Should Batman kill?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 06. 2024
- The question on if Batman should kill has been around for decades, but was recently reignited after Zack Snyder said in an interview that him not killing was making him "irrelevant". In this video I explain why he's wrong, and why Batman should never kill
• Trailer - (NO COPYRIGH... via @EpicMusicWaves
Chapters:
00:00 - Obviously not
01:10 - Tough situations
02:19 - Origin story
03:07 - Life is sacred
03:58 - No guns
04:41 - Slippery slope
05:30 - Why not kill the Joker?
07:11 - Storytelling reason
08:00 - Live action murderers
08:24 - Batman V Superman
09:14 - The Batman
10:15 - Killing is boring
10:50 - Outro - Zábava
Am I late to this? Yes but that only means you should like and subscribe more
Nope , grant morrison commented on the whole thing a few weeks back...seemed to have inflated Zac's ego...you ain't late dude
My problem with BVS is that Batman kills even before Superman appeared on Earth. I think it would have been much better if Batman questions his no kill rule when planning to stop superman so that their fight would have more weight on it. Making superman the only person he would've ever tried to kill would've been so much more benificial, and would've made the Martha scene make more sense.
Nope. He didn't kill before Superman. Tell me you didn't watch the movie without telling me
@@cameronbrown940 he didn’t say that he killed superman he’s saying that he tried to kill superman. Can you read?
@@cameronbrown940 Batman was legit a murderer before superman ever showed up
@@cameronbrown940 So tell me what made him kill in the first place. So you are telling me the fact that Joker killing Robin ultimately wasn't the reason for his senseless killing, it was Superman? From a mortal human's perspective, Bruce has no reason to kill others just because of Superman's collateral damage. His vendetta against Superman shouldn't make him lose his way in terms of his no kill rule. His vendetta against Supes makes sense for a Batman vs Superman movie, but still there is no reason for Batman to kill in the movie. I also want to point out that Jeremy Irons is such a good Alfred, but I still don't understand why he still works for Bruce after he becomes the Punisher. Alfred's "powerlessness" speech to Bruce doesn't at all tell the viewer why Batman kills. The only thing it tells us is that he's angry at Superman. Still, it doesn't make sense why he would be so angry at criminals enough to murder them. He should be wanting to kill specifically Superman. That's why I said that it would be better for Superman to be the only person Batman ever killed.
@quelele again clearly didn't watch the movie. He kills because as Alfred said, "he feels powerless and weak" against the new Superhumans. He renounced killing by not branding Lex after being inspired by Superman's sacrifice. But such subtly is too much for tiny little smooth brains like yourself
“It’s a cool point of view to be like, ‘My heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t fucking lie to America. My heroes didn’t embezzle money from their corporations. My heroes didn’t fucking commit any atrocities.’ That’s cool. But you’re living in a fucking dream world.”
- Zack Snyder
"Dreams save us. Dreams lift us up and transform us into something better. And on my soul, I swear that until my dream of a world where dignity, honor and justice are the reality we all share, I'll never stop fighting."
- SUPERMAN
For real bro. Fiction is important to people. And there are people who get a lot of life reflecting information from fiction. It can make people better, giving them hope even if it's not real. To many people have that nihilistic take that fiction is just fake, so it doesn't matter when people derail a universes Canon to subpar levels. DB, Batman, and the Doom Slayer are characters that inspire me to do more with my life. Based off of how Badass they are they make me want to work out lmao.
Honestly that has to have been one of the weakest statements that Synder has said about it. I enjoy the DCEU movies as well, but that’s just wrong pessimism for heroes
He frankly does not understand Batman and I find it funny when people tried to defend Snyder saying this
@@Theleaver5088
I think a lot in BVS was great, and even his character going into Justice League was on a better course, but I agree. The words he said (tbf I don’t know the what he said beyond the cherry-picked quote) are indefensible. That IS not Batman. Batman does not nor should not kill, and if he ever does, it should be going AGAINST his code, not FOR it
Why would Man kill someone? Is he possessed?
This is the best comment yet
Why is man possessed? Is he stupid?
Why do people criticize Man for no kills? Are they comp players?
Why Man beat Sup? Is he homeless?
The only Batman that should kill is Thomas Wayne Flashpoint.
