• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

EW: Ben Affleck promises 'a more traditional Batman' in Justice League

JJH

Member
Aug 19, 2016
924
0
235
I'm happy to hear that. Hopefully the same goes for Superman.

 

Alienous

Member
Jan 20, 2013
35,669
2
0
The most interesting part of bvs to me was the jaded batman who after decades of fighting an endless battle that can never be truly won witthout breaking his one rule, decided to say fuck it, specially after losing robin.

His focus on brute force because of age was awesome as well.

I am sad that they are dropping it. I hoped the batman was going to be that story and how he broke to be the batman in bvs. Still think its the most interesting direction they could go.

If that was the story they were telling I'd be much warmer to it.

But it was only that in one scene of the movie - the Knightmare scene. Otherwise he seemed to have a rule of 'I won't kill them, but if I make something explode close enough to kill them, well..'.
 

Shaanyboi

Banned
Nov 16, 2012
35,965
2
0
Vancouver
If that was the story they were telling I'd be much warmer to it.

But it was only that in one scene of the movie - the Knightmare scene. Otherwise he seemed to have a rule of 'I won't kill them, but if I make something explode close enough to kill them, well..'.

It's funny watching the extended cut, and how much even just acouple scenes of Clark investigating Batman atleast create some semblance of a more interesting movie.

Like he's so adamant about the Daily Planet covering Batman (which is hilarious that he has the fucking gall to tell Perry what the newspaper stands for...), like what if someone pointed him in the direction of a reporter who used to obsess about covering Batman before getting canned? Hell, like Vicky Vale! And she gives you a rundown of like "Hey, this dude used to operate with some standards. Cops were cool with him because he would actually help. He even had like a partner or two, but then rumors started circulating that 'the Robin' was killed. Batman disappeared, things got worse in Gotham, and then he came back with a vengeance. Bodies started piling up. This isn't the same Batman."

Like... give some actual insight into Batman's fall.


The concept is so interesting, but they don't engage with it at all.
 

Sethista

Member
May 15, 2013
1,003
0
490
If that was the story they were telling I'd be much warmer to it.

But it was only that in one scene of the movie - the Knightmare scene. Otherwise he seemed to have a rule of 'I won't kill them, but if I make something explode close enough to kill them, well..'.

It's funny watching the extended cut, and how much even just acouple scenes of Clark investigating Batman atleast create some semblance of a more interesting movie.

Like he's so adamant about the Daily Planet covering Batman (which is hilarious that he has the fucking gall to tell Perry what the newspaper stands for...), like what if someone pointed him in the direction of a reporter who used to obsess about covering Batman before getting canned? Hell, like Vicky Vale! And she gives you a rundown of like "Hey, this dude used to operate with some standards. Cops were cool with him because he would actually help. He even had like a partner or two, but then rumors started circulating that 'the Robin' was killed. Batman disappeared, things got worse in Gotham, and then he came back with a vengeance. Bodies started piling up. This isn't the same Batman."

Like... give some actual insight into Batman's fall.


The concept is so interesting, but they don't engage with it at all.

Imagine this approach:

Superman solo movie - focus on superman coming to grips with his powers, and showing how did he get the moral compass he has. He starts not knowing the extend of what he can do, so he may hurt some people, he lets his emotions take over, and brings bad consequences, etc. He manages to control it, and then as a teenager he finds the fortress of solitude and vows to not let what happpened to krypton happen to his new home. You could even build a path to him deciding journalism is the best way to help with that objective, give meaning to that choice, and of course a big fight in the end that is difficult, cementing him as a hero.

BAtman solo movie - batman goes the other way. He is all for justice, his one rule, etc. and we see it all unraveling. the joker killing robin, barbara being attacked, the villains continue to blame batman for their existance, until, at the end of the movie, he kills the joker. He has to. And he becomes jaded.

Dawn of justice - these 2 heroes find eachother, one jaded and one with a renewed sense of justice, and they help eachother find balance. Maybe a villain that forces superman to go above his sense of morality, and the person that brings him back is batman, finding his own sense after a tough fight. In the end, they, together, start finding other heroes to build the JL.

