BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 290

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]511765[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]511661[/split]

 

[Poni_Boy]

perish the thought!

your honor, i'd like to present dark knight strikes back, all-star batman...

Hah I honestly don't mind them at all. Then again it was a time when regular Batman and Superman comics were, hm, not my thing. I don't even elevate TDKReturns as a "great" comic, but if you're gonna quote something in it, quote it right. Makes me think the person claiming something that wasn't in the book is, didn't read it at all. For example:

"A little more like manslaughter than murder, although I would say that in the Frank Miller comic book that I reference, he kills all the time. There’s a scene from the graphic novel where he busts through a wall, takes the guy’s machine gun…I took that little vignette from a scene in The Dark Knight Returns, and at the end of that, he shoots the guy right between the eyes with the machine gun. One shot. Of course, I went to the gas tank, and all of the guys I work with were like, ‘You’ve gotta shoot him in the head’ because they’re all comic book dorks, and I was like, ‘I’m not gonna be the guy that does that!’"

- from the mouth of our illustrious director

http://www.heyuguys.com/exclusive-zack-snyder-explains-detail-dark-knight-kills-batman-v-superman/

 

[Zur-en-Arrh]

batman and superman comics are rarely great imho. that's because there's very few great writers in any medium.

at any rate, i really don't mind collateral damage in batman movies, i'd prefer it not be there, but it was the least of my problems with bvs and it seems like it's pretty much standard for cinematic batman if (apparently) even val kilmer's hands are dirty. i can sympathise with directors about how you don't make this guy who's punching people in the face and driving around smashing things up with his car and plane not have any blood on his hands, unless you're going for a straight up animated film, or a redo of Adam West camp on screen. i also think the audience doesn't care. nobody cares in the general if frodo geeks an orc or if luke stabs a stormy, by the same token, they don't care if a goon gets done by the bat.

 

[NeoRanger]

Hah I honestly don't mind them at all. Then again it was a time when regular Batman and Superman comics were, hm, not my thing. I don't even elevate TDKReturns as a "great" comic, but if you're gonna quote something in it, quote it right. Makes me think the person claiming something that wasn't in the book is, didn't read it at all. For example:

"A little more like manslaughter than murder, although I would say that in the Frank Miller comic book that I reference, he kills all the time. There’s a scene from the graphic novel where he busts through a wall, takes the guy’s machine gun…I took that little vignette from a scene in The Dark Knight Returns, and at the end of that, he shoots the guy right between the eyes with the machine gun. One shot. Of course, I went to the gas tank, and all of the guys I work with were like, ‘You’ve gotta shoot him in the head’ because they’re all comic book dorks, and I was like, ‘I’m not gonna be the guy that does that!’"

- from the mouth of our illustrious director

http://www.heyuguys.com/exclusive-zack-snyder-explains-detail-dark-knight-kills-batman-v-superman/

I'll defend Snyder to a degree, in that doing this job and especially in so little a time can be taxing and missing and/or forgetting the research you do on fifty comic books is possible. Even I forget a lot of details and I read comic books as a hobby.

What I wonder is, didn't DC have someone from the company doing consultations on continuity and things like that? Was it Johns? I don't remember, but I'm pretty sure there was somebody who was supposed to point these things out. If there wasn't, there should have been.

 

[FunkMiller]

I'll defend Snyder to a degree, in that doing this job and especially in so little a time can be taxing and missing and/or forgetting the research you do on fifty comic books is possible. Even I forget a lot of details and I read comic books as a hobby.

Hmmm. This is the story that Snyder has constantly referenced when talking about BvS. He's waxed lyrical on how much of a big old cuddly friend he is with Frank Miller. He used the famous quote from TDKR when he announced BvS. TDKR is 'his bible' for this movie.

Then in an interview he states that Batman kills all the time in the book, and completely misinterprets the mutant with the baby scene.

Nah. F*** him.

 

[Mr.?]

Batman definitely blows that mutant away in TDKR. I don't see Batman as a character who would never kill. If it was a kill for the greater good (saving people, or in this case saving an infant) and he had no choice, he would definitely do it. I feel like the Nolan movies push the whole no kill thing far more than any of the comics have.

 

[mohoo]

Do we know exactly how many minutes will the Ultimate Cut add?

 

[Legendver2]

I must say, the amount of hate this film is getting is actually blowing my mind. I can understand people not liking it, that's all fine and good, everyone's got their opinion. But even bad movies of the past just gets a review, a bad score, etc, and that's pretty much it. But for this film, I'm seeing articles popping all over with writers straight up telling people to watch something else instead.

