|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 10, 2017 20:53:29 GMT
It would've been pretty easy to explain why Joker and Harley were still alive if they'd put some effort into the backstory:
At some point in the past, Joker and Harley (who really should be played by an older actress considering everything) murder Robin. Batman catches them in the act and finally snaps, giving Joker a bigger beating than he's ever gotten before. Robin gives some sign he's still alive, so Batman gets him out of there leaving a pulverized Joker and a terrified Harley.
Harley is sent to Blackgate, while Joker is in a coma. His scars and metal teeth are from the surgery he got from the beating.
Batman fails to save Robin, and decides to throw in the towel. Then Superman shows up years later and this gets Bruce back in the game but he's more embittered and brutal than he was before. This explains why Clark only NOW is noticing Batman, he wasn't active during MOS.
Joker is in his coma, when a TV report about Batman returning airs and this is enough for him to wake up. He escapes and makes plans to get Harley back.
There, explains everything.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Nov 10, 2017 21:17:57 GMT
It would've been pretty easy to explain why Joker and Harley were still alive if they'd put some effort into the backstory: At some point in the past, Joker and Harley (who really should be played by an older actress considering everything) murder Robin. Batman catches them in the act and finally snaps, giving Joker a bigger beating than he's ever gotten before. Robin gives some sign he's still alive, so Batman gets him out of there leaving a pulverized Joker and a terrified Harley. Harley is sent to Blackgate, while Joker is in a coma. His scars and metal teeth are from the surgery he got from the beating. Batman fails to save Robin, and decides to throw in the towel. Then Superman shows up years later and this gets Bruce back in the game but he's more embittered and brutal than he was before. This explains why Clark only NOW is noticing Batman, he wasn't active during MOS. Joker is in his coma, when a TV report about Batman returning airs and this is enough for him to wake up. He escapes and makes plans to get Harley back. There, explains everything. There was something circulating at one point that this is the exact reason why Leto's Joker had the screwed up teeth.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 10, 2017 21:28:46 GMT
I know a few here seem to bothered by it, including @weirdraptor . But what about the rest of you? Dude, Weirdraptor is bothered by everything DCEU. But as for batman killing? THIS version of Batman was in a bad place mentally and emotionally. Alfred sees it and Bruce pretty much admits it himself. Lets see how the character evolves in JL and the solo film(s).
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Nov 10, 2017 21:47:13 GMT
If a reason is given and he later changes his ways, then I'm fine with it.
It doesn't even have to be something mind-blowing. Just something like the death of Jason Todd made him a vengeful vigilante that just couldn't cope.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Nov 11, 2017 11:12:53 GMT
If a reason is given and he later changes his ways, then I'm fine with it. It doesn't even have to be something mind-blowing. Just something like the death of Jason Todd made him a vengeful vigilante that just couldn't cope. I'm thinking that Jason death is what made him the way he is in BVS. It makes the most sense.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Nov 12, 2017 2:33:32 GMT
I have no problem with it...I just want to know why he let DCEU Joker and Harley live. In BvS he was at the lowest point in his life and deciding to kill criminals was a new thing for him, and not something he was completely content with, he just felt he had to accept that he's a 'criminal' like the ones he fought for years against. Hence Alfred's line about "new rules". His reactions to the slaughter of the mercenaries during the chase on the docks read "okay, this happened, try and live with it." At least that's what I got from it.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 12, 2017 4:26:58 GMT
I just want to know why he let DCEU Joker and Harley live. Because Batman only kills in self-defense or defense of others. That's the same thing cops do. When a criminal attacks a cop or threatens to kill an innocent person, the cop is allowed to use lethal force, if necessary, to defend himself or another innocent person. But if a criminal surrenders or is neutralized in a position where he's no longer a threat, the cop isn't allowed to continue using lethal force against the criminal. If Joker and Harley Quinn were in the act of killing Jason Todd, then Batman would be justified to use lethal force to stop them. But if Batman is chasing Joker and Harley Quinn and their car crashes into the water, they're neutralized and no longer a threat so Batman wouldn't have any reason to use lethal force against them at that point. DCEU superheroes only kill in self-defense or defense of others and never kill out of revenge or vengeance like MCU superheroes do. Like in Age of Ultron, when Strucker was just standing there without any weapon and made no attempt to attack Captain America, yet Captain America kicks his shield (made of the hardest metal on Earth and strong enough to stop Thor's hammer) into Strucker so hard that Stucker went crashing into the wall behind him. There was no legal justification for that attack on Strucker. That was an illegal act of assault by Cap on an unarmed man. And it further demonstrates Cap's contempt for the Constitution and Cap's desire to make himself the sole judge, jury, and executioner. If Strucker had committed crimes, then Strucker had the right to a trial, but Cap didn't even wait for the trial and made himself judge, jury, and executioner by assaulting an unarmed Stucker just like Cap made himself judge and jury by aiding and abetting a double-murderer (Bucky) to escape from the authorities.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Nov 12, 2017 5:48:17 GMT