Justice league - the league is beyind put together, and they face a villain that can destroy the planet, universe, whatever, and we learn a little about each of the other heroes. Like avengers 1

Then, the individual movies for flash, cyborg, wonder woman. After that, JL 2.

Close the decade, billions of dollars in pockets.
 

LosDaddie

Banned
Dec 22, 2008
15,465
2
0
Longwood, FL
www.gamespot.com
Well yes.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of Batman to have him murder a whole gang of thugs on his way to save Martha.

Action/fighting was about the only thing Snyder got right with Batman in BvS. Even then, Batman shouldn't be killing dudes.
 

broncobuster

Banned
Apr 19, 2014
12,794
3
0
Yeah. This was his arc in BvS. But I'll admit it would've been easier to understand had we seen more Batman pre-Zod's invasion and Jason's murder. We started off seeing Bruce at his lowest point. At the same time I like that he's the inverse of TDKReturns Batman.

I hope whatever Joss and Zack wrote doesn't remove scenes addressing his downfall. It was talked about it way back when, and there's a hint of it in the first trailer with Jim saying it's nice to see Batman working with others again.
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
Because he doesn't kill anyone - the rest of the story makes no sense if you intepret that scene as him killing the mutant gang memeber. Batman's aversion to killing the Joker, when he's similarly holding people hostage, makes no sense. Comissioner Yindel finally adding murder charges to The Batman's criminal record, after intepreting him as killing The Joker, makes no sense if he can be placed at a crime scene with a dead mutant there.

It's a wishful intepretation that he killed the mutant you linked the image of, as intepreting it as a shoulder shot is as valid.

All that means is there is a lack of evidence to directly implicate Batman in murder. After all a mutant was shot outside the window in the panel before.

It's funny watching the extended cut, and how much even just acouple scenes of Clark investigating Batman atleast create some semblance of a more interesting movie.

Like he's so adamant about the Daily Planet covering Batman (which is hilarious that he has the fucking gall to tell Perry what the newspaper stands for...), like what if someone pointed him in the direction of a reporter who used to obsess about covering Batman before getting canned? Hell, like Vicky Vale! And she gives you a rundown of like "Hey, this dude used to operate with some standards. Cops were cool with him because he would actually help. He even had like a partner or two, but then rumors started circulating that 'the Robin' was killed. Batman disappeared, things got worse in Gotham, and then he came back with a vengeance. Bodies started piling up. This isn't the same Batman."

Like... give some actual insight into Batman's fall.


The concept is so interesting, but they don't engage with it at all.

What like this scene?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDs0Shvtja4

or this

 

DeathyBoy

Banned
Jun 17, 2014
11,199
1
0
Lol he's killed in the comics too. People (especially on GAF) can't handle the fact that these superheroes contradict their own principles all the time, and start chanting "not muh Batman". Having said that, more traditional would be a welcome thing.

It's the Mark Waid "he did but I don't consider it canon so it didn't happen" mentality.
 

Alienous

Member
Jan 20, 2013
35,669
2
0
Lol he's killed in the comics too. People (especially on GAF) can't handle the fact that these superheroes contradict their own principles all the time, and start chanting "not muh Batman". Having said that, more traditional would be a welcome thing.

He's been a vampire in the comics. That doesn't make him a character who's a vampire. If he were a vampire in BvS "not my Batman" would be entirely valid.

Not killing is a defining attribute of Batman, just like his utility belt, just like being Bruce Wayne. Not every attribute will appear in every depiction, but when they don't they are deviations from a 80 year consensus on what the character is and isn't.
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
He's been a vampire in the comics. That doesn't make him a character who's a vampire. If he were a vampire in BvS "not my Batman" would be entirely valid.

Not killing is a defining attribute of Batman, just like his utility belt, just like being Bruce Wayne. Not every attribute will appear in every depiction, but when they don't they are deviations from a 80 year consensus on what the character is and isn't.

He's killed more times in film than he hasn't like literally the only Batman to have zero body count was like Clooney or some shit.
 
