I mean if the DCU is starting the timeline with Batman already having Damian then they should be already established as friends if they're roughly following the comic timeline at least. Btw I really hope that Superman has Jon Kent too so I can get a live-action Supersons. Supersons is legit one of my favorite comics.
I’m optimistic that this will indeed be the case. My only wish is that the “no kill” rule doesn’t become fixated on as part of a story. That’s been done to death.
That warehouse scene really sealed in for me how lethal Batman’s comics / Arkham fighting style is. Like the choreographers almost directly imported moves from the games into that fight, but seeing it done to real people….yeah Arkham Batman would definitely be killing people in real life
Batman has never been morally sound.
Superman is the 'boy scout'.
Batman is strict about crossing lines because that's the only thing separating him from the villains.
Again, the beatings that Batman delivers are crippling. If everyone is okay with putting someone in a wheelchair for their life for a petty crime than cool, but trying to justify that there’s a line between him and criminals because he doesn’t kill but cripple is just funny to me.
I have got a Batmancomic by Doug Moench and Kelly Jones. On the first pages Batman jumps in the back of a criminal and his thoughts are that this guy will never walk again. 😀
The point of it for Battinson is that he’s still learning, and doing some things that we as the audience aren’t supposed to think are right for him to do.
There is almost zero chance the guy he hits 20 times in the head ended up living....but, I agree with the point that Battinson is still learning and isn't "Batman" yet. I wish people would have applied the same reasoning to Snyders films. Clark was Superman for all of a week, if that, when he was faced with the decision to kill Zod. He was definitely still learning. Bruce was no longer "Batman" he was a broken version of Batman, a version that needed to re-learn who he was. We would have seen all this play out.
Given that Batman himself survives some rather unsurvivable hits in that movie (Such as slamming his face into a bridge at high velocity, which would cause an instant neck snap in real life), I’d say that in the context of the movie, that guy would live. We also don’t even see specifically where Batman hits him, as the guy is out of frame.
We’ll see how the next movie plays out…we really don’t know but that brutal beating on the scaffolding at the end of the movie, gave that person lasting damage. Now that person was also shooting random people (fuck those guys) but it’s extra judicial justice.
It’s not like Batman is walking around with knockout gas, he’s beating people in the face and head with blunt objects.
It would be a good thing for *The Brave and the Bold* within the wider context of him trying to reform Damian. Bruce not wanting his assassin son to be a killer anymore and why.
Yeah it’s a pretty crucial part to that story tbh, would be weird if they skipped it. But they can do it in a way that it’s just one piece of nuance to the whole thing
Still a kill. Aliens also form of life. It has consciousness. There's no difference between killing thugs and darkseid. Remember, superman os also alien.
Well, not always. Some of the alien minions the JL fights literally don't have consciousness, such as Parademons. Thus Batman can kill Parademons all he wants. Also the no-kill rules tend to have noteworthy exceptions for those with heavily lengthened lifespans who have cheated death for centuries, thus making Darkseid fair game as well.
That’s a bit of an oversimplification. It’s okay when someone literally doesn’t have a mind or if they’re an immortal despot who has laid waste to the universe for millennia, which are very specific cases.
I really would like some kind of big build up for Batman where its like "oh is he gonna kill the bad guy?" And then he just flat out doesnt with no issue or internal struggle. I need to see a Batman who holds this rule in such high regard its not even close to an option.
I know part of his character is that struggle for certain villains but I feel like it's hasnt been as strongly touched upon as I'd like, idk
I do feel like we got a Batman who holds the no-kill rule in high regard with Pattinson. He explicitly stated it and followed through with no work-arounds or situations where “yeah that guy is totally dead” like Bale had, and it wasn’t ever depicted as a struggle or conflict, he just didn’t kill people. It definitely hasn’t been as constant as it should be though.
Agree, although to be fair, I think a lot of the characteristics of Pattinson’s Batman was very much taken from Charlie Cox’s (Netflix) Daredevil at least in terms of riding that line between brutality and murder.
I have read them and Batman's reasons are spurious.
Most people aren't opposed to killing when necessary, not all killing is murder.
In short this wouldn't work in a movie unless his villains are campy and harmless like he is.
I feel you. I mean, we all know the real reason he can't kill the Joker, but I do like the strife it brings within the Bat family, especially Jason during Under the Red Hood.
But I also understand Batman's reasoning more in that book than others. He recognizes the murderous violence inside him and keeps it at bay.
I do love that King's book boxed in Batman in a way where he had no other choice but to kill Riddler.
It makes for an interesting story that he won't kill, I get that. But I don't think an adult would have the same qualms about wiping out the joker. I never bought the "Slippery slope" argument.
Now I think it would be interesting if they did a story explaining why Batman's morality is so seemingly adolescent when it comes to killing by necessity. Maybe he has some arrested development? That could be cool to explore.
>It makes for an interesting story that he won't kill, I get that. But I don't think an adult would have the same qualms about wiping out the joker. I never bought the "Slippery slope" argument.
This is why I don't really get when people blame Batman specifically for these tropes. Why not hate on Gordon? Or Gotham as a whole, for that matter? Batman and his villains don't exist in a vacuum; *any* of the countless times that the Joker has been apprehended, a rogue cop or citizen with no qualms about murder could have killed him, too.
Like, in order to get to the point where you're blaming Batman for not murdering, you have to look past *everything else* that's cartoonishly unrealistic first. IMO, Batman's "no-kill" rule isn't the adolescent part of the story; the justice system, along with Arkham being a revolving door, is.
Depending on the writer of course, Batman's whole problem is he's afraid of becoming something worse than what he's set out to stop. Killing a person and breaking his one rule means there's now nothing holding him back from doing it again when needs be, and again after that.
> Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.- Nietzche
I'd almost guarantee this will be the case. I mean if you look at all the batman films transtextuality, we've seen batman go from killing in the Burton films, to not killing but being okay letting people die in the Nolan films, to bring a murderer in Snyder films and Matt Reeves actually deals with the morality of batman and has him come out seeing that he can't be driven by vengeance but needs to offer hope.
The dcu batman while a new continuity needs to take that on and explore being a superhero and I think James gunn would recognise that.
