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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I gotta say, there are some missteps that we could go back and forth on all day (no more than TDK trilogy). There's some stuff I'd probably have done differently if I were in charge, I probably would have stretched out the story of BvS Superman's death into Two Parts.


But I do think it's a great film, they didn't do anything unfixable with the universe itself (like the early X Men films IMO). The concept and the tone, though, is exactly what I want from the DC mythos, and what I would have done if I were in charge. Taking these characters from our modern mythology, placing them in our world, which isn't as cut and dry as it was when the characters were created, and examining the issue of how do these characters fit into our complex world, and can they still inspire us. What I want going forward is an Epic Fantasy, like Game Of Thrones or LOTR, except placed in our world as opposed to these fictional fantasy worlds. When I first saw that montage with the television personalities discussing the nature of Superman as a messianic figure, how much power should he be allowed, how does he affect the political landscape of the entire world, the people loving, hating, fearing, worshipping him, I thought "Yes! This is what I wanna see!" There's just so much potential there for more than just a Superhero movie, really looking at how these characters relate to the society that created them. I feel like BvS really enhanced my appreciation for MoS before it, and I hope that pattern continues as we get further into it.

Unfortunately (for me anyways), I'm afraid the backlash and reception may have influenced them to ease off of their original vision, for something a little more lighthearted and "fun". But, that's okay, these are all of our characters and I want as many to be able to enjoy it as possible, I just hope they stick to this grounded, more adult tone.



Regarding the No Kill debate, I don't really mind that he is okay with death in the heat of battle. I mean, he can't just knock everybody out and tie them up in front of the police station. Twenty years, he's seen the consequences of what happens when you let the criminals live, he's broken and cynical, figures "No big loss there." This is a more realistic approach, so there's some compromises we have to make with the mythology.


Having said that, I think they should be more thoughtful in their action sequences. If somebody dies, show that it was absolutely necessary and unavoidable, I'm not a big fan of having him mowing people down in his Bat plane. The No Kill Code is an important element of his mythology, and once he crosses that line, why not straight up kill all the rogues on first opportunity? The writers can make anything happen that they want, and they can make just as cool of action scenes without killing. I don't mind at all that Superman killed Zod, he really had no choice. I think, to kill people, they need to establish in the film that there is no other option and it is for the greater good.
 
I see.

...Sorry kids, Daddy chooses not to protect his family from the murderous home invaders because it would be stooping to their level. I would be as bad as they are and I couldn't live with that moral dilemma...and apparently wont have to, and neither will you kids because these bad guys just killed us!:cwink:

Ideals are great to strive for but hard to reach and maintain.

That doesn't mean we don't keep striving...even after we fall, but life can present you with your own kobayashi maru. That's the real test of your convictions.
We all pass on. But there's a difference between really defending yourself and others and murdering in cold blood or even running people down when you don't have to. Either, humans can live with their moral compromises. That doesn't mean that we should comprise what we know is right and it doesn't mean we should be let off scot free because we want to be different after we've been viciously remorselessly murderous. Us wanting to be different doesn't change anything we did, until we seek God's forgiveness.
 
I did like how Batman Forever addressed how Batman kept killing criminals after he got his revenge. I can't find a youtube clip but this is what Bruce told Dick about his plan to kill Two-Face in that movie.
He doesn't say that he did that in that scene.
God bless you too. I must say that's some interesting logic you're using. Can you imagine if murderers could reasonably use this defense in a court room." Yes I tried to stab the victim but, he avoided my attempt to kill him and got run over by a car. The person driving the car murdered the victim."

As for that infamous scene in Batman Returns, Burton's Batman was a dimwitted idiot or a sadistic phycopath for standing there to observe what would happen to the Penguin.
I don't know why this matters. I'm not trying to justify anything that Burton's Batman does. I was just stating the facts of the situation. And thank you very much!
 
I gotta say, there are some missteps that we could go back and forth on all day (no more than TDK trilogy). There's some stuff I'd probably have done differently if I were in charge, I probably would have stretched out the story of BvS Superman's death into Two Parts.

I said the same thing early on. They prob. wanted to get into the JL stories faster so they compressed it.


But I do think it's a great film, they didn't do anything unfixable with the universe itself (like the early X Men films IMO). The concept and the tone, though, is exactly what I want from the DC mythos, and what I would have done if I were in charge. Taking these characters from our modern mythology, placing them in our world, which isn't as cut and dry as it was when the characters were created, and examining the issue of how do these characters fit into our complex world, and can they still inspire us. What I want going forward is an Epic Fantasy, like Game Of Thrones or LOTR, except placed in our world as opposed to these fictional fantasy worlds. When I first saw that montage with the television personalities discussing the nature of Superman as a messianic figure, how much power should he be allowed, how does he affect the political landscape of the entire world, the people loving, hating, fearing, worshipping him, I thought "Yes! This is what I wanna see!" There's just so much potential there for more than just a Superhero movie, really looking at how these characters relate to the society that created them. I feel like BvS really enhanced my appreciation for MoS before it, and I hope that pattern continues as we get further into it.

