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

[Jaxon]

True. But the no kill rule is one of the reasons Batman has been as popular as he has been for 75 years. Because a child who loves him yesterday, is an adult who loves him today.

No one cares about the no kill rule, well almost no one. Batman is popular because he's dark and brooding and has all these cool gadgets. End of story. He's the angsty kid at school not the jock. Chicks dig the brooding type, and dudes think that is the real cool guy, the dark and mysterious guy.

Batman kills, Batman doesn't kill, the GA wouldn't have a clue and don't care.

 

[titansupes]

Except we do have people on here asking for another Superman solo and hyping about his return in JL.

Most of those people are wanting that because we want him to have the opportunity to finally be done right in this series, though.

 

[Jaxon]

Most of those people are wanting that because we want him to have the opportunity to finally be done right in this series, though.

Actually it's because you actually love these films but you'd rather be in the safe crowd. That's OK, safe is kinda OK I guess.

 

[FunkMiller]

No one cares about the no kill rule, well almost no one. Batman is popular because he's dark and brooding and has all these cool gadgets. End of story. He's the angsty kid at school not the jock. Chicks dig the brooding type, and dudes think that is the real cool guy, the dark and mysterious guy.

Batman kills, Batman doesn't kill, the GA wouldn't have a clue and don't care.

I'm talking about comic books. Hence '75 years'.

Sheesh.

 

[flickchick85]

Actually it's because you actually love these films but you'd rather be in the safe crowd. That's OK, safe is kinda OK I guess.

Let's not start telling other people how they think.

 

[titansupes]

Actually it's because you actually love these films but you'd rather be in the safe crowd. That's OK, safe is kinda OK I guess.

I thought MoS disappointing movie that had potential. I really enjoyed a whole bunch of BvS, but it's a bad movie that's outright denigrating to Superman as a character.

So, as you must be used to by now-- You're wrong again.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Actually it's because you actually love these films but you'd rather be in the safe crowd. That's OK, safe is kinda OK I guess.

What kind of defense is that?

Imagine if you knew me outside of the BvS boards (assuming you recognize me here), I defend Man of Steel, and think it's an underrated movie, I defend The Incredible Hulk, and think it's an underrated movie, I openly stated how much I love the 1994 Street Fighter (live action, SF in name only) movie and defend it more than once, cause it's fun, and it has Raul Julia as a straighforward more threatening villain as M. Bison than Jesse Eisenberg is as Lex Luthor in any of his scenes, and I have repeated laughs on the funny in Street Fighter.

Batman v Superman is easily one of the worst movies I have ever laid eyes on, it's not I, Frankenstein, or Kazuya's Revenge level of terrible, but it's just terrible. I do understand how people defend it and say it is better than its reputation, I can relate to that, so I will not go telling you something annoying and enraging you. And please, take flickchick85's advice.

Let's not start telling other people how they think.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

Actually it's because you actually love these films but you'd rather be in the safe crowd. That's OK, safe is kinda OK I guess.

haha, you think just because you're not in the safe crowd and in love with an unsafe movie like this that that makes it a good movie?

Yes, this is the unsafest movie out there, congratulations. It's also a very poor one.

 

[TripleJ]

Yes it does. When it goes completely against one of the biggest moral codes that defines the character, it is most definitely wrong.



Bob Kane never got Batman, because he stole all the creative credit from Finger. As for Finger, he got it wrong making Batman a killer, and he changed it. The no kill rule has been part of Batman since Finger's era.

Even if it wasn't, creators are not infallible. They have things in the inception of characters that change for the better. Or do you think Alfred should be like this in the movies;

Indeed. There is no question he is a killer. He killed several times, and not in an act of self defense, he branded criminals for them to be murdered in jail, he was also intending to kill Superman. There is no grey area on this. Batman was a killer in BvS.

No, it's not "wrong". It's a different version.

He got Batman wrong? Hahaha...are you serious? It was one of DC's editors who made the mandate regarding no kill code. Had nothing to do with Kane or Finger opting to portray Batman has a non-killer.

I have no problem with evolution or changes in comics. In fact, I am open to it...just like I am open to changes/liberties Snyder is taking with the characters.

 

[The Endless]

Actually it's because you actually love these films but you'd rather be in the safe crowd. That's OK, safe is kinda OK I guess.

REALLLLY?

Or is it because fans of Superman want a proper Superman... not The Plutonian or The Sentry. Or some bastardization created to appeal to people who always thought Superman was lame and corny.

And this film is unsafe alright. Unsafe in the fact that BAD movies, which this is, are not popular or safe (most of the time)

BvS has actually made me appreciate MoS more. And i think i've let my feelings on that film be known before...

At least MoS has some kind of coherent story telling flow. At least it tries to do something interesting with Superman.

But BvS? Superman is basically in exactly the same place he was in MoS. He's still unsure. He's still burdened. He still has a parent telling him he doesn't owe this world a thing.

Well **** you Martha, he does owe the world!

 

[FunkMiller]

Actually it's because you actually love these films but you'd rather be in the safe crowd. That's OK, safe is kinda OK I guess.

Yes, that's right. Because it's really daring and unsafe to feature a character that kills. No movie in the history of cinema has ever featured a hero that kills. It's sooooooo daring to do it with Batman.

