Hated it that... (Spoilers)
Jimmy Olsen died, and Batman kills. The latter was so out of character especially the use of guns.
shareBatman has killed since his birth in 1939. Originally he was a nasty nasty hero. And originally sidearms was as natural to him as outside underwear was to Boy Wonder.
Indeed the character has developed an aversion to killing and to guns in the last couple of decades or so, but part why we find him so interesting is that he does not quite follow his own rules. The comic book have many examples of this, and now we also have examples on the silver-screen. It works. And besides Batman has killed in pretty much all the movies he has been in. There is a youtube that clocks his scorecard to about 50 kills or so in all the movies prior to BvS. In the first Burton Batman movie, he outright states that he will kill the Joker - which he does. In the golden age Superman and Batman often collided in ethics precisely because Batman did kill when necessary and Superman was highly against it, a returning scheme between those two gents...
Anyway, attacking this part is misunderstanding the Batman we see in this movie.
He was a broken Batman, at the end of his rope. He was lost. He even says to Alfred that they are no different from criminals etc. No men stay good etc etc. also notice how Batman's kind of fighting changes in style from the beginning to his fight saving Ma Kent. Then he goes after disarming and not killing per se. The last scene when he shoots the gas tank, is lifted verbatim from a Millers comic book. Except in the book, he head-shots the villain. Yes, head-shots the villain. Znyder deviated from this here precisely to show us that he had woken up from his craziness, he was no longer lost. He was found again. He was back. As much as it is a second chapter in the Man of Steel story, it is in a sense also an "origin" story to the Batman - or rather how we got our Batman back.
Shame about Olsen. But truthfully, he is not really needed in this story line.
Even broken, I think it would be better if he didn't kill either. I mean he is a superheo without powers, the his best characteristic is that he can beat his enemies without killing them, even in the most dangerous and difficult situations.
Also he did kill after his fight against Superman so atleast after that he should have not kill anyone but he did. And he not turning into a killer until he dies would be so awesome he is trained mentally for this kind of situations.
True he killed in the beginning but his no kill rule is so simbolic that it feels wrong to change it.
About Olsen he could have been in the place of Jenny. He maybe would not get a major role but atleast he would be there "alive".
May I ask why you think it would be better if he did not kill? Where do get this idea of a "no kill" rule?
I understand of course it can be of preference and fair enough, but Batman is a killer. In the movies and in the comics. He avoids it often and mostly, but is never shy of doing it.
Someone once clocked how many he killed in the movies alone (it is on youtube), and the number is around 50 or higher, as I remember. And this was before BvS. Burton's Batman killed (he is the deadliest), Schumarker's Batman killed, Nolan's Batman killed and Snyder's Batman killed. I am a little puzzled when you and others raise this point. Imo, it is simply incorrect idea of him, and so wonder from where it originates as such a strong rule?
In his fight to save Ma Kent I agree that several of those were killed (is that what you mean?), but as I watch the scene all of those were accidental (by their own grenade for example). Batman did not go for fatal force. He was brute indeed, but not killing spree or indifferent of life, which his fighting style before reeked off.
Yes, Jenny is an Olsen in my view too... but Jenny is also unimportant filler. This way, Olsen got a pretty heroic part for what it was worth. I can live with it, but of course it depends on where they will take us. We just have to wait and see :)
Because his parents were killed. Batman should know better than anyone how it is to lose someone, it makes him more human (he has above human characteristics like his inteligence), also killing is just an easy way to defeat the enemy and it's non heroic (Batman is a Superhero).
Let's imagine a situation where Batman faces the Joker who is very close to defeat him and the only way that seems to make him get away of the situation would be to kill his archenemy.
But the writers show us a way where Batman defeats the Joker without him dying. That's awesome and creates tension.
If people were used of Batman killing it would be boring.
Also his parents were killed by someone using a gun . Batman taking the life of people with a gun makes him no better than Joe Chill, because he is doing what made him lose his parents.
Also I hated the way Two Face died in Batman Forever and that Batman didn't save Ras in Begins. In the 1989 Batman he may couldn't predict the Gargoyle falling, but if he did it's also not forgivable.
Jimmy Olsen is Supermans best friend. I'm sure he could have more importance in the films than Jenny simply because he has alot of stories in the comics.
Also Snyder said that he killed Olsen because there were no room in this universe. If they hadn't put Jenny there probably they wouldn't have killed him.
Thank you for indulging me :) and of course I do not disagree. This duality in him gives this je ne sais quoi that draws so many. Personally I prefer the rough version of the Batman and so enjoy this violent Miller-like spin more. I say though, that we cannot state it to be “out of character” when the character is not shy of killings in the literature - liked or not.
shareYeah, we have all different tastes and opinions and that is great. But I think killing people doesn't make him worth to be part of the Justice Leage, because a team with that name makes it seem like only members with high morals are allowed there, and Batman would be an anti-hero rather a superhero.
shareIn the literature he is not a member of JL. He is the benefactor but cannot really reconcile with being part of a group, or to adhere to group rules. Superman is the actual (official?) leader. Though in the practical sense and unofficial sense we all know Batman is. My point is that he is actually sort of the anti-hero of the bunch. No powers, tough as a mofo and all that. Each to our own for sure. And of course even though I enjoy the violent and sometime deadly violent Batman, it is on a damn fine line indeed... he captivate me and he scares me at the same time.
He is the one hero I would be scared shitless to meet even though I know he one of the good ones...and I dig that about the character :)
Cheers and thanx for an interesting chats.
Thanks, have a nice day.
share