Author Topic: Batman v. Superman  (Read 26531 times)

Night-Hawk07

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 317
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #40 on: April 01, 2016, 04:23:30 PM »
In my experience... Yes.

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

 :roll:

Vee

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,364
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #41 on: April 01, 2016, 04:45:02 PM »

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

Or vice versa.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #42 on: April 01, 2016, 06:36:00 PM »
Or vice versa.

Worth noting that Frank Miller's run on Daredevil, which in many ways launched the modern version of the character most people know (including introducing Elektra and reconfiguring the stories around the Kingpin and the Hand), occurred several years before Miller wrote The Dark Knight Returns.  Miller turned Daredevil into the brooding dark enti-hero of Hell's Kitchen before he kicked off the story that would eventually turn Batman into the modern version of the Dark Knight.

hurple

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #43 on: April 01, 2016, 08:15:09 PM »
Or vice versa.

Well, since Batman pre-dates DD by decades, I'd say there is no vice versa.


hurple

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 595
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #44 on: April 01, 2016, 08:16:21 PM »
Worth noting that Frank Miller's run on Daredevil, which in many ways launched the modern version of the character most people know (including introducing Elektra and reconfiguring the stories around the Kingpin and the Hand), occurred several years before Miller wrote The Dark Knight Returns.  Miller turned Daredevil into the brooding dark enti-hero of Hell's Kitchen before he kicked off the story that would eventually turn Batman into the modern version of the Dark Knight.

Ugh.  HATE Frank Miller.

Well, ok, not *him personally*... His work.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #45 on: April 01, 2016, 10:00:39 PM »
Well, since Batman pre-dates DD by decades, I'd say there is no vice versa.

That's not a fair statement, because Batman in 1964 isn't like Batman in 2016, and more importantly not like Daredevil in 1964 (when the character was created).

Daredevil has some similarities to Batman, but his original origin story is a confused mess that resembles Batman like rainbow sherbet resembles fried chicken.  The modern retconned story is less similar: his abusive father made Matt Murdock want to become a lawyer and pursue the law, while his father's death prompted him to turn vigilante to bring the people involved to justice, and his catholic upbringing creates a duality conflict between his desire for law and order and his desire for justice in or out of the system.  Also, there's the whole "accident grants Matt superpowers" thing.  A rather interesting aspect of Daredevil is that first he gets his superpowers as a child, but originally he just uses them to overcome his blindness.  There's a completely separate set of events that cause him to start using those powers as Daredevil.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #46 on: April 01, 2016, 10:22:58 PM »
Ugh.  HATE Frank Miller.

Well, ok, not *him personally*... His work.

Well, it is important to note that by the mid-80s, Batman was kind of a joke. The campy 60s version of Batman from the TV show that had infected the comics went out of vogue, and attempts to pull it out of that mode were not really all that successful.  I think the modern Batman that is still relevant to day owes a lot of its existence to Miller, first by creating new interest in the character with The Dark Knight Returns, and then revitalizing the mainstream Batman with Year One.  The rapid-fire sequence of TDKR, Year One, then Moore's Killing Joke, then DC's stunt advertising Death in the Family, then the Burton Batman movie pulled Batman back into relevance.  I think without TDKR and Year One you don't get Killing Joke, and you don't get Burton's Batman, and then you don't get Batman:TAS. 

Without all that I think there would still be a Batman around, but we kind of take it for granted today that Batman as a story is indestructible: there were rumors back then that DC was thinking of cancelling Batman in the early 80s due to increasing disinterest in the character.  Frank Miller did a lot to reverse that.

Of course, then Frank Miller went insane.  But the modern Batman, from his look to his character to his very publishing existence, owes almost as much to Miller as it does to Bob Kane and Bill Finger.  Every iteration of Batman in the last thirty years takes at least some inspiration from either TDKR or Year One.

When you say you hate Miller's work, do you actually mean all of his work?  Because I'm curious to know what your opinion is on Year One.  TDKR exists in a sort of limbo of DC continuity, but Year One is fully canonical and most people consider it one of the better canonical Batman stories ever written. 