Because Batman only kills in self-defense or defense of others. That's the same thing cops do. When a criminal attacks a cop or threatens to kill an innocent person, the cop is allowed to use lethal force, if necessary, to defend himself or another innocent person. But if a criminal surrenders or is neutralized in a position where he's no longer a threat, the cop isn't allowed to continue using lethal force against the criminal. ***** Admin scabab
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 12, 2017 6:53:31 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 7:02:12 GMT
Honestly, this whole 'superheroes don't kill' rule is crap 'cause a lot of superheroes do kill going back to 'the Phantom' which predates Batman and Superman. It was this which ultimately cost DC having Spawn in the early 90s when Todd McFarlane was working for the company and Todd left and formed Image Comics with other writers like Marc Silvestri and Jim Lee and Spawn become one of the top 10 biggest selling superheroes of all time at Image Comics outselling a very large amount of DC's superheroes. DC dropped the superheroes don't kill rule decades ago. Get with the program boys. Both Supergirls killed. Linda Danvers ripped hearts out, decapitated people and kissed their disembodied heads to read them and burned demons into ashes. Batgirl killed, Nightwing, Orphan killed, Green Arrow killed, Black Canary killed, Doctor Fate killed, Zatanna killed, Red Hood killed, the Huntress killed, Lady Blackhawk killed, Arsenal killed, Raven killed, Martian Manhunter killed, Constantine killed etc. The only reason the no killing rule was created years ago was to appease the 'Comics Code Authority' at the time who thought it was too violent for children. This is why 90 percent of superheroes under other companies killed villains 'cause the writers were free and could write whatever they wanted. Before that Horror and Crime comics which predated the superhero genre had tons of blood, guts and gore in them - I am actually surprised how much they got away with in the 40s with Horror comic books. Superheroes not killing is unrealistic since cops kill in real life. Sometimes there is no other way to stop criminals and some of them deserve to be put down like terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 12, 2017 7:14:57 GMT
To answer the thread, I really don't care too much at all.
In the Batman 89 movie he blew up the entire ACME chemicals factory with people inside it, shot at people and blew people up with his Batplane, threw someone a hundred feat down a bell tower and killed The Joker.
In Batman Returns he burnt a man alive with his Batmobile and blew someone up. He also killed a bunch of people in Batman Forever including Two Face.
It ain't like Batman vs Superman was alone in this so the criticism for it is kind of odd.
If Superman were to do the same then that'd be a different matter I think. He did kill Zod, again I didn't care because it was one guy who was a second d away from killing a family but I wouldn't want to see him kill people in the same way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 7:51:28 GMT
I know a few here seem to bothered by it, including @weirdraptor . But what about the rest of you? Dude, Weirdraptor is bothered by everything DCEU. But as for batman killing? THIS version of Batman was in a bad place mentally and emotionally. Alfred sees it and Bruce pretty much admits it himself. Lets see how the character evolves in JL and the solo film(s). How typical of you throw the first punch when I went out of my way to make a perfectly reasonable response that hauntedknight himself found no issue with.
|
|
|
Post by primeone on Nov 12, 2017 11:00:39 GMT
I have no problem with it...I just want to know why he let DCEU Joker and Harley live. What if he wasn’t killing anyone before Jason’s death. Then when Jason died, Joker and Harley got away which caused Batman’s rage and then he began some killing and some heavy pain like branding his enemies. Then kept trying to find Joker and Harley until he got a lead ( SS flashback) but still got away. Maybe he didn’t want to kill Harley knowing she didn’t do it herself even though she has something to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Nov 12, 2017 11:03:39 GMT
I personally don't have a issue with the killing. Hell two of my all-time favorite characters, The Punisher and Ghost Rider, not only have a huuuuuuge body count (especially Punisher) but have openly admitted to enjoying it. So for me it be strange and even a little hypocritical of me to be upset with a Batman that kills.
