1/6 Hot Toys - BvS: Dawn of Justice - Batman

[ZombieRepublican]

are you a fan of Keaton Batman and Bale Batman?

Bale, but Afleck is now my absolute favourite live action Batman. Please don't use that argument that Batman killed before. We all KNOW that not killing is Batman s thing. Its an essential character element!

Without it his moral dilemma doesn't matter, his battle techniques makes no sense, his rogues list being alive doesn't make sense and it takes away from multiple possible plot lines from future movies

 

[gaunted]

Bale, but Afleck is now my absolute favourite live action Batman. Please don't use that argument that Batman killed before. We all KNOW that not killing is Batman s thing. Its an essential character element!

Without it his moral dilemma doesn't matter, his battle techniques makes no sense, his rogues list being alive doesn't make sense and it takes away from multiple possible plot lines from future movies

Indeed, but I keep hearing from people who LOOOOOOOVE Keaton that they can't stand that Battfleck kills in the movie...
He only directly killed mercenaries, individuals who likely have 20-30 kills of their own
Keaton shoved bombs in peoples pants n ****, he was a bit more hardcore when it came to the killing but the tone was more comedic in a way so people don't really pay attention to the kills (Marvel movies style)

Batman in BvS had the capacity to straight up murder every single thug he came across, he seemed to avoid it for the most part but didn't hold back when not killing them would have slowed him down or risked an innocent persons life
The majority of his kills also came when he made the promise of "Martha won't die tonight.", which speaks volumes to the lengths that he would go to if he could save his own mother

 

[ZombieRepublican]

Indeed, but I keep hearing from people who LOOOOOOOVE Keaton that they can't stand that Battfleck kills in the movie...
He only directly killed mercenaries, individuals who likely have 20-30 kills of their own
Keaton shoved bombs in peoples pants n ****, he was a bit more hardcore when it came to the killing but the tone was more comedic in a way so people don't really pay attention to the kills (Marvel movies style)

Batman in BvS had the capacity to straight up murder every single thug he came across, he seemed to avoid it for the most part but didn't hold back when not killing them would have slowed him down or risked an innocent persons life
The majority of his kills also came when he made the promise of "Martha won't die tonight.", which speaks volumes to the lengths that he would go to if he could save his own mother

Ah thank goodness lol. Yeah your exactly right. The tone of the new movies being serious carries weight with it, so unfortunately character motivations and plot matter way more.

I would say most of the kills were in the beginning chase scene. He directly tears a guy in half with his machine gun and smashes cars and ploughs right through them blowing em up. He also tears a guys face off when he drives through the truck.

I remember throwing my hands up in the air watching it, as well as a few others. What the heck was Snyder thinking?? Even in his defence makes no sense. "Murder by proxy" are you kidding? He directly murders them


The intensity of the fight scene was great though knowing he was fighting for Martha's life

 

[dario2739]

Indeed, but I keep hearing from people who LOOOOOOOVE Keaton that they can't stand that Battfleck kills in the movie...
He only directly killed mercenaries, individuals who likely have 20-30 kills of their own
Keaton shoved bombs in peoples pants n ****, he was a bit more hardcore when it came to the killing but the tone was more comedic in a way so people don't really pay attention to the kills (Marvel movies style)

Batman in BvS had the capacity to straight up murder every single thug he came across, he seemed to avoid it for the most part but didn't hold back when not killing them would have slowed him down or risked an innocent persons life
The majority of his kills also came when he made the promise of "Martha won't die tonight.", which speaks volumes to the lengths that he would go to if he could save his own mother

Yeah, that's right the 'thugs' he fought were not simply street-thugs or gang members, they were highly trained mercenaries... PMCs... Soldiers for hire.

 

[Sevreed]

I actually didn't have much of a problem with Batman killing. I'm pretty sure every movie version has in some way or another. But, I think it would add another dimension of crazy if they did go that route. It works in the comics because it shows how messed up he really is. He was so traumatized by the death of his parents that he refuses to kill even those that deserve it most. Seriously, how many people has the Joker or some other rouges gallery villain killed because Batman refuses to just take him out, even when he's endangering the lives of innocents. Even the police are obligated to use use lethal force at that point. He doesn't because he's that messed up mentally. He doesn't use guns in the comics because they are repulsive to him because THAT was the weapon that killed his mom and dad. Even though guns would make a lot more real world sense than razor edged boomerangs, darts and whatever other weapons he employs to get around using guns. He doesn't not kill or not use guns to be noble, he doesn't do these things because he's damaged and I think it adds another layer of character to the comics version. That all being said, I liked this new Batman for the most part and that's why I'm buying the figure. I'm super excited to see what they do with the new solo movie too!

