know I can be a bit rambly and convoluted, but, hopefully, the overall idea came through. 👍🏻
Thanks for the video ❤
It’s a bit like the Arkham games when you pull the goons off things with the grappling claw and think how can they still be alive after such a high fall
I don't agree with Zack here. Dennis o neal created the " No Kill Rule" for a Reason. The batman comic book Legends of the dark knight story titled Duel ACTUALLY gave us not 1 not EVEN 2 but 3 answers as to why Batman doesn't kill.
1. Batman Believes in the Sacredness of human life.
2. if he DOES kill, he is no better than his enemies.
3. The Ultimate Embarrassment to The Joker. If Batman Breaks his rule, Joker Ultimately Wins because he wants to see Batman lose.
Titus 3:5 says that Jesus saved us Through his " Mercy". Jake what is your take on this?
Also Gordon wouldn't trust him if he kills.
Hope you get to feeling better! As to whether Batman kills or not, the simple fact is, he does at times. As for me, I've been a huge fan of almost every big screen portrayal of the The Dark Knight. Some more than others. I'm one of the few who can say the Affleck Batman is among my favorites. The Pattinson Batman is also of my of favorites. One kills and the other hasn't (yet). Either way, I love their portayals!!!
I subscribed to you because you said Ben Affleck is the most accurate
Either that or someone in the Bat Family, probably Nightwing, needs to teach a class and have GCPD, Blackgate, and Arkam Asylum sign up. The constant escapes make Batman's job harder and puts people in danger.
To me its always been batman doesnr kill to honnor his parents he doesnt want to ve like the person who made him batman i dobt think it ever says that anywhere but thats why it made since to me so im team never kill
The Batman and other traditional superheroes like Superman, Spider-Man, and etc DO NOT KILL and SHOULD NOT if they wish to remain traditional superheroes.
I feel that he should do it when the situation calls for it. Sure he’ll stick to it for the most part but on the off chance it’s necessary or if he’s forced to do it for the greater good, he should make an exception. Batman 457 kinda talks about breaking the rules occasionally in order to deal with a situation.
BEGINS sums it up Perfectly, "I Won't Kill You, BUT I Don't have to Save You."
The Only Live action versions that strictly follow that One Rule is West and Clooney.
Even Battinson ignored the rules of the road to catch The Penguin and that cast doubt of the potential collateral damage off screen.
Absolutely have had this discussion with people throughout the years and, simply put: Batman. Does. Not. Kill.
Arguments against me include Batman killing in the early days and, yes, he absolutely did. But throughout his almost 90 years in existence, the character has grown to the symbol he is now.
Additionally, the only reason Jim Gordon doesn’t haul is @$$ in is because Gordon noticed that Batman wasn’t killing people like the other costumed weirdos were doing. Literally Batman not killing, even villains, is what sets him apart from said villains.
Is Batman’s “No Killing” rule realistic in the situations he finds himself in? Absolutely not. But, seeing how he’s fictional, then it’s completely fine that Batman. Does. Not. Kill.
I’ve watched from the sidelines the arguments on twitter right now over this topic and for me as a long time Batman fan this is just so old hat. I perceive the people arguing on one side or the other as new fans, people who don’t have much experience with this topic. We’ve already had these arguments and seen how Batman is portrayed differently in different storylines. This is just a new batch of recent Batman fans relitigating one of the oldest Batman topics and so long as they don’t do any harm to the franchise I’m fine with them getting this out of their system.
No hero kills purposefully. Accidentally, sure. On purpose? Never.
He can but it has to be Monumental to the Story, Whilst being Few and Far Between.
Real world logic: Batman shouldn't get involved with vigilantism as he's only tampering with evidence and investigations and assaults people who may indeed be guilty but it's still assault! He should use his money and influence to advocate for universal healthcare, raising the minimum wage and combat poverty.
Comic/cartoon logic: Batman is an example of a righteous fictional hero, he has a code of ethics (no killing) and he doesn't use guns not even against killers and by not killing the writers can bring the villains back.
My two cents: I'm an older dude, Super Friends was my Batman, I was appalled that Michael Keaton Batman killed, I loved the animated series and the Nolan movies, respected how much Affleck looked like comic Batman and acted but still mad a major problem with the killing, I have a lot of faith in Pattinson's potential.
For any young dudes out there who think that Batman's no killing rule started with the Nolan movies, dudes, my dudes, get reading the DC archives!
As for the testing of characters, I respect Snyders opinion, but I have to disaggree, because I think there are few other options to test characters, although I aggree, if I understood the claim correctly, that the protagonists/heros should be tested and not overly protected with easy solutions and villains that do not mach the hero of a story.
