https://youtu.be/7LNbH9dWt0A?si=o4Qdc6_pK0rQhJJ4
they're so hung up on the killcode, jfc ppl.
Post Crisis stories really got ppl thinking my mans is a hippie.
Like think about it, killing them is a no no but crippling em for life is A-Ok? Wtf. And I blame Arkham for that shit.
Let's just call it like it is, this is a Batman that realized that no-kill code doesn't work. It was a luxury he thought he could afford as a Year One, he got too old to give a crap, which is the natural direction.
Fact is, he's not Joe Chill. Batman puts down criminals, Chill killed innocent ppl. And Batfleck didn't kill all the criminals, he branded some so that others would take up the fight, which is organized vigilantism, which makes his legend even more powerful.
Even IF Batman kills, he and Chill will never be the same.
The no-kill code was simply a vehicle to make Batman more complex and have more depth as a character & motivations (& if you've seen any of my reviews, you'll know I dig that shit, waaaay more than pretty colors and animation), but it's not necessary for Batman to work.
He's actually cooler without the code. But having it makes him more complex because it's a principle, a rule, a discipline, him having a no killing code makes him more interesting. It's okay to admit that without making this code akin to a religious dogma that Batman has to abide by or else he's not Batman.
He doesn't need it to be Batman, nor to work as a entity. To be fair in reality, him being willing to go to that place but he simply chooses not to at any given moment, makes him more scary. And I thought criminals were supposed to be cared.
Which is why people take Batfleck seriously, and BatBale has the best Bruce (which a commentor has stated before) but his Batman is weak. If that dude was killing people, I guarantee you after everyone was done clutching their pearls, they'd admit he was raw as shit.
Which is exactly the reaction Batfleck got.
That's what people don't understand, SUPERMAN can afford to have that no kill code, he has damn near control of every situation.
- He can realistically adhere to it. And he represents something less psychological & more akin to ideals of humanity itself, the condition of mankind. Which is a leagues more impactful message than a rich boy not killing because it's about him than something bigger than himself.
- Superman shouldn't be killing anyone but even Superman has to do what needs to be done, and he does so (just ask Doomsday). Superman WILL end you if there's not other way.
But he realistically can choose not to, not only because his concept fits it better, but he's literally the kind big brother of all mankind. Batman doesn't have that reputation, by choice.
Superman is supposed to possess a hopefully hopeless love/understanding/respect for human potential, he doesn't kill because he gives life another chance. Not because if he does it he'll just take the White House next. (That's why Injustice is a stupid take)
Superman's no kill code works better than Batman's because it's about us (Humanity), it's not about Superman being a tipsy psycho. And he doesn't make it about himself, he makes it about us and what we're capable of- THAT'S WHY IT WORKS as a moral.
The same 'criminals escape & hurt more people' fallacy still exists, yes; however the caveat is he makes his code about us. We, you, me, the colony. All of us. We're all involved in his no kill code's mechanisms, because he believes in us, humanity.
For Batman, for his kill code? In most takes, it's not the same.
If anything, Batman abandoning his code overtime, for realistic/practical reasons & Superman being the contrast would make their dichotomy work even better. (Because Wonder Woman has ZERO qualms with executions but no one in the league looks down on her over it)
Which is why despite all it's problems, that was the point of BvS' Batman's brutality, Superman's sacrifice bringing Batman back to humanity after thinking Superman was some morally androgynous demon. As sloppy as it was executed, I like that theme.
It actually makes more sense that Bruce doesn't want to kill people or use guns because he doesn't wanna be like Joe chill and Batman is the one that realizes that that's an idealistic fantasy of a child (not an insult, literally it's Bruce regressed as an 8 year old vowing not to be like the person who created him, when it's not even that deep) because no matter what he does (with the exception of maybe Batman who Laughs), in standard canon, he'll never be what that man was that night if he continues to fight evil. That's the point.
And this idea that if he kills once (Under The Red Hood) he'll never "come back" is stupid, that makes Batman look idiotic. That shit never stopped Rorschach.
So he's willing to sacrifice hundreds more by not killing Joker, because he'll be worse somehow for putting down Joker & thus Batman will just keep killing because apparently he'll get addicted to it or something. (Though Batfleck & OT Batman is an example that he won't lmfao)
As opposed to being addicted to breaking joints & reducing criminals to sipping from straws for the rest of their lives or just repeating the same mistakes.
