Author Topic: Batman v. Superman  (Read 26532 times)

Night-Hawk07

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 317
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #20 on: March 31, 2016, 04:47:55 AM »

Spoiler for Hidden:
Weird editing issues as Batman goes from being in a cemetery to getting into Lex's face in jail to back in the cemetery.

I don't think that was an editing issue, just a trope in a lot of movies lately where a character is giving a monologue in the present, but they show an event that occurred in the recent past. Kind of like a flashback.

I saw the movie today, and I thought it was pretty good. Not as well done as Marvel's movie universe, but I don't think it was nearly as bad as a lot of people say it is. I think this is the best incarnation of Batman in a live action setting. I had my reservations about Affleck, but I think he did really well. Jesse Eisnberg's Luthor on the other hand....I was secretly hoping he'd get killed off so that we wouldn't have to put up with that s***show again. Getting back to Batman:

Spoiler for Hidden:
I really hate how recent Batman stories have turned him into a gun-toting killer. Half of Arkham Knight involved blowing up everything in Gotham with the Bat-tank. Bale's "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you either" deal didn't bother me, but it seems like lately they're pushing to rid Batman of that moral compass of "no guns, no killing." There are several occurrences in this movie where you don't see him directly kill someone, but he does something where you know the person couldn't have survived.

Also it appears:

Spoiler for Hidden:
That the Flash is some douchy teenager with a man-bun....seriously? I really wish DC had incorporated their TV shows into the movies. Seeing as they've pretty well established the 2nd and 3rd string Justice Leagers through The Flash, Arrow, Supergirl, and Legends of Tomorrow. It be so much easier, and probably a lot less confusing to the general public (I'm sure us super nerds will have no issues following along).

hurple

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #21 on: March 31, 2016, 01:44:58 PM »

Also it appears:

Spoiler for Hidden:
That the Flash is some douchy teenager with a man-bun....seriously? I really wish DC had incorporated their TV shows into the movies. Seeing as they've pretty well established the 2nd and 3rd string Justice Leagers through The Flash, Arrow, Supergirl, and Legends of Tomorrow. It be so much easier, and probably a lot less confusing to the general public (I'm sure us super nerds will have no issues following along).

God, yes.  I hate the movie Flash, so far.  They're going to have to do a ton of convincing to make me like it.  In fact, so far, the DC movie-verse has done just about everything they can to drive me away.  Batfleck is awesome, but I was also bothered by his actions in the movie... especially after he proclaimed that his issue with Supes was the wanton destruction and complete disregard for human life that he seemed to have.. wha' th' duh? 

The DC TVerse is sooooooooo much more "DC" than the Movieverse that it's laughable.  It's obvious the creators of the TVerse love the characters and the comics and the lore, and just as obvious that the Movieverse creators have nothing but complete and utter disdain for all of it.

And to think... DC had Whedon in their grasp and let him get away and go to Marvel.


Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2016, 03:57:10 PM »
Getting back to Batman:

Spoiler for Hidden:
I really hate how recent Batman stories have turned him into a gun-toting killer. Half of Arkham Knight involved blowing up everything in Gotham with the Bat-tank. Bale's "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you either" deal didn't bother me, but it seems like lately they're pushing to rid Batman of that moral compass of "no guns, no killing." There are several occurrences in this movie where you don't see him directly kill someone, but he does something where you know the person couldn't have survived.

Not a spoiler itself, so not spoiler tagging:

Nolan actually addresses the issue of Batman and his no-killing rule in a way I felt was very thoughtful.  Its one thing to have a rule against killing.  But if he make it obvious, Batman loses his ability to do his principle job which is to be a scary figure to the criminals.  When they know he ultimately won't hurt them, will in fact go out of his way to ensure they aren't killed or seriously injured, they're free to disregard him.  Bruce Wayne realizes in the Dark Knight that for Batman to be the symbol he needs it to be criminals need to fear him, and that means they have to believe he'll go all the way.  So he makes everyone think that if push comes to shove, he'll go so far as to kill (corrupt, but still) cops.

