I will preface by saying that I do think Affleck is the best live action Batman so far, but only due to the way that Snyder characterized his paranoia, fighting skills and intelligence.

Spoilers ahead.

His lack of ethics seriously made him unlikeable. Setting guys on fire, mowing them down with his batwing and attempting to spear Superman through the chest....WTH?

That just seriously made him unlikeable. He was a sociopath. Atleast Batman in The Dark Knight Returns stopped himself from killing (e.g. stopped himself from killing Joker).

With Bale, I felt that he was just a guy trying to do the right thing; that's why IMO TDKT works well, there is an emotional connection with the character, although his version did end up killing there was an attempt by Nolan to show that killing was a last resort (for example, I don't really think he could have done anything else to stop Talia or Dent without causing death).

I just don't know why Snyder chose to make Batman so savage; DKR cannot be blamed because he does not kill in that story. Had Batfleck not killed, he would have been perfect.

But aside from that, he was the best Batman onscreen.

True but this is a different Batman not the one we know. In the DCCU killing is in.

@tensor: NoKill rule is a major part of Batman's character.

Different doesn't meant likable

Sounds like punisher

@frozen: It happen in past movies before even with Micheal Keaton Batman. Yeah I get the point you are making.

@tensor: Snyder is like one of those people that think Punisher is cool cause he kills despite the fact that even the Punisher knows hes almost as bad as the guys he kills. Batman's no kill rule is the thing that stops him from becoming the monster he absolutely knows is in him. Its not some pointless thing, go check out under the red hood when Batman explains that rule to Jason Todd and itll make it clear why Batman needs that rule.

Yeah I really liked Batman but the killing was so unnecessary, Batman had other options each time he killed. It felt so unnecessary. Affleck's acting was on point, that scene when he is driving in Metropolis is amazing.

I feel like this Bruce Wayne has seen lot of horrible stuff and experienced loss before that made him that way. In the end of the film he decide not to brand Lex Luthor, almost like he grew as a character and might change. I think he will try to be the symbol of hope again. What I want is to see the Batman stand alone movie that start him out as a person that does not kill to this brutal Batman.

I think that the Joker killing Robin and the people at Wayne enterprises dying in the battle of Metroplis, made him lost his way. As Alfred said the feeling of powerlessness, makes Good men cruel and that's what happened to Batman and that's why Alfred noted that he wasn't the same as he was through all of their years together fighting crime on Gotham. In the end Bruce tells Diana that men are still good, this is a clear throwback to the phrase that Alfred used, hinting that Batman would go back to his always again (and it's shown when he decides not to brand Luthor). Still the damage is already done once a killer always a killer.

I have to say that the scene with Batman showing on Lex's cell is amazing and very comic booky.

Yeah Affleck was the best on the surface but he was so unlikable I found myself not caring for him at all. When he fought Superman I didn't care how the fight went because the movie didn't make me care about either character. It, was good but Batman and Superman didn't do it for me. After my third viewing I realized I didn't dislike the movie, I disliked the characters. Batman, Lex and Superman to be clear. Its not enough to have Batman and Superman, the two greatest characters in history, on screen together. B

And Red Hood pointed out exactly how stupid Bruce is.

Why do people seem to think that Bruce is so morally weak that if he took one cookie from the cookie jar, he'd end up eating every sweet thing in the house? It's not as if he was hunting people down in the streets, because clearly he's caught his Rogues before and they all seem in good spirits if Joker, Harley, and KC are to be believed.

He didn't even kill the guy he branded, who was a slaver. So he's obviously not just killing every criminal he meets. What he doesn't have is the patience or time in some cases, such as the Batmobile scene. Yes, I'll say he got a little excessive such as when he dropped one care on the other, but you guys make it seem like he's some sort of monster that can do nothing but kill, when he's obviously open to simply disarm people.

However, there are those times when that's not gonna work, like when some thug is about to roast someone's mother to death and has every intention of doing it.

I hope that the Batman solo film will be a prequel showing him before he was so violent and cruel, and perhaps during the Justice League movies he will develop and come to realise that being that way may not be the right way to go. It is mentioned that he's been much crueller since the events of Man of Steel.

@scouterv: Not to intervene but Batman was a monstor lol. In the Batmobile chase he let an innocent truck driver die (the guy driving the oil truck) but allowing a car, that he rammed to slide into it. Batman showed no remorse no nuthin. It was just colatoral damage to him I guess. And Batman could have shot Martha's captives hand and disarmed him just like in DKR. Batman is sort of uncontrollable in here. He's branding rapist and killers because he knows they'll die in prison, so he's essentially ripping them of any good, comic book Batman would believe, they still had by killing them. Comic Book Batman would hunt Affleck down until he was behind bars lol.

