Justice League Ben Affleck IS Bruce Wayne/Batman - Part 6

And how long had The Joker been sprung from Arkham prior to the events of SS, running his night club and presumably causing trouble during that time? BvS covers an 18-month period. The beginning of SS follows almost immediately after BvS, and The Joker is free from the jump. We can surmise he was on the loose during BvS.

The Metropolis Incident (where Superman objectively helped save the city) was enough to push Batman over that line, but The Joker (who was already a PROVEN mass murder) brutally killing one of his closest friends/family members wasn't? Different strokes I guess, guys. This all just gets too messy for me personally.

There's a big difference in Bruce's mind between Joker and Superman. The events of MOS basically broke Bruce mentally (re-traumatized him, more specifically). It seems he was so focused on Superman that it was essentially a Hamlet level of obsession.

Superman made Batman feel truly powerless for the first time since he was 9 (someone much more powerful than he who caused the death of ones he cared about while he was helpless to do anything about it). The whole Batman persona was created in part so that Bruce would never feel powerless ever again. So even when he's up against villains like Tw0-Face, Riddler, and even the Joker, Batman still believes he can take stop them; he never feels powerless against those guys. Superman was a whole other beast on a whole different level.
 
Even in the theatrical cut the implication that Batman's lethal force is a recent thing is very clear. It's not hard to imagine a few possible explanations for how Joker has stayed alive during the period of time between MoS and BvS. It's not a twenty year period Joker had to survive, more like a year and a half.

I don't really get the logic behind "But if this, why didn't Batman kill The Joker?"

There's nothing in the movie that shows him going around killing villains just because, and the villains are barely mentioned.
 
The real reason Batman doesn't kill is it's an easy way to keep villains around and keep selling books for decades.

Doesn't change the fact that I like the rule and the no guns thing. Is Batman a bit of a jerk? Sure. Is he a bad guy? No I don't believe he is in most cases.

I also think the real-life consequences of superhero violence are deliberately glossed over much in the same way that superhero feats regularly ignore physics. That's partly because comic books and the like are traditionally tailored for children. So, in a kind of deceitful but innocuous way, comic book writers dumb down their stories so as to make everything look like fun and games. And in keeping with the focus on younger readers, the books are imbued with life lessons and moral values. That's where Batman's "no-kill" rule comes in, not to mention most superheroes' general attitude on the subject of murder. It's essentially a repackaged version of the Judeo-Christian teaching: "thou shalt not kill."

Now, here's where it gets interesting. As said readers grow up and mature, there's a natural inclination to start questioning things.

Some brief examples:

- There's no way Batman can dish out brutality like he does and still manage to stave off fatalities 100% of the time.
- If Superman applies that much force to stop a speeding train, won't it result in some casualties at the very least?
- Bruce Wayne. Athletic dude with all the resources money can buy, and a traumatic past to boot.. yet, no one connects him to Batman?
- Okay, Superman wants to keep his identity hidden so as to prevent reprisals and such, and the most he can come up with to fool people is a pair of spectacles?

Indeed, we begin to question all of these inconsistencies and more, but at the same time, there's an adolescent fixation element at work that makes us want to believe them too. As most of us superhero fans had our first brush with the genre in childhood by way of comics and/or cartoons, we're willing to suspend our disbelief and even go so far as to engage in pages upon pages of mental gymnastics to make sense of or give meaning to what would otherwise be seen as impractical.

Anyway, sorry to get all deep and philosophical there. I just think it's good to be aware of these things, as they can save us countless hours going back and forth over the same subject ad nauseam... and ultimately getting nowhere. At the end of the day, we're discussing fictional characters. And the heart wants what the heart wants.
 
Last edited:
I want to say WOW! Seriously, I’m blown away by the conversations over the last few pages. Incredible points brought up and finally we are all coming to the same conclusion more or less. Huge kudos to everyone. The wording and reasoning behind a lot of the comments was extremely eloquent!

i also always chalk it up to the whole trope of joker being good at cheating death. In SS, he was on that chopper when it blew up. but dood still was alive by end of the movie. lol

When/how?

I chose the word “technically” very specifically. The original cut of SS had the details as to how Joker is alive at the end. Basically he did die in that helicopter crash. However Enchantress brought him back to life. I’ll try to find the mention of this on Twitter.

EDIT: Whelp, looks like I’m full of it. I could have sworn I read he died.



 
Last edited:
Yeah @Boom, makes a very good point about Joker/Superman thing. But the way I see it is, there was this 18 month window, where Bruce fell off the wagon. And during that period Bruce was very fixated on Superman, and possibly not on Joker or any ground level threat. Because "criminals are like weeds alfred, you take one out, another takes its place. This(superman) is about the future of the world. This is my legacy". Hence not going gung ho on the Joker.