You know what's daring? To attempt to write a coherent, intelligent script that takes the effort to represent these characters accurately. To build a storyline where their idiosyncrasies are celebrated, not ignored in favour of bigger, better explosions and frustrated teenage angst.

Grow up.

 

[TripleJ]

I'm talking about comic books. Hence '75 years'.

Sheesh.

Not really...no kill code doesn't have much to do with his popularity.

Maybe a little bit (since it did allow one of the best, if not the best rogues gallery to form....and well, writers used his no kill code as a reason why his villains continue to exist).

And you do realize there are other factors at play here? Like the comics code authority.

In many ways, Batman is stuck in a positive feedback loop. He's popular now, so WB/DC pay more attention to him, and invest more money into him (making him even more popular).

Which is sad by the way...DC has so many amazing characters, and many better characters (than Bruce).

 

[I Am The Knight]

Actually it's because you actually love these films but you'd rather be in the safe crowd. That's OK, safe is kinda OK I guess.

lol

 

[javonstokess]

It's funny how people keep bringing up Batman killing in the "Golden Age" books.

Y'know what Batman used to do in golden age books too:
"Slap japs".
B**ch slap Robin
Wear bright purple gloves
Go to space in his own rocketships
Hang out with BatMite
Had a dog with a Batman mask on it
Got married and had a daughter named The Huntress

Now if he did all these things in a Batman movie, would you think it was representative of Batman?

 

[The Joker]

No, it's not "wrong". It's a different version.

Yes, it is wrong. Calling it a different version is like calling the cloud version of Galactus in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer "a different version".

He got Batman wrong? Hahaha...are you serious?

Deadly serious.

It was one of DC's editors who made the mandate regarding no kill code. Had nothing to do with Kane or Finger opting to portray Batman has a non-killer.

I know that, and they made no protest about it. They never felt it spoiled the character. In hindsight it was a change for the best since it became one of the DEFINING traits about the character. It rules how Batman operates and thinks as a hero and person. It's not some shallow aesthetic we're talking about here. This is a very important character trait.

I have no problem with evolution or changes in comics. In fact, I am open to it...just like I am open to changes/liberties Snyder is taking with the characters.

I have no problem with changes either, as long as they don't bastardize one of the key core traits of the character that define who they are.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

It's funny how people keep bringing up Batman killing in the "Golden Age" books.

Y'know what Batman used to do in golden age books too:
"Slap japs".
B**ch slap Robin
Wear bright purple gloves
Go to space in his own rocketships
Hang out with BatMite
Had a dog with a Batman mask on it
Got married and had a daughter named The Huntress

Now if he did all these things in a Batman movie, would you think it was representative of Batman?

And didn't Batman operate in NY, not Gotham?

 

[FunkMiller]

And you do realize there are other factors at play here? Like the comics code authority.

Bit of a misunderstanding people have when it comes to the comics code. Wertham's campaign and the subsequent code did not come into being until 1954. Batman's no kill code was established long before in 1940, so the two were completely unrelated.

 

[FunkMiller]

Hang out with BatMite

This has been my main argument against the "but he killed in the comics!" argument. By that logic, there's no problem with Batmite sitting on Batfleck's shoulders throughout BvS, as Batmite has shown up in the comics far more times that Batman has killed.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Deadly serious.

Pun of the day.
Intended or otherwise.

 

[javonstokess]

And didn't Batman operate in NY, not Gotham?

Among other things. Remember there was red-haired Robin. Dick Grayson also was a grown up version of Robin before Nightwing was ever conceived. Batwoman wasn't a lesbian. Catwoman used to wear a long green cape and purple dress to fight crime/steal things.

Why stop at Batman?

Superman used to belittle Lois for being a woman and play elaborate tricks on her. Jimmy Olsen used to turn into a different creature every month. Superman used to be strong enough to spin planets on his finger, travel back into time and let's not forget the amnesia kiss.

I guess we're not supposed to let the characters evolve over the decades...

 

[C. Lee]

Actually it's because you actually love these films but you'd rather be in the safe crowd. That's OK, safe is kinda OK I guess.

You're lucky FlickChick85 said something to you before I saw this post.....

 

[souperman]

Among other things. Remember there was red-haired Robin. Dick Grayson also was a grown up version of Robin before Nightwing was ever conceived. Batwoman wasn't a lesbian. Catwoman used to wear a long green cape and purple dress to fight crime/steal things.

Why stop at Batman?

Superman used to belittle Lois for being a woman and play elaborate tricks on her. Jimmy Olsen used to turn into a different creature every month. Superman used to be strong enough to spin planets on his finger, travel back into time and let's not forget the amnesia kiss.

I guess we're not supposed to let the characters evolve over the decades...

...not everyone believes in evolution...

 

[javonstokess]

...not everyone believes in evolution...

LMAO!!!

Good one.

 

[titansupes]

But if history as taught us anything... it's that evolution... always wins...

 

[shauner111]

Why does Jaxon speak like he's the authority on this topic here? Wasn't he the one that said Batman has no moral code. That he's just as much of a criminal as the others. That he's not in it to help people but just to punish criminals?