Now I don't know if that's the norm for most bad movies, but it really seems naysayers are going out of their way to spread the negativity. I mean I can understand that we at the hype will discuss and debate this. But I don't recall many instances where people are trying to force their opinion onto others and tell them NOT to watch a certain film. I mean regardless, hate it or not, this is still, imo, one of those movies you have to experience on the big screen at least once.

 

[Legendver2]

Batman definitely blows that mutant away in TDKR. I don't see Batman as a character who would never kill. If it was a kill for the greater good (saving people, or in this case saving an infant) and he had no choice, he would definitely do it. I feel like the Nolan movies push the whole no kill thing far more than any of the comics have.

He does cause A LOT of collateral damage though that I'm sure in real life would have resulted in a handful of deaths.

Do we know exactly how many minutes will the Ultimate Cut add?

I think it was mentioned that about 30 minutes of new content, give or take.

 

[bapi]

Andrew Kevin Walker On The ‘Batman v Superman’ Movie You Won't Be Seeing This Weekend

 

[Poni_Boy]

Batman definitely blows that mutant away in TDKR. I don't see Batman as a character who would never kill. If it was a kill for the greater good (saving people, or in this case saving an infant) and he had no choice, he would definitely do it. I feel like the Nolan movies push the whole no kill thing far more than any of the comics have.

No, he doesn't kill him. The fact Batman never killed anyone is integral to his confrontation with Joker. It's in the story. It's one of the mail plot points. And it's not even ambiguously drawn. He shoots next to the Mutant's head which scares him and makes him drop the kid. It's, right there. Plain as day. If you don't believe it or you misinterpret it just read fifteen more pages and it's repeated again.

 

[FunkMiller]

Batman definitely blows that mutant away in TDKR. I don't see Batman as a character who would never kill. If it was a kill for the greater good (saving people, or in this case saving an infant) and he had no choice, he would definitely do it. I feel like the Nolan movies push the whole no kill thing far more than any of the comics have.

Hmmm.

Does he? Does he really?

Or are you just trying to trying to interpret something in a way that backs up your point of view, without actually examining the source material you're talking about properly?

 

[Mr.?]

He does cause A LOT of collateral damage though that I'm sure in real life would have resulted in a handful of deaths.

Agreed. What always comes to mind is when he destroys that trash truck in TDK, the driver of that would be surely dead. OR what about Begins when he drops those spike balls and cop cars are flipping over, slamming into guard rails etc...surely some of those cops would have been killed.

I don't get why some people are acting like Batman was some malicious murderer who enjoyed killing when the movie doesn't present him like that, at all. Most of the kills happen when Batman is defending himself and are shown quick. If they lingered on shots of dead bodies hanging out of cars as Batman is laughing his balls off as he fires away with his gun, there might be an argument here. But as far as I'm concerned its all nitpicking.

 

[FunkMiller]

Andrew Kevin Walker On The ‘Batman v Superman’ Movie You Won't Be Seeing This Weekend

"While it will inevitably make enough money this weekend to theoretically repair some of the damage done to Metropolis in Man of Steel, the new film has been largely panned, receiving the worst notices in either of the titular franchises since Batman and Robin, the 1997 candy-colored car wreck directed by Joel Schumacher."

Oof.

 

[FunkMiller]

Agreed. What always comes to mind is when he destroys that trash truck in TDK, the driver of that would be surely dead. OR what about Begins when he drops those spike balls and cop cars are flipping over, slamming into guard rails etc...surely some of those cops would have been killed.

I don't get why some people are acting like Batman was some malicious murderer who enjoyed killing when the movie doesn't present him like that, at all. Most of the kills happen when Batman is defending himself and are shown quick. If they lingered on shots of dead bodies hanging out of cars as Batman is laughing his balls off as he fires away with his gun, there might be an argument here. But as far as I'm concerned its all nitpicking.

Why is it possible for comic book creators to find ways for Batman not to kill, whereas film-makers don't seem to be able to do it at all?

 

[Mr.?]

No, he doesn't kill him. The fact Batman never killed anyone is integral to his confrontation with Joker. It's in the story. It's one of the mail plot points. And it's not even ambiguously drawn. He shoots next to the Mutant's head which scares him and makes him drop the kid. It's, right there. Plain as day. If you don't believe it or you misinterpret it just read fifteen more pages and it's repeated again.

