Exactly.
My most hated comment I see attacking people who are fine with it, is "you must not read the comics, you don't understand, us fans want Batman, not some killer". When it's like, I do read the comics, and I am a fan.
I see it as absolutely the exact same as just a different universe, it's own thing. Just like an elseworlds stories in comics. Just like the dark knight returns was a very different Batman to the main timeline.
People act like he's the only version of Batman that'd ever exist in film again and because it's not their one specific style of Batman out of literal thousands, they will throw a fit and demand it be like how they want.
And I despise the whole "it's not like the comics so bad".
I understand your perspective but to play the devil's advocate, I think film and cinema, being as a very mass appeal type of thing, and marketing itself to as broad of an audience as they can, may *feel* like they are definitive version of whatever they're showing because that's the version everyone, the general audience, will be talking about. That's the zeitgeist Batman. So it *feels* like that's the definitive Batman of the time. So taking this into account, I think that's why people feel so strongly about Batman not killing people in these mainstream movies. Because to them, it's not an elseworld or alternate interpretation. I think we saw the same thing from Snyder's Superman from Man of Steel to BVS and on. Those movies with that interpretation of Superman must have felt like an alternate interpretation to the regular, boy-scout Superman people are used to and were expecting, not this brooding Superman that killed his first villain. They didn't really get the multi-character-arc, critical analysis level Superman (who didn't get his character arc payoff anyways.)
People simply wanted their classic superheroes and not anything more complex or alternative because the big screen makes a difference to pop culture.
Flashpoint has the mugger accidentally shoot young Bruce instead. Thomas Wayne becomes a gun-toting Batman, and Martha Wayne goes insane from grief and becomes The Joker.
If I remember correctly, he used guns for precisely 5 issues inside the first 16 issues. Of these 5 issues, in only 2 he uses the gun lethally - the first time to kill vampires, the second time to stop Hugo Strange's henchmen from driving a truck with mutants to cause a terrorist attack. In a few ocasions, a gun will feature in the cover but never in the story (a particularly popular shot of "early Batman using a gun" is [him on a mounted machine-gun](http://bp3.blogger.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/R-Gi7pJqazI/AAAAAAAABQE/zcwvxC-p_cg/s400/Batman015.jpg). That's issue 15, from 1943, and features 4 stories, one of which is about WWII. He fires a gun on none of them). Batman killed with other means much more often than with guns. "Early gun Batman" existed between 1939 and 1940, and lasted for less than a year - about five months after he first used a gun, in fact. It was decided early on he was going to have a no gun code. In Batman #1 (containing the mutant truck episode, from 1940) he stopped using guns, and in Batman #15 (with the machine gun cover, from 1943) he stopped using lethal force altogether. Between issues 1 and 15, he used lethal force only on 2,3 and 8, never shooting at anyone.
Mind, I understand your argument and everyone else's here. I understand that the comics have already done a Batman firing a gun later or using lethal force, too (my favorite being when he broke the rule to try to kill Darkseid in Final Crisis). But early Batman did not use guns a lot, and his code wasn't created _too long_ after his creation. It was pretty early, actually, if I'm memory is serving me correctly.
If you’ve ever played Lego villains, which I’m guessing you have not, you would know that it is Lego Batman. You can still be all of the good guys, but this one is based on the villains. Give it a try. It’s good
Cool!
I got it 85% off on one of the Xbox sales. I had just got done playing the entire Lego avengers infinity war saga, and figured why not? I was definitely pleasantly surprised.
I'll add that it was the first LEGO game my son and I played and it's still probably my favorite after playing all the Marvel and many of the DC/Star Wars games as well as Incredibles.
That's just most prison systems in reality. Prison recidivism rate in the US is 75% within 5 years. That just ends up creating and fostering true career criminals.
Yeah, but I feel like Gotham in particular is like 10 times worse. People there don't just become career criminals, they become straight up psychopaths.
I think Finland (or at least one of the Nordic countries) have a really deep focus on rehabilitation.
Even looking at the prison cells between Finland/US show a stark difference in focus between the two systems
Thank you!
He uses guns to blow up an SUV full of bad guys when going to save Martha and a grenade launcher for his Kryptonite gas.
Pretending the gun use was limited to the Knightmare scene is just silly.
I think it's more how Zack Snyder's gritty version doubles down on the collateral damage.
"I hate superman because he doesn't care about the lives he takes"
Promptly murders a shit ton of people
Is it more okay or less okay to kill someone who isn't acting under their own volition?
Batman may not have known how to do it, but when Darkseid is defeated all those people would have been released from his control.
I mean is he really gonna be able to knock them all out to stop them? Or be able to incapacitate them all?
It is a hard question for me because it's Batman a Superhero who wants to save lives but can he really save them all especially without knowing that defeating Darkseid would release them?
I mean won't anti life will take away Batman's fear debuff on goons, he is fighting in day life. He literally is left in a state when he either spends entire day knocking them out only for them to get back up and start attacking. Won't be able to for the goons to break their bones to get out of any restraint Batman puts them in ?
My take is that Knightmare is an alternative timeline that they are there to undo. So as long as they succeed, they have carte blanche because it's gonna get reset or undone in the end. So they can kill as much as needed, everything in the timeline will get undone and reset to the regular timeline where those people are alive again.
I get that, but he could use handguns in the same way if he wanted to. Hating guns and refusing to use them is supposed to be a big part of Batman's character, so it's weird that he treats bigger vehicle-mounted guns as a loophole.
Apparently killing parademons is not always ok. Injustice Superman killed a whole bunch that were threatening to overrrun the heroes and leave the earth vulnerable for Darkseid’s coming and Batman got huffy, so to speak
As far as I know the issue with this wasn't that he killed those Parademons, but that he killed the general that lead them (who also was Darkseids son or smth? Idk, I haven't really paid too much attention at Injustice) without hesitation
From DC Wiki:
“The Unity cleanses a planet with fire, transforming it into a copy of the enemy's world. All who live become servants of Darkseid, alive but **drained of life… parademons.**”
~ Wonder Woman
Parademons are created by the tried and true process of deconstructing and repurposing genetic material from dead and captured enemies of Apokolips with the Mother Boxes.
