Originally Posted by
Last Son
In the most basic, fundamental way, Batman is a good Batman film. I feel like if the no-kill rule were so fundamental to the character, Finger and Kane would have thought of it before the character ever debuted. And if being true to a villain's characterization and origin were so important, then nobody would have ever accepted Lex Luthor being changed into a businessman who delegates the science work to his employees instead of doing it himself. Seriously, why is it OK for Lex to be so fundamentally changed and have that be the preferred version of the character by nearly everyone, but make the Joker a mobster who killed the Waynes and it's like burning a Bible? Or for that matter, why is it OK for Ra's Al Ghul to be a white guy from Ireland who has lived for 50 years rather than 500 years and whose goal is to destroy criminally corrupt cities rather than reduce Earth's human population to save the environment? And to top it all off, have him be merged with one of the characters that mentored Bruce on his journey to become Batman? A notorious Batman villain being the guy who trained Bruce and taught him about fear and theatricality is OK, but include the Joker in Bruce's backstory and you never hear the end of it, I guess.
Personally, I don't mind the alterations and retcons and reimaginings all that much, but some comic fans can be absolutely bonkers when it comes to being true to source material, and they apply their outrage very inconsistently when you consider how many alterations superhero movies have made to the source material over the past 20 years and how frequently the comics themselves are retconned and reimagined.
Another thing I'd like to note is just how gaga Superman fans are over any and all callbacks to the original rowdy, lawbreaking Superman of the early golden age, but any mention of golden age Batman and it's always "that version doesn't count!".