Is he right?

Are you talking about Snyder or Berlatsky? OP's talking about Berlatsky.

Yes. That is literally what people want.

Is there a single love action Batman movie where he hasn't killed people?
Also, why is Batman apparently against guns but he constantly uses missiles and shit?

But I'm not jewish? And I don't use twitter, or any social media for that matter because I'm violently against using my real name online, ever? Are you confusing me with someone else?

Me too, bro. I wish all the time for a Batman movie set in the 40s where he fights gangsters or nazis and isn't afraid to kick bad people out of skyscraper windows.

Yes. No film studio is going to waste their access to the Batman IP making a detective movie.

Yes. Movie fans don't know/don't care about realistic damage and are willing to tolerate the most obviously fata unrealisticl shit for a cool scene. All they need to do is just keep moving along and no one will notice.
Yeah but that's Batman in spades.
>Muh Parents this changes everything

I think he's implying that you're berlatsky (The Jewish twitter user in OPs pic).

Superman has literally the same moral codex than Batman, if not even more strict (Superman would never let somebody die)
Why is everything always shitting on Bruce? Makes no sense to me.
Hell, hasn't the entire League a no kill rule, when it comes to humans?

I liked BvS' interpretation of Batman as angry and embittered and at the darkest point in his life because of the death of Robin, the destruction of Metropolis, etc. In that framework, Batman killing people isn't like, totally out of bounds, I don't think. But him just gunning a bunch of people down and then the story not stopping to emphasize at all isn't the play. If he kills, there should be consequences for it. But in BvS he just murdered the guys and that was it.

I liked MoS and BvS a lot but Snyder just screaming "FUCKING GROW UP" at people who didn't like them is kind of pathetic.

Uhm, people shit on Man of Steel pretty hard, both for Zod and Supes not doing more to avoid collateral damage.

Batman can beat up criminals without killing them you know

Wow.

Attached: noah bat-latsky.jpg (641x2729, 374K)

you could probably do a movie in which batman kills and it would be decent. You could make a lot of good movies off of unconventional ideas

imagine taking that advice from fucking zack snyder though whose direction has near-singlehandedly run DC's movie universe into the ground lmao

I meant in general.
Everyone always asks "why isn't Batman killing the Joker?" But no one ever asked "why isn't Superman killing Lex?" Or WW Cheetah. Or Aquaman Manta.

I actually like the idea of Batman being against killing and going out of his way to never do it while being okay with maiming and deforming people. It's the thing that helps showcase just how insane he is, because any other street level hero, even Spider-Man, no matter how anti-kill they may be, would have killed The Joker ages ago.

That said, I also like the idea of Bruce eventually snapping and killing someone and going through
Of course, this won't happen, because the one villain that makes the most sense for him to break his vow for is the one DC isn't willing to kill off.

Superman is actually willing to kill people.

Any examples?

It's not like there is no middle ground between just grappling and cuffing criminals and using the batmobile to perform sick burnouts on their shredded body.

If the dude isn't up for bad guys getting roughed up, I don't know why he is commenting on Yea Forums media to begin with.

The end of the Byrne run where he kills an alternate universe's version of the Phantom Zone criminals for murdering almost everyone on their Earth.

I've never really liked it, but there it is.

No I expect him to be an insincere contrarian like he's been for the past decade or so. It's just the thing where he's posting the link to his article in his own replies that gets me.

Sometimes tries to kill Doomsday and Darkseid, sure it’s not successful but he’s willing

dc.fandom.com/wiki/Superman_Vol_2_22

Ah, gotcha.
Sorry.

Snyder is a dudebro Randroid who again misunderstands the material he works with.
He's like the people who think Rorschach is a great character, in fact that's exactly how he made Watchmen.
Batman is not a killer, its not hard to understand.
Yes he uses force against criminals, but it is not excessive force.
It is not hard to understand.
Unless of course you're a dudebro and just a bit dumb, further warped by the nonsense of Rand.

I don't remember fans demanding that Batman guns down and drives over criminals like he's playing GTA.