Jul 25, 2014
2,201
483
545
I hope the standalone film is brutal as hell. It makes sense for Batman to tone himself down after BvS... But I want more of that warehouse scene and the brandings.
 

Alienous

Member
Jan 20, 2013
35,669
2
0
He's killed more times in film than he hasn't like literally the only Batman to have zero body count was like Clooney or some shit.

Misinterpretations of the character happen. If you look across all depictions of the character - throughout comics, novels, movies, games -
those where he kills are a small percentage of the total - that's why exceptions (such as the movies) stick out so much.

Batman doesn't kill, just like Superman isn't Russian. They have done and been those things, but those are deviations from the character.
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
Yeah, that scene that says nothing but "he's angry" and a display which doesn't mean much to non-fans, nor is paid off in any narrative capacity.

Let's see:

You ask for Clark Kent to do investigative work. You got it.
You ask for Clark Kent to do investivative work that informs his character, motivation and explains why characters behave the way they do? You got it. Ignoring the "there's a new kind of mean in him, he's angry and he's hunting" and pretending that it doesn't a) show that he has recently seen some shit or b) the violence is kinda unprecedented is you being either incredibly obstinent or kinda thick.
Finally You claim that it's impossible for people to deduce what happened here. Like seriously, are you arguing this with a straight face. One of the most recognised fictional characters of all time is looking very sad at suit of a missing colleague possibly even a sidekick, that was vandalised by someone who thinks it's all a big fat joke. I truly wonder who these people are!
 

Shaanyboi

Banned
Nov 16, 2012
35,965
2
0
Vancouver
He's killed more times in film than he hasn't like literally the only Batman to have zero body count was like Clooney or some shit.

And? Burton's sadistic take Batman has been mocked to death, and he's made it plainly clear he doesn't actually give a fuck about the material. Schumacher had his own dumb take on the character. Nolan's take comes off as hypocritical, but it atleast can be argued that he frames those deaths around extreme scenarios (Dent about to kill Gordon's kid, an international super-terrorist being left to die with their insanity machine, a literal fucking war in the streets of Gotham City under the shadow of an imminent nuclear explosion), and the movies certainly don't revel in Batman killing someone.

Snyder's rampages through and murders multiple people within seconds of eachother, without even an acknowledgement. And that's not even counting the Knightmare sequence, which is supposed to be this shocking awful future. But frankly, it's no different than the awful present beyond Batman literally holding a handgun.
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
Misinterpretations of the character happen. If you look across all depictions of the character - throughout comics, novels, movies, games -
those where he kills are a small percentage of the total - that's why exceptions (such as the movies) stick out so much.

Batman doesn't kill, just like Superman isn't Russian. They have done and been those things, but those are deviations from the character.

Misinterpretations happen all the time? Who died and made you arbiter of what constitutes misinterpretations? Are you DC/WB editorial? Bob Kane and Bill Finger saw nothing wrong with Batman killing. I like how you compare a one off Elseworld story to things that happen often like say Superman killing Zod every other week. I also like how the most popular depictions of characters are now just hand waived exceptions.

And? Burton's sadistic take Batman has been mocked to death, and he's made it plainly clear he doesn't actually give a fuck about the material. Schumacher had his own dumb take on the character. Nolan's take comes off as hypocritical, but it atleast can be argued that he frames those deaths around extreme scenarios (Dent about to kill Gordon's kid, an international super-terrorist being left to die with their insanity machine, a literal fucking war in the streets of Gotham City under the shadow of an imminent nuclear explosion), and the movies certainly don't revel in Batman killing someone.

Snyder's rampages through and murders multiple people within seconds of eachother, without even an acknowledgement. And that's not even counting the Knightmare sequence, which is supposed to be this shocking awful future. But frankly, it's no different than the awful present beyond Batman literally holding a handgun.

lol at Nolan defence, hypocrisy is OK because reasopns. Nolan kills when he feels like it. Batman killed a shit tonne of League of Assassins assassins. Had the Batmobile kill a dude in a truck because fuck it why not. Nolan's Batman isn't even consistent in the logic of his own universe where he just had to save the Joker but had to leave Ra's to die. I don't have to kill you is utter bullshit. He put Ra's in that situation. Somone on here said it better than me:

Nolan also did not give a fuck as long as it made for a cool shot. On top of that he pretty much lied to his audience about the character but the character lies to himself constantly. I won't kill you but I don't have to save you either is dumb as fuck and makes no sense. He put him in that situation, he is responsible for his death. But unintentional, right?