Extrapolate that to an ever increasing war with the criminal element over twenty more years.

I understand the not-liking it part, but I think you can argue this is the logical extrapolation to what is realistically likely to happen with a Batman fighting criminals for over twenty years.  As Nolan puts it through his characters, you either die a hero or you live long enough to become the villain.  Nolan's Bruce Wayne "kills" the Batman so he becomes a martyr, and dies a hero.  BvS's Batman lives, and becomes what twenty years of fighting turns you into.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2016, 04:11:57 PM »
Batfleck is awesome, but I was also bothered by his actions in the movie... especially after he proclaimed that his issue with Supes was the wanton destruction and complete disregard for human life that he seemed to have.. wha' th' duh? 

A lot of reviews seem to be pointing this out; perhaps you could explain to me why this is a problem.  Bruce's issue with Superman is not that he kills people, it is that he has the power to kill *everyone* and no one can hold him responsible at all for any of the deaths that can be attributed to him.  He is an unrestrained existential threat to the human race.

But even if you characterize Bruce as abhorring Superman's wanton destruction and complete disregard for human life, does that mean it is obvious that is how Batman should view himself?  If a soldier kills on the battlefield, does that mean he must acknowledge a personal complete disregard for human life?  Even if you disagree philosophically, can you explain why this is so absurd as to be as ludicrous as a lot of people seem to be portraying it as?

Just to be clear, I'm not asking if Bruce is morally justified in his disgust of Superman's actions.  I'm asking if it is so ridiculous for someone to both be willing to use lethal force against criminals who are themselves trying to kill him, and yet horrified at someone that causes hundreds or thousands of deaths of innocent people while leveling a city, that it is completely absurd.

hurple

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2016, 05:37:56 PM »
A lot of reviews seem to be pointing this out; perhaps you could explain to me why this is a problem.  Bruce's issue with Superman is not that he kills people, it is that he has the power to kill *everyone* and no one can hold him responsible at all for any of the deaths that can be attributed to him.  He is an unrestrained existential threat to the human race.

But even if you characterize Bruce as abhorring Superman's wanton destruction and complete disregard for human life, does that mean it is obvious that is how Batman should view himself?  If a soldier kills on the battlefield, does that mean he must acknowledge a personal complete disregard for human life?  Even if you disagree philosophically, can you explain why this is so absurd as to be as ludicrous as a lot of people seem to be portraying it as?

Just to be clear, I'm not asking if Bruce is morally justified in his disgust of Superman's actions.  I'm asking if it is so ridiculous for someone to both be willing to use lethal force against criminals who are themselves trying to kill him, and yet horrified at someone that causes hundreds or thousands of deaths of innocent people while leveling a city, that it is completely absurd.

"But even if you characterize Bruce as abhorring Superman's wanton destruction and complete disregard for human life"

He does, in fact, abhor that, and states such... And then, totally trashes the Gotham docks and warehouse district in a nigh speed chase where he guns people down, fires missiles at them and, literally, drives through a few people.

So, he trashes Superman, to his face, about his wanton disregard for life... and then a few scenes later goes off to kill a bunch of people with an absolute, complete disregard for life.


Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2016, 08:02:32 PM »
"But even if you characterize Bruce as abhorring Superman's wanton destruction and complete disregard for human life"

He does, in fact, abhor that, and states such... And then, totally trashes the Gotham docks and warehouse district in a nigh speed chase where he guns people down, fires missiles at them and, literally, drives through a few people.

So, he trashes Superman, to his face, about his wanton disregard for life...

Can you be specific?  I honestly do not recall that.  Bruce makes his feelings known to Alfred, and in that scene he is very specific about being concerned about Superman's threat to humanity, not any perceived disregard for human life.  In the scene between Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne, which I assume is the scene you're referring to, I don't recall Bruce saying anything specific about Superman's callousness, only his clear unchecked power to "burn the whole place down."