Yeah, but OP's question is about Berlatsky, not Snyder

holy shit, just make batman not kill, it's not that hard

>I want to enjoy senseless violence but none of the guilt or consequences (death) associated with it.
Even though I’m a batfag, I’ve always been annoyed by this train of thought among batfags.

Entire Nolan trilogy.

Literally every single super hero would kill those. I was talking about humans, since most of Batman's rogues are humans.
Superman would never kill Lex, despite him being a universe level thread.
And Black manta has probably killed more innocent sailors than the Joker, but Aquaman still actively tries to kill him.
My point is shitting on Batman for his no kill (humans) rule, when 90% of super heroes have it, is a retarded meme

He also uses guns on his vehicles to destroy robots and shit. That's different from shooting at humans.

Not saving people = murder

Hot-ish take: Superhero Comics should never be adapted into live action. It's always been drawn and written as a realm of wild, cartoony visual language and exaggeration. Batman has always been closer to Bugs Bunny than an episode of CSI. Animation, you can draw the explosions, the facial expressions, the violence and big emotions, rather than leaning on billions in special effects in having to cater to actors self interests or downplaying large concepts to keep in budget.

Superheros are a world of pencil and ink and color and at the most, 3D shapes that Live Action can try to do justice but really can't.

Attached: 44f.png (854x479, 497K)

It apparently is, since they have him do it in every movie.

Though never before did he do it with such enthusiasm.

As a lawyer, that post made me physically ill

I think you can have a good comic book movie without anybody dying.

He didn't killed anyone at Batman and Robin as well

>>He's like the people who think Rorschach is a great character, in fact that's exactly how he made Watchmen.
Rorschach IS a great character, what you're trying to say is while he's a good CHARACTER, he's not a good PERSON.

Dude started a fire in a mountainside estate to save one criminal, and that's not even the person he saves from the damage he caused. More than likely somebody died as a direct result of his actions, but he didn't see it happen so I guess that makes it okay. And whether or not it's true, he does believe he killed fake Ras and is okay with that.

How's Ra's doing?

>Superman has literally the same moral codex than Batman, if not even more strict (Superman would never let somebody die)
He’d never let someone die but killing Doomsday shows he is less anal about the no kill rule than Batman

You are 100% corret!

What difference does it make if it's a human or a "god" like Darkseid, or whatever the hell kind of monster Doomsday is supposed to be? Darkseid and Doomsday are monsters. Lex Luthor is a monster too, he's just a monster that happens to be shaped like a human. Same with The Joker. It's okay to kill them, really. The only reason they aren't dead is that people love them and as soon as a new writer omes along they'll come back from the dead. It happened in X-Men with Jean and, it will happen whenever a character with a decent sized fanbase is killed off. Killing The Joker or Lex, although making great sense from a writing perspective, makes zero sense from a fan perspective and is a pointless endeavor anyway because a butthurt fan will just bring him back first chance they get. It's not right, but it's the way the world works. Such is life.

Snyder is a retard that lost DC hundreds of millions of dollars. He doesn’t deserve an opinion because it’s clearly wrong.

I love how Hackyder is spending years to defend his garbage writing, instead of just admitting he either did not get Batman's character at all or simply didn't care.
Trying to change Batman's non-killing rule is like making an Aquaman movie without a single drop of water.
All he had to do, is copy the Terminator scene, where he calculates the fatalities after a shootdown (let Alfred do that) and spend 2 seconds showing all the goons after the warehouse fight moaning in pain on the ground, showing the audience they all live.
Literally a few seconds could have been enough to not even go into this discussion and he didn't even have to change any of the rest of the movie.

Doomsday was a crazy animal not a person.

Killing an frenzied pit bull attacking people =/= killing some guy in the street

Which version of Lex are you wanting Superman to kill? The one where people know he's a supervillain or the one where people know he's a benevolent billionaire?

Batman would also kill or "destroy", as they call it, Doomsday. What are you even talking about?

