BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - - - - Part 305

[matt47]

Stupid youtube muting my video...

 

[Flint Marko]

What's with the declarative statements? The movie works just fine; something that doesn't work *for you* doesn't instantly make the movie nonsensical. We're not talking about major logical inconsistencies in the absence of thematic structure and characterization, we're talking about personal taste.

What's with the declarative statements? Just because something works *for you* doesn't instantly make the movie work. See how easily that can be flipped around?

Also, Bruce doesn't know Knightmare is a premonition, if he remembers it at all to begin with.

Is there anything in the movie to support this, or is this yet another assumption that must be made in order to make the movie coherent?
You know, one argument I've made in the past against this Batman is how stupid he is for trying to kill someone that we all saw save the planet. It isn't the sign of a "cynical" or "world-weary" Batman, it's the sign of a complete moron who wants to murder a powerful alien who regularly saves people all over the world. Each time I made that argument, defenders pointed to the Knightmare scene as the catalyst that actually pushed Bruce to go through with it; here has confirmation that his vendetta is justified, and so it's time to murder Superman.
Now I'm being told that he doesn't even think it was real, or might not even remember it? Lol.

He didn't; he shot the tank, KGBeast pulled the trigger and ended up in a ball of fire.

He did not kill KG Beast (the guy with the flame thrower) Batman shot the tank to keep him from being able to fry Martha. When KG Beast pulls the trigger to STILL try to kill her, he kills HIMSELF.

Wow, I can't believe some people are actually buying Snyder's ridiculous "killing by proxy" argument.

 

[NeoRanger]

What's with the declarative statements? Just because something works *for you* doesn't instantly make the movie work. See how easily that can be flipped around?

Actually, no, I don't. There are people who can follow and enjoy the plot. There is actual structure in the script. There are strong actors on-screen. There is good cinematography. The soundtrack is good. The film, at least the proper version of the movie (seriously, it's hard to argue when we're talking about two different movies) fills in the basics -at the very least- of what makes an average movie work.

Is there anything in the movie to support this, or is this yet another assumption that must be made in order to make the movie coherent?

Yes, there is. It's a premonition. He doesn't know the Flash. He doesn't know what the Flash can do. It's simple logic, A-to-B. You are the one making the assumption in this particular scenario.

You know, one argument I've made in the past against this Batman is how stupid he is for trying to kill someone that we all saw save the planet. It isn't the sign of a "cynical" or "world-weary" Batman, it's the sign of a complete moron who wants to murder a powerful alien who regularly saves people all over the world. Each time I made that argument, defenders pointed to the Knightmare scene as the catalyst that actually pushed Bruce to go through with it; here has confirmation that his vendetta is justified, and so it's time to murder Superman.
Now I'm being told that he doesn't even think it was real, or might not even remember it? Lol.

You are not speaking to the Borg, argue with people individually.

There is no counter-argument to you claiming that Batman wanting to kill Superman makes him a moron, because what you're saying is not objectively true. The movie makes the motivations very clear. You don't buy them, but they are not out of the realm of reality. People do function like that.

Knightmare at no point directs Batman to any action (unless you make the argument that it's somewhere lodged in his subconsciousness). It's a studio-mandated tease sequence and nothing else.

Wow, I can't believe some people are actually buying Snyder's ridiculous "killing by proxy" argument.

This isn't killing by proxy. Killing by proxy is the **** he pulled with the Batmobile. KGBeast is someone falling on his own sword.

 

[gdw]

I can't believe some are still giving Burton's Batman a pass in terms of the death toll that resulted directly from him.

Batman blew up everyone inside a building with a bomb in the first Batman film. He killed the Joker and Penguin in cold blood. Selective memory has a very strong presence in this forum.

Yeah, Burton and Keaton's Batman was a psychopath. Although he didn't kill Joker in cold blood. He tethered him to the gargoyle on the building. While that lead to his death, it was not a direct action to kill him.

Wait if Batman is killing all these guys after his fight with Supes, doesn't that undo his entire arc?