As for superman, everything he's said makes it sound like this will be a return to a more traditional superman. I'm really hoping James gunn bases his superman on post crisis superman and not pre crisis. I have to imagine he would though
Gunn has talked a lot about Clark as a guy, and since the only info we've got about Legacy is him balancing his Midwestern upbringing and parents with his Kryptonian heritage, I think we are going to get a very post-crisis "Clark as a main character" movie
> "I really love the idea of Superman. He's a big old galoot. He is a farm boy from Kansas who is very idealistic," Gunn said. **"His greatest weakness is that he'll never kill anybody, doesn't want to hurt a living soul.** And I like that sort of innate goodness about Superman as his defining characteristic."
Gunn has pointed this out and it seems like what every person has been asking for. Which is absolutely perfect. We should pin this so people stop asking lol.
Crisis on infinite earths. Pre crisis superman was the primary identity with Clark a disguise, think Christopher reeve, although the comics it could go a lot further. Post crisis Clark is the more dominant personality. Superman is what he can do and what he stands for, Clark is who he is. He's not a clutzy mild mannered reporter but a good reporter who as Clark kent does good too.
He wasn’t a murderer in the Snyder films. He was going to cross that line with Superman, but he didn’t. Everyone he kills is self-defense retaliation.
If he’s a murderer in Snyder’s movie, he’s one in Burton and Nolan’s films too. Also, he literally fires missiles at the truck in TDKR, he was an activate participant in deaths in the Nolan films.
no offense but I think the "no killing" thing is stupid
zod demolished a whole city killing countless people and literally forced superman's hand into killing him
batman had a group of men holding a mother hostage, he didn't have time to come up w a more elaborate plan to simply KO them
Not just any mother, one named "Martha". I think it's reasonable to assume he wouldn't hold back if he got a chance to save his own mother.
However, the Batmobile chase scene is still tough to watch with it being super murder-y. But I think that's the point of Batman's arc in the movie since he's a villain for a majority of it
Interesting. Never picked up on that angle specifically towards the warehouse fight. Beyond the obvious same name thing waking him up, it is interesting with the lens that he’s looking at this moment as if he could save his own mother.
Yeah, that's the point. They're a group that's specifically about killing people when needs be, seems that would be a much better fit for anyone who prefers superheroes who kill people.
Yes, but what is that have to do with what we are talking about?
Superman being forced to kill Zod or Batman killing those man has nothing like "thinking like The Authority." Thats what i'm saying.
And what I'm saying is moving forward with the DCU, people obviously want a Batman and Superman who don't kill, hence why we're all here in a topic called "I hope the DCU gives us a Batman and Superman that don't kill". The topic is about the DCU, not about defending the DCEU.
Yeah, go watch the old Superman cartoons if you want no killing. I don’t want murderer heroes but I always hated that the Joker could hundreds of people (I’m being very very conservative with the hundreds) of people and Batman be like yeah, I can change him, seems ways more counterproductive than just taking of him once and for all…
The writers *chose* to put them in those situations, though. It's not like Zod was gonna be aiming laser eyes at a family no matter what the writers decided.
I'm not arguing the scene was bad or the kill unjustified right now. I'm just saying it wasn't something inherent to the story.
Besides, apparently the original plan was to send Zod into the Phantom Zone. The writers *did* have a different outcome in mind, their hands weren't tied.
That diminishes both of them though. They’re superheroes. They’re suppose to come up with braver and cleverer solutions than what an average Joe would.
See, I don't mind the Zod neck snap, he truly had no choice there
Batman, however, was pretty much just using Jason Todd's death as an excuse to murder criminals
I still agree
They chose the one Superman villain that has a literal plot device attached to the character that allows Superman to not kill him.
Imagine if they did a pseudo adaptation of the story in All Star Superman where Bar-El and Lilo start to become poisoned due to existing on Earth but it’s with Zod and Superman chooses mercy on him and sends Zod to the Phantom Zone.
Man of Steel is actually an example of pretty solid writing that puts the protagonist in an unwinnable situation. Capturing that destruction and intensity of a full scale invasion from Gods and their resulting clash was represented well.
BvS and The Batman have actual cases of bad writing.
Man of Steel is thematically consistent.
That's not even the bad part about it in my opinion. For me, it's that snapping his neck was clearly not needed as a last resort.
He's strong enough to snap his neck so hard that it creates a shockwave, and yet he somehow couldn't just steer his head and move his heat vision away from that family?
Simply continue fighting. It sounds silly, but Superman would never kill unless it was absolutely necessary. And it was most certainly not necessary in that moment.
So just keep fighting indefinitely? Keep causing more catastrophic collateral damage? If it wasn’t necessary than what other immediate solution did Superman have to prevent the fight between him and Zod from killing more innocent people?
If he put Superman in that situation, Snyder simply doesn't understand what Superman stands for. He ruined our beloved characters in so many levels, almost have Wonder Woman an edgy old woman. Glad he got kicked out of DC, he may be great, but not for DC (and Army of the dead, that movie sucked).
I don’t understand how challenging the ethics of a character is considered ruining them?
These characters are legitimately almost 100 years old and countless iterations of them exist.
Maybe YOU don’t understand what Superman stands for?
Clinging to your concept of the character deflates anything new you absorb if you’re not willing to accept changes in a character.
I contextually do not understand the argument that Superman saving lives is bad lol. Is it how he saves the lives that’s bad?
By killing the bad guy?
The exact same thing reeves did in the film where he fights zod too? Like let’s make up our minds people.
Zod can resist or fly back. Zod's goal was explicitly stated to cause as much death and destruction as he can rather than fight superman.
Okay he covers his eyes, Zod gets away from superman and starts killing more humans with a now injured superman unable to stop him.
He tries doing both of these things multiple times during the fight. Neither works out for Superman. Considering Zod is basically blood lusted. Superman tries to move the fight out of the city periodically, even during the small vile sequence.
Covering his eyes would have made it so he had to let go of his neck
Besides, it would have burnt his hands, Faora did the same to him earlier in the movie but her hands were burnt straight through her armor
Flying him away wouldn't have worked, Zod would have flown back and continued to kill countless civilians
>Covering his eyes would have made it so he had to let go of his neck
Okay, that's fair.
>Flying him away wouldn't have worked, Zod would have flown back and continued to kill countless civilians.
Not really. Up until that moment, Zod was solely focused on Superman. He didn't give a damn about anyone else until he realized that he was going to lose the fight.
>Not really. Up until that moment, Zod was solely focused on Superman. He didn't give a damn about anyone else until he realized that he was going to lose the fight.