ITT: People think OP is talking about Snyder when he's really talking about Noah Berlatsky's tweet/article

Lex is the smartest guy on the planet and unlike Joker won’t betray you to alien invaders as a prank. Lex is thus useful and it makes sense why Supes doesn’t kill him. Manta is just a merc. He’s an evil asshole but he doesn’t go on random killing sprees like Joker does “for the lols”. Cheetah doesn’t have anywhere near as high a body count as Joker.

Meanwhile Joker is:
1. A guy with a body count in the thousands
2. Completely fucking useless because he can’t do shit against an alien invasion
3. Can’t bebtrusted because he will betray you for retarded reasons
There is zero benefit to keeping Joker alive.

>Snyder is a retard that lost DC hundreds of millions of dollars.
That's objectively false.
>He doesn’t deserve an opinion because it’s clearly wrong.
Coming from you that means he is right.

He also seriously considered having Batman and Superman's mothers be the same Martha - she survives the shooting, goes into witness protection, raises Clark.

You have to remember he was probably pretty angry and defensive for a long time even before this. He's been defending his work against criticism from fanboys - who are constant, 24/7, even years later unlike actual critics - for over a decade. In that time he's gone from being a jobbing director to the head of a cinematic universe to a guy who's technically a jobbing director but is actually just making a student-film tier zombie movie and another fucking Fountainhead adaptaion, and also lost his daughter last year to suicide.

He's got issues.

No one cares about Noah BAZINGSKY and even if, we still have to address Snyder's films and that topic in general.

Ok fine what about Zod? He’s killed him a few times.

The reason is, your average killfag is a fucking casual.

Is not ethical to execute him since he's literally schizophrenic and was shown more than once that when he's not having his mental breakdowns he's just an innocent scared man.

>everyone I disagree with is contrarian
the wonderful mind of Yea Forumsmblr

And what makes them so different? Both a human criminal and a rampaging pitbull are guilty, so both deserve to be punished. If their crimes warrant death, then that's how it is.

Any of the versions where he's evil, they're all evil bastards. You know what I mean. I know some of the cracked out alternate earths have him as a good guy, those ones are fine.

Bat tanks suck

>Manta’s an evil asshole but he doesn’t go on random killing sprees
thats completely wrong, tho.

Dumbass, Berlatsky IS Yea Forumsmblr.

Zod is not a human. Why is everyone moving the goal post.

youtu.be/1GLqIh9jOf4?t=623

Attached: Batman about killings.jpg (720x720, 102K)

>No one cares about Noah BAZINGSKY

OP does.

Wans't that a coup de grace so they wouldn't starve to death?

You know what would be a good story, maybe as an elseworld?
Gotham's new mayor has introduced the death penalty for murder.
So Batman knows the next time he captures one of his villains (who have kill a few random people during a heist for story purpose) and takes them to the police, they will get executed.
How would that effect Batman, since he always said it's not his role to be judge, jury and executioner.

>You know what I mean.

No, I don't know what you mean. You mean that Superman should just straight up murder the billionaire version who's an evil bastard yet is able to hide his trail unlike the DCEU version? You don't realize how this is stupider than the people jerking off how smart they are for suggesting Batman should kill the Joker?

>Superman would never let somebody die
(sometimes, depending on writer, blah blah blah) Superman can't be in two places at the same time

Attached: Our Worlds at War Superman was forced to save Wonder Woman over Lois Lane dad.jpg (500x541, 112K)

I'm 90% sure OP is Blapstemsky himself.

>billionaire wife goes into witness protection after being mugged on the street
>leaves son behind in Crime City
>moves to Kansas and marries a farmer
This is all more unbelievable than the part where they adopt a child from space.

Well going by I could see that being true.

He's too dangerous to coexist with civilization. the "Scared innocent man" defense is bullshit. Would you execute a "Scared innocent man" because he has an incurable contagious disease that will kill millions of people and cannot be quarantined by any means but death? Or would you let him spread it and watch as whole towns are wiped out by his plague knowing you could have done something about it. What if it was a disease that would wipe out the entire world including you, would you kill him then? Of course the guy has to die in the plague scenario. He can coexist with civilization, he's "innocent" but by continuing to live he will damage or destroy it. The Joker is the same way, only instead of germs it's with madness fueled guns and poison laughing gas. He cannot be cured, and even if he could, there is too great of a risk for relapse. He is no different than a plague-bearer.