No, his ultimate moment of truth comes from Superman's sacrifice in stopping Doomsday.

While the Martha moment shows him he's wrong in going after Superman, he hasn't fully turned around from how far he'd fallen.

In other words, Bruce knew he was wrong for going after Superman, but he still believed he was "fallen." It is through Superman's sacrifice that he sees his own potential for redemption.

 

[gdw]

Well for me it's if you weren't up in arms about all the previous examples in previous films (Burton, Schumacher and the cutesy loopholes Nolan carved out despite going on about his "one rule") which deviated from the comics, if many call those film favorites of their own despite a Batman that clearly will take a life, then why is this version an issue, or at least such a BIG issue?

For starters, we were all much younger when Batman '89 came out, so many of use didn't even clue into the death toll, or at least weren't focused on it.

Second, I'm fairly certain anyone complaining about the Bat-Murder in BvS are ALSO not fond of it in the previous films.

The Burton film is often "forgiven" as being just taken for what it is, a flawed, but otherwise brilliant, piece of art.

The Nolan films are a HUGE step in the right direction. At the very least they gave plenty of lip service, and acknowledgment of the no kill notion. There was plenty of effort to adhere to it, despite the loophole BS.
Many of us are still upset with it though. Batman would NEVER let someone die because he did not HAVE to save him. Unless it was a Ra's with established immortality, and Bruce knew.

Ultimately, Nolan's film were a HUGE step in the right direction. Add to that the prequel comics for BvS explicitly set up that this Batman will NOT kill.
Also, the fact that they are setting this up as the long term Batman, as part of the conjoined universe. People are going to want this to be, and will consider this to be, the "definitive" cinematic version of the character, and as such are going to want certain central tenants of the character to remain intact.

Then there's the response from having Superman kill Zod. Considering the reactionary nature of BvS, it's astounding that they doubled down on making the "heroes" murderers.

All these combined make for that the Bat-Murder that much more egregious in BvS, at least in the eyes of many.


Personally, while it's one of my biggest/only complaints for BvS, I've grown to find it acceptable, especially with Bruce viewing himself as being fallen, and beyond redemption. I think they could have done a fantastic emotional arc for him with struggling about whether or not to cross that line to stop Superman and save the World, rather than having him already having crossed that line.
The redemption that they will be playing up moving forward (assuming he actually won't be killing,) also helps make it more palatable.


Still frustrates me, as the moment Bruce kills, the Joker wins. That was one of the central arcs of TDKR, and how Snyder was so oblivious to that, still astounds me.

 

[gdw]

Batman became like the man who killed his parents the moment he decided killing criminals was acceptable if they got in the way of his plan of killing Superman. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

Yes, absolutely. This is a point actually made in the UE. The guy he branded, (whom Luthor has killed, technically, but it's still used to illustrate the point) was a father. Bruce already WAS taking parents away from their children.

The moment with Superman is Bruce BEGINNING to see this himself. Rather, he's seeing that he's taken this to killing a GOOD person, all for the same justifications.

It stops him in his path, but Bruce still does not see his own redemption as a possibility at this point. He still sees what he's doing as a necessary evil. He is the instrument that is necessary to save Martha, to allow Superman to stop whatever is happening at the ship.
He is acting as Clark's sin-eater while saving Martha, as he still believes that he is beyond redemption, and doing what is needed.

Ideally, they could have cut the shot of him blowing up all the guys in the cars, and then turned the scene with KGBeast into a similar moment with refraining from branding Luthor.
Same set up, "I'll kill her." "I know." But he manages to take him out WITHOUT (presumably) killing him, showing that Bruce has changed.

However, it still works the way they did it, placing more of the responsibility for Bruce's redemption on Superman's sacrifice.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

^gdw, I appreciate what you have to say on Batman killing in BvS, about how it wasn't until Superman sacrificed himself that Bruce had really seen the full scope of what he had become and that he needed to redeem himself and become the man he once he was. This could refer to the killing that he had done in the movie.

