Zack Snyder Explains Batman’s ‘Controversial’ Methods In ‘Batman v Superman’

BatmanBefore you continue reading, these methods might be spoilers in a sense, so I’d stop here if you might consider those to be. Now, if you’re still with me, let’s discuss this one a bit. Prior to seeing the film, there was something the genuinely upset me about Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice. Let me start by stating that I don’t care about the decision at the end of Man Of Steel. This doesn’t bother me one bit. However, when I’d heard that Batman killed in Batman v Superman, a feeling came over me that I can’t quite describe.

However, upon further thinking about it and the fact that the character has technically killed in each of his big-screen incarnations – we’re not counting the Adam West era here – I got over it a bit. Upon seeing the film and absolutely loving the new incarnation of the character, I couldn’t care less. For some this might need some explanation though and director Zack Snyder has done just that while speaking with HeyUGuys about the film. While you may disagree with the choice, it’s somewhat hard to argue against the reasoning behind it.

I tried to do it in a technical way. There’s a great YouTube video that shows all the kills in the Christopher Nolan movies even though we would perceive them as movies where he doesn’t kill anyone. I think there’s 42 potential kills that Batman does! Also, it goes back and includes even the Tim Burton Batman movies where this reputation as a guy that doesn’t kill comes from.

So, I tried to do it by proxy. Shoot the car they’re in, the car blows up or the grenade would go off in the guy’s hand, or when he shoots the tank and the guy pretty much lights the tank [himself]. I perceive it as him not killing directly, but if the bad guy’s are associated with a thing that happens to blow up, he would say that that’s not really my problem.

A little more like manslaughter than murder, although I would say that in the Frank Miller comic book that I reference, he kills all the time. There’s a scene from the graphic novel where he busts through a wall, takes the guy’s machine gun…I took that little vignette from a scene in The Dark Knight Returns, and at the end of that, he shoots the guy right between the eyes with the machine gun. One shot. Of course, I went to the gas tank, and all of the guys I work with were like, ‘You’ve gotta shoot him in the head’ because they’re all comic book dorks, and I was like, ‘I’m not gonna be the guy that does that!’

Very curious to see if these actions cause controversy regardless of the points that Snyder makes above. Here’s hoping it doesn’t. If you haven’t seen the film yet, I’d wait until you do before making your mind up regarding this matter. I’m glad that I went in with an open mind. Sound off with your thoughts on the subject in the comments section below.

Source: HeyUGuys

  • Let’s not forget the people that Bale’s Batman ran over and literally squashed, when the tore down the highway in the Tumbler in Batman Begins. Those cars were driving and he just drove over them like they were toys. Those were innocent civilians, NOT criminals.

    I have no problem with this new Batman.

  • worldman2090

    i wonder how their going to address the fact that he wont kill the joker. since he is not completely against the death of criminals why not kill the main thorn in his side.

    • SAMURAI36

      I don’t think you read what Zack just said. He’s not gonna kill anyone intentionally. And Joker’s smart enough not to put himself in the position to be killed by proxy.

      Plus, there are rumors that DCEU Joker might be immortal, as he might be in the comics.

      • Ahh good man, I see you’ve read the Capullo/Snyder run on Batman. Endgame was AMAZING and in my personal opinion I think their run together over the past 5 years is better than anything Miller has produced.

  • Matt

    This was exactly my thinking. This Batman’s no kill rule has turned into a Rules of Engagement/fire when fired upon scenario.

  • breakerbaker

    I really don’t like how Snyder keeps comparing his work to the work of other people in an attempt to justify his own decision-making. I still haven’t seen the movie, so I will continue to withhold judgement on this particular decision, but it’s a really amateurish way to try to deflect criticism. If you’re going to allow your Batman to kill people, own it as a decision that is justifiable in the context of the character and the story (which it very well may be). Don’t say that other people have done it. I don’t care what the situation is, “other people are doing it” is always the worst excuse.

    • It’s a double edge sword. You can’t fault him, when everyone else compares his films to Nolan’s and Burton’s (regarding the no kill rule), it’s only fitting that he fires back and points out those examples used to criticize him, are flawed examples. He even cites Miller’s Dark Knight Returns, in which Batman clearly kills a criminal, yet it’s heralded as the greatest Batman story ever written.