Hmmm.

Does he? Does he really?

Or are you just trying to trying to interpret something in a way that backs up your point of view, without actually examining the source material you're talking about properly?

You want my honest opinion? I think its purposely left ambiguous for the reader to interpret whether he did it or not. A bullet hole on the wall, something that looks like a blood splatter, the way the criminal is falling, looks like someone who was just shot in the head to me.

 

[NeoRanger]

Agreed. What always comes to mind is when he destroys that trash truck in TDK, the driver of that would be surely dead. OR what about Begins when he drops those spike balls and cop cars are flipping over, slamming into guard rails etc...surely some of those cops would have been killed.

I don't get why some people are acting like Batman was some malicious murderer who enjoyed killing when the movie doesn't present him like that, at all. Most of the kills happen when Batman is defending himself and are shown quick. If they lingered on shots of dead bodies hanging out of cars as Batman is laughing his balls off as he fires away with his gun, there might be an argument here. But as far as I'm concerned its all nitpicking.

He didn't kill anyone in close-up combat, outside of the dream sequences and those he does kill are in the 'collateral damage' park. The use of actual bullets does make them stand out more than just crashing onto things. You're right in that Batman isn't a psychopath in this movie, he's just a lot less careful about preventing the deaths of those that try to blow him up.

But that's not really the point. For some people, killing for these characters is a major no-no. We saw the reaction with Man of Steel, we saw the reaction with Superman Returns too. It's a deal breaker. It's a fair position.

For others, it's not a deal-breaker. It's a fair position, too. Which is why I find this debate a bit meaningless. People cite comic books and try to defend what? Their personal sensibilities, their likes and dislikes? Who is going to convince who, when we all clearly have our position on this?

 

[Poni_Boy]

I must say, the amount of hate this film is getting is actually blowing my mind. I can understand people not liking it, that's all fine and good, everyone's got their opinion. But even bad movies of the past just gets a review, a bad score, etc, and that's pretty much it. But for this film, I'm seeing articles popping all over with writers straight up telling people to watch something else instead.

Now I don't know if that's the norm for most bad movies, but it really seems naysayers are going out of their way to spread the negativity. I mean I can understand that we at the hype will discuss and debate this. But I don't recall many instances where people are trying to force their opinion onto others and tell them NOT to watch a certain film. I mean regardless, hate it or not, this is still, imo, one of those movies you have to experience on the big screen at least once.

It's easy to understand if you shelve your like/dislike of the movie itself aside and look at what it represents. BvS represents the live action realization of many comics fans most favorite heroes. It's the first time they are ever seen together on the big screen in their history. It's the tent pole of al tent poles to usher in the most famous comic book superteam ever. It comes on the heels of a film that had a lukewarm reception. It comes after a three year wait, one year of which was inexplicable and very frustrating for even a casual fan. It comes with an insane amount of publicity. It comes with an Oscar winning screenwriter who was the Great White Hope of this franchise. It comes on months and months of reports of positive word of mouth, some going as far as to say studio execs gave it standing ovations in test screenings. It comes with equal parts anticipation and skepticism. It's without the doubt the most talked about movie this summer. No matter where you turn there is a promotion for this movie. Everyone knows about it. Grandmothers, priests, neighbors who don't really go to the movies. Over the past few months fans were given a downpour of visual engagement and promises that THIS was the movie they've been waiting forever for and THIS was the movie that would absolutely satisfy them. Amid the whispers and stories of problems surrounding it, hardly anyone gave up hope. Fans waved their BvS banners loud and proud and struck down anyone who tried to even manage their expectations. We're they wrong? Hell no. That is the movie they were sold. But it's not the movie they got.

It doesn't matter if you liked this movie. It doesn't matter if you hated this movi. What matters is understanding that this entire experience was stillborn. Fans are divided almost equally and very brutally. Most haven't even seen this kind of vitriol in Marvel vs DC debates. A movie that was supposed to unite a fanbase has divided it quicker than anything else DC related, quite possibly ever. Think about that. You may have liked the movie. That's for you to decide. But you cannot deny that the entire experience of this movie's production, release and fallout has been a frustrating, exhausting and unsatisfying one for us. We, who it was supposed to champion. It failed us. The filmmakers failed us. And the studio, who obviously knew this was on the horizon, failed us most of all. People aren't hating the movie, they're hating what the movie represents. A waste of a decade or more of hope and promise, leading to an unsure cinematic future. These characters deserved better and so did we.