Not at all?
He does the capturing.
Everything after that is the responsibility of the justice system, for good or ill.

He never said "Grow Up", he said "Wake Up" as to be aware of those things after watching Watchmen, and he is right wether Yea Forums likes it or not.

Compare even Marvel in terms of how much their superheroes in their movies are responsible for atrocities, lying to the Amrecia, embezzling money from corporations, etc
Compared to Earth Mightiest Heroes cartoon

You explained in your own post, why your post contributes nothing to the discussion.
let's put it simple:
Batman doesn't kill humans, regardless of what they did.
Superman doesn't kill humans, regardless of what they did.
Now let's take Batman Begins' ending and his "...but i don't have to save you" phrase, where he left Ra's to die. That scene didn't feel off and didn't cause controversy, because it actually fits Batman.
Could you imagine that scene with Superman, who just flies away, letting lex die? Guaranteed not.
So Supes has an even bigger moral compass than Batman.

>How would that effect Batman, since he always said it's not his role to be judge, jury and executioner.
Probably not at all, since they would be facing a legal judge, jury, and executioner.

Real talk why do we need six threads on Zack Snyder's dumb attempts at relevance?
Nobody actually cares if Batman kills, they care if he looks like an asshole while doing it.
And that's the problem. Snyder makes everyone an asshole, and the only people that don't realize that are assholes themselves.

Execution in response to their murder of the entire Pocket Universe and to keep them from busting out of imprisonment and wreaking havoc as Pre-Crisis Kryptonians in the Post-Crisis Universe.

>Now let's take Batman Begins' ending and his "...but i don't have to save you" phrase, where he left Ra's to die. That scene didn't feel off and didn't cause controversy, because it actually fits Batman.
>Could you imagine that scene with Superman, who just flies away, letting lex die? Guaranteed not.
Disagree.
The correct thing for Batman to do would have been to take Ra's in.
If "not saving" was valid, she should have let the Joker splatter at the end of the Dark Knight.

>Everything after that is the responsibility of the justice system, for good or ill.
I know, but has that actually ever happened in a story? Just imagine Bruce taking part in Joker's execution and Joker's last words would be something like mocking Batman for indirectly killing him in the end. Would that trigger Bruce?
Also Batman always operates outside the law, a vigilante in the eye of the justice system is still a criminal. So why would Batman suddenly following laws, when he breaks them every single day?

Because they need to talk about the Snyder Cut, and OP might actually be Noah Berlatsky trying to promote his article.

Justice League was a flop and DC now has to reboot the entire thing

>If "not saving" was valid, she should have let the Joker splatter at the end of the Dark Knight.
That scene was to show his character growth.

>Or Aquaman Manta.
he did. manta got better.

>Would that trigger Bruce?
Nope, not if the trial was done properly.

>Also Batman always operates outside the law, a vigilante in the eye of the justice system is still a criminal. So why would Batman suddenly following laws, when he breaks them every single day?
It's because of the fact that he's operating outside of the law that Batman has rules in place to check himself. He knows that he is walking a very narrow part and tries to make sure he's not going off the deep end.

Batman is working towards a point where vigilantes will no longer be necessary.

To be fair though that shitshow was handled so badly that Snyder could attempt to argue "It was Whedon's fault". The only way to know how much of a bigger or lesser shitshow it would've been would be to release that Snyder Cut.

user, Batman pursues justice. Punisher pursues revenge.

Hmm, that could work, but that's not how it is presented in the movies.

If he showed regrets for what happened, sure, but the movies want you to think letting Ra's die was the right thing.

If the DCAU can do it why not Snyder?

>Batman doesn't kill humans, regardless of what they did.
wrong He doesn't murder them if there are other options on the table

>Superman doesn't kill humans, regardless of what they did.
because he has it even easier to deal with them non-lethally, unless they went UBER level meta (see Hank Henshaw)

In the end it all goes down to context.
Zack never said or implied that it's okay if Batman will just off people instantly, without variants.

