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

[souperman]

That scene from TDKR graphic novel (and the animated movie) gave me whiplash. I was like, wait, Batman just straight up shot and killed a guy? He does that and then later on in the same story he makes a point to only shoot the mutants with "rubber bullets." Frank Miller's Batman is a strange beast.

But I have seen some people argue that he didn't shoot the guy because of what the new commissioner later says.

What is the truth? My brother has the graphic novel and I am gonna check with him.

All interesting. Let us know his take on it, but we need to remember that BvS is "inspired by" not copied from Millers novel. Only the basic idea or the scene was used.

I don't know why some want to compare exactly. Point is that Snyder flat out says that Batman did not aim to kill KGBeast, he did that himself.

 

[Sleiek]

All interesting. Let us know his take on it, but we need to remember that BvS is "inspired by" not copied from Millers novel. Only the basic idea or the scene was used.

I don't know why some want to compare exactly. Point is that Snyder flat out says that Batman did not aim to kill KGBeast, he did that himself.

Yup. That's what I am inclined to believe myself.

 

[souperman]

Yup. That's what I am inclined to believe myself.

yep.

I feel that if the author of the piece is saying that his vision of Batman did not include the "deliberate" deaths inflicted, then we must accept that it didn't happen...no matter what it LOOKED like.

 

[idiot09]

I believe Batman killed the mutant in the comic,and I have no problem with it.It was a no-win situation for Batman and he did what he could.I mean the guy was greyed out in the scene.Its basic art 101,the guy is dead.

 

[idiot09]

This is what Mark hughes said about it,and I agree :

"Batman shot the Mutant with an M60 machine gun, the Mutant falls silently and leaves a thick blood trail down the wall, and the scene has him utter the simple line “I believe you” in reply. The scene is indeed the face-off between a killer with a child hostage and the hero with a gun, a no-win situation to see what Batman will do. It’s senseless to suggest the answer is “Oh he shot her in the arm and she’s alive and everything is fine,” when the context of the scene, the machine gun used (are you even aware of the size of M60 ammo, and what it will do to a person at close range), the fact we see TWO bullet holes in the wall in close proximity, the thick blood trail, etc all point to the Mutant being obviously dead.
I was a teenager when TDKR was published, and I’m well aware of how much of the last many decades have involved discussion and debate about Batman killing the Mutant in that scene, as well as constant assumption that there were secondary deaths caused by his Batmobile attack on the entire Mutant gang."

 

[Monochron]

Did Batman Actually Kill Anyone in ‘The Dark Knight Returns’?

 

[souperman]

Did Batman Actually Kill Anyone in ‘The Dark Knight Returns’?

I think there will always be a debate on the Miller novel, but as Snyder himself said,- he would not be the guy to go there...(and have Batman murder)

 

[The Joker]

Did Batman Actually Kill Anyone in ‘The Dark Knight Returns’?

That link just shows how Snyder thinking Batman shot someone in the head proves he never even read the thing properly.

 

[souperman]

That link just shows how Snyder thinking Batman shot someone in the head proves he never even read the thing properly.

Makes no difference.

He says with no doubt:

...all of the guys I work with were like, ‘You’ve gotta shoot him in the head’ because they’re all comic book dorks, and I was like, ‘I’m not gonna be the guy that does that!’”

So he didn't do it...

...not that I'm calling you a comic book dork...

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Zack Snyder never read comics that why he not understand characters and get them all wrong.

 

[AnneFan]

Zack Snyder never read comics that why he not understand characters and get them all wrong.

Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers!

 

[souperman]

Zack Snyder never read comics that why he not understand characters and get them all wrong.

Can't get something wrong if you're not trying to copy it.

 

[Batsfan1]

Why? You state this like it is a fact or some universal truth, and I have no idea why the concept of a death changing someone is so anathema to you.

More like it shouldn't. But I don't think he would.

Why shouldn't it start the Justice League? A great hero capable of wonders dies, and with an even greater evil on the horizon, why wouldn't the world's gods, metahumans, and other gifted heroes be seen as necessary for what's ahead?

Again, it's an issue of should, not could. Though based on the trailer

Spoiler

that doesn't appear to be what's happening either way

. The JL shouldn't be formed because of Superman's death. Superman should be apart of it is what I mean.