 

[FunkMiller]

You want my honest opinion? I think its purposely left ambiguous for the reader to interpret whether he did it or not. A bullet hole on the wall, something that looks like a blood splatter, the way the criminal is falling, looks like someone who was just shot in the head to me.

Fair enough. If that's the way you see it.

Frank Miller has stated that Batman does not kill in TDKR.

The only bullet hole present in the panel is above the mutant's head.

The mutant has a shocked expression on his face, not one of pain or anguish.

And if it's left ambiguous - and Snyder is such a massive fan of the book - then surely he should have understood its ambiguity and maybe, you know, tried to emulate it, rather than have his Batman straight up cap fools with a 50 cal?

Also, Snyder quite clearly says that Batman kills all of the time in The Dark Knight Returns.

I return you to my previous statement:

Nah. F*** him.

 

[Mr.?]

Why is it possible for comic book creators to find ways for Batman not to kill, whereas film-makers don't seem to be able to do it at all?

I agree with you, but why is THIS movie getting so much slack for it when every Batman film has had him killing people?

In Batman Returns he looks far more malicious strapping that bomb onto that guy then anything in BVS, and I still love that movie.

He didn't kill anyone in close-up combat, outside of the dream sequences and those he does kill are in the 'collateral damage' park. The use of actual bullets does make them stand out more than just crashing onto things. You're right in that Batman isn't a psychopath in this movie, he's just a lot less careful in preventing the deaths of those that try to blow him up.

But that's not really the point. For some people, killing for these characters is a major no-no. We saw the reaction with Man of Steel, we saw the reaction with Superman Returns too. It's a deal breaker. It's a fair position.

For others, it isn't. It's a fair position, too. Which is why I find this debate a bit meaningless. People cite comic books and try to defend what? Their personal sensibilities, their likes and dislikes? Who is going to convince who, when we all clearly have our position on this?

I agree with this, we really aren't going to change each others opinion on this. Im in the camp that these movies should be able to interpret the characters how they want. As long as the core of these characters are in tact (I don't see Batman not killing as one of his core aspects) then I'm fine with it. How many interpretations of Batman or Superman have we seen in the comics? Yet for some reason when it's put on film and they deviate even a little bit from the books people lose their minds.

 

[FunkMiller]

(I don't see Batman not killing as one of his core aspects)

And there you go. If you don't see it as one of his core aspects, then of course it won't bother you. For others though, it definitely is one of the defining characteristics of Batman. It's what makes him the hero he his. The knowledge that he will never consign another child to a parentless life, the way he was. The knowledge that if he crosses that line, he will descend into darkness and become as bad, or worse, than the monsters he fights every night.

That's epic. That's iconic. That's a f**king legendary superhero.

But yeah, 50 calibre machine guns are cool too.

 

[mohoo]

I must say, the amount of hate this film is getting is actually blowing my mind. I can understand people not liking it, that's all fine and good, everyone's got their opinion. But even bad movies of the past just gets a review, a bad score, etc, and that's pretty much it. But for this film, I'm seeing articles popping all over with writers straight up telling people to watch something else instead.

Now I don't know if that's the norm for most bad movies, but it really seems naysayers are going out of their way to spread the negativity. I mean I can understand that we at the hype will discuss and debate this. But I don't recall many instances where people are trying to force their opinion onto others and tell them NOT to watch a certain film. I mean regardless, hate it or not, this is still, imo, one of those movies you have to experience on the big screen at least once.

I noticed that too.

And although this film might be my favorite CBM, I've seen enough from CBM culture to understand the hate.

If the "same" film was under a different name (franchise/director), I think we would've seen a very different reaction.

We would still get complains, but most of the hate would disappear.

My advice is to ignore it and learn to filter through it. Most of the discussions are like running in circles, just stop and enjoy the moment

 

[Zur-en-Arrh]

I agree with you, but why is THIS movie getting so much slack for it when every Batman film has had him killing people?

In Batman Returns he looks far more malicious strapping that bomb onto that guy then anything in BVS, and I still love that movie.

think its like ewoks in rotj. had the internet been around in full force at the time, you'd probably have had pages of screeds on batman killing in 'returns'. who knows, combing old newsgroups, youd probably find the same thing as you find here (and for batman 89)

 

[mohoo]

I think it was mentioned that about 30 minutes of new content, give or take.

Yeah I know, but I've heard 27 and 37 minutes. I wonder where does that come from.

I'd love having 37 more mintes!