But Batman it can work either way, but i do agree that there should be some consistency with how he kills. For example why does the Joker get to live? Is not a killer psychopath? Is he not a threat to innocent people?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 11:14:06 GMT
I personally don't have a issue with the killing. Hell two of my all-time favorite characters, The Punisher and Ghost Rider, not only have a huuuuuuge body count (especially Punisher) but have openly admitted to enjoying it. So for me it be strange and even a little hypocritical of me to be upset with a Batman that kills. But Batman it can work either way, but i do agree that there should be some consistency with how he kills. For example why does the Joker get to live? Is not a killer psychopath? Is he not a threat to innocent people? The belief over why Batman just doesn't kill the Joker is something that has been talked about in comic books and the Arkham games (where he actually did kill the Joker but was going to save him) and some believe it is 'cause the Joker wants Batman to kill him and if he does it he will just be giving the Joker what he wants while others think it is 'cause a part of him feels he needs the Joker and prefers having the Joker in charge of the crime in Gotham over other more extreme villains like the Scarecrow in 'Arkham Knight.' Batgirl came very close to killing the Joker in 'Death of the Family' when she finally confronted him for putting her in a wheelchair all those years ago and beat the crap out of him but her psychotic brother, Jim Gordon Jr saved him.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 12, 2017 15:26:59 GMT
I just want to know why he let DCEU Joker and Harley live. Because Batman only kills in self-defense or defense of others. That's the same thing cops do. When a criminal attacks a cop or threatens to kill an innocent person, the cop is allowed to use lethal force, if necessary, to defend himself or another innocent person. But if a criminal surrenders or is neutralized in a position where he's no longer a threat, the cop isn't allowed to continue using lethal force against the criminal. If Joker and Harley Quinn were in the act of killing Jason Todd, then Batman would be justified to use lethal force to stop them. But if Batman is chasing Joker and Harley Quinn and their car crashes into the water, they're neutralized and no longer a threat so Batman wouldn't have any reason to use lethal force against them at that point. DCEU superheroes only kill in self-defense or defense of others and never kill out of revenge or vengeance like MCU superheroes do. Like in Age of Ultron, when Strucker was just standing there without any weapon and made no attempt to attack Captain America, yet Captain America kicks his shield (made of the hardest metal on Earth and strong enough to stop Thor's hammer) into Strucker so hard that Stucker went crashing into the wall behind him. There was no legal justification for that attack on Strucker. That was an illegal act of assault by Cap on an unarmed man. And it further demonstrates Cap's contempt for the Constitution and Cap's desire to make himself the sole judge, jury, and executioner. If Strucker had committed crimes, then Strucker had the right to a trial, but Cap didn't even wait for the trial and made himself judge, jury, and executioner by assaulting an unarmed Stucker just like Cap made himself judge and jury by aiding and abetting a double-murderer (Bucky) to escape from the authorities. Hey dumbass, this is about Batman killing, not Marvel. You can't even stay on topic without getting off on ranting about the MCU
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Nov 12, 2017 18:30:54 GMT
I personally don't have a issue with the killing. Hell two of my all-time favorite characters, The Punisher and Ghost Rider, not only have a huuuuuuge body count (especially Punisher) but have openly admitted to enjoying it. So for me it be strange and even a little hypocritical of me to be upset with a Batman that kills. But Batman it can work either way, but i do agree that there should be some consistency with how he kills. For example why does the Joker get to live? Is not a killer psychopath? Is he not a threat to innocent people? The belief over why Batman just doesn't kill the Joker is something that has been talked about in comic books and the Arkham games (where he actually did kill the Joker but was going to save him) and some believe it is 'cause the Joker wants Batman to kill him and if he does it he will just be giving the Joker what he wants while others think it is 'cause a part of him feels he needs the Joker and prefers having the Joker in charge of the crime in Gotham over other more extreme villains like the Scarecrow in 'Arkham Knight.' Batgirl came very close to killing the Joker in 'Death of the Family' when she finally confronted him for putting her in a wheelchair all those years ago and beat the crap out of him but her psychotic brother, Jim Gordon Jr saved him.
Arkham games were great! Revealing that Arkham Knight is actually Jason Todd was a major let down though. The identity should have been original character.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 12, 2017 23:05:50 GMT
For example why does the Joker get to live? Is not a killer psychopath? Is he not a threat to innocent people? The law allows the use of lethal force only if he's an imminent threat to innocent people. If he isn't an imminent threat or he's been neutralized, then the law doesn't allow use of lethal force. For example, in Age of Ultron, Strucker was unarmed and just standing there and wasn't n imminent threat to anyone so when Cap kicked his shield (made of the strongest metal on Earth and strong enough to stop Thor's hammer) with such violent force that it sent Strucker crashing into the wall behind him, that was an illegal assault by Cap and thus Cap committed a violent and brutal crime.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 12, 2017 23:26:47 GMT
For example why does the Joker get to live? Is not a killer psychopath? Is he not a threat to innocent people? The law allows the use of lethal force only if he's an imminent threat to innocent people. If he isn't an imminent threat or he's been neutralized, then the law doesn't allow use of lethal force. For example, in Age of Ultron, Strucker was unarmed and just standing there and wasn't n imminent threat to anyone so when Cap kicked his shield (made of the strongest metal on Earth and strong enough to stop Thor's hammer) with such violent force that it sent Strucker crashing into the wall behind him, that was an illegal assault by Cap and thus Cap committed a violent and brutal crime. Hey, why don't you stay on topic for once. This is about Batman, not Marvel
|
|
TheHiawatha
Sophomore
@thehiawatha
Posts: 118
Likes: 35
|
Post by TheHiawatha on Nov 13, 2017 2:23:33 GMT
He should only kill if he HAS to. He shouldn't pancaking petty crooks by the dozens, especially in situations when he should be able to easily overpower them and leave them for the police. Most of those mercenaries he easily takes out over the course of the movie would have enough of a record to be put away for a long, long time. I think the problem with Affleck's version of Batman was that he felt more like The Punisher with a bit of Tony Stark mixed in. Granted, I know Keaton's Batman did use lethal force on many crooks, but Burton for the most part understood the other aspects of Batman. Bale's Batman only killed if absolutely necessary, such as when Harvey Dent was very possibly going to kill the boy. It was either the boy possibly died or Dent died.
|
|