      Why is Snyder black balled, when others have trampled on Batman’s origins and beliefs before him? I’m not talking about his filmmaking, you can debate that later, I’m talking about his choice of characteristics of the characters.

      • breakerbaker

        My position is that an artist should always be reluctant to compare themselves or their work to another artist or their work. If you want to justify your decisions, do so within the context of your own work. Don’t begin by saying “they did it too.”

        In this particular instance, it’s clearly a deflection. It ignores the fundamental question of whether it goes against the character’s established moral code and whether that code should be treated as meaningful in the context of the character, and redirects the focus to other peoples work. It’s saying “If you’re mad at me, why aren’t you mad at them? They did it too!” And while that’s a fair question to ask: why weren’t more people mad at Nolan in particular, who made the “no kill” policy such a major talking point in the films? it does more to raise the question of whether we should have been mad at Nolan than it does absolve Snyder from the obligation to address the original question. It’s similar to the Star Wars thing–rather than make an affirmative argument in favor of his decision, he tells somebody to look at some other film and then hopes they will be distracted for long enough that they won’t notice that he didn’t answer the question.

        And pointing to DKR as a justification for any decision your Batman could ever make is deeply problematic because Miller’s Batman exists outside of canon and behaves in ways Batman never would.

        • Hinscher

          Movie exist outside of canon, and also this movie is inspired by that very comic.

          • breakerbaker

            Aspects of the movie are inspired by that book. Not the whole movie. However, this movie isn’t a standalone like Millers Dark Knight books. This movie has implications on the entirety of the DCEU, which means the Batman of the Justice League will kill people. This movie that a lot of people are portraying as having the most faithful adaptation of Batman of any movie ever still allows Batman to skirt his no killing rule. I’m not saying it can’t work. I’m saying that pretending like it’s not an important question to answer directly is an amateur move.

          • Hinscher

            Yes it starts the whole DCEU, but again the DCEU is non cannon. Also inspired does not mean it has to follow it to a code. But ignoring those and lets talk DCEU future, and past.

            Take Man of Steel. To me that is not a Superman movie. It’s a movie about Kal-el coming to Earth. And Alien first contact story. Kal is turning into Superman as the stories go. I hear this movie, its much closer. I expect he fully comes into his superman come Justice 1 or 2.
            Now Batman is the same yet different. The batman we all know (the non-killing) needs to come to be just like Superman. Yes Batman has been doing this for 20 years or whatever the time is, but I feel he will be changed by Superman. He will take a small part of his boy scoutness and become more the Batman you know. Batman in this movie and before is a vigilante. He is about to become a superhero and the whole world will know of him.

          • breakerbaker

            I didn’t have a problem with Superman killing Zod. It was jarring in the moment that it happened, but I think it falls into the category of what Superman would do if there were no other options, which (for better or worse) that movie doesn’t provide. I think that movie does enough to say that Superman doesn’t want to kill–that he has a moral code instilled in him during his childhood and that he wants to avoid killing at almost any cost. The movie shows that he’s deeply traumatized by the fact that he killed Zod. I think all of that works. Not everybody agrees, but I think it’s what Superman would do, whether he were a newbie or a fully realized version of the character.

            The problem I’m afraid we may run into with this Batman is a guy who is ambivalent about the death and destruction he wields who is also trying to stop Superman because of the death and destruction he could potentially wield. That’s not only morally corrupt. It’s straight up hypocritical. And it does a disservice to the character of Batman if it suggests that he needs to learn that killing is not what Batman should do. He’s been Batman for 20 years! Has he always been so cavalier about criminals dying or is that a new thing?

          • Hinscher

            See I don’t see it as Batman not seeing killing as bad. I see it as his view of his actions changing. From being in a war as a vigilante with criminals to being a superhero.
            In war there are deaths. Any soldier can tell you that. Doesn’t make them a bad person.

            Then the scale also changed for batman. Before he was a shadow vigilante and his actions weren’t Earth shattering. It didnt’ matter if he killed some thugs or not. No one cared.
            BUT once he is a superhero and a role model/icon, justice league member, ect. Him killing now does matter.
            He never liked killing or thought he was justified.
            But now he tries even harder to never kill cause he knows if he does it ruins what he is trying to do. Before it didn’t matter, now if he kills its headline news.