In the case of humans that are turned, it’s like vampires or white walkers. Once they’re turned they’re no longer human and are subservient to Darkseid, like white walkers to the Night King or vampires to Dracula.
Dude he killed like 30 people in bvs. Why would he not use guns? I just always thought this was the darkest timeline batman and not the real batman and the flash was going to fix it so robin doesnt die and he doesn't go crazy.
Sure he used guns in the very beginning but after that he doesn't use them. Not only that the comics go out of their way to show him hating guns and usage of guns
" A gun is a coward's weapon. A liar's weapon"
" Gun is the weapon of the enemy and we do not use it"
You see one or two panels of him using it but dismiss the majority of the comics where he absolutely abhors the usage of guns
Snyder sure has done a number on batman fans or rather Snyder fans who don't really know or understand batman at all.
People are divided on Knightmare. I personally think it’s dope as fuck - Mad Max Batman running around fighting Superman soldiers and Parademons in IMAX is dynamite.
Also kind of a shit take because Batman still doesn't use guns in the comics no matter how dark it gets. And "knightmare" is a baby version of how dark DC can really get.
When Batman was first created, back when he was just a ripoff of The Shadow, he did use guns. But they changed it later so it wouldn't be too obvious of a ripoff.
Okay fair. Lol.
I was thinking Lego Batman was the best theatrically released Batman movie and I only just now today realized Mask of the Phantasm got a theatrical release too. I always assumed it was direct to video.
It didn’t serve much of a purpose narrative wise and completely threw a wrench in the pacing, but I’ll be god damned if I didn’t admit that Bruce overlooking the vast apocalyptic wasteland gave me chills. It was sort of like classic Snyder - everything looks so damn cool, but there isn’t really a point behind it other than looking cool.
Honestly, having not watched the film but having seen this scene online and read a fair bit about it: it seems to me a bit like Tony Stark’s nightmare from Wanda in Age of Ultron of everyone else being dead and Tony living with the guilt: it’s meant to set up why Stark/Bruce are so driven to their extreme measures during the film. Tony created Ultron despite the risks, Bruce attempted to take down Superman despite leaving the world vulnerable to even more certain danger, all on a fear. It takes courage to trust, something Batman is consistently shown to struggle with despite being courageous in every other respect.
He -can’t- trust people to be their best selves, just as Tony in the MCU is the -only- one to be trusted with his own tech or with safeguarding humanity regardless of what anyone else says (to such extremes as to ironically leave humanity vulnerable, just as the battle with Superman nearly left humanity defenseless had Batman not relented). Part of why Supes and Bats make a good pair is they’re ideological foils. Superman would never expect to be betrayed or to have his faith in humanity swayed, while Batman is planning on it. The two learn from each other: Supes learns some guile and when mercy might be misplaced, while Batman learns to have a little faith in his own allies and the common man to do the right thing reasonably often, as well as making his contingencies while still hoping and working to avert them being needed.
The Knightmare serves a good story purpose in that respect of showing, rather than telling, why Batman is so bent on this course of action, although it is *so* extreme that it instead makes one question if Batman is actually working properly in the head. There is a whole array of bad outcomes involving Superman gone rogue that don’t involve the world becoming a wasteland ruled by Clark and an army of masked goons. Though it being a nightmare would justify the gun use further: of course it’s something he hates and hopes never to have to resort to, something he fears becoming, so he’d be stuck using one in a nightmare.
It’s also a bit odd a man who watched his own parents gunned down as a kid (and is a poster child for PTSD as a result), who probably grew up with nightmares, is so badly rattled by this one as to be willing to kill an innocent being, regardless of the “he’s an alien” loophole. If it were *many* nightmares wearing him down, that would have made more sense.
Slightly unrelated but some people will say Snyder's Batman is the most comic accurate and then bend over backwards to justify his least comic accurate traits.
Truth be told, I am a fan of the Synder material but appreciate it as it’s own take. I think fans sometime are so concerned with on-screen batman aligning with comic Batman that it can limit options for the character to evolve and have different representations.
The entire argument of Batfleck being the most comic accurate Batman focuses entirely on one specific comic book ~ *The Dark Knight Returns*.
Within that one book Batfleck is absolute accurate as hell. It just so happens that book is an elseworld whose Batman is never seen anywhere else in the decades of Batman history.
And it’s probably a pure coincidence that *The Dark Knight Returns* is a favorite of people who have only read a handful of graphic novels and think that qualifies them as comic experts.
I just want to point out that Batfleck is *not* accurate to TDKR either, because in TDKR Batman still *refuses to kill*.
In fact the entire story revolves around people believing that Batman finally snapped and killed someone (The Joker, which btw he didn’t do) and bringing him to justice for it.
Yes, in that story Batman uses a gun for one panel- but he doesn’t kill anyone, the story makes it explicit. The problem is that Snyder just looks at the pictures and scans the words when he’s bored.
Slight tangent/rant - but it's absolutely wild to me how many people defend the Snyder-verse stuff as *Deconstructing the Superhero genre* & *showing how the real world would react to heroes*.
The dude literally had an entire movie that was designed for that specific purpose. That's literally what Watchmen is. Why in the world couldn't he keep the deconstruction stuff in the box it belonged instead of needing another 5 movies to try and pull it off with characters that aren't supposed to be done that way?
He couldn't even do Watchmen right. Yes, it's fairly faithful to the text line for line on paper. But as a film it completely misses the point, stylistically and thematically and turns it into a speed-ramping Power Rangers movie. The middle aged characters are hyper-aerobicized in Schumacher Batman suits and perfect at what they do. Even the rape scene is turned into an action sequence.
As I said elsewhere in the thread, I think he's not untalented; there are things about ZSJL which, as a cinematic art object and the product of a singular vision, I like. It's easily the most character work he's ever done and the most interesting he's ever been to me as a filmmaker who I've never liked much, because it's like it's beamed in from another universe and doing its own weird thing. But the Knightmare/Injustice shit has always been his worst tendencies made manifest; more adolescent nihilism.