Of course, people hated and feared Superman already, but what Lex did was magnify and shape that fear and hate into something more powerful and something he could control himself for his own ends. It is the same thing all tyrants do in periods of uncertainty.

I don't see how. Maybe it's more of a UC thig, but I didn't see much of Lex doing that in the TC. I saw him doing that with Batman.

Superman gave people hope in heroes. His death gave people a reason to believe that power can be used for good. Power can be selfless. Sure, that could be something most people inherently believe, but that belief can be lost, especially when evil people with power (i.e. Lex) try to take it away from them. Superman's death gave people a reason to believe again or for the first time.

I don't see how that goes against what I said. But hope in heroes isn't something I subscribe to. Hope for heroes, yes. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

 

[wnjcwjkk]

yep.

I feel that if the author of the piece is saying that his vision of Batman did not include the "deliberate" deaths inflicted, then we must accept that it didn't happen...no matter what it LOOKED like.

Yeah, now that I watched it again, I see it like he pops the gas tank, "I believe that you will do it, but if you do make that choice, you'll be going down, too. Let's see if you're faster than I am..."




As far as the graphic novel, I believe he did kill him. It was an impossible test of Batman's resolve, like Supes and Zod, and he made the only choice he could to save an innocent.

 

[DeadStroke]

Interesting quote from Ayer on what he learned from BvS theatrical cut.

I don’t want to speak out of school, but I think the institutional lesson of Batman V Superman was, you have to put the film up for a large audience and see how it plays. I got the opportunity to do that a few times. I’m a big believer in audience testing. You have to listen to the audience. I think it really made the film a lot better. We interdicted some issues and then the re-shoots are great because as you slip time, you end up with these raw stumps. It helps you sew them together elegantly. And I also got some more action in there. It’s all a tough process, because in essence, you’re on trial and you have to defend your movie. And the burden of proof is on you to show that it works.

 

[misslane38]

More like it shouldn't. But I don't think he would.

Again, it's an issue of should, not could.

The JL shouldn't be formed because of Superman's death.

Why?

Superman should be apart of it is what I mean.I don't see how.

He is and will be a part of it. His death will have inspired the spirit that brings them together and his return will likely be the final touch that galvanizes the team into a successful and cohesive group.

Maybe it's more of a UC thig, but I didn't see much of Lex doing that in the TC. I saw him doing that with Batman.I don't see how that goes against what I said. But hope in heroes isn't something I subscribe to. Hope for heroes, yes. Have a very great day!

It was in both films, as it was shown that Lex was behind the African incident and the Capitol bombing both which inflamed controversy and damaged public opinion of Superman. Hope in heroes and for heroes is the same thing, unless you can somehow explain the distinction. The idea is that heroes give people hope that, even though there is evil in this world, there is also good -- genuine good -- that is capable of countering it. It can embolden and empower you in your own life to follow their example and stand up boldly, in your own human way, against dark forces of corruption and despair rather than become despondent and destructive to oneself or others. Because you are not alone. Because good can exist. Because good can triumph over evil.

 

[Batsfan1]

Why?

Death of someone they have no relationship with really should have no effect on someone. I didn't say that before, but that was one of the reasons I take issue with it. Another is that Batman shouldn't be put in a position to begin with where he has to change.

He is and will be a part of it. His death will have inspired the spirit that brings them together and his return will likely be the final touch that galvanizes the team into a successful and cohesive group.

Batman and WW shouldn't be the sole founding members of the JL. SM, BM and WW should be.

It was in both films, as it was shown that Lex was behind the African incident and the Capitol bombing both which inflamed controversy and damaged public opinion of Superman. Hope in heroes and for heroes is the same thing, unless you can somehow explain the distinction. The idea is that heroes give people hope that, even though there is evil in this world, there is also good -- genuine good -- that is capable of countering it. It can embolden and empower you in your own life to follow their example and stand up boldly, in your own human way, against dark forces of corruption and despair rather than become despondent and destructive to oneself or others. Because you are not alone. Because good can exist. Because good can triumph over evil.