Or how about blowing up that compound and killing dozens of members of the LOS and the farmer as well? Ohh well unintentional. Talia and her driver? Fuck this, I want that bomb and if it means killing you two; tough shit. Chasing the Joker...hey innocent truck driver, you are in my way. Wrecking you and your car, unintentional though. Harvey, I liked you but that kid must live. Soooo, bye *tackles him to his death*. If you find all of his kills excusable...well then. Must not be so hard to come up with excuses for Batfleck, right?


Jonathan Nolan in an IGN podcast even said that was bullshit and told Chris that's a huge plothole and Chris said well it's filmed so oh well. Whilst Batfleck going to town looks cool the point of Batman killing was that it was to show just how far he had fallen and for it to lead to him having a redemptive arc in future films. Snyder's Batman unlike Nolan is no hypocrite, "we''ve always been criminals" and follows the film's internal logic.


edit:
http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/8/5/6/856...98404055&hwt=648da8876f43993b149993d4350e63a4

27 mins to listen to them exploring the no kill rule. Jonathan Nolan said the Ra's joker thing was nonsense but Chris basically said it was shot so let's just leave it how it is.
 

Alpende

Member
Feb 12, 2013
8,040
0
0
Netherlands
Uh-huh. MoS ends with Super-Man screaming in anguish because he was forced to kill a Kryptonian. His very first scene in BvS he...kills a dude by smashing him through a couple walls at Superspeed.
You never know what you're gonna get with Snyder's storytelling.

Well his scream is understandable as he's killing the last Kryoptonian besides him.
 

Shaanyboi

Banned
Nov 16, 2012
35,965
2
0
Vancouver
Let's see:

You ask for Clark Kent to do investigative work. You got it.
You ask for Clark Kent to do investivative work that informs his character, motivation and explains why characters behave the way they do? You got it. Ignoring the "there's a new kind of mean in him, he's angry and he's hunting" and pretending that it doesn't a) show that he has recently seen some shit or b) the violence is kinda unprecedented is you being either incredibly obstinent or kinda thick.
Finally You claim that it's impossible for people to deduce what happened here. Like seriously, are you arguing this with a straight face. One of the most recognised fictional characters of all time is looking very sad at suit of a missing colleague possibly even a sidekick, that was vandalised by someone who thinks it's all a big fat joke. I truly wonder who these people are!

This movie already assumes we need to see Batman's parents getting shot again. Yet a meaningful acknowledgement of Robin, a character who hasn't been on film in 20 years (let alone elaborating on Jason Todd, or his death being tackled by anything other than an animated movie from years prior), it considers redundant?

But hey, the movie already throws meaningless DC references at you without context or build-up, why not one more?


And yeah, Clark's investigation goes absolutely nowhere. Because an old man saying "There's a new mean in him!" means nothing when we have nothing to compare it to. Alfred approaches Bruce about branding a dude with a "new rules" question, but says nothing about the dozens of guys killed?


Well his scream is understandable as he's killing the last Kryoptonian besides him.

I mean he also killed off all the other Kryptonians when he eye-lasered that ship apart. If this Superman ever found the shrunken city of Kandor on Brainiac's ship, he'd crush it immediately in his hands, say "It's better this way. They must've hated being small." Then he'd fall to his knees and cry to the heavens, "WHY DOES NO ONE LIKE MEEE?!"
 

Alienous

Member
Jan 20, 2013
35,669
2
0
Misinterpretations happen all the time? Who died and made you arbiter of what constitutes misinterpretations? Are you DC/WB editorial? Bob Kane and Bill Finger saw nothing wrong with Batman killing. I like how you compare a one off Elseworld story to things that happen often like say Superman killing Zod every other week. I also like how the most popular depictions of characters are now just hand waived exceptions.