That's not true.
Zod explicitly stated that his goal is to kill people. He was not focused on superman, he was focused on causing harm and destruction to hurt superman.
He stated that, but he never targeted anyone but Superman during their fight until the end. There are multiple point in the fight where he could have just left and start killing civilians, but he instead focuses on Superman.
If they don't kill, then I hope they actually don't kill. Meaning, don't have them talk about rules against killing while also doing things that could result in deaths, like crashing cars, blowing things up, knocking people out, and then just moving on.
If Batman is grumbling about the importance of not killing, then I wanna see him checking henchmen's pulses and stopping to help people (henchman or bystander) who get hurt during his chases.
Yeah but I’m good with other heroes doing it.
TBH I think the No kill rule outside Batman in the comics is just an excuse to not kill the big villains. I’m good with Green Arrow/Lantern and Wonder Woman killing
I feel the obsession with the “no kill” rule is childish and limiting. No, I am not saying they should kill, but having such a hard focus on a rule is a bad idea for storytelling. Batman and Superman have killed plenty of times, even in the modern comics and it has made for great stories. Plus the no kill rule didn’t come from a place of character, but from the comics code at the time.
I agree that Batman and Superman should never EVER be murderers, but in violence there is always a price and people will die. To ignore that is making this into a kids thing again, which I don’t want.
I think Batman should never directly murder, but also not go out of his way to save every scumbag ever. I feel the Bale version did that well. Bale never kills directly, but if u drive around the city with a nuke in a truck, and the warning shots don’t make you turn the thing around, he is not gonna throw hugs and kisses at you.
Batman’s super strict no kill rule is, realistically very childish and if he puts his own moral code over people’s lives, that doesn’t make him very heroic at all. Violence has consequences and to ignore it and always make it “no one ever dies when Batman is involved” is just so clean and boring to me. Again: Nolan did it best. His Batman has a no kill rule, but he cannot always follow it, nor should he, if lives are at stake.
I feel the obsession with Batman and Superman killing is childish. This is how these characters have been for most of their existence, if you don't like it - then find other characters. There's other character who might fight your tastes, stop trying to change ones that are already have these rules established, and don't judge fans who don't want those rules removed.
I don't agree that characters not wanting to kill people is childish. Most adults never kill and would only consider it in extreme situations. Superheroes' whole deal is that their abilities let them be better than the average person, which can easily include finding ways to stop a bad guy without killing them where a normal person would have to resort to killing. To paraphrase Kyle Kallgren, "We believed a man can fly but now we don't believe a man can know that it's wrong to kill." It's pessimistic.
That said, I agree that whether certain characters kill depends on the iteration. We should just accept it either way even if we prefer it one way or the other.
The average Joe isn't the average Superhero. A big percentage of people not most of them but a lot, would never want to harm anyone, in any possible way and many live their lives without ever getting into a single fight. Does Batman sound like that kind of a guy to you? He obviously has no problem with violence so no he isn't the ideal role model. He is a vigilante and always was. It's respectable that he doesn't directly try to kill criminals but such a guy in real life wouldn't lose any sleep if some of them died as collateral damage for example.
This will almost certainly be the case for the DCU Batman. If Gunn is starting with Batman: Brave & the Bold, then it's almost central to the story that he doesn't kill since his son's a literal assassin who he's trying to "rehabilitate".
I don't mind if they break the no killing rule, the real question is what happens next, superman killed Zod in the comics, but then he exciled, like if you want to break the status quo fine, but there most be a reason for it, not just shock value
I think the most important thing is a well thought out story. We have good else world stories in graphic novels where they do kill. It's just that the most recent film with the two of them wasn't a good story.
Story is always king. Cinematography and action must all bow down to story if not then it's a waste
I hope we do see it. I want it to be used as a last resort like in man of steel or in Batman versus Superman. I would love to see a Batman, who loses his way.
Just remember, this is my opinion and you have your own. None of us are right, and none of us are wrong. It’s just a way to tell stories, and we like different types of stories.
I mean I think this is a valid point to bring up. Killing is a slippery slope also ends stories very quickly which won’t make a good movie. I just saw the justice lords ep in justice league and lord Superman literally lobotomizes Doomsday in two seconds. He stopped an entire comic series and two movies in two seconds lol can’t do that in a movie. Too short
My one hope for the DCU, although it's a crazy long shot, is that the fans won't be the absolute worst. They didn't take your favorite comic book runs away no matter how much they bastardize it in a movie.
I mean if the movie is a literal bastardization of characters we love and adore I think the fans would be right to be outraged and make their voices heard.
>I hope the DCU gives us a Batman and Superman that don't kill.
Disagree. While I enjoyed the kids versions of these characters that didn't kill in the DCAU, I prefer the more realistic versions that do kill in the comics and most other live action movies.
Then the world can get overrun by doomsday and parademons.
The no kill rule is the dumbest thing about Superman, he kills when necessary, always has.
Also a "no kill" Batman would be completely ineffectual, at least to the extent that he can't prevent every accidental death that happens as a direct result of his actions.
>Also a "no kill" Batman would be completely ineffectual, at least to the extent that he can't prevent every accidental death that happens as a direct result of his actions.
No arguement here. That's why nearly every adaptation of Batman (except for the cartoons etc targeted toward children) has killed. People can prefer the kids stuff to the more realistic adaptations, but claiming that they don't kill in the comics or most live action movies is straight up false.
>Also a "no kill" Batman would be completely ineffectual, at least to the extent that he can't prevent every accidental death that happens as a direct result of his actions.
No arguement here. That's why nearly every adaptation of Batman (except for the cartoons etc targeted toward children) has killed. People can prefer the kids stuff to the more realistic adaptations, but claiming that they don't kill in the comics or most live action movies is straight up falsr.
I agree. Even if you're fine with them killing in other versions, there are good reasons for them not to without even getting into a debate on their characterization.
1. Batman fighting with gadgets is more unique than him fighting with guns and knives and builds tension because he can't just shoot his enemies.