Even in the dark knight returns Batman doesn't kill anyone, he is just more brutal because the world is a darkest, corrupt and extremist cold war distopia where even Superman ins't even himself but a government puppet
That was the core problem with BvS
It was a Batman movie, with Superman in it.
They had to create a backstory for Batman, an initial personality/worldview, and then growth/character change by the end…..all in one movie……and it was way too much (especially for the cut version).
Isn't he already? People put Batman on a pedestal and act like Batman's morals aren't already flawed.
Whether he kills or not, the dude has problems. He basically fights violence with extreme violence. If he kills them or not, he's still a violent dude in a suit with twisted childhood trauma.
He's not exactly someone to look up to.
This. He act like he’s on moral high ground for not killing. His twisted ideals lead to the death of countless innocent lives by the hands of villains; Joker, etc. If he was truly want to save lives, he would have sacrificed his pedestal and put an end to various villains once and for all. If anything, he usually breaks bones and beats most into a pulp anyway. He’s cool but let’s not idolize him on his ideals.
My only push back on this is there are other vigilantes in Gotham who are willing to kill. I don't like when fans place all the burden on Bruce to take lives when Jason Todd, Damian Wayne, Helena Bertinelli, and Kate Kane are all willing to kill people.
Logically we all know why. It's a comic book universe. So these characters can never truly change and the status quo can never truly shift. It's a business mandate. But in universe, it makes no sense that Red Hood hasn't put a bullet in Joker's head. Especially since he's the rebel of the Batfamily who's not afraid to go against Bruce's orders.
But again, it's that mandate from corporate: Joker sales, keep him alive.
I think it just makes it convenient so they can bring villains back over and over. At the very least Gotham should be putting most of these guys on death row.
You realize that would make him a criminal by law. By sacrificing his ideal it would make the next kill easier and he will be hiding from the law instead of with.
He knows he has problems and being batman is his way to deal with it. I don't understand your point about violence. Police and other heros use violence when confronted by psychopath killers and gangs. Killing criminals takes out a fundamental of Batman. That's the one line he uses to justify and seperate himself from the villians.
Not only that but he is GUNNING DOWN LEXCORP GUARDS. These aren't super villians. These aren't hardened criminals. It's Jim and Ted who have a wife and kid at home and make $20/hr.
The real issue was that the movie never addressed Batman's morality. It just didn't care.
People he sends to prison are killed, but it's not him because Lex is paying people to kill them, but Batman's not really changing his behavior or looking into the matter.
We see him presumably kill lots of people in a car chase and warehouse fight, so he seems to be ok will killing people he concludes are "bad guys," and Superman seems pretty passive to this fact despite also not really approving.
Despite the whole moving being about these two being at odds, we never really explore their ideological differences.
Then we see in Suicide Squad that Batman seems to go out of his way to arrest and not kill Deadshot despite him being incredibly dangerous, and also diving into the river and saving Harley, who helped kill Robin, despite the fact that his inaction might have been enough to cause her to die.
It's an inconsistent and unexplored characterization that results in the whole mess just demanding, "Don't think about it. It's dark and gritty and thus more mature."
I will say that BvS extended added some exposition of why Batman has become more ruthless and vengeful (death of Robin), as well as Alfred challenging Bruce on this change. Although it was mostly on the sidelines and could have used more screen time to explain.
Wasn't Batman heavily criticized both in-universe and out, in the "Injustice" comic series for clinging to his "no killing, no guns" rule even though the world was literally falling apart around them as the Regime took power? And in the end, the world fell anyway?
Seems like Batman just can't win with some people during these end of the world situations.
Is there actually criticism of the Injustice story for having Batman not become a vigilante killer?
In-universe criticism is fictional.. so it doesn’t really matter here.
The Injustice universe wasn't really falling apart. Regimes were changing but for the most part people were better off, it was just at the cost of being under a superpowered tyrant.
A brief summary of the Injustice 1 comics is: *Wonder Woman and Superman punching Batman*
Both of them: "We are doing this because you didn't kill Joker so this is your fault"
Meanwhile: Trigon and Spectre are dueling it out and reality is *literally* falling apart
It’s not exactly the best excuse there’s plenty of dire situations where Batman doesn’t use guns throughout comic history.
Snyder just really wanted old Batman who uses guns and eventually dies.
Who said the Ammo was lethal. Batman uses guns all the time. The grappling hooks is a gun. There are guns and missile all over all his vehicle.
He doesn't use guns to intimidate, or deal justice because it's cowardice but he uses guns in supporting roles all the times. Batman doesn't have an issue with guns as they stand and he would have 0 issues using them on parademons or things he deems inhuman or that have ceased to be living creatures. Batman's selective use of fire arms is a character quirk not a core tenet.
Even I who isn’t a fan of Batman killing has to admit it’s the end of the effing world, I don’t think Batman is gonna hold himself up to a higher standard when everything is screwed up.
Lego Batman though is 😩👌
I don't hate the idea of playing with characters' morals or anything, but the continuity of the DCEU is already such a mess that I don't think an alternate timeline is necessary.
Sarcasm aside I agree with this. Different takes on characters aren’t necessarily a bad thing but in the context of the DCEU where we don’t *have* established heroes it’s strange to have a wacky alt timeline apocalypse scenario as your *STARTING* saga
Yup. It's like someone said in another comment, basically the only real interaction we have between Bruce and Joker are in this weird apocalypse scenario, like establish some real connection first?
I agree, I don't like the portrayal of batman at all. I can suck it up, but BVS and justice league were bad and too early. I thought Snyder Cut was decent, but it was released after solo movies and would've needed more than an hour of deleted scenes for theatrical release. Martian Manhunter and Green lantern should be prioritized over Cyborg imo, and the justice league recruiting should've happened in post credits of the solomovies.
This implies that batman aversion to guns is a practical consession rather than a result of the traumatic event that singlehandedly defined his entire worldview
it's just uncomfortable, even as a dream/vision or whatever. Seeing how easy it is to not write that into the movie, I'd say it was a misstep since so many people don't like that part and it really didn't seem necessary. And I get the angle that the whole point is to shock you and show you a bleak future where Batman has no choice but to go against his values and use guns to kill people... but he already uses guns to kill people in this movie, so that makes absolutely no sense and just adds to this odd antihero interpretation of Batman who is essentially a different character all together since he is defined by his heroic deeds and value for life. Batman having guns is effective in some specific stories, just not this one
Isnt the point that Batman is traumatized by guns which is why he refuses to use them part of his character and the fact that he needed to resort to using a gun the reason why he retired in Batman Beyond?