@ultrastarkiller: Fair point. Batman caused a lot of collateral damage, but he wasn't killing anyone wholly innocent on purpose and being a rapist in jail is already a known death sentence. Even criminals have standards.

@scouterv: You miss the point entirely, its not what people think that makes the rule important, its that Batman himself, believes he wouldn't be able to stop at just one. Its not morality, its self control.

@joshmightbe: By people, I mean the writers.

I feel like the only times Batman should have killed\tried to kill is the flash forward to show just how terrible the world has become and against Superman to show just how dangerous a threat he is to the world that it would make Batman (try and) break his one rule.

I have a theory. What if BvS Batman was vicious bc he was using the lazerus pit. And his hair was not grey bc of age, but a sign he's been using the pit.

Next solo Batman movie could explore this by having Batman come to terms with his actions. This setup could possibly turn into a Red Hood and Ras Al Ghul movie

I agree. Not only did he kill, he straight up murdered people when he didn't even need to, he was almost comedically violent at points.

It's so painful because those scenes between Alfred & Bruce were so strong, honestly, it's like they belonged in another (far better) movie (I'm not going to be surprised at all if in a years time we discover that Ben Affleck directed the Bruce/Alfred scenes, we know he was rewriting scenes onset), Affleck's portrayal really was the truest adaptation of Bruce Wayne we've seen in live-action and in terms of straight up combat, we got the truest Batman, but a core aspect of the character wasn't there.

What's worse in my opinion is that not only does he kill, Snyder makes absolutely zero attempt to address why Batman kills or to make any sort of moral/character question/point of it, he's just driving around slaughtering everybody in sight when it suits him and that's just Batman apparently. Looking at a burnt Robin costume and seeming glum isn't even close to enough to explaining why what could be described as an absolute keystone of Batman's character has been shattered.

Affleck will have to salvage this in the solo, hopefully they flash back to Bruce's younger days and then to the present to truly examine what caused this complete mental break. For this film, however, it's a massive negative and a huge disappointment.

I don't see the big deal, though they really did need to address why and they didn't.

Batman doesn't NEED the rule. He follows it because it's morally right. There's no monster in him, he's a self-sacrificing hero day in and day out.

@wrucebayne: Whether or not there actually is a monster in him doesn't matter, its the fact that he believes there's a monster in him that makes it important. Odds are if Batman did kill the Joker he wouldn't just go on a killing spree but I don't think he believes that.

I'm pretty sure that the only one Batman outright tried to kill was Superman. And his justification was that it was to save the world. Actually kinda made sense to me.

I think one of the core problems of this movie (and its characterization of Bruce Wayne, by extension), is that it used Miller's DKR as one of its main inspirations. The thing that people always forget about DKR is that that story has always been "the bad ending". It's an alternate future where Superman is an ineffectual government stooge and Batman is a brutal criminal. It's a story that features our heroes at their worst, which is why they end up fighting, and it only works in the context of the dystopian future that Miller has created. But when you're trying to launch an entire cinematic universe; having your Batman - who will arguably be the central character of the Justice League - be a vicious sociopath probably isn't the way to go about it.

The way Affleck's Batman is so nonchalant about using lethal force is very depressing. Even when Bale's Batman committed manslaughter (Two-Face, Ra's, Ra's house, Talia etc...), it was never outright murder, and Bale's Bruce Wayne remains a noble and heroic figure. But to see Batman mow down faceless goons with machine-guns, and then set a dude on fire, and let's not forget he tried to straight-up execute Superman (And the whole branding thing is really stupid, imo)...add that to the fact that he does all this with such a careless attitude? That's not Batman, that's freakin' Frank Castle. To value human life has always been one of the tenets of the character, and the fact that we're even debating this point seems inane to me. I don't care that Bats used to kill in the Golden Age, what about the millions of other issues that spell out very clearly that Batman doesn't kill? And I realize that past movie incarnations of Batman have murdered, but come on, we're in 2016 - an era where like seven superhero films come out every year - so the fact that Snyder and co. thought they could get away with a murderous Batman in 2016 is unthinkable. And that apologists who call themselves Batman fans continue to defend this just blows my mind...the fact that we're even having this discussion blows my mind.