            Think of like Presidential campaigns. How often do you see a quote from a Senator pop up during his campagin and the whole U.S. goes crazy like “OMG how could he say that” yet its like 10 years ago quote that was public back then. They didn’t care what he said as Senator, but now as President it is the big leagues.

            Batman is joining the big leagues. It now matters whether he kills or not. So I see him working harder to not kill in the future, not only as for the Leagues image, but also because his views of his actions changed. He is no longer in a war, but a cause.

          • breakerbaker

            I find that explanation unsatisfying, but there’s no reason to argue back and forth about it. At least your version attempts to offer some kind of rationale that defines the character–I don’t like it, but it’s something. As I say, I’m responding more to Snyder’s inability to formulate a rational justification of the decision that doesn’t lean heavily on pointing to something other than his own work.

          • Damn. Do you have a microphone sir? If so, come back and drop it.

        • That… And the fact that Miller’s Batman, for however brutal he was, still never killed anyone.

    • SAMURAI36

      Not sure why this bothers you so much.

      For one thing, he did own it. But also, speaking about what others have done, is about giving people perspective, which is quite necessary, especially when none of this is created in a bubble.

      Also, I recall you addressing this issue before, & trying to fluff it off by saying something to the effect of its the same story that Batman breaks the gun in half”
      , but you seem to have no problem with him shooting someone in the head??

      And again, I fail to see why this is such an issue, when A) these characters have killed before, in practical all incarnations & mediums, & B) The Marvel characters have racked up a body count that’s akin to a small war, & nobody seems to have an issue with it. Perhaps because they do it while telling jokes at the same time?

      • Marquis de Sade

        Well if memory serves me right, the Avengers never professed to having a “NO KILL” policy, (let alone) a “NO GUN” policy. Btw, I personally have no beef with Batman or Superman killing to serve the greater good.

      • breakerbaker

        By “own it,” I mean that I’d like to hear him acknowledge that it’s a significant decision to have Batman actively kill people, and I’d like to hear him explain his rationale for that decision. He does none of that.

        He just says (paraphrasing) “It’s okay because these other people did it in these film and comic adaptations that aren’t canon.” That’s the opposite of owning it.

  • Clearly Snyder has never read or looked very closely at DKR which he keeps citing. Batman shoots the mutant gang member in the SHOULDER, there’s nothing to suggest he pops him “between the eyes.” He doesn’t kill anyone in that book. “Rubber bullets. Honest.”

    Batman’s “no killing thing” didn’t come from the Burton films, Batman kills a lot in those movies. His “no killing thing” came about less than a year after his creation. The only reason he killed in his first several appearances is because they were still figuring out the character, he was still just a copy of the Shadow.

    It really breaks my heart and makes my blood boil that this dude is so condescending to fans when he clearly has no clue about what actually makes Batman work as a character. He’s obsessed with making things look “cool” and “badass” but can’t even read a comic book correctly.

    If Batman kills, that negates the need for his costume, for his use of fear, and the character in general. It makes him a dorky Punisher. And like someone else said, if this Batman kills, why is the Joker still alive? This makes absolutely no sense.

    • The Joker is alive because he’s not a common street thug, he’s more intelligent and tricky that those criminals and henchmen.

      • If Batman’s beaten and apprehended The Joker, then he’s had the opportunity to kill him.

  • James

    I don’t want to see batman killing, If that was the kind of hero I liked I’d watch dead pool or the punisher. Yes, batman has killed in the movies but at least those deaths were usually accidental. He didn’t kill the joker or bane or the scarecrow or the mob bosses or their henchmen or the guy ras wanted him to execute. Dent and talias deaths were caused by batman but were more accidental at least. He killed the league of shadows but he was mostly just trying to escape more than cause mass murder. Burtons batman was worse. I can understand burton setting some precedent for Snyder but I still hate the decision. And I think batman only killed once in the dkr comic. Granted There was a guy elecrtrocuted by hitting a neon sign who may or may not have lived. But again, he didn’t kill the joker or two face in that comic.

    • Splinter76

      Note – This comment is not intended to argue with you, but to clarify something. There’s not a single death in Batman (’89) or Batman Returns that was accidental. Batman straight up murders bad guys in those movies. Whether by blowing them up with a grenade from the Batmobile, mowing them down with machine guns from the Batplane, strapping a bomb to a guy, smiling about it, punching said guy down a hole, then walking away as he explodes, or using the Batmobile to set a guy on fire. He was straight up a murder in both of those movies as well as in Batman Begins.