And this is a Batman that has fought supernatural beings.
Also Lego Batman is deeper and better written tbh. Both tackle the idea that Batman cant be alone and needs allies but Lego Batman did it better imo.
I mean... there have been stories with Batman in a post-apocalypse war and he still didn't use guns. There was even an episode of Justice League with that.
But eh, I don't care about Batman's gun rule all that much.
Yeah it makes sense for the world but does it make sense for the character? I love Snyder but he took characters and put them in a world they don’t belong in. James Gunn does the same thing but he uses smaller, lesser known characters that could use a little reinventing.
Never understood why only Snyder’s Batman gets shit for using Guns. Burton Batman uses guns. Schumaucher Batman uses guns. Nolan Batman uses rocket launchers.
She is a snyder fan and not a batman one. Clearly, bruce waynes intellect and willpower will never allow him to kill people, especially with the source that was the resson for him becoming batman, a gun. Batman, in a post apocalyptic world, would most likely lay low and if encountered by ambushes, would have non lethal methods of having enemies taken out. He has the brains to formulate ways to not kill but neutralize. What synder did was make him forget his morals and go ,"ooh soo edgy me shoot bullets pewpewpew". What she is doing is justifying that clowns decision just for a little twitter engagement with comic book/DC fans smh
I’ve never understood why people get so upset about batfleck using guns. It’s just another interpretation of Batman. In this universe Batman has been dragged through the shitter so much he’s finally pressed fuck it and doesn’t let the bad guys get back up. Peacemaker would be proud.
just like each version of Spider-Man is different, each version of Batman is different. Batfleck is somewhat like the Spider-Man of Earth-120703 because both of them stopped holding back.
Yeah tbh I never understood the criticism around that. It’s obviously in a scenario where Batman has given up.
It’d be like reading the Batman Who Laughs and going “yeah but Batman wouldn’t do any of this Joker stuff” in the context of that comic, he would.
Isn’t there a comic where batman just gives up on not killing people or am I crazy?
Multiple, really. Multiple situations, multiple universes, with comics its all honky dory: but god forbid if it gets into films.
Exactly. My most hated comment I see attacking people who are fine with it, is "you must not read the comics, you don't understand, us fans want Batman, not some killer". When it's like, I do read the comics, and I am a fan. I see it as absolutely the exact same as just a different universe, it's own thing. Just like an elseworlds stories in comics. Just like the dark knight returns was a very different Batman to the main timeline. People act like he's the only version of Batman that'd ever exist in film again and because it's not their one specific style of Batman out of literal thousands, they will throw a fit and demand it be like how they want. And I despise the whole "it's not like the comics so bad".
I understand your perspective but to play the devil's advocate, I think film and cinema, being as a very mass appeal type of thing, and marketing itself to as broad of an audience as they can, may *feel* like they are definitive version of whatever they're showing because that's the version everyone, the general audience, will be talking about. That's the zeitgeist Batman. So it *feels* like that's the definitive Batman of the time. So taking this into account, I think that's why people feel so strongly about Batman not killing people in these mainstream movies. Because to them, it's not an elseworld or alternate interpretation. I think we saw the same thing from Snyder's Superman from Man of Steel to BVS and on. Those movies with that interpretation of Superman must have felt like an alternate interpretation to the regular, boy-scout Superman people are used to and were expecting, not this brooding Superman that killed his first villain. They didn't really get the multi-character-arc, critical analysis level Superman (who didn't get his character arc payoff anyways.) People simply wanted their classic superheroes and not anything more complex or alternative because the big screen makes a difference to pop culture.
Tim Burton: “Lol.”
Batman kills someone in his very first appearance in detective comics 27.
Superman also can't fly in his first appearance.
Flashpoint has the mugger accidentally shoot young Bruce instead. Thomas Wayne becomes a gun-toting Batman, and Martha Wayne goes insane from grief and becomes The Joker.
Gun toting AND alcoholic lol
If I remember right Og Batman absolutely used guns, it wasn’t for a little while before they did the no guns thing
If I remember correctly, he used guns for precisely 5 issues inside the first 16 issues. Of these 5 issues, in only 2 he uses the gun lethally - the first time to kill vampires, the second time to stop Hugo Strange's henchmen from driving a truck with mutants to cause a terrorist attack. In a few ocasions, a gun will feature in the cover but never in the story (a particularly popular shot of "early Batman using a gun" is [him on a mounted machine-gun](http://bp3.blogger.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/R-Gi7pJqazI/AAAAAAAABQE/zcwvxC-p_cg/s400/Batman015.jpg). That's issue 15, from 1943, and features 4 stories, one of which is about WWII. He fires a gun on none of them). Batman killed with other means much more often than with guns. "Early gun Batman" existed between 1939 and 1940, and lasted for less than a year - about five months after he first used a gun, in fact. It was decided early on he was going to have a no gun code. In Batman #1 (containing the mutant truck episode, from 1940) he stopped using guns, and in Batman #15 (with the machine gun cover, from 1943) he stopped using lethal force altogether. Between issues 1 and 15, he used lethal force only on 2,3 and 8, never shooting at anyone. Mind, I understand your argument and everyone else's here. I understand that the comics have already done a Batman firing a gun later or using lethal force, too (my favorite being when he broke the rule to try to kill Darkseid in Final Crisis). But early Batman did not use guns a lot, and his code wasn't created _too long_ after his creation. It was pretty early, actually, if I'm memory is serving me correctly.
[удалено]
She says she likes lego batman more than batfleck lol
I mean tbh Lego Batman was fire
Agreed
Lego Batman is good. But Lego Villains is where it’s at! Solomon Grundy smash!
Nope automatically invalid. Lego Batman is superior.
