Did Batman have to kill in BvS:DOJ? Does he ever have to kill?

Did Batman have to kill in BvS:DOJ? Does he ever have to kill?

Batman's brutal actions in Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice and why it made me feel the way it did. SPOILER WARINING.

Editorial Opinion
By bHrUuLcKe - Mar 25, 2016 08:03 AM EST
Filed Under: Batman vs. Superman

Quick summery... I found it disappointing and unnecessary

I can't completely blame Zack Snyder for how I'm feeling. After all, he did come out with some very logical reasoning for why his Batman kills in BvS and it makes complete sense; Batman has killed in just about every other live action movie/interpretation and even in the comics some times, plus those deaths were usually more brutal and more direct then how Snyder's Batman takes the bad guys out. So where does this idea that Batman doesn't kill come from? Why am I disappointed? Because I grew up with mainly loving the animated Batman movies & TV shows. In which, Batman simply doesn't kill anyone ever.
(Watch Batman: Under The Red Hood if you haven't already. There's a scene in that movie where Batman explains to Red Hood why he doesn't kill, not even someone as dangerous as The Joker. An excellent movie.)

Batman is one of my top two favorite comic book characters for a lot of reasons; his fighting abilities, his gadgets, his cool suit and badass attitude... But the things I love most about Batman are his actual super powers. His unflinching will power and his advanced intellect. My personal vision of Batman, has him never killing anyone on purpose for two reasons. #1.) His will power is strong enough that even though he wants to, he will never take "the easy way out" and stoop to their level no matter how depraved or dangerous the villain is.  #2.) His intellect and strategic mind are at a level high enough that he never has to resort to the "easy way out". The difficult way is always more fun to watch. 

I've only seen BvS once, but from what I remember he kills 4 separate times (Nightmare sequence doesn't count), and usually takes out several people in the process and every time I thought, "Was that necessary? Couldn't the writers of this movie have come up with a less lethal way to dispatch those bad guys?". Now I am not, by any means, a writer but... yeah. It doesn't seem that hard to me, especially with all the talented people working on this movie to just say "Instead of shooting the gas tank, how about he throws a Baterang disabling the flame thrower, or we have him crash through the window and string the bad guys up outside like the S.W.A.T. team in TDK or something. Maybe he can go around or just ignore the guys with guns shooting him since he's in a vehicle that completely protects him from there weapons, or he could even stealthily slip passed them in other situations. Get creative with it. Don't take the easy way out.

But the real disappointment for me comes from what I had hoped. That this Batman would finally be DIFFERENT than the other movies and put an end to the killings. I imagined a Batman that, after 20 years of fighting crime, had a perfect record of no purposeful killings (or committing manslaughter). Since you can't save everyone, accidental deaths are ok and are actually part of what haunts him and drives him to be better. That's not what we got but to be fair, I guess this detail was never actually promised to us... and you know what happens when you ASSUME.  

Does this ruin the movie for me? No. Is there a way to salvage this? Yes!

Here's my solution. This Batman is older and more brutal then what we normally get in a Batman movie, so I assume we'll be getting some prequels down the line of Batman in his prime. Maybe he only very recently started being ok with killing. Maybe for the first 15 or so years fighting crime he did have a perfect record up till... the death of Jason? Who knows? This is the only way I can see myself, some day, getting MY vision of Batman on the big screen but if not... I'll just wait for when ever the next reboot is.

In summery, BvS is still an awesome movie! No Question! And for now, I'll except  this Batman and his (indirect murderous) actions but I have to admit, that really pulled the smile from my face when that little fact was spoiled for me on Wednesday before seeing the movie. Thanks for that by the way.   

(On a side note, the fact that Batman kills totally makes Superman's argument valid in my mind, since Snyder pretty much made Batman a murderous criminal, and not just a vigilante with a large list of assaults.) 

What did you think of the movie? Did Batman's killing completely ruin BvS for you, or was this exactly what you wanted from this newest Batman interpretation?   
        

      

James Gunn Reveals His Title For A (Hypothetical) BATMAN And SUPERMAN Team-Up Movie
Related:

James Gunn Reveals His Title For A (Hypothetical) BATMAN And SUPERMAN Team-Up Movie

BATMAN: Ben Affleck's DCEU Appearances Ranked From Worst To Best According To Rotten Tomatoes
Recommended For You:

BATMAN: Ben Affleck's DCEU Appearances Ranked From Worst To Best According To Rotten Tomatoes

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.

Odin
Odin - 3/25/2016, 12:23 PM
Under The Red Hood is an awesome movie indeed. To me the reason why Batman never kills by purpose it's the fact that it's the thing that will always separate him from bad guys. He is such a dark and frighting character that killing would make too much like just another villain. He also knows that if he would kill once, he probably couldn't control himself after that and would end up killing one by one all criminals.

After seeing the BvS I couldn't help but wonder that why hasn't Batman killed the Joker at any point. Only conclusion that I could come up with is that their situation is like the ending of movie Se7en. The bad tries to provoke you to kill him, be like him and take the easy way out, but if you do it he wins.
bHrUuLcKe
bHrUuLcKe - 3/25/2016, 12:40 PM
@Odin - As far as his reason's go for not killing, I completely agree and might only add that part of his reason comes from one of his overall goals which is to make it so what happened to him doesn't happen to any other child. Not just the "witness your parent's death" part, but being orphaned. If he just starts killing these henchmen, he could be creating more orphaned children by accident.

And I'd like to think that deep down he enjoys the challenge of trying to spair all live but take them all down at the same time.
WYLEEJAY
WYLEEJAY - 3/25/2016, 2:06 PM
He won't kill Joker, because the Joker used to be Robin.
Odin
Odin - 3/25/2016, 2:49 PM
@WYLEEJAY - Scary thing is that this movie actually adds up to that theory.
kong
kong - 3/25/2016, 4:52 PM
@Odin - Yup cause they didn't mention either characters in anyway that we didn't already see in the trailers, so the movie adds up cause there's been nothing added to the equation.

Still just as shitty of a theory as it was a week ago.
kong
kong - 3/25/2016, 5:06 PM
I think the Batman solo movie should adapt Under the Red Hood. Then after Batman sees Red Hood brutally murdering people (punisher Daredevil style) it reminds him why he didn't kill. I'd love to see a convo like this:

RED HOOD: I'm a hero.

BATMAN: You're a murderer.

RED HOOD: And you aren't? You might not have been when I was around, but you're ruthless now Bruce. You mow people down with your bat tank, blow them up with your plane, break their necks, crack their skulls! You're no different than me! The only difference is that you're in denial about it. It took my death for you to finally get a clue on how to get rid of crime in this city. And yet, you still didn't have the decency to kill THIS!!!

*opens a closet door behind him and a tied up Joker falls out, laughing hysterically*
View Recorder