I understand that alternate versions and early depictions of Batman killed. However, suspension of disbelief aside, I would have trouble believing that the police would condone his actions if he was a murderer.
The other problem is when Snyder mentions the Dark Knight Returns. That comic has an anti gun message. Batman breaks a rifle in that comic. “Guns are the Weapons of Cowards!!” He says that in the comic. He says those who use guns are the enemy!!! It is in the animated film too!!
In my opinion Batman is a dangerous character and as such has no need to kill because he can easily defend himself, but sometimes is forced in dangerous situations that occur, but that is a main storyline. It all depends on a writers view, directors view, type of effect wanted or need to refresh a series, because it really lasts long and some repetition is inevitable, just as some changes are.
I understand and even asked the same question before, about uselesness of some characters alive, but after a while, I've concluded that it is a comic book and that series without supervillains/superadversaries would be, at least, not the same and it is better to have some repetition than no heroes at all. Besides, what kind of man would be Batman to kill a crazy man, as Joker is appearantly presented and envisioned to be?
If the comic was realistic from start and presented a ordinary detective as a main character, it would be more than horrible mistake to let a dangerous villain escape from prison/asylum more than once. It is Batman, and I love the idea and comic book and character.
if batman goes by a no kill rule, then he technically kills because those criminals get out and go kill. had he stopped the leaders (joker for example) then the joker gang would fall apart and stop killing.
most people do not read comics and as a result, they do not know the various versions of the characters. people judge the character when it is portrayed on the big screen. one cannot just simply take the version that they love and portray it; they have to make sure they are portraying the definitive version of the character. zack fucked up the public perception of Batman and Superman.
I always felt like not killing was a plot convenience so they didn’t always have to think up new villains, that got carried away & somehow turned into a zealous belief of Batman’s. To the extent that there’s not even a variant of Batman that can mentally handle killing the villains that deserve it.
Allow Batman to kill and it all just descends into dull edgelord Punisher territory.
Exactly. If he kills he won't stop. That is my problem. He has sacrificed everything for gotham city yet they won't do anything properly. Now they demand his soul and spirit. All in the name of greater good like as if killing the joker will solve the endemic issues in gotham city. Can anyone tell me confidentially that if the joker is killed, another depraved villian won't take his place.
He did not kill on purpose, but he understood that he could not always save everyone, especially when saving the antagonist would have made it harder to save the innocent. 7:33
When Batman doesn't kill a killer(Joker,Zaz,Hush) he becomes counter productive of activity saving people as this killers will kill normal people eventually
Red Hood is what Batman should be
I think it should looked at like this. If you’re going for a realistic batman then he would have to. Batman is one of the greatest comic book heroes ever. You have to accept that if a vigilante really starts a war against criminals there would have to be casualties. in a comic book world going with pure fiction it could be believed batman can fight crime for decades & never kill anyone. Ive been a batman fan my entire life. Even though some people dislike ben version of Batman, it’s the only version that could exist in our world if batman was real. Imagine a guy dressed up like Batman trying to stop crime in chicago. He would have to kill because for some criminals that’s the only way they would ever stop. I illustrate this because batman is a character movie wise they want to incorporate in a real world scenario. If Batman existed in our world he would have to kill. So I say in movies people shouldn’t be butthurt about it. Keep batman no kill rule in comics because it makes sense to keep him pure because of what Batman represents & stands for. If you make a batman movie that’s not taking place in the comics world but the real world batman would have to kill. Look at it this way, if you had to go against any movie batman, nobody would choose ben version of Batman. That’s the batman who would hurt you, beat you down & possibly kill you. Ben batman is the only Batman everyone would be afraid of
I always thought that Batman should never kill, because that is what separates him from becoming ruthless. He is not just Batman but also Bruce Wayne. His parents were murdered tragically so why should he do the same?
He was interviewed by Joe Rogan, not Variety.
5:32 nope Zack said it was Dick Grayson
Good video bro. It started with the 'good guy' 'hero' character not killing their enemies and it then became a trait interlinked with the Bat. Comes down to if the Batman kills the mission has failed, he has failed
Batman does kill. The "Batman doesn't Kill" trope is some newer fan made notion. Its not actually cannon. Even in the iterations where he doesn't kill its never states that he won't or never will(Except maybe in the Nolan films). Batman has killed many many many times. In multiple mediums. He started off killing like the video says.