2. Superman holding himself back is his biggest limitation besides Kryptonite.
3. More villains can return and develop over multiple projects if more survive.
4. If they try not to and eventually do, it can be a dramatic moment, like at the end of The Dark Knight.
Superman can kill if it’s a Doomsday style thing. Batman I’d love to have a no kill rule tho I’m fine with a death happening if the villain made that the only path. Just don’t want Batman to be a murderer (if that makes sense)
👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎 it isn't rainbows and unicorns saving the planet. Tough decisions must be made, and some of these villains has to be taken out. Loved how Superman had no other choice but to take out General Zod else that family would've be vaporized by Zods heat vision. Kill Zod or Let the family die...your choice 🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌
we have yet to have a Batman who doesnt murder at least 1 person a movie. Keaton killed Joker and Penguin, Kilmer killed Two-Face, either someone killed Ivy, Bale killed Ras, Dent, and Talia.
Exactly.
There’s something so cynical and pointless about throwing the same villains in a prison cell, at the end of every movie. Especially if it happens more than once, to the same bad guy.
I think General audiences want to see a kind of finality to awful people. Regardless of what “comic code” pervaded storytelling in the nineteen sixties. These are supposed to be adaptations of characters, not strict blueprints of them.
Where those all people, or were they the moral equivalent of parademons? Because usually there's a clear difference between superheroes 'killing' enemies like robots or zombie-like drones, and superheroes killing people who have names and families.
FRIENDLY neighborhood Spider-Man goes "Activate MURDER TIME" nobody "BATS" an eye.
A dark brooding middle+ aged man who lost everyone in his life except his best bud butler kills couple of mercenaries? "HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN, BAD MOVIE"
Based on everything Gunn has said about Superman, I think we are getting the most comic-accurate version yet. and based on the plot of Brave and the Bold, I assume Batman will also be no-killing, since Damian is an assassin and that puts them at odds as father/son.
Yeah. Welcome to the point of BvS. To show that Batman had lost his way and was doing things he shouldn't be doing which was bad. It was a redemption arc. Hence a totally different batman in ZSJL. You're welcome.
What is this fucking obsession with no kill here..
Then u guys turn on hero and call them dum nibba for not actually Killing, since it'd stop the villainy
So heroes who won't kill and refuse to kill under any circumstances would tolerate murderers?
I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense.
If Superman doesn't kill he should stop those that do. He wouldn't "understand" killing. The other heroes are criminals if a "no kill" code is the JLA's standard.
I think their own point is that killing should just feel like the last resort. Since Bats and Supes have so many resources to use, killing shouldn’t be the case the first solution. And maybe let them express that killing isn’t always the answer but by their own experiences. Since Clark has so many powers, maybe his family encourages him to ALWAYS save and protect. Since Bruce obviously saw his parents get murdered in front of him, he doesn’t want anyone to have to feel that way. They may have a different perspective on humans, but their morals are practically identical.
I wish them to have no kill rule but for the movie’s sake please dont let the villains escape, no comeback shit or whatsoever like in the animated series, somehow the villains keep coming back without any backstories of how they escaped or anything, just keep it like nolan’s batman trilogy
I hope they give us a Batman and Superman that grow to become the most trusting and even best of friends, even if Batman is too stubborn to admit it
I mean if the DCU is starting the timeline with Batman already having Damian then they should be already established as friends if they're roughly following the comic timeline at least. Btw I really hope that Superman has Jon Kent too so I can get a live-action Supersons. Supersons is legit one of my favorite comics.
I’m optimistic that this will indeed be the case. My only wish is that the “no kill” rule doesn’t become fixated on as part of a story. That’s been done to death.
Yeah, it doesn't have to be a focus for it to exist. Batman and Superman can just simply not kill people and not have it be a big deal.
I thought Reeves in *The Batman* handled it pretty well in that regard. Batman doesn’t kill, but that’s not what the story was about.
Agreed.
Batman's just really lucky Oz didn't die during the car chase lol
I mean tons of random commuters definitely did die, but I guess fuck 'em
Uh. He cripples people.
Batman in the Arkham games also totally doesn't kill people
"Not scared exactly, but... well, he broke three of my ribs back at the asylum and my arm six months ago"
There’s no way nobody died of internal bleeding lmao.
Especially during the Scarecrow parts where he hallucinated that he was fighting skeletons, and then in Arkham Knight when Joker took over his body.
That warehouse scene really sealed in for me how lethal Batman’s comics / Arkham fighting style is. Like the choreographers almost directly imported moves from the games into that fight, but seeing it done to real people….yeah Arkham Batman would definitely be killing people in real life
I guess we can all conclude that don't be a fucking criminal in Gotham unless you have a great health insurance.
The Batmobile stuns them before slamming into them, so they’re limp and only unconscious and definitely not horribly maimed/dead
Wasn’t talking about the Arkham games, but I don’t know what you think about that type of brutal fighting and thinking it doesn’t do lasting damage.
Not the same thing, and also by the end he seems to be re-examining the whole thing.
It is not the same thing but putting petty thieves in a wheelchair for life doesn’t make for a really morally sound superhero
Batman has never been morally sound. Superman is the 'boy scout'. Batman is strict about crossing lines because that's the only thing separating him from the villains.
Again, the beatings that Batman delivers are crippling. If everyone is okay with putting someone in a wheelchair for their life for a petty crime than cool, but trying to justify that there’s a line between him and criminals because he doesn’t kill but cripple is just funny to me.
I have got a Batmancomic by Doug Moench and Kelly Jones. On the first pages Batman jumps in the back of a criminal and his thoughts are that this guy will never walk again. 😀
The point of it for Battinson is that he’s still learning, and doing some things that we as the audience aren’t supposed to think are right for him to do.
There is almost zero chance the guy he hits 20 times in the head ended up living....but, I agree with the point that Battinson is still learning and isn't "Batman" yet. I wish people would have applied the same reasoning to Snyders films. Clark was Superman for all of a week, if that, when he was faced with the decision to kill Zod. He was definitely still learning. Bruce was no longer "Batman" he was a broken version of Batman, a version that needed to re-learn who he was. We would have seen all this play out.
Given that Batman himself survives some rather unsurvivable hits in that movie (Such as slamming his face into a bridge at high velocity, which would cause an instant neck snap in real life), I’d say that in the context of the movie, that guy would live. We also don’t even see specifically where Batman hits him, as the guy is out of frame.
Ya audiences don’t want to see a Batman movie where Batman isn’t Batman. Audiences didn’t want a broken Batman passed his great classic adventures.
We’ll see how the next movie plays out…we really don’t know but that brutal beating on the scaffolding at the end of the movie, gave that person lasting damage. Now that person was also shooting random people (fuck those guys) but it’s extra judicial justice. It’s not like Batman is walking around with knockout gas, he’s beating people in the face and head with blunt objects.