 

[Captain Clown]

BTAS Batman never killed.

 

[Azrael23]

Batman killing bothers me more and more. It can't be undone, where superman still has the chance to become who he is.

Personally I don't think its a matter of being "undone" it can however be creatively addressed and leave open the possibilities of being a worthwhile character arc of redemption and optimism concerning this adaptation of the character,
after gradually becoming disillusioned and colder in his crime fighting methodology, especially given the characters already established 20 year career within the DCEU.

 

[Motuxmen]

That was great!

It really makes me wonder how they could have messed up so monumentally character and plot details. Especially after getting a full year extra to change stuff.

Batman killing bothers me more and more. It can't be undone, where superman still has the chance to become who he is.

If it bothers you and you look at all the live action (cartoons don't count) films and dislike them for the same reason that's a valid point. It's often touted as his "one rule" (even though a huge amount of eithe stuff he does to people would result in death they just don't show it, or whitewash it so it comes across less harsh but that's another issue)....Becuase he does the same stuff in the 89 and returns version and in Nolans. The difference in BvS is they don't hide it. It's not just a here hold my bomb and he blows up off screen...in BvS they show it. That's the only difference in the killing front. And even then they get brutal in Keaton batman when he uses the batmobile to burn a guy to death.

So if you dislike it in everything that's fine. It's the hypocrisy that most people like me take issue with. Everyone slamming the destruction of batman as a character in BvS Becuase he kills...all while raising up Nolan and burtons version which do the same thing.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Is there any glimmer of QS figures for this anymore?

 

[Azrael23]

It's the hypocrisy that most people like me take issue with. Everyone slamming the destruction of batman as a character in BvS Becuase he kills...all while raising up Nolan and burtons version which do the same thing.

My sentiments exactly. The hypocrisy is likely rooted in typical internet groupthink and whatever seems fashionable at the moment. The other half is likely from those being partial for a particular director. Because so many manifest such a vitriolic contempt for Snyder then many of his "misdeeds" and/or questionable creative liberties seems to be more embellished and sparks the most outrage or criticism, whereas directors such as Nolan may get a pass or even lauded for theirs creative decisions.

 

[TimothyR]

BTAS Batman never killed.

And was a children's cartoon.

I personally don't have a problem with batman killing.. Just as long as he's not doing it enthusiastically, like deadpool.

People don't have to like it, or agree with it.. Perhaps the iterations of batman when he kills just aren't for those people who don't like it. I know it sucks, but that's just the way it is. Characters change and we see different versions of them all of the time.

Also.. I don't recall batman being unnecessarily murderous in this particular movie. But hey, we all perceive things differently. For some, him not killing is a hard black and white rule.. But for others, it's just a guideline for him to strive towards.

 

[ZombieRepublican]

Personally I don't think its a matter of being "undone" it can however be creatively addressed and leave open the possibilities of being a worthwhile character arc of redemption and optimism concerning this adaptation of the character,
after gradually becoming disillusioned and colder in his crime fighting methodology, especially given the characters already established 20 year career within the DCEU.

Well if they explained that the death of Robin is what changed him, and made it the focus in a Solo flick en iw uld accept. But if you see robins weapon its clearly a kill-stick. Alluding to Robin killing 10 years prior to BvS as-well. That doesn't fly with me

If it bothers you and you look at all the live action (cartoons don't count) films and dislike them for the same reason that's a valid point. It's often touted as his "one rule" (even though a huge amount of eithe stuff he does to people would result in death they just don't show it, or whitewash it so it comes across less harsh but that's another issue)....Becuase he does the same stuff in the 89 and returns version and in Nolans. The difference in BvS is they don't hide it. It's not just a here hold my bomb and he blows up off screen...in BvS they show it. That's the only difference in the killing front. And even then they get brutal in Keaton batman when he uses the batmobile to burn a guy to death.