Bob Kane and Bill Finger did see something wrong with Batman killing - that's why they changed it. Superman was created unable to fly, with no heat vision, and no kryptonite weakness. Those are all defining attributes of the character today.

I mention Elseworlds stories because you use them to justify the portrayal of Batman as a killer: The Dark Knight Returns is effectively an Elseworlds story.

No, Superman does not kill Zod every other week. He regularly locks him in the Phantom Zone.

Injustice is hugely popular, including its depiction of Superman. That depiction is still an exception to the norm - Superman isn't a psychopath and dictator.
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
This movie already assumes we need to see Batman's parents getting shot again. Yet a meaningful acknowledgement of Robin, a character who hasn't been on film in 20 years (let alone elaborating on Jason Todd, or his death being tackled by anything other than an animated movie from years prior), it considers redundant?

The Wayne parent's actions informed Bruce's behaviour in the film. Whether it's his father and mother fighting back. His father's dying words being the most notable ones. Also are you seriously claiming, that someone having a memorial of his friend's sacrifice is not a decent acknowledgement? All of this stuff informs his character and why this Batman behaves why he does, ignoring these points doesn't make your argument make sense.


And yeah, Clark's investigation goes absolutely nowhere. Because an old man saying "There's a new mean in him!" means nothing when we have nothing to compare it to. Alfred approaches Bruce about branding a dude with a "new rules" question, but says nothing about the dozens of guys killed?

The whole point of the investigation is so you can get an idea as to Clark's motivation and character. Sure he sees the photos from Lex, but he asks the people he wants to defned what they think of him. There are those who think he is a fascist (the widow),there are those that think he only attacks the criminals (the black people), and he also hoped to ask the woman about what she saw of the "massacre". Also the film says many, many times that the increase in violence is new. I could probably find at least 5 times where they reference this.


I mean he also killed off all the other Kryptonians when he eye-lasered that ship apart. If this Superman ever found the shrunken city of Kandor on Brainiac's ship, he'd crush it immediately in his hands, say "It's better this way. They must've hated being small." Then he'd fall to his knees and cry to the heavens, "WHY DOES NO ONE LIKE MEEE?!"

What....? Every Kryptonian foetus is sacred apparently.
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
Bob Kane and Bill Finger did see something wrong with Batman killing - that's why they changed it. Superman was created unable to fly, with no heat vision, and no kryptonite weakness. Those are all defining attributes of the character today.

I mention Elseworlds stories because you use them to justify the portrayal of Batman as a killer: The Dark Knight Returns is effectively an Elseworlds story.

No, Superman does not kill Zod every other week. He regularly locks him in the Phantom Zone.

Injustice is hugely popular, including its depiction of Superman. That depiction is still an exception to the norm - Superman isn't a psychopath and dictator.

You don't know what you're talking about. DC editorial had a problem with it not Finger and Kane

The notion of Batman refusing to kill people has long been misunderstood, thanks in no small part to the stagey deadpan of Adam West. With its onomatopoeia and West’s potbellied pedantry, the 1960s Batman adhered more closely to Susan Sontag’s camp than Bob Kane’s vengeful Dark Knight. It was DC Comics editor Whitney Ellsworth, not Kane, who decreed that Batman couldn’t kill. Ellsworth feared that readers wouldn’t sympathize with a guy who killed without remorse, and thus wouldn’t buy comics

http://www.vulture.com/2015/08/holy-murder-watch-batman-kill-a-bunch-of-people.html