Vee

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,364
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #47 on: April 02, 2016, 03:31:40 AM »
Having now read everything Batman up to 1996 (ok i skimmed most of the 40s and 50s, but i'd still be reading those if I hadn't) I have to echo everything Arcana said. The Batman that we think of as *the* Batman is about equal parts Kane/Finger, early 70s Denny O'Neil (who brought in a lot of the detective-y bits and a good bit of the dark bits trying to mimic the success of horror comics. oh and Ra's al-Ghul who sprang pretty much fully-formed from O'Neil's head, a rarity in comics.), and Miller (who cut his teeth on many of the 'archetypal Batman' elements he brings in on his Daredevil run), with a dash of Steve Englehart (which is impressive since he was only on the character for 5 minutes). And really you'd be surprised at how rarely anything like *the* Batman shows up in the comics prior to him showing up in TAS and to a lesser extent in the Burton films. Frankly I'm hoping he shows up more often soon because most of the comics I'm reading now stink on ice and i've got 20 more years to wade through.

Oh also I can't stand Killing Joke. I love Moore (and Oracle) and it went a long way toward making the Joker *the* Joker but dammit I don't want my crazy psychopath explaining himself rationally (same reason i disliked the second half of Dark Knight, where Joker's not only explaining his behavior but he also seems to have just finished his cliched college freshman's reading of Nietzsche.) and I don't want my Joker having an origin story.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #48 on: April 02, 2016, 04:22:15 AM »
Oh also I can't stand Killing Joke. I love Moore (and Oracle) and it went a long way toward making the Joker *the* Joker but dammit I don't want my crazy psychopath explaining himself rationally (same reason i disliked the second half of Dark Knight, where Joker's not only explaining his behavior but he also seems to have just finished his cliched college freshman's reading of Nietzsche.) and I don't want my Joker having an origin story.

I'm actually less a fan of the Killing Joke today than I was then, at least in terms of its story.  But I think The Killing Joke is important to the history of Batman in a lot of ways.  It cemented Batman as the center of mass for a lot of creative content and publishing energy, and it proved people will pay money for Batman.  The Killing Joke started the trend of making high-priced special print event books that cost (comparatively) an arm and a leg (around the same time, DC launched its Vertigo line with the very beautiful and extremely inexplicable Black Orchid which started my love affair with all things Gaiman and McKean, just in time for Sandman to arrive, but Black Orchid wasn't the commercial success that The Killing Joke was).  The Killing Joke was followed with, if I recall correctly, The Cult, which sealed Batman as the king of making-money-by-embossed-cover.  The Killing Joke is also I think the story that really starts the trend of making the Joker THE Batman villain.  Batman has a rogues gallery like Superman or Dick Tracy, but from The Killing Joke forward, Batman's arch nemesis is the Joker, period.

On the other hand, I'm actually a fan of The Dark Knight's Joker, and not just because of Heath Ledger's outstanding performance.  The Nolan Joker isn't bat-shit crazy.  He is a psychopath, but psychopaths aren't just randomly nuts: they can and often do have an internal logic.  The Nolan Joker isn't a random clown, he has a purpose, and even though he is a complete troll when it comes to personality, and enjoys creating chaos, he does it with singular purpose.  The clownish Joker wouldn't have given Dent the gun.  The Nolan Joker does because he is a psychopath: he doesn't fear Dent shooting him, he thinks in his own way that he wins either way.  He turns Dent into a murderer or he unleashes Dent upon the city.  In the Joker's version of the world, he always ultimately wins.

I think that's also the reason why I think people who complain about the Joker's plans in The Dark Knight are just too good to be believable are missing the point.  They believe that the Joker intended everything to happen exactly as it does, and that it is impossible to plan that well.  But I think that the Nolan Joker doesn't work that way.  The Nolan Joker puts lots of balls into motion, and plays his plans by ear, and in his mind whatever happens happens.  He didn't plan on getting captured, just so he could be in jail, just so he could use the phone at just the right time to blow up the jail and escape.  He just had so many things going on he could play it out however it went.  If he wasn't captured then, he would have just walked into the police station.  Or maybe he would have just put a video on the internet.  Maybe he would have used the bomb guy in a different way.  That's the thing about the Joker.  You can't foil his plans if he is perfectly willing and able to change his plans to fit the circumstances.  He can change his plans because he doesn't have a predefined goal that locks him into a single plan.  His overall goal is to create chaos, confusion, and destruction.  If he doesn't get exactly what he's aiming for, he can just aim at something else.  That's the terrifying thing about the Nolan Joker.  He can ask people to come forward and identify the Batman, then he can change his mind and ask people to kill you when you try to come forward.  There is no safe place around the Joker, because you cannot give him what he wants.  What he wants is for it to be impossible for you to give him what he wants.