Unfortunately (for me anyways), I'm afraid the backlash and reception may have influenced them to ease off of their original vision, for something a little more lighthearted and "fun". But, that's okay, these are all of our characters and I want as many to be able to enjoy it as possible, I just hope they stick to this grounded, more adult tone.



Regarding the No Kill debate, I don't really mind that he is okay with death in the heat of battle. I mean, he can't just knock everybody out and tie them up in front of the police station. Twenty years, he's seen the consequences of what happens when you let the criminals live, he's broken and cynical, figures "No big loss there." This is a more realistic approach, so there's some compromises we have to make with the mythology.


Having said that, I think they should be more thoughtful in their action sequences. If somebody dies, show that it was absolutely necessary and unavoidable, I'm not a big fan of having him mowing people down in his Bat plane. The No Kill Code is an important element of his mythology, and once he crosses that line, why not straight up kill all the rogues on first opportunity? The writers can make anything happen that they want, and they can make just as cool of action scenes without killing. I don't mind at all that Superman killed Zod, he really had no choice. I think, to kill people, they need to establish in the film that there is no other option and it is for the greater good.


Agree with everything you said. Nicely done.
 
BvS have too many flaws to ever be good movie. Only way to save DCEU is not let Zack Snyder direct any more. It too late for Justice league but hope other DC movies are good. But heard Snyder helped write Wonder Woman movie so it could be in big trouble.
 
It's funny that people say that Batman have to kill in BvS, otherwise it would be too cartoony and it wouldn't be believable. It's more adult, gritty and real for Batman to kill. But then we have Daredevil's netflix series, which is undoubtedly more adult, gritty and feels more real than BvS. And it's definitely less cartoony. Yet ... Daredevil is no killer. As a matter of fact, in season 2, he tries to stop the Punisher because he do kill criminals. But I guess Daredevil is simply more capable than Batman in this universe. :cwink:

Funnily enough, when Ben Affleck played Daredevil, he was a killer too. That movie wasn't adult either.
 
It's funny that people say that Batman have to kill in BvS, otherwise it would be too cartoony and it wouldn't be believable. It's more adult, gritty and real for Batman to kill. But then we have Daredevil's netflix series, which is undoubtedly more adult, gritty and feels more real than BvS. And it's definitely less cartoony. Yet ... Daredevil is no killer. As a matter of fact, in season 2, he tries to stop the Punisher because he do kill criminals. But I guess Daredevil is simply more capable than Batman in this universe. :cwink:

Funnily enough, when Ben Affleck played Daredevil, he was a killer too. That movie wasn't adult either.

I don't think the decision to portray this Batman as more brutal had anything to do with wanting Batman to be more "adult" or "gritty," but had everything to do with wanting Batman to be on the edge of moral bankruptcy as a result of two decades of crime fighting that yielded zero progress and plenty of personal loss. What makes Batman's crueler and more brutal methods "believable" is the context in which the shift occurs.

This isn't about whether Batman or Daredevil is more "capable" of preserving life at all costs. Both heroes could probably minimize or eliminate criminal body counts if that was his goal, but this Batman has tried that tactic for 20 years and found that his idealism got him and his city nowhere. Daredevil's career as a crimefighter is still very young compared to Batman's in this film. He hasn't had the time to grow disenchanted and cynical.

Cynicism isn't being passed off as adult either. The film has many voices, including Clark and Alfred, who criticize Batman's new approach to vigilantism. Bruce's arc is clearly about a man who is struggling in the dark, and how he finds a way out of that darkness. His fall from grace is not presented as "cool" or "the way things should be" in any way.
 
I don't think the decision to portray this Batman as more brutal had anything to do with wanting Batman to be more "adult" or "gritty," but had everything to do with wanting Batman to be on the edge of moral bankruptcy as a result of two decades of crime fighting that yielded zero progress and plenty of personal loss. What makes Batman's crueler and more brutal methods "believable" is the context in which the shift occurs.

This isn't about whether Batman or Daredevil is more "capable" of preserving life at all costs. Both heroes could probably minimize or eliminate criminal body counts if that was his goal, but this Batman has tried that tactic for 20 years and found that his idealism got him and his city nowhere. Daredevil's career as a crimefighter is still very young compared to Batman's in this film. He hasn't had the time to grow disenchanted and cynical.