Its possible I've forgotten something though.  I might have a chance to see it again soon because I have friends who haven't seen it yet, but then again they might decide to wait for it to come out on video.

Quote
and then a few scenes later goes off to kill a bunch of people with an absolute, complete disregard for life.

He ultimately kills people in that scene, yes, but I don't think it is fair to characterize that event as "goes off to kill a bunch of people" much less with "absolute, complete disregard for life."  First, that wasn't his purpose: he went off to do something, not to kill people.  Second, he only killed people who were using deadly force on him first.  Are you saying, because I don't want to put words in your mouth, that your position is that there is no difference?

hurple

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2016, 09:29:12 PM »
Can you be specific?  I honestly do not recall that.  Bruce makes his feelings known to Alfred, and in that scene he is very specific about being concerned about Superman's threat to humanity, not any perceived disregard for human life.  In the scene between Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne, which I assume is the scene you're referring to, I don't recall Bruce saying anything specific about Superman's callousness, only his clear unchecked power to "burn the whole place down."

Its possible I've forgotten something though.  I might have a chance to see it again soon because I have friends who haven't seen it yet, but then again they might decide to wait for it to come out on video.

He ultimately kills people in that scene, yes, but I don't think it is fair to characterize that event as "goes off to kill a bunch of people" much less with "absolute, complete disregard for life."  First, that wasn't his purpose: he went off to do something, not to kill people.  Second, he only killed people who were using deadly force on him first.  Are you saying, because I don't want to put words in your mouth, that your position is that there is no difference?

Well, he had guns and missiles installed on the car prior to getting into that chase... So at some point he intended to use them to kill people since that is what they are for, after all.

And if you kill someone, they are dead.  You've killed them.  Doesn't matter *why* you kill them, or what they may have done first, they're still dead.  And, BATMAN DOES NOT KILL!  There is not addendum to that.  No "unless they shoot first." No "unless he's older and jaded." No addendum... BATMAN DOES NOT KILL!  Period.

So, yeah... He spews all over the Super-douche about how it's wrong to kill and cause all that destruction and about not having regards for collateral damage... And then drives downtown in his tank-car outfitted with weapons specifically designed to kill people and cause wanton collateral property damage and destroys a large chunk of the city while killing multiple people without regard for any collateral damage. 

After what had come before, from Batfleck, I found the car chase/batplane sequences downright insulting, to both the characters and the audience.   

Oh yeah, and the Superman in these movies is an asshat douche. 

It's apparent the people making these movies don't just not know the characters but have an active disdain for them.


Tenzhi

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,642
    • My DeviantArt Page
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2016, 09:59:59 PM »
It's okay.  As long as Martian Manhunter is still alive, they can just use the dragon balls to wish everyone back.
When you insult someone by calling them a "pig" or a "dog" you aren't maligning pigs and dogs everywhere.  The same is true of any term used as an insult.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2016, 01:39:03 AM »
Well, he had guns and missiles installed on the car prior to getting into that chase... So at some point he intended to use them to kill people since that is what they are for, after all.

Couldn't you say that about police officers, security guards, and soldiers?  They are all armed, which means they intend to eventually use those arms if necessary, because that is what they are for.  Are all armed people equally callous about killing?

This Batman believes he is fighting a war.  It is a war that some would say he has no right to wage, but that's true with or without he no-kill policy; he's equally operating outside the law.

Quote
And if you kill someone, they are dead.  You've killed them.  Doesn't matter *why* you kill them, or what they may have done first, they're still dead.  And, BATMAN DOES NOT KILL!  There is not addendum to that.  No "unless they shoot first." No "unless he's older and jaded." No addendum... BATMAN DOES NOT KILL!  Period.