100%. An Elseworlds character that acts as a commentary on how a small change could've created a terrifying Batman who never found his way from the start
@@WholeShebangYT I find that I enjoy Batfleck a lot more if I pretend he’s Tomas Wayne rather than Bruce Wayne.
@@ThefrigginBatman u got a damn right point
The Dark Knight Returns Bruce literally tells the mutant gang that guns are the weapons of COWARDS, Batman doesn’t kill bc he also tells Jason in “Under the Red Hood” that ‘killing would be to damn easy” it takes a REAL hero to overcome the urges to maybe want to do that act but Batman will NEVER allow himself to take the “easy” way out he will ALWAYS put lives first, yes giving criminals concussions and breaking body parts might be “extreme” but it’s the way Batman works as a character to be the symbol for Gotham
Another reason for Batman not to kill has a lot to do with his rogues. One aspect that makes them such great antagonist for Batman is the fact that most of his villains are broken people like Bruce, victims of tragedy and trauma, with some representing aspect of his character and reflection of what he could had become if he had took a different path (ex: Penguin represents his wealth, Riddler represents his intelect, Mr Freeze represents his grief and so on). Batman is aware of this similarites, hence why he creates this lines, to be different from the villains he fights.
so how about Arkham Batman who overcame his fear of becoming 'a killer' who always had snippets of crossing his line of code in Arkham Knight...
According to Batman's creator, Bill Finger (RIP), Batman should NEVER kill.
Glad you gave Bill Finger the credit of creating Batman
@@bradleyrutledge Bruce Wayne did kill originally in his dark knight days and used guns thus is old comics where he also shot at Talia with a gun he took straight off the police officer he created the no kill rule and no gun rule after accidentally shooting Alfred and almost killing him because he didn't see Alfred behind the criminal who broke into the manor he carried two guns and a whip it wasn't till silver age when he had a aversion to guns if I remember correctly on which age it was
Yep and that’s why I don’t like Snyder because by him saying that bullshit he said about Batman he’s basically spitting on Bull Finger
Bob Kane made Batman
@@wyattandfriendshailey WRONG!
“You’re making your god irrelevant”
I think you need to shut up about gods, Zack. That’s why I don’t like how you wrote Superman. You focused on the Super or the “God” and not the Man.
Anyway, I agree with basically everything in this video. Not killing is ESSENTIAL to Batman’s character. It’s something most Batman films have not understood and when people are complaining about it, YOU DON’T DOUBLE DOWN ON IT.
This is why I’m glad Zack is out of DC. He was more interested in deconstructing the characters. There’s nothing wrong with trying to put a twist on the characters but not only do I think his deconstruction was poorly executed, but it felt like he was trying to make Batman what he wanted to see him do instead of respecting why Batman is the way he is. I want people that like and respect the characters running things when these are the versions that the public will primarily be seeing.
Thank you. I’m not the only person who hated Zack’s interpretation of superman. It felt like such an edgy fanfiction on the character. Forced religious symbolism he literally tried to make him Jesus Christ. And then he just butchered the Kent family. That films not good
Never let Zack Snyder cook with DC
I really enjoy how they made Pattinsons Batman a dedicated detective who always saw an alternative from killing an enemy…each time he thought not to kill, there is always another way and I’m all for it✨
Ya except Patterson killed in multiple scenes in the Batman
@@crxvtec0069 no he didn’t
@@crxvtec0069 no he didn’t
you know what I dont see enough people bring up with this discussion? that his father, Thomas Wayne, was a doctor. Doctors see life as sacred too and make an oath, and I feel that as Batman Bruce made a similar oath to preserve life, any life. I feel this is a big influence in his no kill rule because we know how much Bruce wants to live up to his parents legacy and make sure they are proud of him, how much he fears being a dissapointment in his parents eyes(weve seen teh Batman TAS epsidoe were he gives the I am vengeance I am the night speech at a hallucination of his father telling him hes a disgrace). In the new 52 Batman and Robin when Bruce was telling Damian about how not killing was the way to go and all that he did it in Thomas old office and spoke about how killing wasnt what they were about and they showed the medical instruments and such, so at least I know Im not hte only one that thinks that
I like how Nolan did the no killing. With Harvey he was put in a situation where his rule was challenged. He tried to get Harvey to let Jim’s son go but Harvey wouldn’t budge. So he pushed him off that ledge.
