EDITORIAL: On Batman and Guns

EDITORIAL: On Batman and Guns

There's been a lot of talk about how the characters were portrayed in Batman v. Superman. Were they true to the spirit and essence, or botched and butchered? Read on for 1 man's opinion.

Editorial Opinion
By crawley - Mar 25, 2016 06:03 PM EST
Filed Under: Batman
This is the weapon of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it.
***Disclaimer: This is the opinion of 1 cynical old man. YMMV and you're certainly free to express your discontent with me in the comments section below.***
 
People say "BUT BUT BUT... There's precedent in the comics..."
 
Batman has had comics published every single month (in many cases multiple titles monthly) since 1939. Yes, some of those THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of stories were badly written and poorly thought out.
 
Which is why you take the parts of the mythology that resonate most with the culture and present THOSE to the GA in the movie theater. 
 
It's not like a comic, where you can say "Oh, we screwed up, we'll get it right next month." This movie took 3 years and cost a quarter of a BILLION dollars. You only get one shot every few years. Why would you be willing to misrepresent YOUR character in front of so many sets of eyes with so much on the line?
 
There are 3 basic tenets of Batman:
1. His parents stay dead.
2. He doesn't use guns because his parents were killed by a gun.
3. He doesn't kill, because he understands the unintended consequences of murder (such as, oh I don't know... an innocent boy becoming an orphan?)
 
It's such an important foundation of who that character is at their core, that I don't understand how you could change any of those things and still call him the same character.
 
Marketing 101 is consistent branding. It's not even like you have to build the brand. It's already built for you. But you're so embarrassed about what that brand is that you butcher it in front of the very people who've built it up for you.
 
Shame on you, DC/WB. Awful. 
 
We are the people who buy your comics. We buy your t-shirts, action figures, Funko POPs... We wear your characters on our underwear and socks BECAUSE WE LOVE THEM. We grew up on them.
 
And this is how you repay us.
 
Why doesn't Batman use guns? Why doesn't Batman kill?

It'd be too damn easy.
BANE And DEATHSTROKE Live-Action Movie In Development At DC Studios
Related:

BANE And DEATHSTROKE Live-Action Movie In Development At DC Studios

Hayden Christensen Responds To BATMAN Rumors And Explains Why Darth Vader Would Beat Thanos
Recommended For You:

Hayden Christensen Responds To BATMAN Rumors And Explains Why Darth Vader Would Beat Thanos

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

WinterOstritch
WinterOstritch - 3/25/2016, 7:14 PM
Batman using guns has always been prevalent in comics, BUT:

Let's say Batman is dealing with something like a monster, something like, I don't know, Doomsday. Let us also say he's at the end of his career and he's in a bit of a darker place. Batman using things like grenade launchers, as well as the rockets and "machine gun" on his batmobile/batplane? I can look past that. It's pretty understandable.

But Batman using a shotgun, shooting it, at a thug's flamethrower pack, with the full intent of killing him and everyone else in the building that's currently unconscious? yeah, that's manslaughter.
TheManFromLolliLand
TheManFromLolliLand - 3/25/2016, 7:52 PM
@WinterOstritch - huh https://p.dreamwidth.org/6cb9a212718f/-/abload.de/img/dkr13mu2q.jpg

That looks familiar
WinterOstritch
WinterOstritch - 3/25/2016, 9:07 PM
@TheManFromLolliLand - I'm aware of what it was referencing, but even then you could argue that the one in the film resulted in the deaths of MULTIPLE goons, as well as the fact that Batman could have just shot his hand off in the film as there was definitely distance between the flamethrower and Martha. Hell, you can argue that he didn't even kill the man, as later on Ellen Yindel mentions TWICE that on the list of things batman is being accused of, Homicide isn't one. It also makes sense as later on he contemplates killing the Joker, deciding against it in the end. Why contemplate the joker if you murder a mutant to save a small boy?

Either way, not a fan. If this was the only murder that batman committed in the film, I'd probably let it pass, but it's not. The car chase scene had at least 3 or 4 visible deaths caused by batman
kong
kong - 3/25/2016, 7:24 PM
I just didn't really give a [frick].
crawley
crawley - 3/25/2016, 7:50 PM
@Kong - The action scenes were beautiful and exciting! But you fail in a basic understanding of what makes these characters complex and iconic.

Batman and Superman's respective moral compasses are an embodiment of who they are. Snyder and co. ruined that part of the mythology in a way that can't be undone.

Let's use the Red Hood arc that's rumored for a film as an example:

The entire theme of that story is the difference in viewpoint between Batman and Red Hood on guns and murder. How could you adapt that storyline now? You've already stripped it of all it's substance.
kong
kong - 3/26/2016, 6:34 AM
@crawley - Stop bitching about Batman and Superman not being like thy are in the comics. This is a movie, where they have NO obligation to make Batman or Superman anything at all like their comic counterparts. A character not being like they are in their comic is not a flaw, and that's something fanboys need to understand. Batman could literally go Punisher on muh[frick]as in his solo film, and fanboys would call it the worst movie ever, even if it rivaled Citizen Kane and the Godfather in the quality of the film. IDGAF, especially since when it comes to all other aspects, this is the most comic accurate Batman I've ever seen.
Armpitwebs
Armpitwebs - 3/25/2016, 8:34 PM
Saw it earlier tonight. Liked everything but the weird manic Luthor.
To me, Batman's gun use (in a fever dream) and the likely collateral deaths of criminal henchmen seemed like a natural progression of how a real human being would be affected by what he had tried to do over a 20 year period.
As I started out in business 26 years ago, my main rule was to treat everyone with a friendly manner.
Now In my mid-40's, I, for one, certainly don't have the patience for fools and time wasting people that I did in my 20's. Batman's evolution feels like a similar progression.
Kyos
Kyos - 3/26/2016, 3:44 AM
I see a lot of people pointing out how he has used guns and killed before in comics, and it's true. But I really think it makes the character significantly less interesting and complex, and it feels weird to me that so many seem to be okay with him being a high budget Rorschach in the first ever connected DC movie universe.

And as others have said: him not having trouble killing makes certain storylines difficult to impossible to adapt. It pretty much negates a huge part of his classic relationship with the Joker, for starters. Who wants that?
TucksFrom2015
TucksFrom2015 - 3/26/2016, 10:47 AM
we miss your old profile picture, crawley

crawley
crawley - 3/26/2016, 2:55 PM
@WeddingTux - It was a goodun but I felt bad when it lasted longer than his film's run in theaters.
View Recorder