      • James

        I was talking mostly about the Nolan movies which was closer to the comic “no kill” batman version than the burton batman. Nolans batman wasn’t perfect but most of those deaths caused by batman weren’t batman trying to kill, in my opinion. And Nolan’s batman went out of his way to not kill.

        • Splinter76

          Gotcha and totally agree.

        • Hinscher

          Watch that video of his deaths.
          Some are ones I wouldn’t count like the league of shadow ones.
          Ras is one for sure though. Don’t quiote me that crap line he did.
          Then in the Dark knight there is a scene were he drives the batmobile at a drump truck head on causing it to vault up smashing the cockpit into the ceiling. That was 100% planned, and there is 0% the driver(s) survived that.

          • James

            As I said, nolans batman wasn’t perfect but the closest thing to perfect of the movie batmen, and closest to the comics batman were he doesn’t kill 99.9999% of the time. That’s the kind of superhero I like.

          • Let’s just agree that this Batman is not canon to the comics and is merely a different version that we can STILL ENJOY.

          • breakerbaker

            I think the idea that he didn’t kill 99.9999 percent of the time is arguable and is mainly only supported by the repeated assertion that he doesn’t kill people. This is to say that if he does something, like burn a house full of ninjas to the ground and none of those ninjas try to follow or kill him despite the fact that he should have been super easy to find as he hiked down a snowy mountain, then it stands to reason that some of those ninjas were burned to death. It also requires you to accept the faulty premise “I don’t have to save you” loophole. While I think it’s lame to lean on other movies to justify the decisions you make in your own movies (as Snyder is doing), I think it’s fair to say that Nolan’s Batman is given a pass he doesn’t really earn.

          • James

            There are fair criticisms of nolans batman and whether or not he was too reckless in some cases. He wasn’t perfect. But at least an effort or emphasis was put on no killing in those movies and people remember that more than his accidental killings and there are several baddies he didn’t kill which is a lot better than the other batman movies that don’t really care about that aspect of him. No killing is one of the main reasons I like batman, without that I honestly don’t like batman very much.

          • breakerbaker

            But do you think that people remember that because it’s true or because the movies tell them it’s true? I mean, Batman Begins is the only one of those movies that I can even tolerate, and that’s the movie where he refuses to execute a guy just before setting a chain reaction that almost certainly kills that guy and about 20 others. On this score, the main difference between the Nolan Batman and the Burton Batman is that the Nolan Batman creates the pretense of a guy who won’t kill people–just before he kills somebody.

          • James

            Because he says so in the movie and because of all the guys he doesn’t kill and the great efforts he went through to not kill the swat team in DK. And he doesn’t kill anyone in a very direct way. He crashed some cars which could kill but it’s not direct like breaking a neck or shooting someone. It’s not perfect batman, but better than other movie batmen. The ninjas dying is more of him just trying to escape. He set the place on fire to get out of there. Did he expect all ninjas to get trapped and die, maybe, maybe not, I don’t know.

          • breakerbaker

            I’m going to go out on a limb and say that whatever else he does, the Batman in BvS will also not kill any police officers. He may, as TDK Batman does, fire machine guns in a crowded area and haphazardly shoot at parked cars that he has no way of knowing are unoccupied (as the scene in TDK very clearly shows young boys in a parked car nearby). He may throw a bad guy off a building, which TDK Batman does three times–only catching one of them (ridiculously), and only killing one of them.

            I’m sorry. I don’t want to get off topic, but I find it really weird that Nolan/Bale Batman is a better Batman mainly because he pays lipservice to the no killing line, but constantly fails to live up to it.

          • James

            A fair point, but I wouldn’t say constantly. There are plenty of bad guys he doesn’t kill in the Nolan series. If there was a new movie batman that does better than nolans I would prefer the new one to Nolans. So far nolans is the best in that regard I think.

    • Ooooookay. First, Batman has actually killed the Joker, very clearly in The Killing Joke. Look it up.

      Secondly, (copied and pasted from my own comment below, in case you didn’t read it.) Bale’s Batman ran over and literally squashed, when the tore down the highway in the Tumbler in Batman Begins. Those cars were driving and he just drove over them like they were toys. Those were innocent civilians, NOT criminals.