So if you dislike it in everything that's fine. It's the hypocrisy that most people like me take issue with. Everyone slamming the destruction of batman as a character in BvS Becuase he kills...all while raising up Nolan and burtons version which do the same thing.

As Gaunted said earlier. The 89 movies got away with it because of the light-hearted tone they had. A lot of that movie wasn't accurate at all, It was "Burtonafied"
In BvS, i could let Batman away with a few psuedo-kills, like the grenade. Maybe even the flamethrower guy, since he sets himself on fire. But cutting guys down with a machine gun? No way

 

[Sevreed]

I'm curious, to those who have no problem with the kills and guns would you prefer Batman add guns to his arsenal or is that too much? And I'm not talking about the punisher with a mask, but he would use them like a police officer does. I wouldn't want him to use guns, because I think it adds another level of crazy to him but I wonder what other people see Batman as.

 

[Captain Clown]

And was a children's cartoon.

If I remember correctly, in the Underdwellers episode I think Batman said he was "sorely tempted to finish the job himself" before he handed that guy wearing a red cape over to the GCPD.

 

[SilverStar17]

If it bothers you and you look at all the live action (cartoons don't count) films and dislike them for the same reason that's a valid point. It's often touted as his "one rule" (even though a huge amount of eithe stuff he does to people would result in death they just don't show it, or whitewash it so it comes across less harsh but that's another issue)....Becuase he does the same stuff in the 89 and returns version and in Nolans. The difference in BvS is they don't hide it. It's not just a here hold my bomb and he blows up off screen...in BvS they show it. That's the only difference in the killing front. And even then they get brutal in Keaton batman when he uses the batmobile to burn a guy to death.

So if you dislike it in everything that's fine. It's the hypocrisy that most people like me take issue with. Everyone slamming the destruction of batman as a character in BvS Becuase he kills...all while raising up Nolan and burtons version which do the same thing.

My sentiments as well. For many characters in film, I tend to get the impression that with most people, as long as it is only implied that the character killed the villain and not flat out shown, then it's acceptable.

For the record, I personally have no issue with Batman killing (as with any character) if it's in a situation where it needs to be done to protect others.

 

[Captain Clown]

I'm curious, to those who have no problem with the kills and guns would you prefer Batman add guns to his arsenal or is that too much? And I'm not talking about the punisher with a mask, but he would use them like a police officer does. I wouldn't want him to use guns, because I think it adds another level of crazy to him but I wonder what other people see Batman as.

Did the Flashpoint Batman have guns?

 

[Chuck72586]

Batman killing just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If he's going around killing a bunch of low level thugs at free random, then I have no idea why any one from his rogues gallery is still walking around with a pulse. I mean, the existence of a place like Arkham Asylum kind of depends on Batman not killing his enemies.

 

[epitaph04]

It depends on how long bats has been killing.

 

[Azrael23]

Well if they explained that the death of Robin is what changed him, and made it the focus in a Solo flick en iw uld accept. But if you see robins weapon its clearly a kill-stick. Alluding to Robin killing 10 years prior to BvS as-well. That doesn't fly with me

That's a bit of a reach IMO to immediately conclude that Robin was killing simply based upon that weapon alone.
However if the tattered costume in the cave belongs to Jason Todd then the kill-stick makes far more sense as he was
the more reckless and unhinged of the Robins.

Batman killing just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If he's going around killing a bunch of low level thugs at free random, then I have no idea why any one from his rogues gallery is still walking around with a pulse. I mean, the existence of a place like Arkham Asylum kind of depends on Batman not killing his enemies.

The conversation that Alfred has with Bruce at the beginning seems to indicate that his brutality, branding criminals
and reckless indifference to collateral damage is a recent shift. Perhaps the reason why many of this rogues are still
alive is because there hasn't been an opportunity to kill them since then.

 

[Tourist]

The conversation that Alfred has with Bruce at the beginning seems to indicate that his brutality, branding criminals
and reckless indifference to collateral damage is a recent shift. Perhaps the reason why many of this rogues are still
alive is because there hasn't been an opportunity to kill them since then.

Exactly, it's all clear in the film.
After 20 years as Batman, the losses and feeling that he failed to make a difference have turned him into a darker man.
The arrival of Superman and destruction in Metropolis further increased his feeling of powerlessness and pushed him over the edge.
After his fight with Superman he is back from the brink, he does NOT brand Luthor at the end of the movie.