If you believe that's an absolute rule, then yes the circumstances themselves don't matter to your judgment of the character.  But that wasn't the question I was asking, and I tried to be very explicit.  You seemed to imply that Batman was a hypocrite because he kills and yet he hates Superman because he kills.  But even if you think there's no difference, you seem to be implying that this is a universal truth everyone would agree with, because you implied isn't just objectionable, but ridiculous.  If that was not your intent, I misunderstood.

In any case, I think you should at least be consistent with this rule.  The Dark Knight Returns Batman should be equally objectionable to you.

Personally, I don't think the problem is with Batman killing.  The problem is that TDKR was written for comic book fans, and we had years, decades of Batman history in our heads.  And frankly, it was a bit stagnant history.  TDKR didn't come right out and say "this is Batman" but rather "this is what Batman might become, if things continue to get worse."  We were supposed to contrast this Batman with the Batman we knew and loved, and see they weren't different people, just the same person under different circumstances.  We were supposed to appreciate the contrast: see what changed and what was constant.  Would the Batman kill if he needed to, or would he refuse to kill even when necessary?  Which one wins in Batman: the need to not kill or the need to do whatever it takes?  In TDKR, the story answers that question in the latter.  He doesn't kill indiscriminately, but he is willing to wage war when necessary even if it means killing.

In TDKR, Batman doesn't just give up his rule on killing, he ultimately gives up being Batman.  Twenty six years before Nolan, Miller has the Batman realize that the world no longer needed Batman the night time viligante, it needed Batman the symbol to rally the people to take control of their lives from an oppressive government and a torrent of crime.  The core essence of the man was that once again, he was willing to do what was necessary.

I think there's no set up for the man Bruce has become in BvS.  There are many paths to get there, but without seeing them there are many people who will say, with some justification, that that is just not Batman.  Batman has evolved over the years in many different directions: there is no one Batman. But I think if you want the hard core fans to come along for the ride, you have to show them how to get there.  I think Nolan was more successful in this: he *created* a new Batman mythos, and because we see exactly how this Bruce Wayne becomes this Batman, it is easier to accept all the ways that Batman was not the Batman most comic book fans were accustomed to.  There's no question for me that is a major flaw.

For me personally, though, I don't see that "Batman doesn't kill, ergo its wrong" is fair, given that at least once before I and a lot of other hard core fans were willing to give that a pass under the right conditions.  Context matters.

Quote
It's apparent the people making these movies don't just not know the characters but have an active disdain for them.

That's a very strong statement.  I can't speak for Nolan, or Snyder, or Goyer.  But I can speak for myself, and I don't find these things as objectionable as you do.  I find the execution of them highly flawed, but I don't find the mere approach to them as toxic.  I feel I know the characters very well and I do not have any disdain for any of them.  So I believe reviewers making this claim cannot make that generalization without tossing every movie viewer like myself into the same bucket.  I certainly understand why many find these things objectionable, but there's a difference between saying the movie is something you hate, and saying the movie makers must hate the material because no one who loves the material could possibly have made any of the decisions they made.

Snyder is a grown up and rich, he can defend himself, and he should be able to take it if a bunch of movie goes say he's an incompetent doofus or he doesn't understand the material.  But when you say he hates the material and the movie proves it, that is a very wide brush being waved around.  It says everyone who doesn't agree that his every decision was obviously wrong must be equally idiotic or malicious.

I believe it is fair to say from interviews and such that Snyder doesn't really fully understand where the hate comes from.  And I think that does prove he doesn't really fully understand or appreciate the social context of the characters: the parts of the characters that the majority of fans would agree were the most defining.  But that just makes him tunnel-visioned, like frankly a lot of comic book fans are.  It doesn't mean he hates the characters, it just means the reasons why he likes them may not be the same as the majority of other fans of the characters.  I wish he had a deeper understanding of the context of the characters and their associated stories: its the singular complaint I had about Watchmen.  But having a shallower or minority opinion about the characters is not the same thing as hating them, or even misunderstanding them.  He just doesn't see what a lot of the rest of us see.