This is the problem with most of Zack Snyder's work in the DCEU so far - he's great at the visual aspects of the characters. Ben Affleck's Batman looks fantastic. He's huge, he's got the dashing good looks, the brick chin - and I love how they went with a grey fabric suit that looks like it was ripped off the comic panels. And that Arkham Predator-esque scene was undeniably a treat. Much like what Man of Steel did with Superman, we finally got a cinematic Batman who looks and fights like comic-book Batman. But where Snyder and co. fail so badly is their understanding of these characters. Their strive for intellectual pretension and "serious" philosophy is so overwhelming that they missed the whole point of Batman. If you want an analogy, it's this: If Nolan's TDK saga was Moore's Watchmen or Miller's TDKR, Batman v Superman is the string of horrible "edgy" comics of the 90s Dark Age, that confused "maturity" with "mature content".

Another thing that bothered me was how this Batman comes dangerously close to being portrayed as a dumb brute. Yes, we see him and Alfred build an arsenal of Kryptonite weaponry, but how does the World's Greatest Detective get played so easily? Are we to accept that after Luthor's bombing, Batman is so blinded by his hatred and need for vengeance that he automatically assumes Superman is guilty and basically forms a plan to assassinate him? That he never realizes he's manipulated to such an extent that he's basically inadvertently responsible for Superman's death in the end? Is this really the hero we want assembling the Justice League? I mean, did I miss something here? Look, I get that this is a "world-weary" Batman who has "seen some sh*t", but Bruce Wayne should never be written as being this bloodthirsty or dumb. And it bothered me that Batman never formulates any plan to stop Doomsday beyond stabbing him with the Kryptonite spear or machine-gunning him with the Batplane. This is Batman - he wins not through brute force, but through human intelligence and willpower. While Supes and Wonder Woman distract Doomsday by punching him, Batman should be the one coming up with a solution to win the fight.

This isn't a Batman I want to root for, or a Batman I consider a hero. People get caught up in the "badass" aspect of Batman, that they forget what makes Bruce Wayne so compelling is that he is a good man who used a tragedy to become a better person in the service of others. Batman doesn't go out every night because he's a damaged orphan who can't get over the death of his parents, he does so because he's a compassionate hero, who wants to make sure that no one ever experiences the tragedy he went through. Ben Affleck's Batman stumbles in the exact same way that Cavill's Superman does - there's so much potential there, but all the good stuff is just the superficial elements like the costume or the powers...deep down, the core morality of these characters are nonexistent. This movie's Batman isn't the Caped Crusader, or the World's Greatest Detective, or even the Dark Knight. He's basically Great Value Punisher-Lite.

Batman v Superman is a flawed movie with a lot of problems, but Ben Affleck's Batman is definitely one of the main issues that I had with it. I went into this film with high hopes, but honestly, BvS makes Man of Steel (which I actually enjoyed a fair bit) look like freakin' Citizen Kane. Maybe a rewatch or future DCEU movies will change my opinion, but for now, this movie really has me doubting in the state of DC's cinematic universe.

@veshark: Dude yesss! ☝☝☝

Martha!!!!

@veshark: Bravo! Absolutely fantastic post!

@veshark: very convincing post.

@veshark: I have to disagree. Watching this i can understand why Batman snapped and started killing. I was never a big fan of Batman comics but i always respected his no kill policy. But come on. The point here is that Lex managed to craze him. He was not himself this movie, he was manipulated into believing it was LITERALLY the end of the world if he doesn't get that K.

@veshark: Well I don't think that Batman holds him responsible of that. I think that Bruce feels guilty because his worker went there to suicide himself (at least that's what Bruce believes) because he didn't do anything to stop Superman. That is why the notes were sent to him (he should have checked them, to see if his worker really wrote them or if other person did), to make them understand his responsability on the whole thing. Besides he already wanted to kill Superman before that, that's why he was searching the Kryptonite.

Today I was reading a Flash comic that reminded of this thread:

If this version of Batman existed in Dc universe of the comics, he would have been taken out a long time ago.

@chimeroid I don't believe Batman "snapped" and turned homicidal at any point. Even prior to the Capitol bombing, Batman was already using lethal force, most-notably in the Batmobile chase sequence (however indirectly). As for Lex driving him insane, that's really what I had an issue with. We're talking about the World's Greatest Detective here; for him to be manipulated so easily by Luthor seems like a poor characterization of Batman. A bombing with no conclusive findings and a few notes in red crayon shouldn't be enough to drive Batman to play judge, jury, and executioner with Superman's life. Batman, no matter how battle-worn and cynical, should never be portrayed as being so stupid and bloodthirsty.

