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

[Sleiek]

Well, I am sorry those of you who dislike Batfleck have to wait until a reboot to get what you wanted. So you POSSIBLY have to wait until next decade for that. Hang in there.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Well, I am sorry those of you who dislike Batfleck have to wait until a reboot to get what you wanted. So you POSSIBLY have to wait until next decade for that. Hang in there.

Well, they did just get Bale Batman so they can hang their hat on that. It's funny though because Bale Batman is responsible for people's deaths as well. An action of his led directly to Talia's death. As did an action of his led to Harvey's death as well. The argument with Batfleck when he is responsible for deaths, is, well he is Batman, he should always find a way to neutralize a threat while not having anyone killed because of his actions. The same could have been said for Bale Batman. Stop Talia and Harvey without an action leading to their deaths.

I'm more forgiving though depending on the circumstance. Talia was going to nuke the city. I have no issue with how Bale Batman handled that. He saved innocent lives at the expense of a threat. He saved an innocent boy as well with the action he did in sending Harvey to his death.

Batfleck was coming in to rescue Martha. Perhaps her only shot at being saved at that point. Men with heavy artillery stood in his way, so he fired back and they were killed as a result. But it was to rescue an innocent life. Maybe he doesn't shoot back and evades the gunfire and manages to get in anyway. Maybe he doesn't shoot back and he is killed while making his jump into the warehouse.

And yes, it can be argued, he's Batman, he should always find a way to succeed without causing any deaths. I don't subscribe to that. I find it more believable that at times there will be collateral damage. Not everything will be perfect all the time. I'm ok with that.

Batfleck has blood on his hands and so does Bale Batman. They are both responsible for people dying. I would even say Bale Batman should have rescued Ra's. I didn't think it was heroic of him at all to let him die. As the hero that he is, you have a chance to save someone, when no one is in immediate harm's way you should save him, no matter the type of person he is.

But again, I'm not as rigid with his no kill policy depending on the circumstance. I thought some of Keaton's kills were completely unnecessary and avoidable (lighting the thug on fire and strapping a bomb to someone else). I still love the Keaton movies though.

 

[misslane38]

Batman is a master of control over himself. If he allows himself to cross that line, that means he has lost that control over himself, and his darkness within. Bruce knows that, deep down, his rage is a very lethal beast that he must channel. If it is unchained, he does not see anyway to get it back under control.

It's not that it's not possible, it's just that Bruce doesn't believe it is. In his eyes, even if he could come back from crossing that line, he would never be the same again.

This is all true, but that's exactly why I love the arc for Batman in this film. It pushed Bruce to that breaking point, and it showed him that he was wrong. He can come back. He can control himself. A film that has Batman overcome one of his greatest fears, and find redemption from what he views as the very pit of darkness itself, is extraordinarily compelling and moving.

I recognize that this was what Snyder was going for, and I can accept it enough to allow myself to enjoy the film (and I do,) AND I think that it CAN work in the film(s), I just do not think it was necessary, and I believe they could have told a much stronger arc for Bruce without it.

I think it was necessary for this story. I think it is important that part of what drives Batman's rage and hatred of Superman is the rage and hatred Batman directs at himself for his own fall from grace. He is convinced Superman must be stopped because he believes that Superman will inevitably succumb to the same fate. Ultimately, Bruce is able to quiet his nightmares and chain the beast within. With this self-knowledge, Batman can see for himself that he can regain control.

 

[Batsfan1]

Well, they did just get Bale Batman so they can hang their hat on that. It's funny though because Bale Batman is responsible for people's deaths as well. An action of his led directly to Talia's death. As did an action of his led to Harvey's death as well. The argument with Batfleck when he is responsible for deaths, is, well he is Batman, he should always find a way to neutralize a threat while not having anyone killed because of his actions. The same could have been said for Bale Batman. Stop Talia and Harvey without an action leading to their deaths.