For me, I think this all hinges on (something I believe to be) a fact that we don't talk about much.  And that is that as much as the Batman has a relateable origin story, Batman is just as inhuman as Superman is.  There's no relateable human being inside the cape and cowl.  Batman is an icon; we don't ask how hard it must be to be "crazy prepared" all the time, to see the world as nothing but victims to be saved and perpetrators to be stopped.  I'm not saying there don't exist stories that deal with the human side of Batman, but I am saying the prototypical Batman in most hardcore fan's heads is stripped of humanity, in a way that is not true for say Peter Parker or Hal Jordan.  The difficult part has always been trying to put a human being inside that suit.

I think Nolan's Batman is an underappreciated work of genius.  In the Nolan movies, there is no Batman.  Batman is a creation of Bruce Wayne, and not in a sense of being a different persona, but literally in being a modern myth that Bruce Wayne is actively and deliberately trying to invent.  In the Nolan-verse, the Batman is not the cape and cowl punching villains.  The cape and cowl are just the means to an end, the end being that Batman becomes legendary.  Batman is really that statue they unveil at the end of Rises.  In a sense, Batman doesn't die at the end of Rises, that's actually the moment when the real Batman is born.  Bruce Wayne was just the guy trying to convince the world that statue was worth believing in.

In a way, Nolan himself doesn't think of the Batman as a great thing.  Instead, Nolan crafts the Batman as a necessary evil, something that a good man could temporarily become to inspire others to rise up and eliminate the need for a Batman.  In a way, Nolan "hates" Batman more than Snyder does, because Nolan believes Batman doesn't actually work as a permanent presence in Gotham.

But because Batman is not a person but a story, the movies are really about Bruce Wayne, and his struggles to create this dark story.  Nolan's movies are about a person trying to create a legend, not the legend itself.  Batman doesn't have to have motives or moral struggles or internal conflicts.  Bruce does.  And that humanizes the Batman story in an interesting way.

Nolan is a story teller, and one of my beliefs about Nolan is that all of his principle characters are story tellers (think Leonard in Memento, Robert and Alfred in The Prestige, Cobb in Inception, Cooper in Interestellar).  Nolan put a story teller into the body of Bruce Wayne, and through that conceit he can make Bruce Wayne tell interesting Batman stories.  Snyder, on the other hand, decided to put a soldier into the cape and cowl of Batman.  In the hands of a Spielberg, or Ridley Scott, or maybe Jonathan Demme, I think that can work.  But I think Snyder's style doesn't lend itself to the quiet moments necessary to pull that off.  It then veers into Michael Mann/Michael Bay territory where the visuals or the style overpower any story that might have been there to start.

Snyder's soldiers tend to project their character mostly through their actions, not their thoughts or dialog.  That works for 300.  That actually doesn't work for Watchmen, and only the excellent acting of Jackie Earl Haley saves Rorschach from being a two-dimensional psychopath.  I think both Batman and Superman needed more to realize these versions of the characters, and it ultimately wasn't there.

Ironically, when Snyder tried to make Batman more human he made him less relateable.  A heroic Batman - a violent vigilante - is something you shouldn't think about too closely.  Unless you are really good at it, it will likely come off the rails for a lot of your audience.  I think Nolan was good enough.  I think Snyder was not.

Just my opinion, though.

Codewalker

  • Hero of the City
  • Titan Network Admin
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,740
  • Moar Dots!
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2016, 01:55:41 AM »
Since the whole debate about Batman involves his view of Superman's actions that took place in Man Of Steel, I feel compelled to repost this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjSNLmb0Ndw

Just a reminder that, as per the usual with most incarnations of the character, if Superman had more than two Kryptonian brain cells he could have easily avoided the whole mess entirely.

Can't wait to see what they do with BvS... :D

Vee

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,364
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #30 on: April 01, 2016, 02:41:46 AM »
In any case, I think you should at least be consistent with this rule.  The Dark Knight Returns Batman should be equally objectionable to you.