@black_arrow I really don't think that's any stronger a justification. I'll need to check with a rewatch, but even if Batman was aware/believes that Wallace Keefe was responsible for the bombing, Bruce should realize that all the blame should fall on Keefe for...you know, blowing up a building full of people. For Batman to use this as an excuse to kill Superman is incredibly flimsy storytelling. And while Batman was pursuing the Kryptonite before, it always seemed to be more of a safeguard than a preemptive measure (again, might have to check with a second viewing). But the Capitol bombing was clearly portrayed as being the catalyst, as Batman fulfills Luthor's plan by tearing through LexCorp to get the K, and then basically draws up an entire arsenal to murder Superman. This incarnation of Batman is driven by so much rage and mistrust that I can't really even call him a hero.

Also, nice quote from Jay there.

I don't think that this Batman is a hero either, I am just saying that he feels responsible for what happened to Keefe because he should have made Superman pay for what he did sooner (Batman even in the comics has a tendency of making himself guilty of things he isn't, In the Christopher Nolan's film you can see this, He blamed the Death of his parents to himself when he wasn't responsible). I don't think that Bruce was affected that much by the people that died on the bombing but more so that his good employee felt that he needed to do that to get justice.

@veshark: Seems to me you cling on a bit too hard to what you wanted the movie to be. He doesn't have to be the worlds greatest detective.

@black_arrow Well like I said, I still maintain that that's very flimsy reasoning for Batman to decide to murder Superman. That's not justice, that's vengeance. Even if Superman's battle with Zod was indirectly responsible for the loss of his legs, Wallace Keefe (though yes, it's technically Luthor) is still in the wrong for blowing up a building full of innocent people, and Batman should recognize that two wrongs don't make a right. It's a little inane to suggest that Bruce should feel guilty for the actions of a murderer, or that he should hold Superman responsible for that. This Batman just doesn't seem to have a very solid moral compass.

@chimeroid He doesn't have to be a belligerent and gullible killer either.

It would be a flimsy reason if it were the same character from the comics, he clearly isn't. This Batman might as well be calling vengeance, justice we haven't seen what's his thoughts on this. Well I think that Snyder has said it many times that Batman is sort of the villain of the story so it makes sense that he doesn't have a very solid moral compass eventhrough it shouldn't be like this because Batman is supposed to be a hero.

I think he and Bale are equal so far.

@veshark: That's the advantage Bale's version had over Affleck's; he was a good person trying to do the right thing, and would go to great lengths to stop a criminal from getting killed (saving Joker in TDK for example).

It was strange to see Affleck's Batman without a moral compass. Even DKR Batman refused to kill; despite the brutality.

Maybe deep down, Affleck's Batman doesn't seem himself as a good person. Some Batman made a quote like that, and even called that his edge vs. Superman. That Clark is at his core a good person, and he doesn't.

Now, I put that right along with Superman claiming Bruce is the most dangerous man on the planet as assisted self-wank, but it's a thought worth looking at.

Honestly, I suppose it doesn't really bother me because I'm not a huge Batman fan, and don't care if he kills or not, and even as a Superman fan, I understand the Zod thing.

@black_arrow Well that's the root of the problem then, Batman should be a hero.

@frozen Then again, Bale's Batman did leave Ra's to die...as for DKR, yeah, I've always found the scene with the machine-gun to be really ambiguous. I've always just assumed that it was a wounding shot. Anyway, it's just another symptom of Snyder and co. seemingly missing the larger point of the character in pursuit of cool visual gimmicks.

This Batman was more realistic. Supes killed people in his fight with Zod, hell he leveled the city. MCU doesn't have anyone die (evacuation of Sokovia, invasion of New York somehow didn't show any deaths) and people like that? I loved how Batman was killing outrageously, it was a bit scary because that is how a billionaire human with gadgets would function in the world.

@rabumalal: That's a half assed excuse for why he killed. The man built an exosuit to take on a super-powered being for pete's sake, and you bring up "realism" as a defence for killing?

@veshark: DKR Batman definitely did not kill that goon, later in the comic he snaps a shotgun and claims that it is the weapon of the enemy.

