Certainly not. The main problem seems to be that it wasn't the Superman movie a lot of people wanted and as such everything in the movie became a point of complaint regardless of whether it was actually a serious problem or not.
roboadmiral's forum posts
This movie is in the tricky position of finding a happy medium. While Man of Steel was much more grounded than the Dick Donner Superman movies, it was a far sight from the Dark Knight movies in that regard. The unique challenge lies in providing a suit with superheroic grandeur while maintaining a degree of not realism but plausibility. While I would love to see Jim Lee's pre-New 52 suit show up in a movie, it would essentially be Superman's costume dyed different colors with gloves, a cowl, and a utility belt. The general movie going public has spent the better part of a decade seeing Batman decked in body armor. A skintight body suit will not do. The suit needs to look substantial, it needs to look protective. As I said before, though, Batman doesn't need to be realistic in this movie. He just needs to be plausible. This Batman can kick off a wall, flip through the air, and flying kick a guy in the face. He doesn't need a bulky, heavy-plated suit. The New 52 costume fulfills these needs best. It draws on the best of both worlds. He's not just a well equipped vigilante and he's not an untouchable god. With the New 52 suit, he's a superhero.
@kgb725: True, but more than anything that's a demonstration of the inmates abilities to exploit the weaknesses of their confinement. No one starts corrupt. They have to be manipulated and persuaded into it.
You run into the same problem that Black Gate and Arkham have. They're the most advanced, high-security facilities around but they're jam-packed with the most brilliant and evil minds in the world. They always find the cracks. And its not like no one has ever escaped the Phantom Zone.
Mostly because of a guy named Fredric Wertham. He wrote a fun book called "The Seduction of the Innocent" in '54 (which is, by the by, full of all kinds of scientific inaccuracies as well as out-and-out lies) blaming comic books-- and by association superheroes-- for pretty much anything that ailed the youth of his day. Despite it being a deplorable example of scientific research it caught on rather well and stirred up quite the firestorm and nearly destroyed the comics industry. For decades thereafter comics would watch their step, following to the letter the Comic Code Authority's draconian standards of wholesomeness. Among these were that heroic characters were always to respect and uphold the law and never allowed to kill. Over the decades people grew accustomed to these shackles and even placed great value upon them, giving rise to the nonsensical but vehemently defended no-kill code.
To both amusing and irritating results, people seem only to apply this misapprehension of morality to superheroes and not the heroic figures of any other genre. After all, Indiana Jones kills dozens of German soldiers and Luke Skywalker ended thousands of lives when he blew up the Death Star.
It's an interesting concept that a lot of people seem to have that Batman's sanity is as fragile as a china teacup. If Bats were going to lose it, he would have done it by now. He spends all day every day surrounded by the most evil people on the face of the planet, fighting a never ending battle to save a city that very desperately does not want to be saved. Batman certainly has a very extreme personality, but that alone does not indicate any sort of impending insanity. In fact, his logic and mental fortitude put him quite a ways away from insanity.
Furthermore, if Batman were to "cross the line" (to use the popular melodramatic phrasing) there's nothing to support that he would "snap" or cease to be Batman on a philosophical level. Given his environment, Batman is constantly surrounded by death and the threat thereof upon everyone he cares about. He is willing to allow them to live constantly at this circumstance, meaning that to Batman the worst case scenario is not a loss of life but evil being allowed to prevail, justifying the continuous state of mortal peril everyone in Batman's life lives under.
I'm going to have to sit and think about this one for a while. The best thing about being a Batman fan is that he attracts the best writers and artists in the industry. As much as I love The Dark Knight Returns, Year One, The Killing Joke, and The Long Halloween, I'm not going to vote for any of them. I'm of the mind that they should be retired from these discussions. They are the top echelon of Batman comics and of comics in general, but I think its time to give some other stories a chance to be discussed with the enthusiasm and depth that's almost always reserved just for those few.
Actual definitions of "serial killer" are a bit vague. The generally agreed upon characteristics are a minimum of three murders which did not occur simultaneously by a single perpetrator. By this definition the vast majority of villains likely qualify as serial killers. A few heroes (Wolverine and the Punisher to name a couple) fall under the strict denotation of the definition but don't quite match up to the connotations.