Personally, I don't think the problem is with Batman killing.  The problem is that TDKR was written for comic book fans, and we had years, decades of Batman history in our heads. 

There is a pretty big problem with Batman killing though, so much so that Miller leaves it ambiguous in TDKR whether even the grizzled, older, already more violent, and thinking he's dying himself Bats kills, or only paralyzes the Joker. Even if we take the position that the Joker suicide is hallucination or wish fulfillment, one killing, as a possible last act, of an obviously irredeemable villain by a guy who's convinced he's the only one who could possibly stop Joker (setting aside the fact Joker only starts back up because of Bats reappearing), still only does it when he thinks it's the only way to stop him, and for whom killing is so repellant that he has to immediately convince himself he didn't actually do it, is a far cry from the more random, unthinking killing people have been complaining about here.

Your point about this being what Batman would realistically turn into after doing this for years is well taken, though. I personally have no issue with them abandoning the comics version for that sort of Batman. In fact, I'm starting to think that comic-based TV/Movie stuff winds up better if they don't try to replicate the source material and just get some decent writers.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #31 on: April 01, 2016, 02:46:13 AM »
Since the whole debate about Batman involves his view of Superman's actions that took place in Man Of Steel, I feel compelled to repost this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjSNLmb0Ndw

Just a reminder that, as per the usual with most incarnations of the character, if Superman had more than two Kryptonian brain cells he could have easily avoided the whole mess entirely.

Can't wait to see what they do with BvS... :D

One of the reasons why I like The Martian is because there really are no stupid characters in it.  Watney of course doesn't do unreasonably stupid things just to implement the rule of drama, not even when he's at his wit's end.  But Sanders, the NASA administrator played by Jeff Daniels, is also not stupid and the decisions he makes are just as coldly rational as Watney's even if they are viscerally disagreeable.  No villains, just people trying to do the right thing in reasonably intelligent ways.

That is astoundingly rare in all of fiction, much less cinema.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #32 on: April 01, 2016, 03:13:42 AM »
There is a pretty big problem with Batman killing though, so much so that Miller leaves it ambiguous in TDKR whether even the grizzled, older, already more violent, and thinking he's dying himself Bats kills, or only paralyzes the Joker. Even if we take the position that the Joker suicide is hallucination or wish fulfillment, one killing, as a possible last act, of an obviously irredeemable villain by a guy who's convinced he's the only one who could possibly stop Joker (setting aside the fact Joker only starts back up because of Bats reappearing), still only does it when he thinks it's the only way to stop him, and for whom killing is so repellant that he has to immediately convince himself he didn't actually do it, is a far cry from the more random, unthinking killing people have been complaining about here.

I think even the TDKR Batman has a rule about killing, but its not "don't kill."  It is "don't execute."  Even the TDKR Batman believes in using non-lethal force when ever it is possible, and also does not believe he has the right to execute a criminal as punishment or prevention.  That is what distinguishes the TDKR Batman from, say, the Punisher.  Both kill, but for the Punisher killing is the goal: the Punisher is willing to execute criminals who he believes deserves to die.  The TDKR Batman kills in the heat of combat - when he attacks the mutant gang with the bat-tank, for example - but he doesn't ever try to kill the mutant leader, or even any of the other criminals he actually confronts face to face.  That's a different morality than the "no-kill ever" one that some incarnations of Batman have, but it is still a distinction I think is important.  Not in terms of moralizing Batman's actions directly, but making Batman an understandable character.  "I don't murder, I don't execute.  I don't decide to punish criminals or think I have the right to permanently remove them from society.  If someone attacks me or an innocent person and the only way I can stop them is with lethal force, then I'll do that if I have to."  That seems to be the (oversimplified) moral code of the Batman in TDKR.  The TDKR Batman doesn't believe, or want to believe, he alone gets to decide if the Joker lives or dies.  But there's no remorse over fighting the Joker to the point of near lethal injuries.  And I think from what I saw in the movie that can apply to the BvS Batman as well.