However, I don't believe ZS saw it that way. When he was asked about Batman killing in the movie, he simply shrugs it off and says it was done in previous films and that it was killing by proxy. I think he is ok with Batman killing depending on the circumstance. He never mentions that it was a part of Batman's fall, that it was realized at the end and that he would redeem himself.

For ZS, what symbolized Batman's fall was the marks he was now leaving on criminals. Now moving forward, ZS could decide to incorporate the Bat killings as a fall a from grace as well but I don't think it was his original intent.

 

[souperman]

This isn't killing by proxy. Killing by proxy is the **** he pulled with the Batmobile. KGBeast is someone falling on his own sword.

Flint is just being stubborn.

Whether you like the film or not, or like the characterization or not,- these are the FACTS of the events. Batman clearly did not kill KGBeast.

...but he did let him die or did not save him...and I'm ok with that...

 

[Flint Marko]

Actually, no, I don't. There are people who can follow and enjoy the plot. There is actual structure in the script. There are strong actors on-screen. There is good cinematography. The soundtrack is good. The film, at least the proper version of the movie (seriously, it's hard to argue when we're talking about two different movies) fills in the basics -at the very least- of what makes an average movie work.

Yes, I'm talking about the cut that WB felt was suitable to put in theaters.

Yes, there is. It's a premonition. He doesn't know the Flash. He doesn't know what the Flash can do. It's simple logic, A-to-B. You are the one making the assumption in this particular scenario.

I'm 100% not, actually. I'm not the one looking at something that happened directly in front of Bruce's eyes and saying, "you know what? He probably won't consider that. Heck, he might have even forgot it entirely!"

You are not speaking to the Borg, argue with people individually.

I know I'm not arguing with you, but I bring it up because it further proves how broken this movie is.

If what you are saying is true, then my original claim that Batman is an idiot holds up even better than I originally thought. (I'll explain below)

If what every other defender has said is true, then Batman is an idiot for not killing Superman after being directly warned by multiple visions of the future.

There is no counter-argument to you claiming that Batman wanting to kill Superman makes him a moron, because what you're saying is not objectively true. The movie makes the motivations very clear. You don't buy them, but they are not out of the realm of reality. People do function like that.

You can't just say "this is how it is" without offering any sort of explanation.

Batman looks at Superman, someone that we all watched save the entire planet and who regularly flies around saving people from floods, fires, etc., and decides that it is his duty to kill him. That isn't cynical, that isn't world-weary, that's straight up stupidity. His explanation makes this even more apparent: if there's even a 1% chance this this person we all know is doing good things on a daily basis turns out to be evil, then it's my duty to kill him now before that happens.

That isn't the reasoning of a mentally competent human being, let alone someone who is supposedly hyper-intelligent. That's the reasoning of a moron. Please, explain to me how I'm wrong here.

It can't go unmentioned that the only reason these two are fighting is because the film makers decided to make a movie based on that conceit, so they retroactively fit a story that would bring this into being. Here's the kicker though: it doesn't work. I can see how poorly contrived it is, along with several other parts of the movie where people don't act like people and do things simply because the plot dictates they must.

This isn't killing by proxy. Killing by proxy is the **** he pulled with the Batmobile. KGBeast is someone falling on his own sword.

And you're directly ignoring that Batman quickly placed the sword right under him, knowing he'd fall on it. The intellectual dishonesty that goes into defending this film is staggering.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

And you're directly ignoring that Batman quickly placed the sword right under him, knowing he'd fall on it. The intellectual dishonesty that goes into defending this film is staggering.

Eh, Bale Batman blew a hold in the road knowing full well it could lead to Talia's death and it did. But he did it to protect innocent lives. BatFleck did the same with KGBeast. I have no problem with either one.

 

[Flint Marko]

Eh, Bale Batman blew a hold in the road knowing full well it could lead to Talia's death and it did. But he did it to protect innocent lives. BatFleck did the same with KGBeast. I have no problem with either one.