I'm more forgiving though depending on the circumstance. Talia was going to nuke the city. I have no issue with how Bale Batman handled that. He saved innocent lives at the expense of a threat. He saved an innocent boy as well with the action he did in sending Harvey to his death.

Batfleck was coming in to rescue Martha. Perhaps her only shot at being saved at that point. Men with heavy artillery stood in his way, so he fired back and they were killed as a result. But it was to rescue an innocent life. Maybe he doesn't shoot back and evades the gunfire and manages to get in anyway. Maybe he doesn't shoot back and he is killed while making his jump into the warehouse.

And yes, it can be argued, he's Batman, he should always find a way to succeed without causing any deaths. I don't subscribe to that. I find it more believable that at times there will be collateral damage. Not everything will be perfect all the time. I'm ok with that.

Batfleck has blood on his hands and so does Bale Batman. They are both responsible for people dying. I would even say Bale Batman should have rescued Ra's. I didn't think it was heroic of him at all to let him die. As the hero that he is, you have a chance to save someone, when no one is in immediate harm's way you should save him, no matter the type of person he is.

Those are 2 very different situations and comparing them ignores the context. Baleman may have gotten people killed with his actions, but he never intentionally went out to murder people. The Martha situation is a good example in the differences in how Batfleck and Baleman operate. With Baleman he works to redirect the truck to get it to go to where he needs it to go and Talia drives away from where he's trying to redirect her and she gets killed in the process. With Batfleck, he, knowing that Martha's being held hostage, presumably under threat of death, loudly takes his time to massacre a group of armed people, instead of sneaking in another way, the only reason Martha isn't killed is plot contrivance. Batfleck's actions work against his goal and are against his prior moment of clarity. Baleman's actions work with his goal, but he happens to fail in achieving it, because of the villain's actions. Really, it's the same for both of Batfleck's unnecessary vehicle rage. In the batmobile, he shoots a tracker on the truck and then attacks and tries to demolish the truck. There's no sense in either of these scenes. Batfleck's actions work against his goal. They're just there for pointless violence, death and destruction that hurts the character. For the Ra's thing with Baleman, yes, he should have saved him and it was wrong of him not to, but I don't think there was a way for him to save Ra's there, maybe. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Those are 2 very different situations and comparing them ignores the context. Baleman may have gotten people killed with his actions, but he never intentionally went out to murder people. The Martha situation is a good example in the differences in how Batfleck and Baleman operate. With Baleman he works to redirect the truck to get it to go to where he needs it to go and Talia drives away from where he's trying to redirect her and she gets killed in the process. With Batfleck, he, knowing that Martha's being held hostage, presumably under threat of death, loudly takes his time to massacre a group of armed people, instead of sneaking in another way, the only reason Martha isn't killed is plot contrivance. Batfleck's actions work against his goal and are against his prior moment of clarity. Baleman's actions work with his goal, but he happens to fail in achieving it, because of the villain's actions. Really, it's the same for both of Batfleck's unnecessary vehicle rage. In the batmobile, he shoots a tracker on the truck and then attacks and tries to demolish the truck. There's no sense in either of these scenes. Batfleck's actions work against his goal. They're just there for pointless violence, death and destruction that hurts the character. For the Ra's thing with Baleman, yes, he should have saved him and it was wrong of him not to, but I don't think there was a way for him to save Ra's there, maybe. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

He is Batman! He should have found a way to succeed without Talia, Harvey or the men shooting at him in BvS being killed. That's what makes Batman so great. Find a way to neutralize the threat with no one dying. I'm just playing devil's advocate because I honestly don't subscribe to that. But if someone is to apply to that character then I feel it should be applied to all circumstances no matter if he is redirecting a truck etc...he is still responsible for her death. Surely he could have found another way to stop her and save the city. He is Batman! Same with his action against Harvey.

 

[The Joker]

He is Batman! He should have found a way to succeed without Talia, Harvey or the men shooting at him in BvS being killed. That's what makes Batman so great. Find a way to neutralize the threat with no one dying. I'm just playing devil's advocate because I honestly don't subscribe to that. But if someone is to apply to that character then I feel it should be applied to all circumstances no matter if he is redirecting a truck etc...he is still responsible for her death. Surely he could have found another way to stop her and save the city. He is Batman! Same with his action against Harvey.