There's no way to know this just watching the movie, so in a sense it doesn't "count" but it is stated in the movie that Bruce has been the Batman for about twenty years, and maybe losing a step in the process.  Meanwhile, word of god says that the Joker killed Robin about ten years prior, accounting for the Robin costume in the cave.  Suppose that Bruce blames himself for Robin's death.  Specifically, suppose that Robin dies because Bruce was trying too hard to avoid injuring or killing the Joker, and that is what gave the Joker the opening to kill Robin.  Or maybe Robin was just the first, and over the last ten years others have died while Batman tried to honor his no-kill code, and with each passing year he gets a little older and a little slower and just doesn't have the ability to give his opponents that much latitude.  Maybe this Batman has to be more violent, has to take every advantage he can, because its the only way he can still win.  Maybe the no-kill rule is a luxury a thirty year old Batman has that a forty year old Batman cannot afford.

Bruce tells Alfred that his bringing down Superman might be the most important thing he's ever done, and might ultimately be his true legacy.  Maybe this Batman sees that the end is coming: he can't keep up forever, and maybe not even for much longer.  Maybe his level of violence is connected to that ongoing realization.

Vee

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,364
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2016, 04:32:12 AM »
I'll buy all that.
Spoiler for Hidden:
plus with the Comedian as your dad you're bound to be a bit more violent than your average Batman adaptation :P

Spoiler for Hidden:
I wonder if the flash forward vision of supes blaming bats for lois's death could be a result of the 'no execute' rule. It seemed like it could be a setup for a future adaptation of Injustice where Joker kills Lois and Clark blames Bruce for not having killed him.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 05:21:04 AM by Vee »

Vee

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,364
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2016, 04:43:42 AM »
Spoiler for Hidden:
Can someone tell me who was the guy talking to Bruce Wayne in his dream?

Spoiler for Hidden:
I think it was supposed to be Flash, but it's unclear how his time-traveling abilities would let him give Bruce the future vision. Maybe Fate is helping?

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #35 on: April 01, 2016, 09:41:59 AM »
Spoiler for Hidden:
I think it was supposed to be Flash, but it's unclear how his time-traveling abilities would let him give Bruce the future vision. Maybe Fate is helping?

Spoiler for Hidden:
Maybe we're seeing a double vision.  Maybe Batman is seeing a premonition of a future date where the Flash will travel back in time and give him the warning.  In other words, the Flash wasn't traveling back in time to 2016 to warn Bruce, he was actually traveling back in time to some date still in the future, and 2016 Bruce was seeing a vision of that future event.  That would at least be consistent with his other vision of Superman in the desert showing the Omega symbol that is almost certainly a prophetic warning of Darkseid.  Something is giving Bruce visions with elements of prophesy.  One of those visions was a future vision of the Flash traveling back in time.

The question is who is giving Bruce these visions.  And while I can't quite see how this might work, I have wondered if the visions have a direct connection to Darkseid himself.  Darkseid has some capability of telepathy and mind control, maybe Bruce is intentionally or unintentionally picking up on something.  Diana mentions that she's killed alien beings that came to Earth before, so Earth isn't a completely backwater place.  Powerful beings may have been interested in Earth for some time, and that may include Darkseid and/or agents of Darkseid.

That would at least explain why Bruce is haunted by images of omegas and a world taken over by flying winged servants.

Vee

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,364
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2016, 11:24:38 AM »
Spoiler for Hidden:
Telepathic Darkseid is probably the best answer. I've not gotten through enough of the comics to know if he's shown that level of telepathy there (in all the stuff I'm familiar with his mind control has been dependent on Granny Goodness and/or Desaad and the victim being held captive at some point, unless you count the abomination that was Smallville's version), but he's certainly consistently manipulative enough that trying to get Bats to take out Supes in preparation for an attack on earth would make sense. Lex at the end seems to have some sort of knowledge to that effect, and really his being manipulated by Darkseid would go a long way towards explaining his motivations as well.