This video unironically makes me appreciate Batmans character so much more especially with his dynamic with Joker so thank you
This is the greatest honor I could ever receive
People forget to realize that you don’t have too agree with his no kill rule but it’s his reasoning and motive for that rule that makes Batman complex and opens the door for almost infinite and endless stories to tell with that narrative.
Yes! I should've done a section about this. The no kill rule isn't something we all have to agree with him on. It could be interpreted as a flawed characteristic, which just makes him more interesting and opens up more storytelling potential
@@WholeShebangYT im all for the no-killing rule so long as its treated as a fundamental flaw in Batman but to completely disregard/negate Synders stance just because he thinks Batman should kill since Batman as a character as already underwent so much for his 'no-killing' rule that it's just overbearing and shouldn't be the DEFINITIVE trait of Batman as a character/being...
also your perception for Batman in BvS is just entirely false perception after false perception of BvS' Batman...
to think or believe that Batman in BvS is not deemed 'good' or well written by the majority of the Public Opinion just because it wasn't 'explained' enough just tells me how dense groups of Humans can be when getting or jumping on a bandwagon that majority will agree on...
its like mob-mentality or what i like to call it is the 'Hive-Minded Drones'...
and more important, that's his entire identity. that's the whole point of a character. you may not agree with it, but that's you, not him, and as somebody like snyder, you shouldn't project your own ideals on a character that isn't yours. this video is a godsend and i wish i could give it more likes
@@godzillazfriction Don't say stupid things.
@@scottchaison1001 ironic considering im not 'saying' anything...
im *TYPING.
A story where Batman kills can be a lot of fun so long as it actually makes sense in the story. If he kills people because the Joker killed Robin, then why is Joker still alive? You have to do so much more work to explain his reoccurring roughs gallery.😮
Batman. Should. Not. Kill.
No main world batman should kill but if a main world batman goes to a alt universe he should meet a verison of himelf that kills as it could be a interesting story of batman woundering if he has the capability to kill
@@tfordham13thats legit been dome a couple of times already
@@thejuicerisgone3215 and?
@@tfordham13 it gets kind of boring when a main world batman kills because that literally happens in every live action batman we haven’t gotten a Batman that has not gone against his code hopefully dcu Batman doesn’t kill
@@Chronic41745 agreed
Batman doesn't kill because then he'd just be a slasher villain. Saw his parents killed, traumatized, tragic character, gets tough, gets mad, puts on a mask, goes looking for bad guys to beat up. Every slasher plot, and Batman plot, minus the killing.
The literal point is Batman being put in these life and death situations and yet somehow he finds a way NOT to kill anyone without any casualties. Batman will always find another way
Part of Batman's appeal is his MacGuyver skills, his clever and inventive ways of taking down his enemies. You lose that the instant you introduce guns. The purpose of those gadgets is that they're an alternative to lethal force. Bruce Wayne is a meticulous who plans for as many scenarios as he can and tries to equip to deal with them non-fatally.
Should Batman kill? Only very occasionally and only up against an villain that truly, truly gave him no other choice. But like 99% of the time? No.
Imagine thinking "never kills under any circumstances" and "kills everyone without remorse" are the only 2 options
I agree Batman shouldn’t kill period mostly because Batman is a hero who doesn’t kill period from the very beginning.
I like stories where batman has to wounder what killing is like with rá shal ghoul or solmand groundy or with clones ect
@@tfordham13 I can understand that
I like when he doesn’t kill but doesn’t save them either, owlman in crisis on two earths is a great example. He won’t kill u but he won’t save u either.
@@GokuBlackRose978 I can understand that
If batman starts killing, he is essentially The Punisher celebrating Halloween every night.
I have a soft spot for the heroes that go above and beyond to never kill like batman and daredevil.
but i prefer the usual DC and Marvel heroes that have restraint and rules against killing, but will use lethal force if it's the only way, and even then they may not like it see: iron man: extremis (marvel example) or some comics with green arrow (DC example)
As for anti-heroes or heroes that casually kill like its a normal day, im not really a huge fan of punisher or red hood, neither am i a fan of the DCEU or MCU versions of these classic heroes, i mean with MCU i like the early movies, but its just the ultimate universe, with its ooh rah kill enemies of america, just without the weird stuff with the Maximoff twins or cannibal hulk and blob lmao.