Yeah he is Batman, not the Magic man. He can't do the impossible. What should he have done, politely asked Talia to tell her Tumblers to back off, and pull over her truck so he can take the bomb away?

This is why I forgive Batfleck's kill of KGBeast. He acted in a no win situation to save an innocent's life. That's not being an executioner or killing needlessly.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Yeah he is Batman, not the Magic man. He can't do the impossible. What should he have done, politely asked Talia to tell her Tumblers to back off, and pull over her truck so he can take the bomb away?

This is why I forgive Batfleck's kill of KGBeast. He acted in a no win situation to save an innocent's life. That's not being an executioner or killing needlessly.

Shot out her tires?

 

[Batsfan1]

Yeah he is Batman, not the Magic man. He can't do the impossible. What should he have done, politely asked Talia to tell her Tumblers to back off, and pull over her truck so he can take the bomb away?

This is why I forgive Batfleck's kill of KGBeast. He acted in a no win situation to save an innocent's life. That's not being an executioner or killing needlessly.

That's something I don't see a real problem with too. But not just for that, also because I do kind of accept the idea of Batfleck shooting the tank and the guy firing the thing afterwards. Though I still find that wrong, but the guy lives, I think.

 

[gdw]

Well, I am sorry those of you who dislike Batfleck have to wait until a reboot to get what you wanted. So you POSSIBLY have to wait until next decade for that. Hang in there.

Nah, I think most will, whether they're willing to accept it, or not, see the Batman they're looking for in JL.

I've maintained that, despite the Bat-Murder, Batfleck is still hands down the best Batman we've had.

 

[gdw]

This is all true, but that's exactly why I love the arc for Batman in this film. It pushed Bruce to that breaking point, and it showed him that he was wrong. He can come back. He can control himself. A film that has Batman overcome one of his greatest fears, and find redemption from what he views as the very pit of darkness itself, is extraordinarily compelling and moving.



I think it was necessary for this story. I think it is important that part of what drives Batman's rage and hatred of Superman is the rage and hatred Batman directs at himself for his own fall from grace. He is convinced Superman must be stopped because he believes that Superman will inevitably succumb to the same fate. Ultimately, Bruce is able to quiet his nightmares and chain the beast within. With this self-knowledge, Batman can see for himself that he can regain control.

Yes, but they could have still told almost that exact same arc, without him actually crossing that line.
The fact that he's shown to be willing to murder completely neuters the drama of him struggling with whether or not to take out The Superman, as a preemptive strike.

Bruce could have still been dealing with, and projecting, all the same rage, fear, and feelings of futility and failure, without having to have killed anyone.
He can still be a broken, fallen man, in his own eyes, still beyond redemption, and still far more brutal and blunt than he has been.

He then is a man right on the edge, and the film is about him leaning into the abyss, struggling over whether he can cross that line, and jump. Thus, killing Superman BECOMES his ultimate failure, and the culmination of his decent.
Then he still gets the redemption, realizes he's not too far gone, and can still be good. All without ACTUALLY killing anyone.

This way we also get to SEE his struggle, and see him face his turning point, rather than it having all happened off screen, long before the film even begins.

 

[gdw]

That's something I don't see a real problem with too. But not just for that, also because I do kind of accept the idea of Batfleck shooting the tank and the guy firing the thing afterwards. Though I still find that wrong, but the guy lives, I think.

Shooting a tank? Which scene, in which film, was that?

 

[idiot09]

The thing is Affleck also had some level of creative control over the Batman part of the story,and he was very happy to do it.That tells me something as well.We have "heard" SS Batman is TAS Batman personified.We have heard the JL Batman is redeemed and focused and more traditional.Which makes me believe its all part of the long-term plan and we will all be able to enjoy the DCEU Batman more.