Attached: Superman kills Mister Fantastic.jpg (898x695, 198K)

He didn't even need to read the comics, literally every piece of bat-media has this exact same situation.

I agree. It was poorly executed, but i think it was still clear what Nolan was going for.

Diana tends to kill a lot of fucking people.
Cheetah is often spared, however. Especially now that Minerva's origin was altered in a way that allows Diana to blame herself for Cheetah's existence and feel bad over it.

>Batman is working towards a point where vigilantes will no longer be necessary.
That could also be a good story for an elseworld. Every rogue got executed by law and now Batman has basically no purpose anymore.

>because he has it even easier to deal with them non-lethally
I get your point, but the same could be applied to Batman, since he can be written like that, too, due to plot armor.
He's so good, he can throw a batarang at the exact 47 degree, that he hits the villain at the exact angle and spot that knocks him out, without killing him. So there isn't really a story reason why Superman can take out enemies non-lethally, but Batman can not.

That's one of the main points of Watchmen, Ozymandias and Dr Manhattan realize there is better ways to help people while Rorschach refuse to move on.

Yeah no that’s retarded. Joker is not in any way actually insane. You can not come up with stupid over the top schemes Joker does and be insane. He spent an entire fucking year not killing anyone as Eric Boulder, if he was actually insane he wouldn’t have been able to do that.
Because of the time he killed a bunch of people when he heard Aquaman was back? He did that BECAUSE he was so pissed Aquaman was back. Arthur is his trigger, but otherwise he was just working in a fish shop and he wasn’t killing anyone.

99% of the heroes got this plot armor, at least Batman was higly trained on non lethal techniques and medicine plus his obsession on not killing. Spider-Man web swings are extremely dangerous and Gween death show that his Spider-Sense is useless at helping to avoid other people getting injured.

Are you really saying that because Zod isn’t born on Earth it’s ok to kill him? Then why the fuck doesn’t Batman kill Superman every time Supes goes evil? Clark isn’t human either.

I'm not sure where youre getting that from. Revenge is punishing somebody who wronged you personally. Justice is punishing someone who wronged somebody else. Isn't that what Batman is doing, punishing those who harm the weak and/or innocent?

There is mass murders and serial killers who did and planned acts claiming that God or whatever told them to.

Crazy fucks are not always impulsive.

>Arthur is his trigger, but otherwise he was just working in a fish shop and he wasn’t killing anyone.
That absolutely doesn't matter to a court. The law also doesn't make a difference between murdering 3 people or 3000.

>Justice League was a flop
50% of the movie was cut to fit in 2 hours, and then 40-50% of remaining was reshot

If it was 100% his movie and released under his control I'd accept that argument, but it wasn't.

>Then why the fuck doesn’t Batman kill Superman every time Supes goes evil?
Because the writers are fucking retarded. This discussion is about the average moral compass of super heroes and why its always Batman that got questioned.

>That absolutely doesn't matter to a court.
? We were arguing about whether or not Manta goes on random killing sprees not whether Manta would get convicted in court. Obviously he fucking would I never claimed otherwise.

>He's so good, he can throw a batarang at the exact 47 degree, that he hits the villain at the exact angle and spot that knocks him out, without killing him
that's correct too user

Attached: JFC Batman nice throw Deadshot.jpg (1041x1600, 639K)

You mean have Batman suffer to adhere to his ideals? Crazy talk.

Attached: Batman_9832c6_5670590.jpg (780x1199, 377K)

It's just strange to me that guns are a big no-no to have in his arsenal but explosives are just dandy. Explosives have a much greater potential to cause collateral damage with shrapnel alone.

>Yes he uses force against criminals, but it is not excessive force.

What the fuck are you talking about? He does it all the time. He just doesn't kill people.

>everybodies fault but his

True, but explosives in comics are always shown as just taking out the intended target, without coleteral damage.
And going by in-universe-logic Batman simply doesn't need guns, since his batarangs and his superhuman speed and pin point accuracy do the exact same as a bullet, without the risk of killing someone.

DCAU never had him as a killing is a first resort kind of guy