My issue with Redhood and Punisher is that there is no criticism for their "kill all code". It is just lazy writing that is excused because killing is cool. Batman not killing his enemies has come back to bite him, he has been criticised for his no kill rule so much that it is kind of overdone now. He's been called a psychopath or unhealthy or evil e.t.c. Somehow the Redhood and Punisher in all their long years of killing never kill an innocent? Someone at the wrong place and time. What about a police officer that was undercover? No? They just kill and have no consequences come to them at all.
"Heros" who kill are just boring
Heroes who kills is not a heroes
@@jacklee6582 which is why I put quotes around heros
Superheroes nowadays are allowed to kill if it’s the last resort in the marvel universe and MCU They’re allowed to kill like how the punisher lethal force on criminals but when it’s Spider-Man, it’s controversial.
Yeah if the kill they are anti-hero’s
Yup
Its funny that DCU batman still has a joker
It's one of the most insane things ever to introduce a Batman who kills, and also has the Joker around. It makes no sense😭
Bro should have died along time ago, especially with Jason being killed by joker (yeah they tried doing a little Easter egg with him, his suit in a case with joker spray all over it.
Exactly. If Batman kills, especially when Robin was also killed, the Joker should be Batman’s first kill. Harley should be dead too for that matter seeing as she did help kill Robin though we never got to find out exactly in what capacity she helped the Joker kill Robin.
Batman doesn’t kill but he doesn’t have to save you.
Batman's code isn't No killing. It's if someone can be saved, he has to try.
why do i see a flashing blue bat symbol above my head
We have that character already. He is called The Punisher.
The best way to explain this is to use something I once heard. What defines a character most is not what they do but rather what they won't do. Once you understand the limits of a character they become more solid. For example I once came across people talking about two examples from comics about Punisher. One is him not wanting police officers to want to be him but rather be a hero like Captain America. Another is his refusal to kill kids. That speaks way more to Frank's character than him just gunning down some crime boss.
This isn't just reserved for the "darker" characters of comics either. In MAWS there is a moment where Supes decides to go into battle knowing he won't win but he can't just leave people defenseless. He has to TRY and save them. This can also be seen in the old DCAU episode where Billy Batson showed up. The episode ends with how Billy put a line in the sand saying while he loved being a hero the JL did things he could not abide by and thus leaves them despite his joy at joining it earlier in the episode.
Batman killing is jut a kinda boring decision for the character. It doesn't define Batman unless you give him a clear limit to that killing. This is something the DCEU never did. It never answered where he drew the line so it doesn't matter. People have already pointed this out but why the hell are Joker and Harley alive despite the fact Batman has no qualms killing? There isn't one. This is the same man who threw a huge box at a guy clearly killing them and we're to expect he wouldn't just like snap the Joker's neck? What makes this even worse is the fact this is an older Batman so you can't dismiss this like the vengeance streak in The Batman. That Batman is still young so his stance of crime fighting can grow and evolve easier. It was a relatively short time in what will no doubt be a long career. We don't know when DCEU Batman started killing so we don't know if it is a recent development or not. Sure we get lines from Alfred but again they're so ambiguous so they don't mean anything. "Ah yes these things that made good men cruel" but we never see that in his killing of people because the movie never calls him out for it. Okay Supes calls him out but he also just kills willy nilly! Heck after they become buds Batman literally goes on to kill that guy with the box!
In the end if Batman kills it needs to mean something. A lot of the time it isn't. A lot of the time him killing is just a spectacle. A boring spectacle bereft of nuance and depth that makes the character stand the test of time.
I would be okay with killing, only if it’s done in a way in line with the character. He’s pushed to kill and he gives up the cowl, he feels incredibly guilty, he’s forever traumatized, etc.
Snyder’s Batman killing criminals left and right had no meaning. He never feels the pain of it, even after his catharsis of fighting Superman he still went around murdering.
People like Snyder tend to forget that the no kill code not only gave birth to popular characters such as red hood but also amazing modern interpretations of some of his villains who are the exact opposite of the character like Joker or Bane
Batman without hope in humanity isn't really Batman. He wouldn't rob someone the chance at redemption, even if they would never do the same. Snyder really missed the memo here.
"killing is easy, batman doesnt take the easy choice"
A little late but THANK YOU for pointing out how the "well the other live-action Batmen have killed" argument is stupid.
One of my favourite batman scenes ever is in JLU where deadman gets control of batman's body and shoots a guy with a gun to protect wonder woman, when batman realized he held a gun and shot it even not in his control he gets extremely sad and all the others have to say that he shouldn't be quilty about it
Bvs would have been so much more interesting if he didn't kill, because it would justify the bat brand.