I only brought it up because someone said they didn't think Batman killed anyone in the warehouse scene. He definitely did.
And if we don't want to count him, there's still this guy:

 

[TheRedWraith]

I only brought it up because someone said they didn't think Batman killed anyone in the warehouse scene. He definitely did.
And if we don't want to count him, there's still this guy:

Now we are getting somewhere, that guy definitely died but KG Beast definitely is responsible for his own death as he saw his flame thrower tank was compromised but chose to fire it anyways making him completely responsible for his own death as the explosion happening or not happening was dependent on his own choices, all batfleck did was disable the flamethrower. Also, while I think it is incredibly unlikely as I am pretty sure he died his death is ambiguous enough that they could bring him back later heavily burned and scarred as people have survived worse before.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I honestly feel ZS doesn't care about Batman killing. He defends it with the criminal being killed by his own grenade, or being killed by proxy type of stuff. Batman going out of his way to brand criminals was to indicate his fallen nature, not any kills that happened to come about.

Things may have changed now with WB getting more involved, but if it was still 100% ZS going forward, I wouldn't have been surprised if he continued to have Batman kill in future films he directed.

 

[RadioSha]

I honestly feel ZS doesn't care about Batman killing. He defends it with the criminal being killed by his own grenade, or being killed by proxy type of stuff. Batman going out of his way to brand criminals was to indicate his fallen nature, not any kills that happened to come about.

Things may have changed now with WB getting more involved, but if it was still 100% ZS going forward, I wouldn't have been surprised if he continued to have Batman kill in future films he directed.

Zack doesn't give a sh** unless it looks cool.

He's a surface level storyteller. End of discussion.

 

[NeoRanger]

Yes, I'm talking about the cut that WB felt was suitable to put in theaters.

I know, but as I've said before, I don't remember that cut anymore. Making the arguments hard to make.

I'm 100% not, actually. I'm not the one looking at something that happened directly in front of Bruce's eyes and saying, "you know what? He probably won't consider that. Heck, he might have even forgot it entirely!"

That's not how it happened. Bruce looks at the computer decrypting the files, it cuts straight to Knightmare and when it ends it shows Bruce popping up from his desk as if he was asleep. It didn't happen in front of his eyes for all either he or the audience can tell. So yeah, you absolutely are making the assumption that he saw it and he knows what it was. Even the movie made it seem like a dream that is never addressed again by him or any other characters until the very end.

You can't just say "this is how it is" without offering any sort of explanation.

Batman looks at Superman, someone that we all watched save the entire planet and who regularly flies around saving people from floods, fires, etc., and decides that it is his duty to kill him. That isn't cynical, that isn't world-weary, that's straight up stupidity. His explanation makes this even more apparent: if there's even a 1% chance this this person we all know is doing good things on a daily basis turns out to be evil, then it's my duty to kill him now before that happens.

How so? Why is this so hard for you to buy? You assume that Batman would buy into the false messiah (which is out of character even for the comic book Batman) and he would be fine and dandy with the demi-god, just because he saves kittens from trees. You operate from the point of the audience, who already knows who Superman is. For Batman and the world, he is an unstable variable in equation that affects primarily them. There is Clark Kent, there is no farm in Smallville, there are some puff pieces about rescues around the world, there is a giant statue in Metropolis and there is the memorial of the thousands of people, who were killed because of that variable, the alien who brought fire upon them. It fits.

Also, remember that even though he is looking for the Kryptonite, he doesn't elect to actively fight him until after the events of the movie. In two years he just let him be. The events of the movie changed his mind.

That isn't the reasoning of a mentally competent human being, let alone someone who is supposedly hyper-intelligent. That's the reasoning of a moron. Please, explain to me how I'm wrong here.

I can't, because you make the statement that the reasoning of a hyper-intelligent person would accept Superman, because he saves people. Hyper-intelligent don't necessarily operate from a primarily humanitarian perspective. Any schmuck could go "Superman's awesome dude", it's the intelligent people that will pace faster on the streets when the guy heat-visions a villain in the sky.