Because notice how 20 years go by, and crime rates doesn't change. People got used to Unc crashing their party, and bro can't be everywhere at once, he's just a guy.
See, Raimi Spider-man lowers crime rate because he's a positive presence, Batman is the opposite, so he has this code- not because he's like Daredevil & wants to give life a chance (though there's also issues with that that Frank rightfully points out) but instead he selfishly allows evils to escape prison & repeat the same thing/ same cycle because he's too weak to both do what needs to be done and too incompetent to not let it go to his head if he does.
This is the problem with the kill code, it adds depth but poor characterization. You can not have your cake and eat it too. And the ONLY reason we accepted it in Under The Red Hood is because Batman physically beat Jason because of our evolution biases, we conflated his physical might with moral argument also being right.
Jason was/ still is right.
And a lot of casuals that grew up on DCAU & Post- Crisis know no other way, that's the only Batman they know. And they don't use their brains that this guy is literally dressed as Satan's duke of destruction, scaring the shit out of people is fine, handicaps, reversed joints, & casts are fine. But killing the worst of the worst criminals is a no no.
If Batman kills Joker, he's not justifying becoming Joe Chill because Chill didn't fight for anyone, didn't protect anyone, he preyed on innocent people with ZERO bodycount and killed them anyway.
The kill code means something as far as discipline goes, & Chill being the basis makes sense, logically. But again, that depth holds the most legitimacy in his youth while Bruce is still vibrant.
But as he gets older, Batman holds the light more often & crime gets used to Batman being a glorified tough-love nanny in cosplay, he'll notice it doesn't work and then evolves to match the energy or just keep expecting different outcomes by doing the same thing.
Or? Use Bruce Wayne to change the economic inequities that push the conditions to create more criminals. Or....perhaps Batman likes Gotham rotten so he can plenty of prey to toy with (But imma quit while I'm ahead, cause that's going to go to a really dark place lol)
Either way, the argument with Batman never using guns cause holds up regardless.
But the kill code doesn't. If Zarathos, an immortal, insane spirit of vengeance who's so old he can afford to just wipe out humanity because he'd reason that evil only exists as long as intelligent humanity does; so if Zarathos has the conviction to kill evil without blowing up a school bus for kicks, Batman can put down the extremes just the same.
(one last time on the dark note) Batman doesn't kill, because if he did, he wouldn't have a purpose if his regulars were dead & gone. Let's just call it what it is, Batman knows it's less about them & more about him, all about him, but not for the reasons even he realizes. (Alright i'm done)
That's also why it doesn't work, it's about him, not 100% but solely.
So when we have normies in reaction videos clenching their buttcheeks outraged over Batman killing, making exceptions throughout the fight trying rationalize in their own heads who he killed & didn't kill or if that grenade death as 'oh well, i guess he didn't kill them if their own weapon killed them' jfc dude.
Bro's braincells are in overdrive trying to adhere to his preconceptions, so much so he's driving that poor woman next to him crazy.
- So so desperate to keep that norm in tact (& I'm big on norms and standards, no guideline, no standard breeds confusion. If nature abandoned norms, the microorganisms in your bodies would eat you alive vs keeping your bacteria & immune systems in check) but norms that don't work? Are subject to evolution.
- Batman (a mortal who walks amongst gods & genuinely loves Gotham) & Chill (a nobody who stood for nothing). They're not the same.
Batman is not so fragile that he'll turn into Pennywise after he gets first blood, I'm not even the biggest Batman fan (not anymore) but simultaneously: I get it, and have more respect for the man's fortitude than that.
First and foremost, Batman protects Gotham, if you wanted to argue that criminals are Gotham too & that's how Batman sees them? Criminals being potential productive members of Gotham; That sounds like Superman than Batman. But that's a way stronger case than the Joe Chill stance.
Yet even then-- if it's about Batman not going crazy than it is about the criminals, then that defeats that better stance.
If it was about him trying to save the criminals, ok, cool. But it's about him.
Batman's motivations have more depth psychologically, but Superman's is less selfish, more meaningful because it's about everyone.
And to what end will criminals being a part of Gotham take priority over the innocents of Gotham long term, if the scum insist on destroying what they're a part of in the first place?
"You want to rule them by fear, but what do you do with the one's who aren't afraid?" - Red Hood
So even then, there's holes in the logic. This is the gray/ the moral argument significance that Post-Crisis made iconic to DC (the same gray that drove mah boi SB-Prime crazy lmfao). It's never just that simple.