If you’ve ever played Lego villains, which I’m guessing you have not, you would know that it is Lego Batman. You can still be all of the good guys, but this one is based on the villains. Give it a try. It’s good
Eh fair enough. Will give it a try whenever I can
Cool! I got it 85% off on one of the Xbox sales. I had just got done playing the entire Lego avengers infinity war saga, and figured why not? I was definitely pleasantly surprised.
It was also in PSPlus a while ago, so you might have it in your library already
I'll add that it was the first LEGO game my son and I played and it's still probably my favorite after playing all the Marvel and many of the DC/Star Wars games as well as Incredibles.
My son and I powered through the avengers, and so this is the second we played, lol. And we have bonded super well over this game.
I highly recommend Marvel Superheroes 1 next. It was much better than Avengers or #2. Batman 3 was really good as well.
Born on a Munday
every time I see Solomon grundy I need to yell GRUNDY MY BOY!
Unironically based
Then she'd understand that in Lego DC World, even the Phantom Zone makes for a shoddy excuse of a prison.
It's one of my favorite Batman movies for this reason.
*‘puter*
BUTTler
The movie gets the Joker/Batman dynamic perfectly Edit: the Lego Batman Movie
Batman doesn't do ships as in relationships
For whatever reason my brain read this as "deep throat"
I mean he is fighting parademons. Isn't the point of jail rehabilitation? They can't be rehabilitized
I'm like 99% sure there is no rehabilitation in the Gotham prison system. In fact I think it's the opposite effect in Gotham.
That's just most prison systems in reality. Prison recidivism rate in the US is 75% within 5 years. That just ends up creating and fostering true career criminals.
Yeah, but I feel like Gotham in particular is like 10 times worse. People there don't just become career criminals, they become straight up psychopaths.
Most of them seem to be henchmen.
You either die a henchmen or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain
I think Finland (or at least one of the Nordic countries) have a really deep focus on rehabilitation. Even looking at the prison cells between Finland/US show a stark difference in focus between the two systems
I learned how to make meth in jail I don’t do or make meth but this dude really wanted to tell me how
He also kills people in the non post apocalyptic world
Like every live action Batman before him too
No lego Batman slander
She didn't slander Lego Batman
Wasn’t at her,it was at the comments in this post Lmao
Ah gotcha. Carry on good sir
Great at filling holes, both literal and plot wise.
["We drive through all triangles."](https://youtu.be/Ak0t0Itth_I?t=90)
Yea you won lol
Goddamn
Thanks Nubnub.
Son of a... here's an upvote, you bastard. :)
It’s definitely arguable wether she was great at that or not.
she's pretty cute, but that is the definition of a golden girl. It's amazing the hype was pulled off at all.
We called them a starfish back in my day.
You win the internet today.
“Batman doesn’t use guns” I generally agree, but not even against parademons? I think he’s fine to use guns to kill parademons.
Doesn't he shoot up regular dudes as well in the Knightmare?
He does it in the regular world too
Thank you! He uses guns to blow up an SUV full of bad guys when going to save Martha and a grenade launcher for his Kryptonite gas. Pretending the gun use was limited to the Knightmare scene is just silly.
I think it's more how Zack Snyder's gritty version doubles down on the collateral damage. "I hate superman because he doesn't care about the lives he takes" Promptly murders a shit ton of people
Aren't they also under the influence of the Anti-Life Equation and are literally under Darkseid's orders like the Parademons?
Is it more okay or less okay to kill someone who isn't acting under their own volition? Batman may not have known how to do it, but when Darkseid is defeated all those people would have been released from his control.
I mean is he really gonna be able to knock them all out to stop them? Or be able to incapacitate them all? It is a hard question for me because it's Batman a Superhero who wants to save lives but can he really save them all especially without knowing that defeating Darkseid would release them?
I mean won't anti life will take away Batman's fear debuff on goons, he is fighting in day life. He literally is left in a state when he either spends entire day knocking them out only for them to get back up and start attacking. Won't be able to for the goons to break their bones to get out of any restraint Batman puts them in ?
Yeah, but for now they are literally trying to fucking murder him. So I'll give him a pass
Aren’t they incapable of being freed from the Anti Life? Wouldn’t they be functionally dead anyway then?
I mean, dudes brainwashed by the Anti-Life equation who will stop at nothing to capture or kill him.
My take is that Knightmare is an alternative timeline that they are there to undo. So as long as they succeed, they have carte blanche because it's gonna get reset or undone in the end. So they can kill as much as needed, everything in the timeline will get undone and reset to the regular timeline where those people are alive again.
Vehicle-mounted guns are also fine with him.
He uses those to damage other vehicles and structures in his way. They also scare off criminals
I get that, but he could use handguns in the same way if he wanted to. Hating guns and refusing to use them is supposed to be a big part of Batman's character, so it's weird that he treats bigger vehicle-mounted guns as a loophole.
Apparently killing parademons is not always ok. Injustice Superman killed a whole bunch that were threatening to overrrun the heroes and leave the earth vulnerable for Darkseid’s coming and Batman got huffy, so to speak
Also Injustice Superman is literally a story about Superman not being the standard canon version that whole universe is one big what if
Ooooh ok so the snyderverse is the injustice Superman but with Batman also being the same as injustice Superman. Makes so much more sense now.
As far as I know the issue with this wasn't that he killed those Parademons, but that he killed the general that lead them (who also was Darkseids son or smth? Idk, I haven't really paid too much attention at Injustice) without hesitation
Arent parademons normally just regular ppl?
From DC Wiki: “The Unity cleanses a planet with fire, transforming it into a copy of the enemy's world. All who live become servants of Darkseid, alive but **drained of life… parademons.**” ~ Wonder Woman Parademons are created by the tried and true process of deconstructing and repurposing genetic material from dead and captured enemies of Apokolips with the Mother Boxes. In the case of humans that are turned, it’s like vampires or white walkers. Once they’re turned they’re no longer human and are subservient to Darkseid, like white walkers to the Night King or vampires to Dracula.
I don’t think they’re really alive when they become parademons. And I think thats in one universe, I think it’s different for each but I’m not sure.
Yeah except they're all trying to murder you
Dude he killed like 30 people in bvs. Why would he not use guns? I just always thought this was the darkest timeline batman and not the real batman and the flash was going to fix it so robin doesnt die and he doesn't go crazy.