It can't go unmentioned that the only reason these two are fighting is because the film makers decided to make a movie based on that conceit, so they retroactively fit a story that would bring this into being. Here's the kicker though: it doesn't work. I can see how poorly contrived it is, along with several other parts of the movie where people don't act like people and do things simply because the plot dictates they must.

The studio decided, not the film-makers. Consider how much work had to go into writing this to meet the studio's demands. We're talking about a movie that needs to tease Justice League, re-introduce Batman, set the foundations for the entire DCEU, sell itself on a "vs" concept that was never going to work and all that had to be done in the second movie in this series, when clearly (in the UC at least), all the film-makers wanted to do was a Superman sequel.

That the film has any flow and the UC is legitimately good character drama in the first two acts is an accomplishment.

And you're directly ignoring that Batman quickly placed the sword right under him, knowing he'd fall on it. The intellectual dishonesty that goes into defending this film is staggering.

Something about glass houses and the like.

KGBeast was holding the flamethrower. It was set on his victim. Batman shot the tank. At any given point KGBeast could have NOT fired and Batman would take Martha out of the building regardless. "He knew that KGBeast would fire" so effin' what? This wasn't something KGBeast couldn't stop, nobody pulled the trigger for him. Even if Batman placed the sword right under him, KGBeast took the dive.

It is extremely silly to hold the character accountable for this.

 

[gdw]

I only brought it up because someone said they didn't think Batman killed anyone in the warehouse scene. He definitely did.
And if we don't want to count him, there's still this guy:

You know, even with the blood in the UE, I NEVER considered this guy to have been killed.

First off, why is everyone assuming the crate was heavy AF? It could have been empty.

Second, it's a movie, it's beyond reasonable, in movie logic/suspension of disbelief, for that guy to have survived, even with the blood.

 

[Sleiek]

I didn't think he died either. I thought Rhodey died after that fall, but he didnt. Comic book logic folks. Suspend belief.

 

[Flint Marko]

That's not how it happened. Bruce looks at the computer decrypting the files, it cuts straight to Knightmare and when it ends it shows Bruce popping up from his desk as if he was asleep. It didn't happen in front of his eyes for all either he or the audience can tell. So yeah, you absolutely are making the assumption that he saw it and he knows what it was. Even the movie made it seem like a dream that is never addressed again by him or any other characters until the very end.

Wait, now you're making the argument that he didn't even see it??
Come on man, why would they put that in the movie if it didn't inform his actions or if he didn't even see it? Again, the intellectual dishonesty in play here is staggering. I understand it was a studio mandated JL tease, but (I can't believe I'm saying this) let's give Snyder and them a little bit of credit here and assume that this, like everything else in a movie, is done to inform the story and characters.
Heck, let's look at Snyder's own words:

If you look at the cut, he doesn’t go to sleep! He’s waiting for the [Lexcorp file decryption] and suddenly this [Knightmare sequence] comes in, and he’s jogged out of it seeing his own death. And what does he see? He sees Flash. And if you’re a DC fan, you know what’s happening. You know that Flash going back in time, that memory is now coming back to him… mind you, it’s jumbled.”
“The thing is that, it’s meant to be so kind of subtle, most audiences just think of it as a dream. And it’s meant to be that way. It’s just like in the comics when there might be some shadowy figure standing in the background, you don’t know who that character is until five issues down the line.

The main purpose of that in the film – because people will probably say ‘why even have it, if it’s not going to be followed through?’ – I’m going to say: ‘Well, it’s there because it actually adds to… Bruce Wayne’s kind of mania. Because he sees this memory. He doesn’t quite know exactly what he saw, all it does is tell him is that Superman is bad.

“And remember, when Flash goes back in time, he tells him ‘you were right about him.’ He doesn’t say exactly who ‘him’ is. The average audience member, and even Bruce Wayne, is going to think that he’s right about Superman, when in fact he’s referring to someone else.”