Like, he won't take a life, but he's not above giving these monsters (in the film it's a sex trafficker) the pain they deserve.
i think the thumbnail answered the question
What I like is how Batman also calls villains by their real names
I strongly agree
Under specific circumstances when there’s literally no other choice, I’m cool with him killing then but it shouldn’t be a regular thing, certainly never his first choice. A hero is only as good or as interesting as his villains, if he keeps constantly killing his villains or even regular Joe bloe criminals then he’s automatically less interesting because he’ll eventually have no more interesting villains left.
Batman doesn’t kill… unless it’s darksied, it which case it’s perfectly fine
I'm in the minority but I think even character written as pure evil and will never change still shouldn't effect the no kill rule.
What the other person is willing to do is irrelevant. Only our own choices.
@@FireLordIroh I’m pretty sure the whole JLA puts aside their no kill rule for him too. Number one opp gets the number one opp treatment
@@YaBoiJamo Doesn't make it right
@@FireLordIroh iroh, I’m sorry, but there is no talking him out of it and he’s a threat to the entire universe.
@@YaBoiJamo The nature of evil is to do things we should not. It's no wonder that the ultimate evil can make the most ultimate unwinnable scenario.
It's not something people like to hear but the ends never justify the means. Evil can force us into picking between 2 evils. In that situation we should abstain regardless of the consequences.
Killing him is the easy choice.
Sounds nuts but it's of course a fantastical threat with fantastical repercussions.
This is the classic clash between utilitarianism and deontological ethics.
I don't expect most people to agree.
It also more sociality way of thinking like why batman doesn’t kill the joker, or why Superman is boring
Also some of these criminals have children. Bruce Wayne is not in the orphan-making business.
The only thing I dislike about the No Kill Rule is that with the Joker it is actively causing the deaths of so many people. DC will never let the Joker become reformed nor will they ever let someone kill him permanently to ensure Batman doesn’t have to worry about him anymore. So we’re in this constant cycle of where Joker continues to kill and break out of Arkham and kill again. Other villains have shown remorse and shown that they can change or have instances of redemption but the Joker’s motivations exist to push the limits on how much Batman is willing to allow him to do before he ends his life. The only comic that actually redeems the Joker in an interesting and well thought out way is White Knight where the Joker is cured, temporarily, of his insanity and instead returns to being Jack Napier. They treat Joker like a sickness ailing Jack and while I’m usually not a big fan of stories that make it so that a person becomes unaccountable for their actions because of a sickness or possession of sorts like how the black suit is used in Insomiac’s Spider man 2, for the Joker it makes sense for him to be beyond physical form. Anyone can be the joker, all it takes is one bad day.
Banger video
Batman: killing is wrong
Spider-Man: So I just started swinging
Yes
You sir got a new subscriber
The answer is no...if yes go watch punisher
Should Batman Kill? No
Has Batman Killed? YES
Will he Kill Again? Most Likely
I agree that as a general rule Batman should not kill and do everything in his power to avoid people dying.
However, I am okay with *some* interpretations having this rule bent or broken if it does actually lead to an interesting narrative dynamic or if there's no practical way out of the situation (like in Batman Begins with R'as Al Ghul and Dark Knight with Harvey Dent).
Or in Burton/Keaton's situation, the fact that they tried going for the feeling of the original golden age comics where Batman did kill. However, I also am slightly more lenient with it in that case because Batman Forever (which is meant to be a follow-up to '89 and Returns) addresses how the desire for vengeance and being fine with killing can destroy your life (even if Batman does still kill in that movie, and his actions lead to Two-Face's death which sullies the message somewhat, but Forever is pretty flawed overall).
But in like 99% of circumstances, I absolutely want Batman to have his no-killing rule and stick to it as much as possible because that makes him more interesting, both if you agree with his reasoning or not.
Honestly, if you want a scene that put's Batman in a situation where he's being pushed to kill, but with him feeling more in character, Under The Red Hood basically did this with it's finale: czcams.com/video/VRiX5Mh2YCo/video.htmlsi=gZL88nduCl7T5g73
Once Batman starts killing he just becomes the Punisher in a bat suit.
5:34 honestly that question has never come up to me as has his no kill rule. My question is why doesn’t gotham at this point.