@frozen: Well, of course it won't be real real because the said superperson exists. My point is that cbms value human life too much and it is a bit unrealistic. BvS and MoS shows how easy people die in gunfights or just crime-related stuff.

Welcome back Frozen

Don't really think it matters whether Bruce would be able to stop himself or not (And what Batman says is basically that he doesn't even want to risk killing the Joker for fear that he'd go off the deep end, which is valid in my opinion as it is. Jason then seems to be so certain that that wouldn't be the case, that it's as easy as killing one person and being done with it, despite him having killed multiple people throughout said story), because the argument then becomes that if you've killed the Joker (Or whoever) because he committed X number of crimes or killed X number of people, you're eventually, logically going to have to kill the rest as well once they reach the same limit. Which they inevitably will given enough time. Not doing so completely kills whatever argument you form for killing the Joker in the first place.

@veshark You hit the nail right on the head and pretty much explained why, while I fully enjoyed Batman in this film and accept him for what he's portrayed as, I wouldn't accept him as the "main" Batman so to speak. He works as an Elseworld's tale for all intents and purposes. BvS Batman isn't a hero. He's pretty much what so many haters of the character constantly accuse him of being, a paranoid nut who murders people left and right. Again, I can watch and enjoy that. Just like I can enjoy Superman Red Son or Injustice. But on a regular basis i'd rather my heroes actually be heroes of noble character and standing.

I disagree. Jason killed, but he never killed anyone outright innocent. He killed drug dealers and assassins sent to kill him. Then imposed his own limits, and honestly, I think his method was better than Bruce's, choosing to control and limit crime, rather than fighting a losing war trying to actually stop it because it's a moral victory and at least Bruce can say "he tried."

And fine. It's not like Penguin or Bane go out of their way to cause chaos, to murder, etc. for no other reason than because they can, like Joker. They're closer to gimmicky gangsters. Bruce has less reason, and just because he kills Joker doesn't mean he suddenly snaps and goes on a killing spree. And if they do go that far, then what's the issue against killing a mass murderer?

Implying that they don't just stick to less violent crimes, after seeing The Joker dead.

Point is, Jason didn't limit his killing to one person. He went on a spree in his effort to fight crime. Why would he then think that if Batman killed Joker that he would stop at just killing Joker?

Jason's way completely failed and he needed Bruce to bail him out. And Bruce can say "he tried" now, because every time he puts on the suit he's working towards stopping various crimes. In terms of ending crime altogether however, that's an impossible task, considering that the reasons people take part in crime vary all across the board. Jason's method wouldn't have led to that either.

Irrelevant. Penguin and Bane still cause the deaths of an untold number of people, along with squeezing the city for every dime they can get. And that doesn't count any people caught in the crossfire as victims of the crime they cause. Both have at different points controlled the majority of the crime happening in Gotham City in fact, which makes them just as big a problem as Joker, while not being as random. Don't think it's ever been implied that Bruce would just snap and Under the Hood didn't make that statement either. The issue is that he'd then start killing in general, which as i've pointed out would only be logical. It could be the next day he runs into Scarecrow and does it or the next month. It would happen regardless, because justifying it would be easy. No issue, pointing out how silly Jason's logic is. There's no kill Joker and that's the end of it. It's either you start killing in general or you don't. And in that regard, Batman's never going to do that. The reasons why are obvious.

Implying that they would just because Joker died.

Because Jason actively wanted to kill those people. Bruce wouldn't. That's the difference. Jason embraces what he does, because he has limits on what he will do. He'll kill drug dealers, and then tell their leaders no selling to kids. Not everyone would be OK with that. Bruce, already said he thinks about it, so he's probably OK with it. Like Jason though, he probably has limits to how far he'd go.

Actually, Jason's way didn't fail, and his entire plan went smoothly, up until it was time for Batman to do the Batman thing and win. That aside, even the News reported that crime was down because of Red Hood. And Jason wasn't trying to stop it. He was successfully controlling it.

Or maybe he'd never kill Scarecrow. Jason even said, he wasn't talking about killing Scarecrow, or Dent, just Joker for all the things he did to all the friends he hurt and killed. And again, I don't think Bane or Penguin or hell even Mr. Freeze or The Riddler are that bad. Maybe they are. But not as bad as The Joker. Not even close, and I disagree with you. Why couldn't Batman kill Joker and stop? Because logic? Because the logic of going out as Batman every night? Of taking in partners to be Robin after what happened with Jason? Because Batman's the most logical person? I think you underestimate Bruce's ability to control himself and reason situations.