You know, the Joker tells a lot of stories to a lot of people in The Dark Knight.  Is what the Joker tells Batman at the end what he actually thinks, or just what he thinks will antagonize the Batman the most?

Vee

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,364
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #49 on: April 02, 2016, 04:50:01 AM »
I'd like to think the latter, in fact i'm now choosing to believe that cause it makes me like it a lot more. Really I liked everything you mentioned about him and especially the constantly changing origin story of the scars. Just that explanation speech really stuck in my craw because i like Joker to be a cipher. I felt like the speech there was genuine, mainly because it hearkens back to a lot of Killing Joke. Speaking of I'm interested to see exactly how Timm is going to adapt Killing Joke, seeing as it's basically 2 scenes plus a fight and is mostly just Joker talking in the Barbara-pics-only Willy Wonka tunnel. Doesn't really seem like enough meat for a movie even at the DCAU's short running times.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2016, 05:42:10 AM by Vee »

CG

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 408
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #50 on: April 02, 2016, 04:20:23 PM »
Given that DKR is being used to justify the Batman from BvS, I would like to iterate that Batman doesn't kill anyone in DKR.  He also doesn't use guns.

It's even stated by both sides of the talking heads in the comic itself that he hasn't killed anyone.  He doesn't kill the Joker.  He doesn't even kill the Mutant holding the kid hostage with the M60; he just puts a round through his shoulder.  The Joker kills himself, which triggers the all out effort to bring Batman in, even though he's not guilty of that crime.

Batman doesn't use guns either, other than gizmos where a gun-like form factor is the best design (grappling guns).  Batman even makes a point that his Bat-tank uses rubber bullets. 


Later when the SoBs want to raze the city, he still iterates no guns.



So, even in the desperate, even nihilistic DKR, the core rules for Batman are stil:
  • No killing
  • No guns

He goes out of his way to adhere to both of these. It's a pity that while researching DKR for its imagery, they didn't bother to read it.

Vee

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,364
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #51 on: April 02, 2016, 05:15:09 PM »
I think it's at least questionable whether the Joker's suicide actually happens.

Tenzhi

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,642
    • My DeviantArt Page
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #52 on: April 02, 2016, 05:29:37 PM »
So he was shooting rubber bullets out of... high tech slingshots?

Ah, well.  Just call it All Star Dark Knight Returns and get on with life.
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 #53 on: April 02, 2016, 09:10:13 PM »
Given that DKR is being used to justify the Batman from BvS, I would like to iterate that Batman doesn't kill anyone in DKR.  He also doesn't use guns.

...

So, even in the desperate, even nihilistic DKR, the core rules for Batman are stil:
  • No killing
  • No guns

There's this scene in TDKR:




Its not 100% clear that he kills her, but he is firing a machine gun at her and there is a big blood spatter behind her.  In either case, he definitely uses a gun.

Interestingly, in the animated version of TDKR they revise this scene: Batman shoots the gun out of her hand and then knocks her unconscious.  The machine gun is also replaced with a more conventional rifle.  But conversely, in the bat-tank scene it is made much clearer that the bat-tank is using not just rubber bullets but also explosive ordinance which almost certainly has to kill someone.

There are also some ambiguous examples of the TDKR Batman at least bending his no-kill rule in a manner similar to how Nolan's Batman elects not to try to save Ras Al Ghul in Batman Begins.  For example, there's the general's suicide.  Its implied strongly Batman encouraged him to do it, and it is made more explicit in the animated version.  But even the print version does this:



Its strongly implied he was there, and was conversing with the general when he did it, and did nothing to stop him.  The animated version almost literally has Batman put the gun in his hand  (Note: I'm not saying the animated version should be considered the authoritative interpretation of the print comic, only that it is another legitimate depiction of Batman separate from the comic).

In any case, there is 100% absolute unambiguous evidence that the TDKR Batman will at least under the right conditions use a gun, and not as a technicality (i.e. "the Batarang shooter is technically a gun" assertion): a real machine gun firing real bullets aimed at a living human being.  I think there's strong evidence that Batman kills at least one person through his own direct actions, either the mutant kidnapper in the print version or at least one blown up mutant in the animated version.

