BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - - - - - Part 306

Status
Not open for further replies.
Snyder doesn't get Batman, let alone most of the other DC characters not named Watchmen.
 
The no-kill code has been part of the character since 1940. It is a big part of the character. It is one of the most important aspects of the character and much more than something to keep popular villains around.
1383967384562245297.jpg


There is little to back up him being a better character when killing, when there are far more great stories with him not killing.

I think he has tried to help some villains before, but it didn't work out, but there is no reason he should be expected to kill them if he does not want to. Regarding Gotham being better without him, I am not sure. It has been mentioned that villains have been created as a response to him, but I cannot remember ATM if they ever looked at whether Gotham would be better of without him in depth. If such a story was ever done, I highly doubt that they would make it clear that Batman has caused more damage than he has done good.

Sure, it's been around for a long time (and let's not forget why DC's editors came up with the mandate - had nothing to do with character, and everything to do with making the book more child friendly).

Although...even if DC hadn't done that at the time, the comics code might have eventually taken care of it.

There's not too many stories where Batman kills, so we don't have enough "evidence" to say one is better than the other (and in one sense, no killing does offer an opportunity to tell better stories - as you can keep the villains around. No need to invent new threats).

I can't remember any stories that have explored that in detail...yeah, but like you mentioned, I doubt they would do one where Gotham is definitely better off.
 
The no-kill code has been part of the character since 1940. It is a big part of the character. It is one of the most important aspects of the character and much more than something to keep popular villains around.
1383967384562245297.jpg


There is little to back up him being a better character when killing, when there are far more great stories with him not killing.

I think he has tried to help some villains before, but it didn't work out, but there is no reason he should be expected to kill them if he does not want to. Regarding Gotham being better without him, I am not sure. It has been mentioned that villains have been created as a response to him, but I cannot remember ATM if they ever looked at whether Gotham would be better of without him in depth. If such a story was ever done, I highly doubt that they would make it clear that Batman has caused more damage than he has done good.

Well said, Slade.

Snyder doesn't get Batman, let alone most of the other DC characters not named Watchmen.

How true.
 
The no-kill code has been part of the character since 1940. It is a big part of the character. It is one of the most important aspects of the character and much more than something to keep popular villains around.
1383967384562245297.jpg


There is little to back up him being a better character when killing, when there are far more great stories with him not killing.

I think he has tried to help some villains before, but it didn't work out, but there is no reason he should be expected to kill them if he does not want to.

I've always felt that his "no kill" morality actually helps the stories where he has to use lethal force. We know he loathes it and tries to take any other possible route. However, when he faces a threat beyond his abilities/weaponry to simply disable, he'll take the necessary action. Those rare stories have extra weight because we know Bruce is operating against his natural impulses.



Thus, I've never had a problem with him taking criminals out when he's severely outnumbered. He has to act in the same way a soldier would act in that situation. The only area in BvS where he came in conflict with his comic book morality was when he was ready to kill Superman on supposition alone. That could have been handled differently.
 
I don't know that he's more interesting when he kills, but exploring the issue VS a hard line "I'm just never going to kill" attitude is definitely far more interesting, as is exploring the issues surrounding it.

There are certainly some interesting ways they can go with it from here on out. We've never really seen a major moral "redemption" storyline for Batman in the mainstream comics, have we?

That seems to be the way they're headed in the cinematic universe.
 
I've always felt that his "no kill" morality actually helps the stories where he has to use lethal force.
This, I agree with.

Thus, I've never had a problem with him taking criminals out when he's severely outnumbered. He has to act in the same way a soldier would act in that situation. The only area in BvS where he came in conflict with his comic book morality was when he was ready to kill Superman on supposition alone.

This, I don't.
 
Just re watched BvS after seeing it originally in movie theater and I was bothered how terrible the fight choreography was in the dream sequence where Batman was fighting those soldiers in black. I mean he looked god awfully slow. Enemies actually stood around for a few minutes and got closer to let Batman beat on them a bit.Compare that fight scene to the boat fight scene in winter soldier and its not even close in quality.
 
Meh. Nothing compares to the Warehouse fight sequence.
 
Just re watched BvS after seeing it originally in movie theater and I was bothered how terrible the fight choreography was in the dream sequence where Batman was fighting those soldiers in black. I mean he looked god awfully slow. Enemies actually stood around for a few minutes and got closer to let Batman beat on them a bit.Compare that fight scene to the boat fight scene in winter soldier and its not even close in quality.

Truth :up:
 
Just re watched BvS after seeing it originally in movie theater and I was bothered how terrible the fight choreography was in the dream sequence where Batman was fighting those soldiers in black. I mean he looked god awfully slow. Enemies actually stood around for a few minutes and got closer to let Batman beat on them a bit.Compare that fight scene to the boat fight scene in winter soldier and its not even close in quality.