Genuine good isn't something that exists in humanity on our own. Humanity is made up of people that do good and do bad. In the TC, again, that didn't create that big of an issue that wasn't already there, that I could see. Maybe with the government.

 

[Mean Mr Mustard]

Hey guys, just saw the UC and I gotta say I loved it!! It makes so many thhings much clearer! I was hoping they would have explained why superman asks batman if he found the spear, when doesn't know that batman is looking for it. But watching that scene I noticed that a few seconds before that, wonder woman asks batman why he brought the creature back into the city, and he explains that it is kriptonian and that there is a weapon that can kill it. So if superman arrives 2 secnds after he said it, he probably heard that little conversation (superhearing you know) so it doesn't bother me anymore . What still does though is that right after batman tells superman that martha won't die tonight, he shows on the batwing with a complete mask, when it was clearly destroyed in the fight with superman. Am I missing something there?

 

[wnjcwjkk]

Don't remember the mask thing, you sure it wasn't his regular Batman mask (as opposed to the Bat armor helmet)?

With the Superman thing, I'm sure he just put it together on his own, knowing that Batman had a weapon that kills Kryptonians and assuming that's why they were back there.


What about the weird ass scientists who discovered that Kryptonite is Kryptonians' Kryptonite:

"Hey, check out this rock we found in the ocean."
"Ooh, let's rub it all over this dead alien!"
"I'm bout to bend you over this f***ing science table and rail you right now, dude!" (Slides a whole bunch of beakers and microscopes off the table)

 

[Bagide]

Hey guys, just saw the UC and I gotta say I loved it!! It makes so many thhings much clearer! I was hoping they would have explained why superman asks batman if he found the spear, when doesn't know that batman is looking for it. But watching that scene I noticed that a few seconds before that, wonder woman asks batman why he brought the creature back into the city, and he explains that it is kriptonian and that there is a weapon that can kill it. So if superman arrives 2 secnds after he said it, he probably heard that little conversation (superhearing you know) so it doesn't bother me anymore . What still does though is that right after batman tells superman that martha won't die tonight, he shows on the batwing with a complete mask, when it was clearly destroyed in the fight with superman. Am I missing something there?

It's armour not the bat costume.

 

[Bagide]

Don't remember the mask thing, you sure it wasn't his regular Batman mask (as opposed to the Bat armor helmet)?

With the Superman thing, I'm sure he just put it together on his own, knowing that Batman had a weapon that kills Kryptonians and assuming that's why they were back there.


What about the weird ass scientists who discovered that Kryptonite is Kryptonians' Kryptonite:

"Hey, check out this rock we found in the ocean."
"Ooh, let's rub it all over this dead alien!"
"I'm bout to bend you over this f***ing science table and rail you right now, dude!" (Slides a whole bunch of beakers and microscopes off the table)

One word. Teraforming.

 

[souperman]

Don't remember the mask thing, you sure it wasn't his regular Batman mask (as opposed to the Bat armor helmet)?

With the Superman thing, I'm sure he just put it together on his own, knowing that Batman had a weapon that kills Kryptonians and assuming that's why they were back there.


What about the weird ass scientists who discovered that Kryptonite is Kryptonians' Kryptonite:

"Hey, check out this rock we found in the ocean."
"Ooh, let's rub it all over this dead alien!"
"I'm bout to bend you over this f***ing science table and rail you right now, dude!" (Slides a whole bunch of beakers and microscopes off the table)

In the batwing he is wearing the regular suit and cowl. He must have had a spare in the cockpit. He changed pretty fast...even for batman!

The scientist does explain that they discovered that the mineral had unusual properties etc...

I must have missed the railing scene...gonna go watch again!

; )

 

[Sleiek]

He was still wearing the regular suit underneath the armour anyway. He just needed to a spare cowl in his mobile storage space. UNLESS, his regular cowl was also underneath the armored helmet.

 

[Mean Mr Mustard]

It's armour not the bat costume.

Yes, it's the armor that is destroyed, but you can see his face, so if he's wearing the regular suit underneath it must have been destroyed too. Unless he has a spare in the batwing or something?

 

[Sleiek]

Yeah you are right. So he must have had a regular cowl in his batwing but he was still wearing the regular batsuit underneath the whole time.