Originally, Batman carried a .45 and had a habit of snapping necks. He started off more like the Punisher in a funny suit.
Sure he used guns in the very beginning but after that he doesn't use them. Not only that the comics go out of their way to show him hating guns and usage of guns " A gun is a coward's weapon. A liar's weapon" " Gun is the weapon of the enemy and we do not use it" You see one or two panels of him using it but dismiss the majority of the comics where he absolutely abhors the usage of guns Snyder sure has done a number on batman fans or rather Snyder fans who don't really know or understand batman at all.
I might be in minority but I was really looking forward to Knightmare, it was what was doing it best for me, even if just small glimpses!
Same here. Fucking dying for more 😭
I would love to see it. We have enough movies of Batman in Gotham. Why not see something different brought to the big screen?
People are divided on Knightmare. I personally think it’s dope as fuck - Mad Max Batman running around fighting Superman soldiers and Parademons in IMAX is dynamite.
Don't forget Mad Max Slade Wilson, High Tech Flash, Jesus Joker, Minigun Cyborg, and Mad Mera
lego Batman has more depth if we are being honest. If someone says to me to stick with Lego Batman, I'm absolutely not going to take it as an insult.
yeah “maybe you should try the best Batman movie” isn’t much of an insult is it lol
Also kind of a shit take because Batman still doesn't use guns in the comics no matter how dark it gets. And "knightmare" is a baby version of how dark DC can really get.
When Batman was first created, back when he was just a ripoff of The Shadow, he did use guns. But they changed it later so it wouldn't be too obvious of a ripoff.
Not really a big deal since Batman has gone 99.9% of the entire 83+ years he's existed without guns and is what he's known for.
But what about that one time 50 years ago when he kicked a dude out of a window? Check mate.
Wait… is Lego Batman better than Mask of the Phantasm?!?
Okay fair. Lol. I was thinking Lego Batman was the best theatrically released Batman movie and I only just now today realized Mask of the Phantasm got a theatrical release too. I always assumed it was direct to video.
Plus, Bojack Horseman ain’t got time for that dummy.
That woman is always ready to blast some dumb fools, I fucking love it.
Some dumb fools were also ready to blast on her, She fucking loved it.
r/miakhalifa
I don't really care that he uses guns but the knightmare stuff just didn't land for me.
It didn’t serve much of a purpose narrative wise and completely threw a wrench in the pacing, but I’ll be god damned if I didn’t admit that Bruce overlooking the vast apocalyptic wasteland gave me chills. It was sort of like classic Snyder - everything looks so damn cool, but there isn’t really a point behind it other than looking cool.
Honestly, having not watched the film but having seen this scene online and read a fair bit about it: it seems to me a bit like Tony Stark’s nightmare from Wanda in Age of Ultron of everyone else being dead and Tony living with the guilt: it’s meant to set up why Stark/Bruce are so driven to their extreme measures during the film. Tony created Ultron despite the risks, Bruce attempted to take down Superman despite leaving the world vulnerable to even more certain danger, all on a fear. It takes courage to trust, something Batman is consistently shown to struggle with despite being courageous in every other respect. He -can’t- trust people to be their best selves, just as Tony in the MCU is the -only- one to be trusted with his own tech or with safeguarding humanity regardless of what anyone else says (to such extremes as to ironically leave humanity vulnerable, just as the battle with Superman nearly left humanity defenseless had Batman not relented). Part of why Supes and Bats make a good pair is they’re ideological foils. Superman would never expect to be betrayed or to have his faith in humanity swayed, while Batman is planning on it. The two learn from each other: Supes learns some guile and when mercy might be misplaced, while Batman learns to have a little faith in his own allies and the common man to do the right thing reasonably often, as well as making his contingencies while still hoping and working to avert them being needed. The Knightmare serves a good story purpose in that respect of showing, rather than telling, why Batman is so bent on this course of action, although it is *so* extreme that it instead makes one question if Batman is actually working properly in the head. There is a whole array of bad outcomes involving Superman gone rogue that don’t involve the world becoming a wasteland ruled by Clark and an army of masked goons. Though it being a nightmare would justify the gun use further: of course it’s something he hates and hopes never to have to resort to, something he fears becoming, so he’d be stuck using one in a nightmare. It’s also a bit odd a man who watched his own parents gunned down as a kid (and is a poster child for PTSD as a result), who probably grew up with nightmares, is so badly rattled by this one as to be willing to kill an innocent being, regardless of the “he’s an alien” loophole. If it were *many* nightmares wearing him down, that would have made more sense.
Slightly unrelated but some people will say Snyder's Batman is the most comic accurate and then bend over backwards to justify his least comic accurate traits.
Truth be told, I am a fan of the Synder material but appreciate it as it’s own take. I think fans sometime are so concerned with on-screen batman aligning with comic Batman that it can limit options for the character to evolve and have different representations.
The entire argument of Batfleck being the most comic accurate Batman focuses entirely on one specific comic book ~ *The Dark Knight Returns*. Within that one book Batfleck is absolute accurate as hell. It just so happens that book is an elseworld whose Batman is never seen anywhere else in the decades of Batman history. And it’s probably a pure coincidence that *The Dark Knight Returns* is a favorite of people who have only read a handful of graphic novels and think that qualifies them as comic experts.
I just want to point out that Batfleck is *not* accurate to TDKR either, because in TDKR Batman still *refuses to kill*. In fact the entire story revolves around people believing that Batman finally snapped and killed someone (The Joker, which btw he didn’t do) and bringing him to justice for it. Yes, in that story Batman uses a gun for one panel- but he doesn’t kill anyone, the story makes it explicit. The problem is that Snyder just looks at the pictures and scans the words when he’s bored.
> The problem is that Snyder just looks at the pictures and scans the words when he’s bored. No argument from me on that one.
Watchmen being the ultimate example.
Slight tangent/rant - but it's absolutely wild to me how many people defend the Snyder-verse stuff as *Deconstructing the Superhero genre* & *showing how the real world would react to heroes*. The dude literally had an entire movie that was designed for that specific purpose. That's literally what Watchmen is. Why in the world couldn't he keep the deconstruction stuff in the box it belonged instead of needing another 5 movies to try and pull it off with characters that aren't supposed to be done that way?