      • James

        See my prior comment about the tumbler. Joker didn’t die in the killing joke. In tdr he dies, but he twists his own neck because batman couldn’t finish the job.

        • Wrong. Read this and come back – http://screenrant.com/the-killing-joke-batman-killed-joker-grant-morrison/

          Morrison even made it clear later. Batman killed him.

          • Hinscher

            I doubt he read the comic. He is probably basing his knowledge on the DK movie where Joker kills himself by snapping his own neck.

            I think it was the Dark Knight movie. Either way it was a movie that had Joker kill himself, framing Batman for the death.

          • James

            There are examples of batman killing in comics but I don’t consider the killing joke an example. Morrisons interpretation is not a certainty, maybe if Moore had said it. It’s definitely not the way I interpreted the ending.

          • That’s Dark Knight Returns.

          • That’s Morrison’s interpretation. The book is (was) in canon – Barbara Gordon didn’t recover from the events in The Killing Joke until the New 52. Joker never died in continuity.

    • Timoyr

      Neither does he in this movie. He does similar things to The Dark Knight Trilogy.
      Where Batman uses the Batwing to kill Talia Al Ghul, kills the fake Ra’s Al Ghul and bunch of other people by setting a temple on fire, by tackling Two-Face of the roof etc.

    • KB

      Without spoiling anything I’ll say this, expect to see Keaton’s Batman in BvS. Not for the whole film, but few certain moments

  • adam2432

    I can handle unintentional killing but fighting or shooting w/ the intent to kill is what I don’t like for Batman. If he’s not worried about killing, there’s no logic for the fact that he doesn’t just shoot or snap Joker’s neck. And in this universe w/ Suicide Squad coming, he clearly has locked up plenty of villians and chosen to let them live. So I’m assuming he at least has a “don’t kill intentionally” code. I will be upset if we found out otherwise.

    • Hinscher

      I think its more of a you can’t expect to not kill in a war. Batman is in a war with these bad guys.
      Look at wars. Henchmen always die, yet in the end they try to take the leaders alive. Whether that is Osama Bin Laden or Sadam Husein, ect. The goal is to take them alive so they can be punished insated of a bullet to the head.

  • Shawlaa

    So, if i’m getting this right, because we have a new bloodthirsty batman, it is now the sacred duty of all Batman fanboys to justify this? Good to know.

    • Shawlaa

      Simple lore and common accepted logic, main continuity iterations and not including alternate versions and non-canon : Batman hates guns and doesn’t kill. But Hey, Zack Snyder over here, so F**K ME right?

      • Hinscher

        I don’t know who is justifying Batman. Whether its fans or not. I’m a Superman fan over Batman.
        But just like I will justify Superman killing Zod, I will justify Batman killing people.
        All it takes is one canon example of either event happening and Snyder can do whatever he wants. Then take into account that movies are not canon, and Snyder can once again do whatever he wants. Then take into account people bring up Nolan movies almost more than actual canon, and Snyder is again right.

        To any fan that hates these movies (watch them before you hate) I just say its an Earth-?? that is different from the one you like.
        Do you read every comic. Earth 1, Earth Prime, Earth 2, Earth-ect.
        Are they all the same? Is Batman/Superman the same in every earth? No they are not. If these versions are not to your liking, pretend its Earth 6 or something and your precious (fake) Batman/Superman are untarnished.
        Reason I put (fake) is because the versions you have in your head do not exist. You are taking stories you like of that character and ignoring ones you don’t that don’t fit your idea of the character. Batman and Superman have both killed in their canon prime earth comics. Quit ignoring it.

        • Lucas Lowman

          you get it man

        • Shawlaa

          When Jason Todd donned the Batman costume with twin automatics, it struck a powerful image because of Batman’s famous stance of guns and killing.

          That said, I haven’t said I hate the movie. I however find it ignorant or rude for anyone (referring to Schyder not you, Hinscher) to justify such an extreme character change when the love of the ‘Known and Accepted Batman lore’ is the whole reason people will be flooding theatres to see this movie (the whole reason the trailers became Batman-centric) and then lashing out or going condescending when people complain.

          People love Batman for the very reasons you are now disregarding. Can you say for certain that if they had put a murdering Batman in the trailers there wouldn’t have been uproar and boycotts?