 

[idiot09]

Yes, but they could have still told almost that exact same arc, without him actually crossing that line.
The fact that he's shown to be willing to murder completely neuters the drama of him struggling with whether or not to take out The Superman, as a preemptive strike.

Bruce could have still been dealing with, and projecting, all the same rage, fear, and feelings of futility and failure, without having to have killed anyone.
He can still be a broken, fallen man, in his own eyes, still beyond redemption, and still far more brutal and blunt than he has been.

He then is a man right on the edge, and the film is about him leaning into the abyss, struggling over whether he can cross that line, and jump. Thus, killing Superman BECOMES his ultimate failure, and the culmination of his decent.
Then he still gets the redemption, realizes he's not too far gone, and can still be good. All without ACTUALLY killing anyone.

This way we also get to SEE his struggle, and see him face his turning point, rather than it having all happened off screen, long before the film even begins.

Both MissLane and you are right.You both agree with the characterization and theme and character development,but disagree on the execution.I also believe the execution should have been a bit better but I give them much props to have the balls to go there.

 

[Sleiek]

Those are 2 very different situations and comparing them ignores the context. Baleman may have gotten people killed with his actions, but he never intentionally went out to murder people. The Martha situation is a good example in the differences in how Batfleck and Baleman operate. With Baleman he works to redirect the truck to get it to go to where he needs it to go and Talia drives away from where he's trying to redirect her and she gets killed in the process. With Batfleck, he, knowing that Martha's being held hostage, presumably under threat of death, loudly takes his time to massacre a group of armed people, instead of sneaking in another way, the only reason Martha isn't killed is plot contrivance. Batfleck's actions work against his goal and are against his prior moment of clarity. Baleman's actions work with his goal, but he happens to fail in achieving it, because of the villain's actions. Really, it's the same for both of Batfleck's unnecessary vehicle rage. In the batmobile, he shoots a tracker on the truck and then attacks and tries to demolish the truck. There's no sense in either of these scenes. Batfleck's actions work against his goal. They're just there for pointless violence, death and destruction that hurts the character. For the Ra's thing with Baleman, yes, he should have saved him and it was wrong of him not to, but I don't think there was a way for him to save Ra's there, maybe. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

1. So what you are saying is you want a 30 second rescue scene that doesn't involved Batman punching a bunch of guys at the same time. Okay.

2. No sense in the tracker? Eh, the tracker is there in the event Batman is unable to retrieve the Kryptonite, so that he can do it again later. There is a lot of sense in that.

Going by what you want Batman to do, we wouldn't get any action sequences. There's nothing wrong in punishing the bad guys. Batman also breaks bones in the comics, he doesn't live in the shadows 24/7.

 

[misslane38]

Yes, but they could have still told almost that exact same arc, without him actually crossing that line.
The fact that he's shown to be willing to murder completely neuters the drama of him struggling with whether or not to take out The Superman, as a preemptive strike.

Bruce could have still been dealing with, and projecting, all the same rage, fear, and feelings of futility and failure, without having to have killed anyone.
He can still be a broken, fallen man, in his own eyes, still beyond redemption, and still far more brutal and blunt than he has been.

He then is a man right on the edge, and the film is about him leaning into the abyss, struggling over whether he can cross that line, and jump. Thus, killing Superman BECOMES his ultimate failure, and the culmination of his decent.
Then he still gets the redemption, realizes he's not too far gone, and can still be good. All without ACTUALLY killing anyone.

This way we also get to SEE his struggle, and see him face his turning point, rather than it having all happened off screen, long before the film even begins.

I disagree. We are talking about two different things: killing criminals in the act of being criminals and a preemptive killing of a potential threat. You cannot tell a story about Batman losing control and climbing his way back from that pit of darkness without actually having him cross that line. Preemptive murder is a totally different line. It is the point of no return line: a line after which there is no chance for redemption.

 

[The Joker]

Shot out her tires?

That wouldn't have stopped her. You can still drive on flat tires, and that truck had like 8 tires on it. Not to mention there was like a minute left on the bomb.