All that did was heighten the dreamlike feeling of the sequence. I thought it was a clever choice actually.
 
All that did was heighten the dreamlike feeling of the sequence. I thought it was a clever choice actually.

well it wasn't shot like slow motion dream sequence, it was shot like it was supposed to be a serious fight and it was just sloppy and pathetic. If they wanted a slow motion dream sequence fight there are a lot better ways of doing it.
 
All that did was heighten the dreamlike feeling of the sequence. I thought it was a clever choice actually.

Yeah, I liked that as well. I mean, it's far better than the terribly choreographed The Dark Knight Trilogy, as much as I love those films. That one shot scene was pretty badass, especially when things get dialed up a notch when the parademons start showing up. By the end of it all, it becomes the definition of epic.
 
On an unrelated note, I found myself re-watching the Bruce and Alfred scenes yesterday and enjoyed them once again. Dawn of Justice has its issues, both theatrical and Ultimate Cut, but I think the stuff it did well, it did really well, and I think they did a good job with the Bruce/Alfred dynamic.

Granted, that'd be hard to screw up and I don't see how even Snyder could screw up a dry, sardonic British butler, but the more I watch these scenes, the more I like Jeremy Irons' take on Alfred.
 
I don't know that Batman was supposed to be in slow-motion during the dream sequence so much as he was beaten down and exhausted and making his last stand.
 
Yeah, I liked that as well. I mean, it's far better than the terribly choreographed The Dark Knight Trilogy, as much as I love those films. That one shot scene was pretty badass, especially when things get dialed up a notch when the parademons start showing up. By the end of it all, it becomes the definition of epic.

Did you see the soldiers put batman in their gun sights only to stand back up move about 3 feet closer to batman and settle back into a shooting position and stay there until batman could get around to clubbing them incredibly slowly. that was pathetic, looked like a movie fight scene made by a SyFy channel
 
Did you see the soldiers put batman in their gun sights only to stand back up move about 3 feet closer to batman and settle back into a shooting position and stay there until batman could get around to clubbing them incredibly slowly. that was pathetic, looked like a movie fight scene made by a SyFy channel

The difference is those soldiers weren't trying to kill Batman. They needed to bring him alive to their superiors. Even when they overpowered Batman, they let go of their guns and started manhandling him until that parademon delivered the knockout blow to his head.

You talk about how they should do the cuts (from Punisher scene), well the the thing is this is a one shot scene and it is difficult to show a one man army type scene in a open environment. Daredevil does it brillaintly because they have the advantage of a closed/narrow environment. That Knightmare scene could've been better if those soldiers don't carry firearms because chances are no human can survive what Batfleck did if those soldiers started shooting him no matter how much as a master strategist you are.
 
Last edited:
I've always felt that his "no kill" morality actually helps the stories where he has to use lethal force. We know he loathes it and tries to take any other possible route. However, when he faces a threat beyond his abilities/weaponry to simply disable, he'll take the necessary action. Those rare stories have extra weight because we know Bruce is operating against his natural impulses.



Thus, I've never had a problem with him taking criminals out when he's severely outnumbered. He has to act in the same way a soldier would act in that situation. The only area in BvS where he came in conflict with his comic book morality was when he was ready to kill Superman on supposition alone. That could have been handled differently.



I think that may have been fixed if they played up the future visions a little bit more and showed that he was aware of them and had a feeling that he was seeing a possible future unless he did something to stop Superman, without knowing that he wasn't getting the full picture and that the possible future Superman was somehow under the control of Darkseud
 
this is how you do well cut fight scene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zsVn_vZ9zE

Yeah, DareDevil has some great fight choreography. Another great single shot action sequence is in a True Detective when McConoughay is taking on those bikers during a DEA raid.


I personally didn't really have a problem with the Knightmare fight sequence, though it could have been choreographed a little better. If I were directing a big action movie like this, I would strive for perfection in my fight choreography. The warehouse sequence was pretty awesome. The Cap movies have some pretty great fight sequences as well. As much as I love the Nolan DKT, I gotta say most of the fight sequences were pretty bad, almost like an afterthought, like when Batman is fighting Bane, if you look in the background the police and Bane's goons are just kind of grappling like in a WWE video game, they could have put a little more effort into that. Or the fights in Begins, with the super quick cuts where you can't even tell what's going on.
 
That was fantastic man! Did you get the tabs for that on the Internet, or figure it out by ear? Just curious, I wouldn't mind learning that oneb

Figured it out by ear. Dropped my A string down to a G. Everything else was standard tuning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"