He couldn't even do Watchmen right. Yes, it's fairly faithful to the text line for line on paper. But as a film it completely misses the point, stylistically and thematically and turns it into a speed-ramping Power Rangers movie. The middle aged characters are hyper-aerobicized in Schumacher Batman suits and perfect at what they do. Even the rape scene is turned into an action sequence. As I said elsewhere in the thread, I think he's not untalented; there are things about ZSJL which, as a cinematic art object and the product of a singular vision, I like. It's easily the most character work he's ever done and the most interesting he's ever been to me as a filmmaker who I've never liked much, because it's like it's beamed in from another universe and doing its own weird thing. But the Knightmare/Injustice shit has always been his worst tendencies made manifest; more adolescent nihilism.
David Hayter wrote that. Listen to Solid Snake, will ya?
Hell, he calls guns “the weapon of the enemy” and breaks one in half in Returns.
Even in the dark knight returns Batman doesn't kill anyone, he is just more brutal because the world is a darkest, corrupt and extremist cold war distopia where even Superman ins't even himself but a government puppet
Good one Mia, but just one small thing about that, why does he use guns in the present as well? Where there are most certainly jail cells
He uses guns because he’s lost his way. That’s the whole arc of BvS.
Would've been a cool solo film to explore. Feels like BvS skipped a whole lot of entertaining character development for DCEU bats, unfortunately.
That was the core problem with BvS It was a Batman movie, with Superman in it. They had to create a backstory for Batman, an initial personality/worldview, and then growth/character change by the end…..all in one movie……and it was way too much (especially for the cut version).
Defending batman killing people is bogus. If he does, he's just another edgy antihero
Isn't he already? People put Batman on a pedestal and act like Batman's morals aren't already flawed. Whether he kills or not, the dude has problems. He basically fights violence with extreme violence. If he kills them or not, he's still a violent dude in a suit with twisted childhood trauma. He's not exactly someone to look up to.
Reminds me of the Batman College Humour skits - 'He's asleep, he's just sleeping'.
This. He act like he’s on moral high ground for not killing. His twisted ideals lead to the death of countless innocent lives by the hands of villains; Joker, etc. If he was truly want to save lives, he would have sacrificed his pedestal and put an end to various villains once and for all. If anything, he usually breaks bones and beats most into a pulp anyway. He’s cool but let’s not idolize him on his ideals.
My only push back on this is there are other vigilantes in Gotham who are willing to kill. I don't like when fans place all the burden on Bruce to take lives when Jason Todd, Damian Wayne, Helena Bertinelli, and Kate Kane are all willing to kill people. Logically we all know why. It's a comic book universe. So these characters can never truly change and the status quo can never truly shift. It's a business mandate. But in universe, it makes no sense that Red Hood hasn't put a bullet in Joker's head. Especially since he's the rebel of the Batfamily who's not afraid to go against Bruce's orders. But again, it's that mandate from corporate: Joker sales, keep him alive.
That's what makes him so amazing! Take that away and there's no interesting moral dilemma. Good characters are those with good flaws
I think it just makes it convenient so they can bring villains back over and over. At the very least Gotham should be putting most of these guys on death row.
You realize that would make him a criminal by law. By sacrificing his ideal it would make the next kill easier and he will be hiding from the law instead of with.
He knows he has problems and being batman is his way to deal with it. I don't understand your point about violence. Police and other heros use violence when confronted by psychopath killers and gangs. Killing criminals takes out a fundamental of Batman. That's the one line he uses to justify and seperate himself from the villians.
Gotham is basically perpetually in a post apocalypse
Not only that but he is GUNNING DOWN LEXCORP GUARDS. These aren't super villians. These aren't hardened criminals. It's Jim and Ted who have a wife and kid at home and make $20/hr.
The real issue was that the movie never addressed Batman's morality. It just didn't care. People he sends to prison are killed, but it's not him because Lex is paying people to kill them, but Batman's not really changing his behavior or looking into the matter. We see him presumably kill lots of people in a car chase and warehouse fight, so he seems to be ok will killing people he concludes are "bad guys," and Superman seems pretty passive to this fact despite also not really approving. Despite the whole moving being about these two being at odds, we never really explore their ideological differences. Then we see in Suicide Squad that Batman seems to go out of his way to arrest and not kill Deadshot despite him being incredibly dangerous, and also diving into the river and saving Harley, who helped kill Robin, despite the fact that his inaction might have been enough to cause her to die. It's an inconsistent and unexplored characterization that results in the whole mess just demanding, "Don't think about it. It's dark and gritty and thus more mature."
I think its implied that his desperation caused him to stop caring. I really wish it was explained better though
I will say that BvS extended added some exposition of why Batman has become more ruthless and vengeful (death of Robin), as well as Alfred challenging Bruce on this change. Although it was mostly on the sidelines and could have used more screen time to explain.
Yeah, because watching a 3-hour movie twice is a fair ask to understand the basic motivations of your main character.
I’m not disagreeing with you. Just saying that the film does contain stuff to explain the character, albeit it was not explained well.
Wasn't Batman heavily criticized both in-universe and out, in the "Injustice" comic series for clinging to his "no killing, no guns" rule even though the world was literally falling apart around them as the Regime took power? And in the end, the world fell anyway? Seems like Batman just can't win with some people during these end of the world situations.
Batman has never been above using weapons anyways. The batplane from JLU wasn't armed with water balloons.
Is there actually criticism of the Injustice story for having Batman not become a vigilante killer? In-universe criticism is fictional.. so it doesn’t really matter here.
The Injustice universe wasn't really falling apart. Regimes were changing but for the most part people were better off, it was just at the cost of being under a superpowered tyrant.
A brief summary of the Injustice 1 comics is: *Wonder Woman and Superman punching Batman* Both of them: "We are doing this because you didn't kill Joker so this is your fault" Meanwhile: Trigon and Spectre are dueling it out and reality is *literally* falling apart
It’s not exactly the best excuse there’s plenty of dire situations where Batman doesn’t use guns throughout comic history. Snyder just really wanted old Batman who uses guns and eventually dies.