That's something I don't see a real problem with too. But not just for that, also because I do kind of accept the idea of Batfleck shooting the tank and the guy firing the thing afterwards. Though I still find that wrong, but the guy lives, I think.

KGBeast? I'm pretty sure he's dead. Unless I missed something in the UC that showed him alive.

 

[Predator jp]

I disagree. We are talking about two different things: killing criminals in the act of being criminals and a preemptive killing of a potential threat. You cannot tell a story about Batman losing control and climbing his way back from that pit of darkness without actually having him cross that line. Preemptive murder is a totally different line. It is the point of no return line: a line after which there is no chance for redemption.

then they should've treated the killing, not the branding, as symbol of his fallen.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Those two panels sum up the struggles of the Batman. The no kill code does not make him outdated or unrealistic. It makes him Batman. Can you imagine how those panels would read if it was that Jim Gordan and Snyder's Batman? Everyone says but Snyder's Batman has gone through bad times and is broken and jaded. Is that what would have happened to the Batman in those panels? If your going to have the Batman fall then I want to be there for it, not have it happen before his first film in the cinematic universe. And once you do go there, you have to know it's the endgame. The day Batman murders and realizes what he has done is the day he hangs up the cape and cowl. Not because it's what I as a fan would think he should do but because it's what the Batman who I have been reading all of these years would do.

Agreed. This all correct and Snyder not get that. He ruin character.

 

[misslane38]

then they should've treat the killing, not the branding, as symbol of his fallen.

I'm not sure I understand why. Bruce's full transformation doesn't begin until Superman's death. The brand is the perfect symbol for Batman's dark fall because it is itself a symbol. The symbol is a symbol. It shows that Bruce is beginning to change, which is perfect because the last thing I want is some sort of lightswitch characterization. It is up to future films to continue the journey. It started with the death of the brand, and we'll see where things go next.

 

[Predator jp]

I'm not sure I understand why. Bruce's full transformation doesn't begin until Superman's death. The brand is the perfect symbol for Batman's dark fall because it is itself a symbol. The symbol is a symbol. It shows that Bruce is beginning to change, which is perfect because the last thing I want is some sort of lightswitch characterization. It is up to future films to continue the journey. It started with the death of the brand, and we'll see where things go next.

so where does the killing fit in?

 

[gdw]

I disagree. We are talking about two different things: killing criminals in the act of being criminals and a preemptive killing of a potential threat. You cannot tell a story about Batman losing control and climbing his way back from that pit of darkness without actually having him cross that line. Preemptive murder is a totally different line. It is the point of no return line: a line after which there is no chance for redemption.

You absolutely CAN tell that story, and they HAVE told that story.

As for the difference between the wanton destruction and collateral damage, and preemptively killing Superman, yeah, that's true, and just further points out the pointlessness of the collateral killing in the first place. It is entirely superfluous if they're already taking him down the path of considering premeditated murder of Superman.
It also completely takes focus off that central dramatic struggle, as is undeniably apparent by the non stop harping discussion of it.

 

[gdw]

then they should've treated the killing, not the branding, as symbol of his fallen.

This /\

All this talk of his extra brutality, and yet the actual killing almost all happens as afterthought. The thematic focus is on everything but the actual killing Batman does directly.

 

[gdw]

I'm not sure I understand why. Bruce's full transformation doesn't begin until Superman's death. The brand is the perfect symbol for Batman's dark fall because it is itself a symbol. The symbol is a symbol. It shows that Bruce is beginning to change, which is perfect because the last thing I want is some sort of lightswitch characterization. It is up to future films to continue the journey. It started with the death of the brand, and we'll see where things go next.

so where does the killing fit in?

Exactly. It's completely superfluous, and the definition of gratuitous. Hell, even Snyder all but admitted that's all it is with all his justifications of "it's cool."

 

[OutOfBoose]

BvS Honest Trailer is funny.

 

[Quasimod0]

It sure is.