Cynicism isn't being passed off as adult either. The film has many voices, including Clark and Alfred, who criticize Batman's new approach to vigilantism. Bruce's arc is clearly about a man who is struggling in the dark, and how he finds a way out of that darkness. His fall from grace is not presented as "cool" or "the way things should be" in any way.

Bingo...
 
I don't think the decision to portray this Batman as more brutal had anything to do with wanting Batman to be more "adult" or "gritty," but had everything to do with wanting Batman to be on the edge of moral bankruptcy as a result of two decades of crime fighting that yielded zero progress and plenty of personal loss. What makes Batman's crueler and more brutal methods "believable" is the context in which the shift occurs.

This isn't about whether Batman or Daredevil is more "capable" of preserving life at all costs. Both heroes could probably minimize or eliminate criminal body counts if that was his goal, but this Batman has tried that tactic for 20 years and found that his idealism got him and his city nowhere. Daredevil's career as a crimefighter is still very young compared to Batman's in this film. He hasn't had the time to grow disenchanted and cynical.

Cynicism isn't being passed off as adult either. The film has many voices, including Clark and Alfred, who criticize Batman's new approach to vigilantism. Bruce's arc is clearly about a man who is struggling in the dark, and how he finds a way out of that darkness. His fall from grace is not presented as "cool" or "the way things should be" in any way.

But I was speaking of them who did say that it was adult and gritty of Batman to behave this way. :huh: And some people in this thread did say that it was too cartoony to be capable of stopping criminals without killing them.
 
I don't think the decision to portray this Batman as more brutal had anything to do with wanting Batman to be more "adult" or "gritty," but had everything to do with wanting Batman to be on the edge of moral bankruptcy as a result of two decades of crime fighting that yielded zero progress and plenty of personal loss. What makes Batman's crueler and more brutal methods "believable" is the context in which the shift occurs.

This isn't about whether Batman or Daredevil is more "capable" of preserving life at all costs. Both heroes could probably minimize or eliminate criminal body counts if that was his goal, but this Batman has tried that tactic for 20 years and found that his idealism got him and his city nowhere. Daredevil's career as a crimefighter is still very young compared to Batman's in this film. He hasn't had the time to grow disenchanted and cynical.

Cynicism isn't being passed off as adult either. The film has many voices, including Clark and Alfred, who criticize Batman's new approach to vigilantism. Bruce's arc is clearly about a man who is struggling in the dark, and how he finds a way out of that darkness. His fall from grace is not presented as "cool" or "the way things should be" in any way.

Yep. This film has four major villains: Lex, KGBeast, Doomsday, and Batman. Batman was the only one who was redeemed and brought back to the light at the end, all thanks to Supes and Lois. It was quite ballsy to make Batman so cruel and unhinged for his introduction into this particular universe, imo.
 
It's funny that people say that Batman have to kill in BvS, otherwise it would be too cartoony and it wouldn't be believable. It's more adult, gritty and real for Batman to kill. But then we have Daredevil's netflix series, which is undoubtedly more adult, gritty and feels more real than BvS. And it's definitely less cartoony. Yet ... Daredevil is no killer. As a matter of fact, in season 2, he tries to stop the Punisher because he do kill criminals. But I guess Daredevil is simply more capable than Batman in this universe. :cwink:

Funnily enough, when Ben Affleck played Daredevil, he was a killer too. That movie wasn't adult either.

lol agreed. Daredevil in TV show better Batman than Ben Affleck Batman.

Yep. This film has four major villains: Lex, KGBeast, Doomsday, and Batman. Batman was the only one who was redeemed and brought back to the light at the end, all thanks to Supes and Lois. It was quite ballsy to make Batman so cruel and unhinged for his introduction into this particular universe, imo.

When Snyder make Batman villain you know he not understand characters at all. It not ballsy it just bad.
 
But I was speaking of them who did say that it was adult and gritty of Batman to behave this way. :huh: And some people in this thread did say that it was too cartoony to be capable of stopping criminals without killing them.

You made the argument that "Daredevil's netflix series, which is undoubtedly more adult, gritty and feels more real than BvS [is] definitely less cartoony. Yet ... Daredevil is no killer" presumably to undercut the logic behind the claim that killing creates grit and realism. The message from you is that Marvel, through Daredevil, doesn't need to rely on corrupting its heroes in order to create a gritty, adult, and realistic vibe. So what I was saying to you is that DC, through Batman, didn't have killing as part of Batman's journey in order to make him or the movie gritty any more than Daredevil did, because BvS did it to develop character and theme while Daredevil didn't do it to develop character and theme. Same goal, different execution.

