Regardless of your opinion of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, it's fair to say that it gives the viewer plenty to digest and think about. This is an insanely ambitious film attempting to do so much, and so whether a genuinely tantalising brain-teaser or a head-scratching gap in logic, there's a lot that remains up in the air as Zack Snyder aims to launch the Justice League next year. It's clear that there are certain aspects of the film Snyder and company have intentionally left unclear, whereas other areas feel lacking in detail and under-developed, such that the ambiguity and lack of reasoning has soured many fans on the movie. Though the film's sheer ridiculousness may make you forget about a few of these lingering threads, some are simply so absurd that most switched-on viewers probably found themselves being distracted by them for the rest of the movie. Here are the 12 biggest questions Batman v Superman leaves unanswered...
12. Why Did Batman Kill People?
The Question: Throughout the movie Batman is shown straight-up killing criminals or branding them in such a manner as to bring about their deaths in prison. This is generally far more emphatic and brutal than in most prior Batman movies, so why have Zack Snyder, Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer opted to dispense with one of the Caped Crusader's most iconic traits so brazenly? The Likely Answer: Snyder offered up the fairly unconvincing explanation that Batman shooting up vehicles doesn't count as a "direct" kill, and tried to pass the buck by calling out Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan's movies, which of course also show Batman killing people and/or causing their deaths. Sadly there's not a particularly compelling on-screen reason, and though the most plausible explanation is simply that this Batman is world-weary and beaten down by 20 years of crime-fighting, it's just not adequately depicted in the movie, hence the massive fan uproar. If Snyder, Terrio and Goyer had explored the psychology of superhero murder, then this could have been a fascinating exercise in boundary crossing, but instead it seems more ignorant of the source material than intentionally attempting to subvert it.