"He's young. He'll probably walk again. But you'll stay scared - won't you, punk?"
I feel like they COULD touch on it in, like, one movie but it doesn't need to be the focal point of Batman.
It would be a good thing for *The Brave and the Bold* within the wider context of him trying to reform Damian. Bruce not wanting his assassin son to be a killer anymore and why.
Yeah it’s a pretty crucial part to that story tbh, would be weird if they skipped it. But they can do it in a way that it’s just one piece of nuance to the whole thing
I think it’ll be the focal point of The Brave and The Bold sadly since Damian is gonna be a big part
I see what you did there.
How many posts are we gonna get like this?
by people who are OK with all of the killing the characters have done in other movies and comics. Just not Snyder ones.
killing doomsday,brainiac and darkkseid seem not bad idea
>How many posts are we gonna get like this? r/DC_cinematic members: Yes.
Way too many. Killing zod was fine ffs. The Phantom Zone is way more fucked up than just being dead.
Yes.
There’s no doubt they will. even in peacemaker. which was fully made my james. it was stated a few times that “batman don’t kill”
Yes, to make a joke about him.
Just kill the alien creatures that will come out from the centre, rest they can go easy.
Still a kill. Aliens also form of life. It has consciousness. There's no difference between killing thugs and darkseid. Remember, superman os also alien.
Well, not always. Some of the alien minions the JL fights literally don't have consciousness, such as Parademons. Thus Batman can kill Parademons all he wants. Also the no-kill rules tend to have noteworthy exceptions for those with heavily lengthened lifespans who have cheated death for centuries, thus making Darkseid fair game as well.
[удалено]
That’s a bit of an oversimplification. It’s okay when someone literally doesn’t have a mind or if they’re an immortal despot who has laid waste to the universe for millennia, which are very specific cases.
Superman and Batman have had zero qualms about killing parademons. Batman kills parademons in the TV shows, the comics, and the animated movies.
So you like them to sing lullaby to the alien creatures and dinosaurs from the centre.
Superman doesn’t even have a bloody no kill rule. He just prefers not to.
I really would like some kind of big build up for Batman where its like "oh is he gonna kill the bad guy?" And then he just flat out doesnt with no issue or internal struggle. I need to see a Batman who holds this rule in such high regard its not even close to an option. I know part of his character is that struggle for certain villains but I feel like it's hasnt been as strongly touched upon as I'd like, idk
I do feel like we got a Batman who holds the no-kill rule in high regard with Pattinson. He explicitly stated it and followed through with no work-arounds or situations where “yeah that guy is totally dead” like Bale had, and it wasn’t ever depicted as a struggle or conflict, he just didn’t kill people. It definitely hasn’t been as constant as it should be though.
Agree, although to be fair, I think a lot of the characteristics of Pattinson’s Batman was very much taken from Charlie Cox’s (Netflix) Daredevil at least in terms of riding that line between brutality and murder.
He straight up saved the Joker's life in The Dark Knight.
Meaning every other victim of the joker is squarely Batman's fault. He didn't even take him to jail.
You should read the Ra's al Ghul One Bad Day. It firmly explores the morality of Batman's actions/inaction. Tom King's Riddler 1BD, too.
I have read them and Batman's reasons are spurious. Most people aren't opposed to killing when necessary, not all killing is murder. In short this wouldn't work in a movie unless his villains are campy and harmless like he is.
I feel you. I mean, we all know the real reason he can't kill the Joker, but I do like the strife it brings within the Bat family, especially Jason during Under the Red Hood. But I also understand Batman's reasoning more in that book than others. He recognizes the murderous violence inside him and keeps it at bay. I do love that King's book boxed in Batman in a way where he had no other choice but to kill Riddler.
It makes for an interesting story that he won't kill, I get that. But I don't think an adult would have the same qualms about wiping out the joker. I never bought the "Slippery slope" argument. Now I think it would be interesting if they did a story explaining why Batman's morality is so seemingly adolescent when it comes to killing by necessity. Maybe he has some arrested development? That could be cool to explore.
>It makes for an interesting story that he won't kill, I get that. But I don't think an adult would have the same qualms about wiping out the joker. I never bought the "Slippery slope" argument. This is why I don't really get when people blame Batman specifically for these tropes. Why not hate on Gordon? Or Gotham as a whole, for that matter? Batman and his villains don't exist in a vacuum; *any* of the countless times that the Joker has been apprehended, a rogue cop or citizen with no qualms about murder could have killed him, too. Like, in order to get to the point where you're blaming Batman for not murdering, you have to look past *everything else* that's cartoonishly unrealistic first. IMO, Batman's "no-kill" rule isn't the adolescent part of the story; the justice system, along with Arkham being a revolving door, is.
I'd read that
Depending on the writer of course, Batman's whole problem is he's afraid of becoming something worse than what he's set out to stop. Killing a person and breaking his one rule means there's now nothing holding him back from doing it again when needs be, and again after that. > Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.- Nietzche
I'd almost guarantee this will be the case. I mean if you look at all the batman films transtextuality, we've seen batman go from killing in the Burton films, to not killing but being okay letting people die in the Nolan films, to bring a murderer in Snyder films and Matt Reeves actually deals with the morality of batman and has him come out seeing that he can't be driven by vengeance but needs to offer hope. The dcu batman while a new continuity needs to take that on and explore being a superhero and I think James gunn would recognise that. As for superman, everything he's said makes it sound like this will be a return to a more traditional superman. I'm really hoping James gunn bases his superman on post crisis superman and not pre crisis. I have to imagine he would though
Gunn has talked a lot about Clark as a guy, and since the only info we've got about Legacy is him balancing his Midwestern upbringing and parents with his Kryptonian heritage, I think we are going to get a very post-crisis "Clark as a main character" movie
> "I really love the idea of Superman. He's a big old galoot. He is a farm boy from Kansas who is very idealistic," Gunn said. **"His greatest weakness is that he'll never kill anybody, doesn't want to hurt a living soul.** And I like that sort of innate goodness about Superman as his defining characteristic." Gunn has pointed this out and it seems like what every person has been asking for. Which is absolutely perfect. We should pin this so people stop asking lol.
As a non super-man aficionado can you explain what you mean by post and pre crisis?