So, let me try this. Do you believe that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice portrayed Batman as they did with the goal of making him more real, adult, or gritty? Do you believe that the movie chose to make Batman a killer in order to make him less of a cartoon? In other words, do you just think it's funny that some people here believe the filmmakers made Batman kill to give him and the movie a more adult and gritty feel, because, from your point of view, it's not necessary to use killing to create that effect? Or do you think both the people commenting and the people making Batman v Superman are foolish for thinking that turning heroes into killers creates a more mature and realistic film?
 
Last edited:
Looking at the Target weekly ad, their Ultimate Edition Blu-Ray comes with a 64 page booklet and lenticular packaging.
 
Looking at the Target weekly ad, their Ultimate Edition Blu-Ray comes with a 64 page booklet and lenticular packaging.

I saw that online a couple of hours ago, when I was trying to figure out which store would have a version with WW on the cover. So far-- None except for this little place called "Amazon.com". :grr:
 
You made the argument that "Daredevil's netflix series, which is undoubtedly more adult, gritty and feels more real than BvS [is] definitely less cartoony. Yet ... Daredevil is no killer" presumably to undercut the logic behind the claim that killing creates grit and realism. The message from you is that Marvel, through Daredevil, doesn't need to rely on corrupting its heroes in order to create a gritty, adult, and realistic vibe. So what I was saying to you is that DC, through Batman, didn't have killing as part of Batman's journey in order to make him or the movie gritty any more than Daredevil did, because BvS did it to develop character and theme while Daredevil didn't do it to develop character and theme. Same goal, different execution.

So, let me try this. Do you believe that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice portrayed Batman as they did with the goal of making him more real, adult, or gritty? Do you believe that the movie chose to make Batman a killer in order to make him less of a cartoon? In other words, do you just think it's funny that some people here believe the filmmakers made Batman kill to give him and the movie a more adult and gritty feel, because, from your point of view, it's not necessary to use killing to create that effect? Or do you think both the people commenting and the people making Batman v Superman are foolish for thinking that turning heroes into killers creates a more mature and realistic film?
Except that I never claimed that the filmmakers made Batman a killer because they wanted to make him or the movie gritty. And I didn't say anything about corrupting their heroes. I don't know why the filmmakers made Batman a killer, and that wasn't the point. The point was that some people did claim that Batman needed to kill, otherwise it wouldn't be adult and believable, so I mentioned Daredevil to show that it isn't true.
Batgod is always better. Still more badass than Daredevil.

Daredevil and his chain disagrees. :woot:
[YT]/watch?v=Q0CvkiPS5Ks[/YT]
 
Except that I never claimed that the filmmakers made Batman a killer because they wanted to make him or the movie gritty. And I didn't say anything about corrupting their heroes. I don't know why the filmmakers made Batman a killer, and that wasn't the point. The point was that some people did claim that Batman needed to kill, otherwise it wouldn't be adult and believable, so I mentioned Daredevil to show that it isn't true.

Sigh. Yes, of course, your Daredevil example was intended to offer a counterpoint to the claims that excessive violence committed by heroes in the name of justice is a way to make a potentially cartoonish character into a gritty, cool, and adult character. But my point, and the reason for my initial response to you, was to show that not only were the claims that Snyder made Batman kill to be cool invalid, but also your comparison of the two characterizations is invalid because you were comparing apples and oranges. The two heroes are in vastly different places in their lives and careers, for example.

In other words, in order to make your Daredevil example work as a counterargument, you had to accept the premise that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice had Batman kill criminals to achieve coolness, adultness, and grittiness. For you, Daredevil is better than Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice because the show didn't have to have its hero kill criminals to be cool, adult, or gritty. If you didn't believe that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice had Batman kill to be cool, adult, and gritty, then I would have expected you to make the same argument that I did (i.e. The film obviously offers a running commentary criticizing Bruce's fall from good man to cruel man.) in addition to providing your assessment of Daredevil.

If you don't know why the filmmakers chose to make Batman a killer, then my response to you is even more germane, and you still have yet to address or respond to the content of that post. If you had to guess, why did the filmmakers portray Batman as a hero who had become more violent in the nearly two years leading up to the events of the film? Was it a defensible creative choice driven by plot and characterization or was it a foolish creative choice that was all about trying to make Batman into a cooler and more serious character?
 