The first issue of Batman’s own title (Batman #1, published in Spring, 1940) became the catalyst for Batman’s abandonment of guns. In it, Batman fired the Batplane’s machine guns at a car containing two criminals and a mutated giant, explaining, “Much as I hate to take human life, I’m afraid this time it’s necessary!” Still in the Batplane, he then lassoed the giant (who had survived the hail of bullets) around the neck and hanged him, then later knocked another giant off of a skyscraper roof with gas pellets in a King Kong-inspired sequence. The use of machine guns, in particular, raised the ire of mothers, who were afraid that Batman’s violence might be a bad influence on the children who read his adventures. Bill Finger, one of the co-creators of Batman, was sternly warned by editor Whitney Ellsworth to never again let Batman carry a gun. Batman did kill several more times, but without the use of guns, in issues 2-3 and 8 of Batman. Then, in Batman #15, he killed a car full of Japanese soldiers with a gun – but without firing it. He punctured a tire on their car with the rifle’s bayonet, causing them to crash. He then ceased killing altogether, probably due to a stricter edict from DC’s editors.

http://www.superworldcomics.com/blog/batman/the-origin-of-batmans-one-rule/

At the time, Detective Comics had just hired a new editorial director, a guy from Brooklyn named Whitney Ellsworth. (Not long after hiring Ellsworth, Detective Comics established an editorial advisory board, consisting of people like psychologists and English professors.) When Kane submitted his next story, Batman was shooting again. “Ellsworth said to take the gun out,” Kane remembered.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/batmans-gun


and from the horses mouth:

Batman earned his own self-titled comic book in 1940, while continuing to be featured in Detective Comics. Batman #1 (Spring 1940) was notable not only for introducing two of his most formidable antagonists, the Joker and Catwoman (here referred to as “The Cat”), but for a story in which Batman used a machine gun to shoot monsters. That story prompted editor Whitney Ellsworth to decree that Batman would no longer kill or use a gun.

http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2014/07/22/batman-at-75-highlights-in-the-life-of-the-caped-crusader

https://www.reddit.com/r/DCcomics/comments/58af5p/mythbusting_the_no_kill_rule/
 

JimiNutz

Banned
Apr 15, 2007
12,464
5,961
1,680
London UK
Well yes.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of Batman to have him murder a whole gang of thugs on his way to save Martha.

Action/fighting was about the only thing Snyder got right with Batman in BvS. Even then, Batman shouldn't be killing dudes.

Did he actually kill anyone in the warehouse scene though? I can't really remember. I def remember a few broken limbs and maybe even a broken back (getting thrown really hard into walls etc.) but I don't remember ever thinking, 'well he just straight up murdered that dude..."
 

Alienous

Member
Jan 20, 2013
35,669
2
0
You don't know what you're talking about. DC editorial had a problem with it not Finger and Kane

OK. Trivia answers are tangential to our discussion anyway.

If you want to address the rest of my points I'd appreciate that.
 

Card Boy

Banned
Aug 11, 2010
17,104
1
0
VIC, Australia
Did he actually kill anyone in the warehouse scene though? I can't really remember. I def remember a few broken limbs and maybe even a broken back (getting thrown really hard into walls etc.) but I don't remember ever thinking, 'well he just straight up murdered that dude..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgkQS7q6sT0

Excluding the Red Son like dream sequence Batman kills 21 people.
 

Bleepey

Member
Dec 21, 2008
13,574
2
855
You're a curious one aren't you.
mention Elseworlds stories because you use them to justify the portrayal of Batman as a killer: The Dark Knight Returns is effectively an Elseworlds story.

So.. Anything that's not Detective Comics could be considered Elseworlds. Killing Joke could be considered Elseworlds. It's DC traditionally they have had way more flexibility with regards to story telling canon and continuity than Marvel.
No, Superman does not kill Zod every other week. He regularly locks him in the Phantom Zone.

This is so subjective. Like I can post panels where Superman kills Zod you can post panels where he takes a long trip in the phantom zone. Only difference is i don't pretend the only ones where Superman kills are canon
 

Praetorpwj

Member
Nov 11, 2013
119
0
0
I'd def forgotten a couple of those kills at the end. How he fights in the warehouse is mostly fine with the exception of the odd fatality I guess...

I mean Batman isn't perfect. I guess sometimes you punch someone and they hit their head funny lol

It is simply unrealistic to think you can avoid a fatal situation no matter how well trained you are. You can't throw a piece of shaped metal at someone's head and guarantee that it doesn't kill them. You can't even guarantee punching someone won't kill them. Statistically speaking it would probably be alright but you don't know. Which is why in law 'reckless' behaviour is evidence of intent.