Also SS theatrical messed up the timeline a bit. Harley wasnt supposed to be involved in the killing of Robin. And Batman beat Joker almost to death after the death of Robin. Joker either evaded Batman during the BvS time or was locked up or just wasnt Bruce's focus. We already saw Bruce ignoring other criminals, and fixating on Superman.

Good discussion.
 
I think the thing that bugs me about this whole "Batman/Superman shouldn't kill" thing is how limited and naïve that thinking can be.

I go into this in a lot of detail on my blog (cheap plug) but just thought I'd throw my two cents in here; if you disagree with me then that's fine, I respect that, and I'm not saying my views should be the be-all and end-all but my Twitter explodes every other week with people debating (well...raging) that these guys, as superheroes, would always find "another way".

But...life isn't perfect like that! Sometimes there is no other way. Or, more likely/specifically as others have mentioned, collateral damage is inevitable. You read about it all the time in the media how one errant, drunken punch kills a man but Batman is able to kick the crap out of guys and magically not have them die from trauma or shock?

I believe that superheroes like Batman and Superman should absolutely hold themselves to a certain ideal of not killing for the sake of it and not running around being murderers but, at the same time, I want to read or see a story where the taking of a life has a profound affect on Batman. How does Bruce Wayne react when he finds his actions, as Batman, led to the loss of someone's father? Blindly saying "no, Batman never kills!" robs us of that story, that character progression and growth.

Plus, like...Red Hood kills all the damn time! Daiman has quite a body count, too, and yet Bruce is perfectly happy for them to wear his symbol or work alongside him (but, quite hypocritically, used to chew Huntress out all the time for being "too violent").

At the point, I would think movie audiences are used to Batman killing as he has taken a life in almost every live-action incarnation; even Christian Bale, who openly went around growling to everyone he met that he had "one rule" to the point where criminals knew they could exploit this weakness (something I really didn't like, to be honest), killed people (people surely died when he blew up the League of Shadows, he left Ra's to die (which is the same thing), and, oh yeah, tackled Harvey Dent to his death).

Personally, I'm a massive, life-long Batman who totally "gets" the nuances of his character but I really don't care if Batman kills; it opens a lot of questions when you ask why he hasn't killed the Joker, to be sure, but they could have explored that in a movie (like when Joker killed Jason in the comics, Batman did set out to kill him in retaliation).

Obviously, different people like different things and some people want Superman to be this pure example of "the right way" but...c'mon, how likely is it that his actions haven't caused harm or death over the years? The speeding train example someone said earlier is a perfect example of that. Plus, he can be this pure paragon of truth and justice and still be shown to be deeply affected by the consequences of his actions; that, to me, would be an interesting story that showed a character many perceive as "overpowered" to be just as vulnerable as the rest of us.

But no, let's just take the easy route and find "another way" :whatever:
 
Nolan/Goyer were smart enough to write the sentence "I'm not an executioner" into BB, it saved them the explanations for all the accidental body count. Their Batman kills, just not deliberately, but as a "collateral damage" of sorts. Now, I get that playing with Batman's rule and bending it is probably the most interesting part of writing the character for creators, but I've said this many times, and its the part of BvS that I think could've used more work: I think a Batman that causes permanent injury but lets live would've done a better job of portraying him as dangerous rather than a bunch of corpses getting blasted by the Batmobile. Just my two cents on this one.
 
If Whedon had directed the "Knightmare" sequence.

Eg-3uVIXcAEDsyu
 
Nolan/Goyer were smart enough to write the sentence "I'm not an executioner" into BB, it saved them the explanations for all the accidental body count. Their Batman kills, just not deliberately, but as a "collateral damage" of sorts. Now, I get that playing with Batman's rule and bending it is probably the most interesting part of writing the character for creators, but I've said this many times, and its the part of BvS that I think could've used more work: I think a Batman that causes permanent injury but lets live would've done a better job of portraying him as dangerous rather than a bunch of corpses getting blasted by the Batmobile. Just my two cents on this one.
First off thank you for bringing up the executioner line. It's all that needs to be said when people argue about the collateral kills in TDKT. He isn't going out every night with lethal intentions.

On the bvs batmobile scene. the reason he just mows guys down is because he doesn't give a crap about criminals now. "Criminals are like weeds Alfred, pull one up and another grows in its place."
He is only thinking about the big picture, his legacy, killing superman.

I do think they could've perhaps made it more clear that him killing is a new thing though.
 
First off thank you for bringing up the executioner line. It's all that needs to be said when people argue about the collateral kills in TDKT. He isn't going out every night with lethal intentions.

On the bvs batmobile scene. the reason he just mows guys down is because he doesn't give a crap about criminals now. "Criminals are like weeds Alfred, pull one up and another grows in its place."
He is only thinking about the big picture, his legacy, killing superman.