The film has many voices, including Clark and Alfred, who criticize Batman's new approach to vigilantism. Bruce's arc is clearly about a man who is struggling in the dark, and how he finds a way out of that darkness. His fall from grace is not presented as "cool" or "the way things should be" in any way.

the thing is, the movie doesn't present the killing as one of the "new approach". Clark and Alfred never criticize the killing, they criticize the branding through and through. the movie present the branding as symbol of Batman's fall from grace and never address the killing. we don't even know this Batman ever had no kill codes.
 
the thing is, the movie doesn't present the killing as one of the "new approach". Clark and Alfred never criticize the killing, they criticize the branding through and through. the movie present the branding as symbol of Batman's fall from grace and never address the killing. we don't even know this Batman ever had no kill codes.

If the problem with the brand is that it causes the death of criminals, then clearly Clark and Alfred are offering a criticism of Bruce that is opposed to the killing of criminals. The brand is a problem for Alfred and Clark because it undermines a "no kill" code. In addition, Alfred is clearly opposed to Bruce killing Superman.

When it comes to the killing itself, if you have a problem with Clark and Alfred failing to address the killing, then shouldn't you apply the same logic to the question of whether or not the film intends for us to accept what we are seeing as conclusive kills? Does the film make it absolutely clear that Batman has committed cold blooded murder in the name of justice?
 
If the problem with the brand is that it causes the death of criminals, then clearly Clark and Alfred are offering a criticism of Bruce that is opposed to the killing of criminals. The brand is a problem for Alfred and Clark because it undermines a "no kill" code. In addition, Alfred is clearly opposed to Bruce killing Superman.

the branding is a problem because it's a branding. Alfred criticize the branding saying "new rule?" without mentioning anying about the death of criminals. Alfred is opposed to Bruce killing Superman because he thinks Superman is a good guy. he said "he's not our enemy", not "you shouldn't kill no matter what".

When it comes to the killing itself, if you have a problem with Clark and Alfred failing to address the killing, then shouldn't you apply the same logic to the question of whether or not the film intends for us to accept what we are seeing as conclusive kills? Does the film make it absolutely clear that Batman has committed cold blooded murder in the name of justice?

Snyder said "it's like manslaughter than murder" so there's that. and does it matter if it's cold blooded murderor manslaughter? the killing is the killing.

btw, i'm not one of those "Batman should not kill because that's the way it's supposed to be" crowd. i'm talking about the consistency within this movie.
 
Sigh. Yes, of course, your Daredevil example was intended to offer a counterpoint to the claims that excessive violence committed by heroes in the name of justice is a way to make a potentially cartoonish character into a gritty, cool, and adult character. But my point, and the reason for my initial response to you, was to show that not only were the claims that Snyder made Batman kill to be cool invalid, but also your comparison of the two characterizations is invalid because you were comparing apples and oranges. The two heroes are in vastly different places in their lives and careers, for example.

In other words, in order to make your Daredevil example work as a counterargument, you had to accept the premise that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice had Batman kill criminals to achieve coolness, adultness, and grittiness. For you, Daredevil is better than Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice because the show didn't have to have its hero kill criminals to be cool, adult, or gritty. If you didn't believe that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice had Batman kill to be cool, adult, and gritty, then I would have expected you to make the same argument that I did (i.e. The film obviously offers a running commentary criticizing Bruce's fall from good man to cruel man.) in addition to providing your assessment of Daredevil.

If you don't know why the filmmakers chose to make Batman a killer, then my response to you is even more germane, and you still have yet to address or respond to the content of that post. If you had to guess, why did the filmmakers portray Batman as a hero who had become more violent in the nearly two years leading up to the events of the film? Was it a defensible creative choice driven by plot and characterization or was it a foolish creative choice that was all about trying to make Batman into a cooler and more serious character?
The thing that confused me was that I never made those claims about Snyder making Batman kill because it was cool. So shouldn't you have made your argument towards them who made that claim? The fact that Batman and Daredevil have two different characterizations doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm talking about.

No, I don't have to accept that premise, but I acknowledged that other people do. Except I haven't said anything about coolness, I don't know where you got that from. I didn't say that Daredevil is better than BvS because Daredevil doesn't kill criminals either. I didn't make the argument you did, not because I think that the filmmakers made Batman kill to be cool, but because I wasn't talking about the filmmaker's intent in the first place. Therefore, I don't see what my opinion about the filmmaker's intent has to do with anything.
 
Snyder confirmed on the behind the scenes featurette that Batman doesn't get a boost from his armor. Does that bring up his stats?

Superman remained superhuman throughout their fight. No man can withstand crashing through a roof and having a man with hundreds of pounds of armor on land on top of you. He was also hovering at one point in the fight before his strength was restored, so it's safe to say that Batman was battering someone with superhuman strength with no enhancements to his own strength.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"