As such this element of the Batman mythos is the one I find most unrealistic.

That said what I find offensive about BvS is that Batman acts gratuitously and unnecessarily. There was no need to engage in the docklands chase; he had a tracker on the vehicle. He goes out of his way to create mayhem even dragging a car behind him (in a high speed chase!) just to improbably inflict blunt trauma on another car he didn't even know was going to pull over. He ploughs the Batmobile through the side of the truck from an elevated position, not only killing someone who could well have just been a labourer but also potentially destroying the cargo he was trying to recover.

There was no reason to gun down the vehicles outside the warehouse with the Batwing. He was supposed to be rescuing a hostage; how much cooler and realistic would it have been to conduct an initial stealth attack before going all in.

Batman's 'rule' should be to try to minimise loss of life at all times; in BvS he takes life just because he can't be bothered to find better solutions.
 

DeathyBoy

Banned
Jun 17, 2014
11,199
1
0
Misinterpretations happen all the time? Who died and made you arbiter of what constitutes misinterpretations? Are you DC/WB editorial? Bob Kane and Bill Finger saw nothing wrong with Batman killing. I like how you compare a one off Elseworld story to things that happen often like say Superman killing Zod every other week. I also like how the most popular depictions of characters are now just hand waived exceptions.



lol at Nolan defence, hypocrisy is OK because reasopns. Nolan kills when he feels like it. Batman killed a shit tonne of League of Assassins assassins. Had the Batmobile kill a dude in a truck because fuck it why not. Nolan's Batman isn't even consistent in the logic of his own universe where he just had to save the Joker but had to leave Ra's to die. I don't have to kill you is utter bullshit. He put Ra's in that situation. Somone on here said it better than me:




Jonathan Nolan in an IGN podcast even said that was bullshit and told Chris that's a huge plothole and Chris said well it's filmed so oh well. Whilst Batfleck going to town looks cool the point of Batman killing was that it was to show just how far he had fallen and for it to lead to him having a redemptive arc in future films. Snyder's Batman unlike Nolan is no hypocrite, "we''ve always been criminals" and follows the film's internal logic.


edit:
http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/8/5/6/856...98404055&hwt=648da8876f43993b149993d4350e63a4

27 mins to listen to them exploring the no kill rule. Jonathan Nolan said the Ra's joker thing was nonsense but Chris basically said it was shot so let's just leave it how it is.

Nolan was well aware he was making a really good superhero film series. It's everyone else who thought it was high art. TDKR's plot is some shit out of an Adam West episode.
 

Sethista

Member
May 15, 2013
1,003
0
490
It is simply unrealistic to think you can avoid a fatal situation no matter how well trained you are. You can't throw a piece of shaped metal at someone's head and guarantee that it doesn't kill them. You can't even guarantee punching someone won't kill them. Statistically speaking it would probably be alright but you don't know. Which is why in law 'reckless' behaviour is evidence of intent.

As such this element of the Batman mythos is the one I find most unrealistic.

That said what I find offensive about BvS is that Batman acts gratuitously and unnecessarily. There was no need to engage in the docklands chase; he had a tracker on the vehicle. He goes out of his way to create mayhem even dragging a car behind him (in a high speed chase!) just to improbably inflict blunt trauma on another car he didn't even know was going to pull over. He ploughs the Batmobile through the side of the truck from an elevated position, not only killing someone who could well have just been a labourer but also potentially destroying the cargo he was trying to recover.

There was no reason to gun down the vehicles outside the warehouse with the Batwing. He was supposed to be rescuing a hostage; how much cooler and realistic would it have been to conduct an initial stealth attack before going all in.

Batman's 'rule' should be to try to minimise loss of life at all times; in BvS he takes life just because he can't be bothered to find better solutions.

100% agree with this. But I would be ok with him being this way if they showed the path of how he became this way. I felt like I was seeing another character that had nothing to do with batman.