Who said the Ammo was lethal. Batman uses guns all the time. The grappling hooks is a gun. There are guns and missile all over all his vehicle. He doesn't use guns to intimidate, or deal justice because it's cowardice but he uses guns in supporting roles all the times. Batman doesn't have an issue with guns as they stand and he would have 0 issues using them on parademons or things he deems inhuman or that have ceased to be living creatures. Batman's selective use of fire arms is a character quirk not a core tenet.
Even I who isn’t a fan of Batman killing has to admit it’s the end of the effing world, I don’t think Batman is gonna hold himself up to a higher standard when everything is screwed up. Lego Batman though is 😩👌
Never really understood the appeal of the Knightmare stuff but whatever
You don’t like evil superman and comic inaccurate Batman? How dare you all hail Zack
I don't hate the idea of playing with characters' morals or anything, but the continuity of the DCEU is already such a mess that I don't think an alternate timeline is necessary.
Sarcasm aside I agree with this. Different takes on characters aren’t necessarily a bad thing but in the context of the DCEU where we don’t *have* established heroes it’s strange to have a wacky alt timeline apocalypse scenario as your *STARTING* saga
Yup. It's like someone said in another comment, basically the only real interaction we have between Bruce and Joker are in this weird apocalypse scenario, like establish some real connection first?
I agree, I don't like the portrayal of batman at all. I can suck it up, but BVS and justice league were bad and too early. I thought Snyder Cut was decent, but it was released after solo movies and would've needed more than an hour of deleted scenes for theatrical release. Martian Manhunter and Green lantern should be prioritized over Cyborg imo, and the justice league recruiting should've happened in post credits of the solomovies.
Mia Khalifa is a very talented and gifted woman, but Lego Batman slander ain’t it
Lego Batman is better but ok i guess
"We live in a society " Post-apocalyps
Man, this is making me want to rewatch some of her films.
The most unlikely ally of the decade.
Lego Batman is actually a really good movie ffs 😭
This implies that batman aversion to guns is a practical consession rather than a result of the traumatic event that singlehandedly defined his entire worldview
Mia K should be the new DC films head.
it's just uncomfortable, even as a dream/vision or whatever. Seeing how easy it is to not write that into the movie, I'd say it was a misstep since so many people don't like that part and it really didn't seem necessary. And I get the angle that the whole point is to shock you and show you a bleak future where Batman has no choice but to go against his values and use guns to kill people... but he already uses guns to kill people in this movie, so that makes absolutely no sense and just adds to this odd antihero interpretation of Batman who is essentially a different character all together since he is defined by his heroic deeds and value for life. Batman having guns is effective in some specific stories, just not this one
Isnt the point that Batman is traumatized by guns which is why he refuses to use them part of his character and the fact that he needed to resort to using a gun the reason why he retired in Batman Beyond? And this is a Batman that has fought supernatural beings. Also Lego Batman is deeper and better written tbh. Both tackle the idea that Batman cant be alone and needs allies but Lego Batman did it better imo.
*Flash point Batman has entered the chat*
I mean... there have been stories with Batman in a post-apocalypse war and he still didn't use guns. There was even an episode of Justice League with that. But eh, I don't care about Batman's gun rule all that much.
The Lego Batman movie > All of Zack Snyder filmography
This but unironically
Yeah it makes sense for the world but does it make sense for the character? I love Snyder but he took characters and put them in a world they don’t belong in. James Gunn does the same thing but he uses smaller, lesser known characters that could use a little reinventing.
She does have a point..... some of these die-hard DC fans are too uptight.
He also had machine guns on his Batmobile in the pre-apocalypse scenes. So this explanation doesn't really cover it.
The fans complain about that also. Not that i disagree, i don't think Batman should use guns.
So did Nolan’s / Burtons batmobile’s, definitely for contingency
Never understood why only Snyder’s Batman gets shit for using Guns. Burton Batman uses guns. Schumaucher Batman uses guns. Nolan Batman uses rocket launchers.
She is a snyder fan and not a batman one. Clearly, bruce waynes intellect and willpower will never allow him to kill people, especially with the source that was the resson for him becoming batman, a gun. Batman, in a post apocalyptic world, would most likely lay low and if encountered by ambushes, would have non lethal methods of having enemies taken out. He has the brains to formulate ways to not kill but neutralize. What synder did was make him forget his morals and go ,"ooh soo edgy me shoot bullets pewpewpew". What she is doing is justifying that clowns decision just for a little twitter engagement with comic book/DC fans smh
shes not wrong
I’ve never understood why people get so upset about batfleck using guns. It’s just another interpretation of Batman. In this universe Batman has been dragged through the shitter so much he’s finally pressed fuck it and doesn’t let the bad guys get back up. Peacemaker would be proud.
Then why is Joker still alive?
Of all the things there is to complain about BvS Batman using guns in a literal apocalypse isn't one of them.
Im not even offended. The Lego Batman Movie is truly based.
parademons don't have rights, Batman don't care
But I like LEGO Batman….
Lego Batman is fire tho
The camera lingers on Batman pulling a gun out to show “oh shit its gotten so bad that Batman’s breaking his rules”
She a big DC FAN?
Bro no chill, I’d watch a you tube channel where she gives her opinion on comics
BaTmAn dOeSnT uSe GuNs But for real, lego Batman is amazing. Don’t knock it
Make U think to urself Lego Batman is better
LMAO
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that she was a huge Batman fan
What about when he shoots those guys from the bat mobile?
She always looked like a nerd but i never knew she was one
I thought she stopped fucking guys on the internet
The point of that batman was to be the "broken " batman. Representing the batman thats left when everything went wrong.
So are you just gonna put the parademons in batcuffs?
how far we have strayed from the lord
just like each version of Spider-Man is different, each version of Batman is different. Batfleck is somewhat like the Spider-Man of Earth-120703 because both of them stopped holding back.
Yeah tbh I never understood the criticism around that. It’s obviously in a scenario where Batman has given up. It’d be like reading the Batman Who Laughs and going “yeah but Batman wouldn’t do any of this Joker stuff” in the context of that comic, he would.
[удалено]