ByFranco Gucci, writer at
I'm an avid movie fan whose favorite movie ever is Back to the Future. I'm the type of person that if I like a TV show, I'll binge watch it
Franco Gucci

'[Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice](tag:711870)' is finally here. We got to see Clark Kent's relationship with Lois Lane evolve, we got to see that somehow Lex Luthor knows Superman's identity and everyone close to him, we saw a new Alfred, Batman killing criminals... wait... what?

Let's make something clear. Killing people isn't "against who Batman is". Let me tell you, in the caped crusader's first years, when the creators weren't still sure of what or who he was, Batman was killing people left and right, using a gun, snapping necks, throwing them in acid...

Well... that escalated quickly.

Here we are going to cover a few theories about why Batman may kill or may stop doing it and what his murderous habits mean for the past and future of the DC Extended Universe. So hold on to your hats, and I hope my mother's name is the same as yours so your feelings of impaling me go away.


I've read several theories that perhaps Ben Affleck's version of Batman started killing his opponents since his trusty companion, Robin, was killed at the hands of The Joker. At least for now, it seems we can put that version to rest, since a new in-depth photo of Robin's weapon reveals the boy wonder didn't exactly hit criminals with a quarterstaff. Take a look:

That's a bladed weapon, meaning Robin probably impaled his opponents with it... and no, he didn't do it in just the right places so they wouldn't die. Which in turn means the Dynamic Duo weren't taking any prisoners. And you could say he needed a "scary" weapon for criminals, but then what? Did he just poke them and said to them "I'll do it man! I swear I'll do it!"

Why is debunking this theory relevant? Because it allows us to pose some very interesting questions as to why the DC Cinematic Universe became what it is.


If Batman and Robin had no problem with sticking blender blades on steroids into criminals and using lethal force with their vehicles why was Joker allowed to live long enough to kill the caped crusader's trustworthy partner? Why didn't Batman immediately kill him after that? He knows Joker wouldn't suffer at all in prison.

Or, considering we don't know if Mr. J is in custody at the beginning of this summer's 'Suicide Squad', could it be that he managed to escape Batman's grasp?

These questions can open the door for storylines that, if done right, could be extremely fascinating.

But what about villains like Killer Croc or Deadshot? Those two are in custody at Belle Reve and Batman villains... well, at least Croc. One is a cannibalistic beast who eats anyone in front of him and the other one is one of the best murderers on the planet.

A point can be made that perhaps Batman wasn't the one to bring him in but that is most likely not true and this over-fed lizard has probably had his bouts with Batman.

This poses another interesting point: We know Killer Croc is super human. If we argue that Batman hasn't killed him because he doesn't have a way to do it, why didn't Wayne build the same suit of armor he used to take on Superman and take down this guy instead? Considering this version of Batman is one that seems to go for quite "overkill" often.

So, Batman was a murdering machine with a soft heart before meeting Superman?

Also, in the newest 'Suicide Squad' trailer, Batman is seen jumping after a falling Harley Quinn. Is this a flashback where Bats saves her because of her innocent past as a bright psychiatrist who had the misfortune to run into the Joker or is it set in present day and the caped crusader's turned on a new leaf?


Look, I need to be honest, I am not brave enough to try to make sense of 'BvS: DoJ', but there are a few elements in it that could greatly impact the DCCU (DC Cinematic Universe) going forward.

For example, how meeting Superman for two minutes and trying to kill him in nine affected the Dark Knight so deeply that he claims he won't 'fail him in death'. The writers for upcoming Justice League films could have taken this as an opportunity to say Batman won't kill anymore in honor of the Man of Steel.

But what if that doesn't get explored and the Dark Knight is left to his murderous ways? For the sake of continuity, Batman should continue killing his enemies as opposed to just ignoring that plot point and quietly moving on.

Although, that would mean... no more Joker. That of course cannot be seen as good or bad right now, as long as Jared Leto's full interpretation of the iconic character hasn't been seen with our own eyes.

It would also mean no more rogues gallery. Why would Batman burden himself by putting away big criminals over and over again? Would you be okay with that?

There's another side of this though - they're comic book films and, if anything's been proven with the Arrowverse and the MCU, is that characters don't have to stay dead for long.

Would you prefer Batman continue being a murderer in 'Justice League' and his upcoming solo film?



Latest from our Creators