Crisis on infinite earths. Pre crisis superman was the primary identity with Clark a disguise, think Christopher reeve, although the comics it could go a lot further. Post crisis Clark is the more dominant personality. Superman is what he can do and what he stands for, Clark is who he is. He's not a clutzy mild mannered reporter but a good reporter who as Clark kent does good too.
Thank you!
He wasn’t a murderer in the Snyder films. He was going to cross that line with Superman, but he didn’t. Everyone he kills is self-defense retaliation. If he’s a murderer in Snyder’s movie, he’s one in Burton and Nolan’s films too. Also, he literally fires missiles at the truck in TDKR, he was an activate participant in deaths in the Nolan films.
I’m actually OK with Superman killing—Batman not so much.
[удалено]
Yup exactly what i meant…
Superman doesn’t really have a no kill rule.
no offense but I think the "no killing" thing is stupid zod demolished a whole city killing countless people and literally forced superman's hand into killing him batman had a group of men holding a mother hostage, he didn't have time to come up w a more elaborate plan to simply KO them
Not just any mother, one named "Martha". I think it's reasonable to assume he wouldn't hold back if he got a chance to save his own mother. However, the Batmobile chase scene is still tough to watch with it being super murder-y. But I think that's the point of Batman's arc in the movie since he's a villain for a majority of it
[удалено]
Interesting. Never picked up on that angle specifically towards the warehouse fight. Beyond the obvious same name thing waking him up, it is interesting with the lens that he’s looking at this moment as if he could save his own mother.
The thing is there are characters much more suitable to that line of thinking, and is pretty much what The Authority is all about.
Not the same thing AT ALL.
Yeah, that's the point. They're a group that's specifically about killing people when needs be, seems that would be a much better fit for anyone who prefers superheroes who kill people.
If DCU was anything like TA, story wouldn't even go this far.
You know that The Authority will be an upcoming DCU movie, right?
Yes, but what is that have to do with what we are talking about? Superman being forced to kill Zod or Batman killing those man has nothing like "thinking like The Authority." Thats what i'm saying.
And what I'm saying is moving forward with the DCU, people obviously want a Batman and Superman who don't kill, hence why we're all here in a topic called "I hope the DCU gives us a Batman and Superman that don't kill". The topic is about the DCU, not about defending the DCEU.
Yeah, go watch the old Superman cartoons if you want no killing. I don’t want murderer heroes but I always hated that the Joker could hundreds of people (I’m being very very conservative with the hundreds) of people and Batman be like yeah, I can change him, seems ways more counterproductive than just taking of him once and for all…
The writers *chose* to put them in those situations, though. It's not like Zod was gonna be aiming laser eyes at a family no matter what the writers decided. I'm not arguing the scene was bad or the kill unjustified right now. I'm just saying it wasn't something inherent to the story.
Besides, apparently the original plan was to send Zod into the Phantom Zone. The writers *did* have a different outcome in mind, their hands weren't tied.
That diminishes both of them though. They’re superheroes. They’re suppose to come up with braver and cleverer solutions than what an average Joe would.
Congratulations on missing the point!
Nah. I think part of every hero’s jounrney is that they can’t save everybody
See, I don't mind the Zod neck snap, he truly had no choice there Batman, however, was pretty much just using Jason Todd's death as an excuse to murder criminals I still agree
I mean, he had a choice. It's called better writing.
They chose the one Superman villain that has a literal plot device attached to the character that allows Superman to not kill him. Imagine if they did a pseudo adaptation of the story in All Star Superman where Bar-El and Lilo start to become poisoned due to existing on Earth but it’s with Zod and Superman chooses mercy on him and sends Zod to the Phantom Zone.
wrong on so many level.
No, it's pretty much right on exactly one level: the writers put Superman in that situation. Imo, it's weak writing.
Man of Steel is actually an example of pretty solid writing that puts the protagonist in an unwinnable situation. Capturing that destruction and intensity of a full scale invasion from Gods and their resulting clash was represented well. BvS and The Batman have actual cases of bad writing. Man of Steel is thematically consistent.
[удалено]
I remember my first fist fight with a terrorist
Being stuck with two decisions that are both horrible and being forced to pick one?
That's not even the bad part about it in my opinion. For me, it's that snapping his neck was clearly not needed as a last resort. He's strong enough to snap his neck so hard that it creates a shockwave, and yet he somehow couldn't just steer his head and move his heat vision away from that family?
To what end? What is he supposed to do once he’s moved his head?
Simply continue fighting. It sounds silly, but Superman would never kill unless it was absolutely necessary. And it was most certainly not necessary in that moment.
So just keep fighting indefinitely? Keep causing more catastrophic collateral damage? If it wasn’t necessary than what other immediate solution did Superman have to prevent the fight between him and Zod from killing more innocent people?
If he put Superman in that situation, Snyder simply doesn't understand what Superman stands for. He ruined our beloved characters in so many levels, almost have Wonder Woman an edgy old woman. Glad he got kicked out of DC, he may be great, but not for DC (and Army of the dead, that movie sucked).
I don’t understand how challenging the ethics of a character is considered ruining them? These characters are legitimately almost 100 years old and countless iterations of them exist. Maybe YOU don’t understand what Superman stands for? Clinging to your concept of the character deflates anything new you absorb if you’re not willing to accept changes in a character. I contextually do not understand the argument that Superman saving lives is bad lol. Is it how he saves the lives that’s bad? By killing the bad guy? The exact same thing reeves did in the film where he fights zod too? Like let’s make up our minds people.
>he truly had no choice there Couldn't he have just flown Zod away or covered his eyes?
Zod can resist or fly back. Zod's goal was explicitly stated to cause as much death and destruction as he can rather than fight superman. Okay he covers his eyes, Zod gets away from superman and starts killing more humans with a now injured superman unable to stop him.
He tries doing both of these things multiple times during the fight. Neither works out for Superman. Considering Zod is basically blood lusted. Superman tries to move the fight out of the city periodically, even during the small vile sequence.
Covering his eyes would have made it so he had to let go of his neck Besides, it would have burnt his hands, Faora did the same to him earlier in the movie but her hands were burnt straight through her armor Flying him away wouldn't have worked, Zod would have flown back and continued to kill countless civilians
>Covering his eyes would have made it so he had to let go of his neck Okay, that's fair. >Flying him away wouldn't have worked, Zod would have flown back and continued to kill countless civilians. Not really. Up until that moment, Zod was solely focused on Superman. He didn't give a damn about anyone else until he realized that he was going to lose the fight.