CG

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 408
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #54 on: April 02, 2016, 10:38:32 PM »
There's this scene in TDKR:

Its not 100% clear that he kills her, but he is firing a machine gun at her and there is a big blood spatter behind her.  In either case, he definitely uses a gun.
You could choose to see that as a low point for him in his war with the Mutants, as later on, he unequivocally rejects using guns.  If you look closely at the picture, there is one spent casing, so one bullet fired.  Since this was a public case with a kidnapping, if he had killed the mutant, this would have been in the news and later the talking head against Batman would have brought up the murder.  The fact that he didn't kill her is made 100% clear (but not explicitly stated) within the book itself.  I choose to look at it as lower numbered rules can be broken so long as higher numbered rules are not. ie. guns can be used, but only if they don't kill anyone.

For example, there's the general's suicide.  Its implied strongly Batman encouraged him to do it, and it is made more explicit in the animated version. 

Its strongly implied he was there, and was conversing with the general when he did it, and did nothing to stop him. 
It is a pretty big stretch from "Batman witnessed it", which is reasonable from his comment about "almost asking why", to Batman encouraged him.  There's nothing to back that up.  It's pretty clear that Batman's no killing rule is absolute, but cuts pretty close to the bone.  If a scumbag responsible for arming gangs to kill people wants to take his own life, Batman isn't going to stop him (at this point in his career).

In any case, there is 100% absolute unambiguous evidence that the TDKR Batman will at least under the right conditions use a gun, and not as a technicality (i.e. "the Batarang shooter is technically a gun" assertion): a real machine gun firing real bullets aimed at a living human being.  I think there's strong evidence that Batman kills at least one person through his own direct actions, either the mutant kidnapper in the print version or at least one blown up mutant in the animated version.
Yes, he used a gun, but this is one panel in the entire novel and later he explicitly rejects their use.  Cherry picking instances like this is how Snyder and co. picked Superman killing Zod.  It happened one time, so we can make it the new normal.

As I stated above, the Mutant didn't die or else Batman would have been crucified in the media.  It is the death of the Joker (certainly more hated than any Mutant) that gives the authorities the official cover to want to bring him in.  If a murder had happened earlier in the book, they would have gone after him earlier.  So either there's a major public case where Batman murdered someone and the police, media and government covered it up and forgot about it, or the mutant didn't die.

I'm skipping over your references to the DKR movie because it's largely in the same camp as BvS; another director's interpretation of the original source.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #55 on: April 03, 2016, 01:10:16 AM »
You could choose to see that as a low point for him in his war with the Mutants, as later on, he unequivocally rejects using guns.  If you look closely at the picture, there is one spent casing, so one bullet fired.  Since this was a public case with a kidnapping, if he had killed the mutant, this would have been in the news and later the talking head against Batman would have brought up the murder.  The fact that he didn't kill her is made 100% clear (but not explicitly stated) within the book itself.  I choose to look at it as lower numbered rules can be broken so long as higher numbered rules are not. ie. guns can be used, but only if they don't kill anyone.

I choose to see it as "Batman used a gun, ergo there is no rule that says Batman never uses guns."

Quote
It is a pretty big stretch from "Batman witnessed it", which is reasonable from his comment about "almost asking why", to Batman encouraged him.  There's nothing to back that up.  It's pretty clear that Batman's no killing rule is absolute, but cuts pretty close to the bone.  If a scumbag responsible for arming gangs to kill people wants to take his own life, Batman isn't going to stop him (at this point in his career).
Yes, he used a gun, but this is one panel in the entire novel and later he explicitly rejects their use.  Cherry picking instances like this is how Snyder and co. picked Superman killing Zod.  It happened one time, so we can make it the new normal.

It is only cherry picking if I was trying to assert that Batman is comfortable killing people: see, he did it once, so it must be normal for him.  I did no such thing.  I asserted your rules about Batman have exceptions.  I am only required to produce one to demonstrate that fact.

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I'm taking the exact opposite position of you.  When I say that TDKR shows a Batman that has no rule against using guns, I'm not trying clumsily to say that Batman loves to use guns.  I'm saying Batman in TDKR has no rule against using guns, at least no rule he isn't willing to break.  If I meant more, I would have said more.

Quote
As I stated above, the Mutant didn't die or else Batman would have been crucified in the media.  It is the death of the Joker (certainly more hated than any Mutant) that gives the authorities the official cover to want to bring him in.  If a murder had happened earlier in the book, they would have gone after him earlier.  So either there's a major public case where Batman murdered someone and the police, media and government covered it up and forgot about it, or the mutant didn't die.