I do think they could've perhaps made it more clear that him killing is a new thing though.
Exactly! This was after the 1% scene. Bruce has clearly done over the edge and was willing to do ANYTHING to protect the planet.
 
Exactly! This was after the 1% scene. Bruce has clearly done over the edge and was willing to do ANYTHING to protect the planet.
Yeah it comes after the knightmare and flash scene too. The man's a mess at that point. Everytime he sleeps he has nightmares. So he gets drunk and takes pills. I feel like that moment doesn't hit people that much for some reason.
There's so many little moments that show how unattached he has become to humanity.
 
Yeah it comes after the knightmare and flash scene too. The man's a mess at that point. Everytime he sleeps he has nightmares. So he gets drunk and takes pills. I feel like that moment doesn't hit people that much for some reason.
There's so many little moments that show how unattached he has become to humanity.
Yea you see the spiral. And it’s quick. The branding. “New rules?” And then he just snaps. I personally love it, and the whole redemption arc we’re going to see in the Snyder Cut will be glorious.
 
I do actually agree with what's being said here. I just don't agree with introducing a new cinematic Batman this way. Not for me.
 
Edit: Just noticed that SkullDevil already shared this in the Snyder JL thread.
 
Last edited:
I can now appreciate this version of Batman. It took me a while but here I am. I think I needed to see the arc evolve (which it will in JL) because BvS at the time felt like such a cold way to introduce a new Batman. He’s a drinker, a pill popper, a murderer, a hard head, a hot head...I mean that’s the Batman you’re introducing us to after Bale? It was overwhelming. It honestly felt like Zack was just using the name to do something weird with it, not unlike some of Burton’s sequel villains.

With some time, it’s been clicking with me more especially as I read into Zack’s original intentions for this series. I hope they address the killings in the Snyder Cut because the arc would make sense. It’s just a different version. He used to be a humanist but he lost his way and JL will be the proverbial resurrection of his old self but now with age and experience. While Superman literally goes through a resurrection at the same time.

It’s not perfect or my ideal take on Batman (I still prefer Bale’s and Pattinson looks to be even closer to MY Batman) but...I get it now and can even enjoy it on some level.
 
I've always appreciated Batfleck even though I get the criticisms, but to me his portrayal of Batman always seemed like the most realistic version of what this character would be like in the real world after more than a decades worth of pain, torture and trauma. I mean you take that much of an emotional toll over a significant amount of time and sooner or later your just going to stop giving **** about if the bad guys live or not which I understand isn't exactly Batman, but I dug what Snyder was going for and I just wish he got the time to develop him more.

I could not be more excited to see what Battinson brings to The Bat Legacy as Bruce Wayne/Batman under the direction of Matt Reeves, but I honestly don't know if I'll ever fully get over my disappointment of us getting robbed of that Affleck directed Batman movie or Matt Reeves directing it with him starring in it, because of the awesome potential it had and the fact that Batfleck deserved so much better IMO.
 
And how long had The Joker been sprung from Arkham prior to the events of SS, running his night club and presumably causing trouble during that time? BvS covers an 18-month period. The beginning of SS follows almost immediately after BvS, and The Joker is free from the jump. We can surmise he was on the loose during BvS.

The Metropolis Incident (where Superman objectively helped save the city) was enough to push Batman over that line, but The Joker (who was already a PROVEN mass murder) brutally killing one of his closest friends/family members wasn't? Different strokes I guess, guys. This all just gets too messy for me personally.
A little late on this but I think the spin-offs as i’ll call them (anything from the DCEU not directed by Snyder) had creative freedom to take things further. Even if some details were contradictory. I believe that’s been the problem with guys like us who weren’t comfortable with Batman’s killing. You get all of this information from all angles and speaking for myself, it quickly became a “ugh so Batfleck’s been killing for how many years!? And Leto Joker is chillin? So that proves he’s both an idiot and a murderous..”

It’s just rewrites from folks who shouldn’t have been in charge. Cutting a film up, leaving important details on the cutting room floor. And some of those directors wanting to do their own thing with Snyder acting passive about it. It’s confusing.

Maybe a Ayer cut could solve this? I don’t know. It’s been too long since I’ve seen theatrical SS. But it’s becoming clear to me that Zack’s movies almost exist in their own narrative, while the rest haven’t done a good job of supporting the history he’s put into his vision.
 
Batfleck hadn't been killing for years, the arrival of Superman sent him on a downward spiral of increasing brutality.
"New rules?"
"We're criminals Alfred, we've always been criminals. Nothings changed."
"Oh yes it has sir, everything's changed. Men fall from the sky, the gods hurl thunderbolts, innocents die.

"There is a new kind of mean in him. He is angry, and he's hunting."

I think The Joker was supposed to be in Arkham corrupting Harley while BVS was playing out, so he was spared the harshest treatment.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"