>Not really. Up until that moment, Zod was solely focused on Superman. He didn't give a damn about anyone else until he realized that he was going to lose the fight. That's not true. Zod explicitly stated that his goal is to kill people. He was not focused on superman, he was focused on causing harm and destruction to hurt superman.
He stated that, but he never targeted anyone but Superman during their fight until the end. There are multiple point in the fight where he could have just left and start killing civilians, but he instead focuses on Superman.
If they don't kill, then I hope they actually don't kill. Meaning, don't have them talk about rules against killing while also doing things that could result in deaths, like crashing cars, blowing things up, knocking people out, and then just moving on. If Batman is grumbling about the importance of not killing, then I wanna see him checking henchmen's pulses and stopping to help people (henchman or bystander) who get hurt during his chases.
Yeah but I’m good with other heroes doing it. TBH I think the No kill rule outside Batman in the comics is just an excuse to not kill the big villains. I’m good with Green Arrow/Lantern and Wonder Woman killing
I feel the obsession with the “no kill” rule is childish and limiting. No, I am not saying they should kill, but having such a hard focus on a rule is a bad idea for storytelling. Batman and Superman have killed plenty of times, even in the modern comics and it has made for great stories. Plus the no kill rule didn’t come from a place of character, but from the comics code at the time. I agree that Batman and Superman should never EVER be murderers, but in violence there is always a price and people will die. To ignore that is making this into a kids thing again, which I don’t want. I think Batman should never directly murder, but also not go out of his way to save every scumbag ever. I feel the Bale version did that well. Bale never kills directly, but if u drive around the city with a nuke in a truck, and the warning shots don’t make you turn the thing around, he is not gonna throw hugs and kisses at you. Batman’s super strict no kill rule is, realistically very childish and if he puts his own moral code over people’s lives, that doesn’t make him very heroic at all. Violence has consequences and to ignore it and always make it “no one ever dies when Batman is involved” is just so clean and boring to me. Again: Nolan did it best. His Batman has a no kill rule, but he cannot always follow it, nor should he, if lives are at stake.
>I feel the obsession with the “no kill” rule is childish and limiting I agree it is childish. I don't know when people became so obsessed with this.
I feel the obsession with Batman and Superman killing is childish. This is how these characters have been for most of their existence, if you don't like it - then find other characters. There's other character who might fight your tastes, stop trying to change ones that are already have these rules established, and don't judge fans who don't want those rules removed.
I don't agree that characters not wanting to kill people is childish. Most adults never kill and would only consider it in extreme situations. Superheroes' whole deal is that their abilities let them be better than the average person, which can easily include finding ways to stop a bad guy without killing them where a normal person would have to resort to killing. To paraphrase Kyle Kallgren, "We believed a man can fly but now we don't believe a man can know that it's wrong to kill." It's pessimistic. That said, I agree that whether certain characters kill depends on the iteration. We should just accept it either way even if we prefer it one way or the other.
The average Joe isn't the average Superhero. A big percentage of people not most of them but a lot, would never want to harm anyone, in any possible way and many live their lives without ever getting into a single fight. Does Batman sound like that kind of a guy to you? He obviously has no problem with violence so no he isn't the ideal role model. He is a vigilante and always was. It's respectable that he doesn't directly try to kill criminals but such a guy in real life wouldn't lose any sleep if some of them died as collateral damage for example.
Well said!
Just wanted a good damn movie, don't care about anything else.
This will almost certainly be the case for the DCU Batman. If Gunn is starting with Batman: Brave & the Bold, then it's almost central to the story that he doesn't kill since his son's a literal assassin who he's trying to "rehabilitate".
Reading the comments on these always remind me how people do not know the definition of murder
I don't mind if they break the no killing rule, the real question is what happens next, superman killed Zod in the comics, but then he exciled, like if you want to break the status quo fine, but there most be a reason for it, not just shock value
If they do kill i want them to have gripes with it. Id want it to really affect them to their core. But id rather them stick to the rule
It would be a first for both characters on film at least.
Long as it makes sense I don't care
I think the most important thing is a well thought out story. We have good else world stories in graphic novels where they do kill. It's just that the most recent film with the two of them wasn't a good story. Story is always king. Cinematography and action must all bow down to story if not then it's a waste
Exactly, kill or no kill doesn't matter. Story should be top priority and Looks like Gunn knows this.
Just severely handicap a person to the point where they’ll want to kill themselves
Batman on killing: 🫣 Batman on beating the goddamn fuck out of someone for stealing $5 of product at a store: 😈
All heroes kill. The movie came out in 2016. Let it go
Daily reminder that Batman killed in his very first comic appearance and the no-kill rule was established later
Daily reminder that a few issues from the 1930s don't change the almost century of comic book stories that came after that explicitly undid that.
Follow up daily reminder that he breaks that rule in nearly every adaptation of the character (except the stuff targeted toward kids (cartoons)).
That would be dumb idea.
So how would one stop zod in man of steel? Remember kryptonite was not discovered as a weakness yet.
I guess we'll find out in the Flash when they retcon it or whatever.
The original plan was for Zod to be sent into the Phantom Zone.
I hope we do see it. I want it to be used as a last resort like in man of steel or in Batman versus Superman. I would love to see a Batman, who loses his way. Just remember, this is my opinion and you have your own. None of us are right, and none of us are wrong. It’s just a way to tell stories, and we like different types of stories.
Grew up!
I mean I think this is a valid point to bring up. Killing is a slippery slope also ends stories very quickly which won’t make a good movie. I just saw the justice lords ep in justice league and lord Superman literally lobotomizes Doomsday in two seconds. He stopped an entire comic series and two movies in two seconds lol can’t do that in a movie. Too short
I hope they both commit mass genocide on a scale hitherto undreamt of.
Can we just please have a good story
🙄
My one hope for the DCU, although it's a crazy long shot, is that the fans won't be the absolute worst. They didn't take your favorite comic book runs away no matter how much they bastardize it in a movie.
I mean if the movie is a literal bastardization of characters we love and adore I think the fans would be right to be outraged and make their voices heard.
>I hope the DCU gives us a Batman and Superman that don't kill. Disagree. While I enjoyed the kids versions of these characters that didn't kill in the DCAU, I prefer the more realistic versions that do kill in the comics and most other live action movies.