Or maybe there were no credible witnesses to accuse Batman of murder.  A lot of mutants die in Batman's wake when he first engages the mutant army, which is before the Joker's return, and even if you think Batman is responsible for none of them there's no way the media could know that (in the print version, the mutants shoot weapons at the bat-tank that very obviously result in inflicting casualties on themselves).  If the media was as predictable as you claim they are in TDKR, they would have used that initial fight to hang Batman in public.  It is possible that instead, the media knows it won't get a lot of public sympathy generated from the deaths of the mutants, especially in the case where they kidnapped a child or were massing an army.  The Joker, however, was made a high profile case by the psychologist who was trying to make the case that the Batman was himself responsible for the actions of the Joker.  That's something that can be spun in different ways.

In either case, if you are going to apply a standard of "Batman doesn't kill unless there is unambiguous evidence of the kill" then it is hypocritical not to apply that standard to BvS.  When Batman hooks and drags the car around, there is no unambiguous evidence that Batman kills anyone.  By *my* standard of evidence, I think it is fair to say it is highly likely that someone was killed in that sequence.  But that same standard says it is equally likely that someone was killed in both the print and animated versions of TDKR.  But by your standards, there's no proof Batman killed anyone in BvS.  Everyone in it *could* have survived.  Even the people he shoots in the scene near the end in his big fight: what's the mortality rate of someone being shot once by a handgun at close range?  Pretty sure it is not 100%.  Even the one guy that all reasonable people would agree must have died doesn't actually die on camera.  There's no literal visual evidence of it.

Bottom line: Batman uses a gun in TDKR, which means TDKR does not obey a rule that Batman doesn't use a gun.  Batman may not like to use guns, he may hate guns, he may encourage other people not to use guns, but he has no *absolute* rule about not using guns.  And it takes a lot of effort to claim that Batman doesn't kill even once in TDKR, effort not being equally used to attempt to claim Batman avoided killing in BvS.

Incidentally, in this scene:



It is obvious that Batman isn't making a personal confession about his attitude towards guns.  He is trying to make sure his army isn't a murdering mob.  This is the next panel:



He's trying to keep some control over his followers, not making a New Years resolution.

Arcana

  • Sultaness of Stats
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #56 on: April 03, 2016, 01:45:06 AM »
In researching this, I came across something I hadn't read before.  Apparently it is part of Alex Ross' Mythology: the DC Comics Art of Alex Ross.

It is interesting for giving Alex Ross' perspective on Batman's "rule" about guns.  Its a tiny mini-story called "The Trust."  You can read the entire thing (this is actually the entire story) here: http://imgur.com/a/HkQtW

(Note: I'm going to go buy this now).

Read the entire thing for context, but this is the key panel:



Superman has gone berserk, and it is up to Batman to stop him.  Simultaneously, Ross validates the notion that Batman made a promise to himself to never use guns, at least in the conventional sense, and in his mind (at least this version of Batman) has never broken that promise.  And yet Ross makes Batman break that rule on the same page he reiterates it.  But he also says why: the one person he will break that promise for is Superman.

Ross also ingeniusly explains *why* Batman thinks it is worth breaking this promise for Superman in the next panel:



Batman is willing to break his rule for one reason, and one reason only: ironically, to *save* Superman's life, not kill him.  It is implied that Batman couldn't think of a way to use the Kryptonite in a way that wasn't fatal to Superman, until he realized he could make in essence a Kryptonite bullet (dart).  The dart might be extractable, and the damage reversible, and that's why he's willing to break his rule on guns.

I think regardless of our opinions on TDKR and whether it is true to Batman, Ross did us all one better.  That one panel, where Batman pulls the trigger and thinks "but I'll do it for you" convinced me to buy the book all by itself.

Dev7on

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 488
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #57 on: April 03, 2016, 02:09:17 AM »
BREAKING NEWS!: Warner Bros. just released a deleted scene from Batman vs. Superman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUzvASr8s

Vee

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,364
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #58 on: April 03, 2016, 04:36:31 AM »
BREAKING NEWS!: Warner Bros. just released a deleted scene from Batman vs. Superman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUzvASr8s

So Lex correctly picked the box with the pebble and the balrog just disintegrated? Oh now the whole plot makes sense!

Spoiler for Hidden:
It's also possible Lex made Doomsday out of that Kryptonian tar because of Superman's refusal to ever fall for Lex's protestations about being thrown in the briar patch.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2016, 04:43:55 AM by Vee »

Tenzhi

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,642
    • My DeviantArt Page
Re: Batman v. Superman
« Reply #59 on: April 03, 2016, 06:22:04 AM »
When I see mysterious cubes in the DC universe, I sometimes think "Mother Box"...  dunno what that's about.
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.