I don't mind he killing some villains but I do mind he always use kills in Zack Snyder that he limits to kill not all
I personally think he should kill some villains, at a few points he has like darkseid and plenty of one off villains or their henchmen like in his first comics, he killed plenty in those before he was changed, I’m not saying kill every single villain in his rogues gallery but joker definitely needs to be the first, he’s just gonna keep getting out and destroying peoples lives, ending him or letting someone else do it would prevent more pain for Gotham in the long run. So basically I’m saying sometimes killing is the best or only reasonable option, especially to prevent innocent lives being lost, it should never be off the table.
All true,. Batman has killed and used guns before in the comics, the older comics for the late 30s and early 40s, and the Keaton films.
Yes, the answer is yes
7:48
Let's not forget the fact that all Batman story arcs since Frank Miller in Year One (and even in DKR) ALWAYS follow this path: street thug, dealer, pusher, supplier, boss, politician who controls it. Without super criminals to challenge Batman based on whatever neurosis they have, Batman goes back to the regular crooks and goes up the chain. The politicians and the corrupt at the top KNOW Batman is going to come for them eventually. So what do they do? They always have him distracted by super criminals like the Joker. Why? Because Batman puts ALL his attention then into recapturing them. So they push money around, falsify documents, get skeevy ass lawyers, and bang: no death penalty for Joker or ANY crook. And the one time they COULDN'T protect the Joker from the Death Penalty in Devil's Advocate? Batman HELPED Joker get off because THIS TIME, The Joker was innocent. THAT is why Batman stories are interesting: the world is out to fight the Dark Knight.
I feel like a lot of people reduce the no kill rule to just a sense of moral superiority. Like Batman just believes that as long as he doesn't kill anyone, he's a good person. It's missing the point so hard. Batman doesn't just avoid killing for the sake of his conscience. He fundamentally believes in the value of every human life. He's come back from the darkness. That's always been my interpretation of the ending of The Killing Joke. Batman had "one bad day" like the Joker, but managed to rise out of his despair. He wants to offer everybody else that same chance.
You're one of the only people who acknowledges the justice system.
I meaaaaaaaan I kind of overlook Batman Begins because at the Ninja house, theres no way he could have gotten out of there alive and even if he did, everyone there knows who he is, and while they ended up going after him anyways it is kind of a result of writing Batman in a really questionable way. Including that bit at the end where he "doesn't have to save" Ra's from the train. I just find that funny in both senses of the word. The Dark Knight Trilogy also kind of keeps away from killing for the reat of the Saga, unless you count Harvey's death to be murder. I see it as an unfortunate accident, but that's probably me coping. And Bane? I mean, I don't think there was anything Bruce could have done about that hahaha. Again, though, writing!
yes
Love it...
I still think Ben Affleck was the best Batman ever... both Bruce and Bat version.
While I personally definitely fall into the camp of preferring Batman not kill (considering it's been a staple of his character for many years, despite him doing so in VERY early comics), I'm also not opposed to seeing iterations where he does kill. It all depends on the story and context for me. While I'm not a Snyderverse apologist (BvS is definitely one of my least favorite DCEU movies still), I do think that the reaction to him having Batman kill was a bit overkill lol. While it doesn't lend itself well for world building (ie. why is the Joker still alive?), they do establish that this version of Batman has operated for many years, and has become completely cynical in how he views the world and his mission ("How many of us stay good?), considering he's seen the justice system fail and has had a Robin die in the line of duty. So for THIS version of the character, it makes sense that he would kill. And secondly, Snyder/Affleck's version is hardly the first version on-screen to have him kill. It's amazing to me that Michael Keaton's Batman is largely touted as one of the best, if not THE best on-screen version of the character, when his version literally kills people indiscriminately. In some cases, Keaton's version killed people with a smile on his face as if he's enjoying it. At least Affleck's version is established to have seen some shit and has been pushed to this point. Keaton's was just like, "yeah, i'll strap a bomb to you, punch you out, and walk away as you explode." Yeah, Keaton's version came out in '89, but it's not like Batman's moral compass is a recent addition to his character. That was established well before the 80s and 90s. Do I think Batman as a character should kill? No. But I won't get mad at the attempt to show him doing so, if it's warranted and there's context. For all that Snyder did wrong with his iterations of the DC Universe, I think having Batman kill was one the less egregious decisions.