          • Hinscher

            Well I just say wait till we see the movie.
            I haven’t yet (see it tonight), and I don’t think you have yet either.
            But from the many who have, I have not heard of one person complaining about it. All I hear is how amazing he is and he is quintessential batman. If the killing is so bad, then how could he be the quintessential one?
            Of course I haven’t watched spoiler reviews, so maybe they complain in them, but again even with their complaints (if they exist) they still all refer to him as THE BATMAN. Out ranking whoever had it before for them.
            Seems like us who have not yet seen the movie are doing a lot of arguing, lol.

          • Shawlaa

            I’m across the globe, man. So I’m seeing it tomorrow morning and despite the bad reviews, I am actually still looking forward to it (the pressure of it being fantastic is off, so I can just go have a good time).

            I don’t usually buy when reviewers and others refer to any new character as the quintessential anything until I see it myself.

            It’s a bit of cynicism, I guess; but I feel most of these guys are always a bit too keen to crown successors. Like I expect Umberto to drop a scoop any second now calling Leto the quintessential joker, but I won’t believe till I see it, man.

    • James

      I’m a batman fanboy and I don’t justify it and am not watching the movie.

      • Shawlaa

        Sorry, bro. I let out a generalization based on the many comments below. Besides, you can be a Batman fan without being a Batman fanboy. ai tink.

        • James

          No problem, no offense taken.

      • Marquis de Sade

        Yes you are.

  • Joseph Chaisson

    Yawn… So the kill count video some of it was just guessing. You don’t see all of those. Also a lot of it was people just being stupid. Not batman’s fault.

  • stlang

    I hate how Zack Snyder’s answer is ”Well Nolan did it too!” That doesn’t matter! Please remove Zack Snyder as the director for everything in the dc cinematic uniserve.

  • Marquis de Sade

    The final tally is in from Rotten Tomatoes. Out of the 146 critics, 98 ripped it a new one and 48 like it. The final score is 33% ROTTEN!

    • Of those reviews, how many of those critics know about the comics, not just pop culture Batman and Superman, but “know” the comics, the origins the history and the new 52 era of comics? I’d wager not even half, maybe not even a third. So pardon me if I don’t take the words of someone who’s reviewing Batman v Superman on the same merit scale as Saving Private Ryan.

      This is a comic book movie, meant to throw two comics book characters in a fight, just in dramatic fashion, not a Disney tent pole film or a Spielberg epic.

      Enough of this garbage.

      • Pardon me, sir, but you don’t sound too well versed in comics yourself if you think Batman is a killer. Besides, they’re MOVIE reviewers, and if the movie is bad, then it gets a bad review, no matter how much it sticks to canon.

        • JuanIsidro

          Quite the contrary… Most of the critics are okay with Batman killing so your argument dismantles itself.

          • I don’t care if critics are okay with it, it’s antithesis of the character. Just because a group agrees or disagrees on one thing doesn’t make an argument invalid.

      • Your comment is garbage. You shouldn’t have to be a comic reader to have an opinion on whether it’s a good movie. Movies should be judged against other movies. Comics should be judged by other comics. Two different storytelling mediums in case you didn’t know.

  • Victor Thomas

    I was very disappointed in this movie but I will defend batman in hi sorta killing because he’s been killing on the low since batman 66, I don’t like my batman doing it but every live action adaptation has shown him do it, at of all things in this film I don’t think people should use this one example against him.

  • Despite constantly citing himself as referencing the “true canon” of comic book lore, Snyder seems to base his Batman and Superman solely on Frank Miller’s the Dark Knight Returns. It’s a fine book, groundbreaking in its time, but was never meant to be the iconic sum and total characterization of these heroes. It’s a view of the characters that is limited and very problematic. From militaristic fascist Batman (who was brutal in the book, but in my reading broke bones but didn’t take lives) to a Superman who puts the common good below loyalty to the government. It’s an extreme take, and one that is not kind to either character. The Batman I grew up reading had his life wrecked by a man with a gun, and pledged to fight them without resorting to taking lives the way his parents were taken from him. Snyder’s take just seems to glorify that bullshit. There’s a big difference between the Batman and the Punisher, or at least there should be. No thanks, Zack.

  • Pingback: Batman v. Superman and Why Batman’s No Killing Rule Matters | The Kenpire()

  • Otaku

    Whether Batman kills or not is the least of this movie’s countless problems…