Are these the same fans that have no problem with Batman knowing every Martial Arts that ever existed! took me 5 years to learn one :)
No they should not kill. My problem is with not killing The Joker or some of the other villains is security at Arkham is a joke and it shouldn’t be. They can reinforce security with Kryptonian, Martian, Thanagarian and Ora’s technology. Worse comes to worse, send The Joker to the Phantom Zone or a science cell on Oa as a last resort.
Batman killed in the dark knight. The Joker’s influence on two-face led to Batman killing two-face to save Gordan’s kid. So in a way, Joker won. But it helped make the greatest film
Zach Snyder didn't do anything with Batman killing, he just had Batman gun down mooks like nothing. He says we need to put Batman in situations where he's forced to kill to create an interesting scenario and many comics and adaptations did that, but not Zach.
I don’t believe Batman should kill. However, I do make an exception for Michael Keaton.
Zach said the dead Robin was Grayson, not Tim. Why he chose him isntead of Jason I don't know, probably bc Zach hates comics and comic book fans.
Yeah Zack dedicated ten years of his life to make 3 DC films and produce 2 others because he hates the characters.
@@NCBCSPRINGRETREATMaking 3 films utterly bastardizing the characters.
@@UltraVioletKnight wow ridiculous
Batman should never kill unless he is a more evil version of Batman.
In the Dark Knight Returns, Batman kills the Joker by snapping his neck. Was it intentional? Maybe not. But the Joker still died because of Batman. This outraged the Gotham Police department.
I like the original Batman.
The joker killed Jason Todd, who later becomes the redhood. The only Robin to die because fans voted on the comic book for him to die. And then the same fans threw a fit when he died. So he got resurrected in the Lazarus pit as the red hood.
And batman and at same comic book after oracle was paralyzed Kill two hundred Different characters
Oh wait that was the Noland comic book That ben afflicts Batman is based off of. And the only hundred percent accurate batman we've ever had on screen, that's a fact.
This debate is getting old. Just go read the Punisher or Moon Knight.
Batman will never kill even if he puts himself in danger and causes things to be worse later on. It actually helps him be a more complex character since he will do whatever he can to save a life even when he could just let them die. The biggest problem with Bale's Batman is the comic Batman would have saved Ra's from the train and found a way to take down Two Face and Talia without killing them even if it put him in more danger of death. The closest I think we can get Batman to being fine with death is when he sees there is no real way he can save them (like when he is fine with both him and Joker dying in Arkham City) or he is close to crossing the line in a moment of pure emotion and he is pulled back by an ally (Gordon stopping him from killing Joker in Hush).
Batman ❤s joker, I said it
Christian Bale's Batman left Ra's Al Ghul to die on that train, so Batman basically killed him via inaction; and Adam West's Batman killed all those dehydrated goons... Even the Batmans who make a fuss about murder do a bit of murder from time-to-time
Not killing isn’t the problem with Snyder Batman. His Batman has no moral compass or code. Batman has as moral compass and a code. Keaton had some moral compass when he killed. He still compared about the innocent. He still doesn’t want anyone to go through the same tragedy that he went through. He doesn’t kill Max Shrek. Catwoman does.
That’s cus he gave up on his moral compass and code after the opening when he sees people die during the events of MoS. When Superman died at the end it inspired him to bring back his morals and code to be a batter person again.
@@filmgoblin5016 the whole point of them having a moral compass is that they are better than the villains. They are the heroes!! Getting rid of their morals makes them no different than the villains!!
@@biguy617 that’s why Zack Snyder deconstructed them in bvs to show just because they’re heroes doesn’t make them perfect and they have human flaws like everyone else who can give up on their morals after a traumatic experience, and when put in situations where they no other choice.
@@filmgoblin5016 Ben Affleck Batman is too OP. Henry Cavill Superman has no humility. Neither has self control.
@@biguy617 how is he too OP? What do you mean he has no humility? What do you mean no self control?
Yes. Batman would have to kill. And as a superhero and CIA agent, so do I. With great power comes great responsibility. Men get arrested, dogs get put down.
Batman does NOT kill
Except kgbeast Dracula victor zsaz darkside joker and two face
Depends on what version we’re talking about
Dracula doesn't really count.
Correct
Agreed
It's like you forgot about your 6th ranger channel 😢
Batman is not supposed to kill because he chooses to not take a life. However he did beat people up, and killed a few in the past. He ended up saving his enemies. It's a perpetual cycle.
Superman kills Zod after their fight kills THOUSANDS of people. Zach Snyder somehow understands the character of Superman less than he understands Batman
The robin in question was dick , but no does not make sense what he does later on because .. you know joker is stilla alive….