A Batman who kiss is a Batman who laughs.
do ppl want see batman kill alr but snyder's batman is straight up a clown he murders every random criminal yet he doesn't kill joker who killed his robin neither did he kill luthor who created a massive monster that killed countless ppl and superman who he also tries to kill despite him being a hero
What if he doesn’t have another option. Sometimes people have to die
New dc comic reader:no one likes the batman who kills Keaton:unless the batman that kills is badass
7:04 I would say that there is no death penalty in gotham
“No god almighty no!”
Tell em’, brother.
Unless you are Darkseid, then he will kill with a gun.
Exactly! Snyder is talking aout of his posterior!
I like when writers make him not kill but not save some people, cause they deserve it, take owlman and joker for instance.
When Snyder said, "You're making your God irrelevant", what he meant by that was that if you don't explore how Batman would react and become if he kills, then your making him irrelevant because you aren't exploring a Batman who kills. It's leaving him stuck in a box where the character doesn't move forward since the same type of Batman is being used repeatedly. You should have Batman kill, so the story in question can explore why he's wrong in doing it and how can he can rise back to the light.
Sure it's a box but there's just about anything else they could do to change him up outside of that.
Did you have to kill people before figuring out that's not such a good idea?
you dont have to make him actually kill to explore why him doing it is wrong. great example is arkham knight. the end sequence shows a world where joker takes over and has batman kill all his enemies. its very clear that its wrong without having it actually happen
Kill? No. But should he keep saving the crazy villains who keep getting themselves in dangerous situations? I don't think so. I'm all for "I won't kill you, but I'm not gonna save you either" approach. Some villains deserve final karma so that innocents don't have to suffer from their actions anymore when they escape for a 100th time. Innocent lives should come first. If some villains refuse to see the light then they're too far gone to care about.
I would like to see a storyline where Batman beat somebody so badly the villain is now a vegetable no I don't want him killing but I would like to see how does he react to that
You could’ve ended the video after that first second
NO
I have problem with Snyder making batman kill. But show us him breaking his rule.
The joker ,the pig mask guy and the guy who cuts himself gotta go ,he should see these ppl are beyond saving and letting them live is just sacrificing more lives,i understand its part of his character so its not that deep if you don't change it but in a real world view everyone and anyone would agree the world doesn't need a joker alive
guys i think we should see what happens if spiderman doesnt care about responsibility
Lore of Should Batman kill? Momentum 100
I think i he should but it should be by accident and he has to go on a whole ass character arc afterwards to be able to forgive himself
I disagree, he should
Batman should not kill because comics the heroes need their villains when comic writers try to apply a reason for heroes not to kill somewhat falls flat Batman not killing makes no sense for how smart the character is if batman treasures life he would do everything to prevent death of the innocent batman is a great character nonetheless superheros aren't meant to kill when you try to apply reasons that make no sense furthermore makes anti heroes more popular and relatable my personal reason for why Batman's doesn't kill is because he is mentally unstable to the point if he does kill he would be the true personification of vengeance it's like the grant Morrison run when the mental code broke and it was only batman that remains I don't know if certain comics touch on this topic as a reason for why he does not kill but it makes the reason more personal and it's has more consequences but what ever reason the writers provide may not make much sense at times they try to find a reason for why batman or other heroes not to kill when superheroes should never kill and what ever reason provided would not be logical because comics hard to apply real logic and common sense with comics because of the ridiculous nature of superhero comics the comics reader know why superheroes can't kill their villains yet they try to debate the topic to oblivion on why this character does not kill the main reason is because comic book superheros should never kill
nice
Yes. Red hood was right.
He already has and it started in 1939 I'm fine with him killing or not killing but I do prefer him not to
8:10 george cloney's batman considered killing batgirl for know their identities so NO.
No? Alright, that’s it for me. Next video.
If Batman killed there would be no use of Jason Todd
if you think batman should kill you are NOT a batman fan, you are a punisher fan
The biggest question is why doesn’t Batman cripple the joker
Now that is a good question
How would DC milk the Joker if he is crippled?
I disagree that Batman is more relevant than ever before... but Superman certainly is!
Superman is a symbol of hope, a symbol of peace, and is the epitome of the human spirit (even though he isn't human).
People need that in their lives to help them along.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
right go read the punisher 😂
A different Batman could kill criminals but Bruce Wayne/Batman never!
Hack Snyder 😂