Ultimately I think it's unclear what we're supposed to think about that scene, and none of the other scenarios I can come up with make much sense. I was basing my somehow-aided-Flash theory on Flash's line about coming to the wrong time. But any scenario I can come up with requires characters to have knowledge, powers, or some combination of both that they haven't typically had in any previous iteration. I suppose that's fine since we know there are other movies coming which will presumably pay off that scene. I just wonder what someone without a heavy dose of nerd knowledge could possibly make of it. Idk, maybe it would be easier to deal with without recognizing parademons and the significance of omegas.

edit (sorry about the overposting, i just saw it yesterday) -
Spoiler for Hidden:
The more I think about it mind control by Darkseid would not only explain a bunch of Luthor's actions but also Bruce's starting to brand criminals after 20 years. Darkseid plans to attack Earth, uses Luthor to gather info on possible resistance, decides Supes needs to be eliminated, identifies Bats as a way to do that and starts manipulating Bruce in such a way as to draw Clark's attention while using Luthor to further that plan and also to set up Doomsday as a backup plan. Darkseid conspiracy/mind control helps several of the confusing bits of the plot that have been mentioned in the thread make sense too, like why Lex needed to import the Kryptonite and why he let the bullets lead back to him, the ease he has getting access to the ship both from the government and the ship's computer, his figuring out how to make Doomsday so quickly. Would explain Bruce's limited suspicion of Lex too. Somebody hand me a tinfoil hat, I'm starting to convince myself here.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 01:51:58 PM by Vee »

CG

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 408
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2016, 02:03:28 PM »
Personally, I don't think the problem is with Batman killing.  The problem is that TDKR was written for comic book fans, and we had years, decades of Batman history in our heads.  And frankly, it was a bit stagnant history.  TDKR didn't come right out and say "this is Batman" but rather "this is what Batman might become, if things continue to get worse."  We were supposed to contrast this Batman with the Batman we knew and loved, and see they weren't different people, just the same person under different circumstances.  We were supposed to appreciate the contrast: see what changed and what was constant.  Would the Batman kill if he needed to, or would he refuse to kill even when necessary?  Which one wins in Batman: the need to not kill or the need to do whatever it takes?  In TDKR, the story answers that question in the latter.  He doesn't kill indiscriminately, but he is willing to wage war when necessary even if it means killing.

In TDKR, Batman doesn't just give up his rule on killing, he ultimately gives up being Batman. 
Batman doesn't kill anyone in DKR that I can recall.  Even with his bat-tank, he makes a point of mentioning he uses rubber bullets.  When confronted with a thug creeping up behind him in his first night back as Batman, he says there are 7 working defences from this position: 3 disarm with minimal contact, 3 kill and one hurts.  He picks the "hurts" option and puts the thug in the hospital.

Who did Batman kill in DKR?

hurple

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2016, 02:22:47 PM »
Couldn't you say that about police officers, security guards, and soldiers?  They are all armed, which means they intend to eventually use those arms if necessary, because that is what they are for.  Are all armed people equally callous about killing?

In my experience... Yes.

Especially cops and young unarmed, harmless African Americans, these days.


hurple

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2016, 02:38:47 PM »

Ironically, when Snyder tried to make Batman more human he made him less relateable.  A heroic Batman - a violent vigilante - is something you shouldn't think about too closely.  Unless you are really good at it, it will likely come off the rails for a lot of your audience.  I think Nolan was good enough.  I think Snyder was not.


Watching this "season" of Netflix's Daredevil, it struck me how much more "Batman-like" that show's Daredevil is than either the Nolan, Snyder (and Burton) Batman. 

But, then, DD has always been a Batman rip-off.

But, yeah, the way he fights, the way he protects, the way he moves and appears/disappears... FAR more the Batman than Batman has ever been portrayed in movies.