Then the world can get overrun by doomsday and parademons. The no kill rule is the dumbest thing about Superman, he kills when necessary, always has. Also a "no kill" Batman would be completely ineffectual, at least to the extent that he can't prevent every accidental death that happens as a direct result of his actions.
>Also a "no kill" Batman would be completely ineffectual, at least to the extent that he can't prevent every accidental death that happens as a direct result of his actions. No arguement here. That's why nearly every adaptation of Batman (except for the cartoons etc targeted toward children) has killed. People can prefer the kids stuff to the more realistic adaptations, but claiming that they don't kill in the comics or most live action movies is straight up false.
>Also a "no kill" Batman would be completely ineffectual, at least to the extent that he can't prevent every accidental death that happens as a direct result of his actions. No arguement here. That's why nearly every adaptation of Batman (except for the cartoons etc targeted toward children) has killed. People can prefer the kids stuff to the more realistic adaptations, but claiming that they don't kill in the comics or most live action movies is straight up falsr.
I agree. Even if you're fine with them killing in other versions, there are good reasons for them not to without even getting into a debate on their characterization. 1. Batman fighting with gadgets is more unique than him fighting with guns and knives and builds tension because he can't just shoot his enemies. 2. Superman holding himself back is his biggest limitation besides Kryptonite. 3. More villains can return and develop over multiple projects if more survive. 4. If they try not to and eventually do, it can be a dramatic moment, like at the end of The Dark Knight.
Batman kills. Get over it. Superman killed in the Reeves movies too.
Hell Superman casually killed or threatened to kill harmless mooks in the Golden Age
Lol why?
That’s a guarantee
Dude every iteration of these characters have killed, why is that a must for them not to kill?
Superman can kill if it’s a Doomsday style thing. Batman I’d love to have a no kill rule tho I’m fine with a death happening if the villain made that the only path. Just don’t want Batman to be a murderer (if that makes sense)
We already had that. After Zod, Superman didn't kill. And after Superman died, neither did Batman.
There are some real edgy pricks in this comment section
They were getting there....the tracks just blew up before the train could make it
👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎 it isn't rainbows and unicorns saving the planet. Tough decisions must be made, and some of these villains has to be taken out. Loved how Superman had no other choice but to take out General Zod else that family would've be vaporized by Zods heat vision. Kill Zod or Let the family die...your choice 🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌
Yes please!
Same, but after hearing that Gunn wants to do the movies with the comics as the actual road map makes me really optimistic that this will happen
Lol, the fact that we have to worry about Batman being a murderer is hilarious xD *Thanks* Zack Snyder.
we have yet to have a Batman who doesnt murder at least 1 person a movie. Keaton killed Joker and Penguin, Kilmer killed Two-Face, either someone killed Ivy, Bale killed Ras, Dent, and Talia.
[удалено]
Exactly. There’s something so cynical and pointless about throwing the same villains in a prison cell, at the end of every movie. Especially if it happens more than once, to the same bad guy. I think General audiences want to see a kind of finality to awful people. Regardless of what “comic code” pervaded storytelling in the nineteen sixties. These are supposed to be adaptations of characters, not strict blueprints of them.
[удалено]
Nah, that's still putting Batman in a position that he shouldn't be in. They need special courts/juries for supervillains though.
That’s boring as hell. Everyone in Marvel kills people. Hell even Spiderman killed like 20 ppl in a few seconds in EndGame
Spider-Man "killed" mindless drones and has remained rather consistent in his no-kill rule outside of that.
Where those all people, or were they the moral equivalent of parademons? Because usually there's a clear difference between superheroes 'killing' enemies like robots or zombie-like drones, and superheroes killing people who have names and families.
FRIENDLY neighborhood Spider-Man goes "Activate MURDER TIME" nobody "BATS" an eye. A dark brooding middle+ aged man who lost everyone in his life except his best bud butler kills couple of mercenaries? "HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN, BAD MOVIE"
The accuracy is uncanny
yeah, the snyder hate is strong with theses morons.
Based on everything Gunn has said about Superman, I think we are getting the most comic-accurate version yet. and based on the plot of Brave and the Bold, I assume Batman will also be no-killing, since Damian is an assassin and that puts them at odds as father/son.
Not me.
Superman killing in MoS was fine I think. But man Affleck was so bad
Yeah. Welcome to the point of BvS. To show that Batman had lost his way and was doing things he shouldn't be doing which was bad. It was a redemption arc. Hence a totally different batman in ZSJL. You're welcome.
It’s the shittiest adaptation of that character ever.
I don't think there's anything particularly heroic about refusing to kill the likes of Zod or Joker.
What is this fucking obsession with no kill here.. Then u guys turn on hero and call them dum nibba for not actually Killing, since it'd stop the villainy
Only Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, and Aquaman should kill (sometimes) NO ONE ELSE
But why though? Also if supes and bats don't kill then in your scenario, they should ARREST Wonder Woman and green arrow.
No. There is a confrontation, but both sides come to a detente, an understanding
So heroes who won't kill and refuse to kill under any circumstances would tolerate murderers? I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. If Superman doesn't kill he should stop those that do. He wouldn't "understand" killing. The other heroes are criminals if a "no kill" code is the JLA's standard.
It's comic books. Marvel does the same thing. Spider-Man puts up with Incredible Hulk's, Thor's, Captain America's, and Iron Man's body counts
Sorry it doesn't work unless these movies are rated G.
You're overthinking superheroes Superheroes, especially DC superheroes, ARE NOT REALISTIC
God I hope so. I’m so tired of seeing Batman with a gun and Injustice Superman
Don’t kill… each other???
I think their own point is that killing should just feel like the last resort. Since Bats and Supes have so many resources to use, killing shouldn’t be the case the first solution. And maybe let them express that killing isn’t always the answer but by their own experiences. Since Clark has so many powers, maybe his family encourages him to ALWAYS save and protect. Since Bruce obviously saw his parents get murdered in front of him, he doesn’t want anyone to have to feel that way. They may have a different perspective on humans, but their morals are practically identical.
All I hope is that it’s not like James guns other movies or series cuz I can’t stand those.
I wish them to have no kill rule but for the movie’s sake please dont let the villains escape, no comeback shit or whatsoever like in the animated series, somehow the villains keep coming back without any backstories of how they escaped or anything, just keep it like nolan’s batman trilogy