So there goes that argument out the window. My original point stands.

http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-knightmare-not-dream/

How so? Why is this so hard for you to buy? You assume that Batman would buy into the false messiah (which is out of character even for the comic book Batman) and he would be fine and dandy with the demi-god, just because he saves kittens from trees. You operate from the point of the audience, who already knows who Superman is. For Batman and the world, he is an unstable variable in equation that affects primarily them. There is Clark Kent, there is no farm in Smallville, there are some puff pieces about rescues around the world, there is a giant statue in Metropolis and there is the memorial of the thousands of people, who were killed because of that variable, the alien who brought fire upon them. It fits.

None of this, not a single bit, would follow to the conclusion that Batman must kill him. Superman saved the planet from a hostile alien invasion that killed thousands. Not Superman, he didn't kill anyone, and that's plain to see even from the perspective of a bystander. He has since followed that up with, ostensibly, saving hundreds of people around the world.

And yet, you want me to believe that it's logical for Batman to go "this guy must be killed!"

It's absurd.

Also, remember that even though he is looking for the Kryptonite, he doesn't elect to actively fight him until after the events of the movie. In two years he just let him be. The events of the movie changed his mind.

One of these events being the Knightmare sequence which, from the director himself, helped push Bruce closer to that confrontation.

The studio decided, not the film-makers. Consider how much work had to go into writing this to meet the studio's demands. We're talking about a movie that needs to tease Justice League, re-introduce Batman, set the foundations for the entire DCEU, sell itself on a "vs" concept that was never going to work and all that had to be done in the second movie in this series, when clearly (in the UC at least), all the film-makers wanted to do was a Superman sequel.

That the film has any flow and the UC is legitimately good character drama in the first two acts is an accomplishment.

We've seen ambitious crossover team-up superhero films before. Let's not pretend they had an impossible task in front of them; they had a very difficult one, yes, but they didn't have what it takes.

Something about glass houses and the like.

KGBeast was holding the flamethrower. It was set on his victim. Batman shot the tank. At any given point KGBeast could have NOT fired and Batman would take Martha out of the building regardless. "He knew that KGBeast would fire" so effin' what? This wasn't something KGBeast couldn't stop, nobody pulled the trigger for him. Even if Batman placed the sword right under him, KGBeast took the dive.

It is extremely silly to hold the character accountable for this.

"So effin' what"? Lol.
If you don't want to hold the character accountable for this, no matter then; we have numerous other murders in the film that we can hold him accountable for.

 

[souperman]

Zack doesn't give a sh** unless it looks cool.

He's a surface level storyteller. End of discussion.

With all the layered allegorical imagery, mythology and deep religious parallels and comic book referenced panels you call this "surface level" ?

 

[souperman]

I didn't think he died either. I thought Rhodey died after that fall, but he didnt. Comic book logic folks. Suspend belief.

 

[Micromind]

That thug was about to shoot at Batman, even if he dies, so what ?

 

[The Joker]

That thug was about to shoot at Batman, even if he dies, so what ?

Are you kidding? People try to kill Batman every single day. By your logic he could stack up a body count daily and that would be ok.

 

[souperman]

Now we are getting somewhere, that guy definitely died but KG Beast definitely is responsible for his own death as he saw his flame thrower tank was compromised but chose to fire it anyways making him completely responsible for his own death as the explosion happening or not happening was dependent on his own choices, all batfleck did was disable the flamethrower. Also, while I think it is incredibly unlikely as I am pretty sure he died his death is ambiguous enough that they could bring him back later heavily burned and scarred as people have survived worse before.

This guy survived...

 

[Micromind]

Are you kidding? People try to kill Batman every single day. By your logic he could stack up a body count daily and that would be ok.

I'm not kidding. If acting in self defense by a vigilante is not acceptable to you, it's your problem.

 

[The Joker]

I'm not kidding. If acting in self defense by a vigilante is not acceptable to you, it's your problem.

That's not acting in self defense, that's needlessly killing. Batman is more than capable of handling armed goons without smashing their heads in with a huge crate. The day Batman can't take on some armed goons without killing them is the day he needs to hang up his cape.

It's not acceptable at all, that's why killer Batman always gets a backlash.