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

How is making any changes to the original creation wrong? Most of these characters have some kind of change to their original creations. Alfred was an amateur detective not a butler. Catwoman was a costumeless thief called The Cat who robbed rich old ladies on luxury cruise ships etc.

I never implied anyone is forcing me to watch this, so how am I being condescending. I watched it because I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt, judge it for myself, and see could it actually be good.

I'd be a right hypocrite to come here criticizing elements of a movie I have not even seen.

WB decides what way they want to portray characters in their movies. Same as any studio. That doesn't make their decisions right. Fox were not right to make Galactus a cloud in F4 part 2, or Deadpool a mute assassin in Wolverine Origins. WB were not right to make Bane a mindless dumb henchman of Poison Ivy in B&R any more than they were right to make Batman a killer.

Studio decisions don't automatically mean right decisions. And that goes without saying.

That depends on what changes you're talking about. Changes is a very broad term.

 

I genuinely don't remember that ever happening in this movie.

Yup.

Ben Affleck got universal acclaim in the role... His Batman as a character, not so much.

 

If not universal, then a pretty sizable one.

 

And that's great - I am fine with that...just like I am fine with Snyder taking liberties with the characters.

And that's great - it's too bad you weren't able to enjoy it. But, that's life. People have different tastes

Eh..I wouldn't use the word "right" - it's probably more accurate to use - true to most versions in comic books. Honestly, I think fans get a little too overworked with changes (although what do you expect? It's a common place in comic books - making the entire Superhero genre cyclical).

These days, you are far more likely to find something original and better in books outside of plain superheroics.

Indeed. Of course, the word right and wrong, can be subjective...but at the same time.

Do I believe that no kill Batman is better? To certain extent, I do admit that the code does make the character better, but there are other sides to it. Especially when his code endangers Gothamites (and it's sort of becomes an internal conflict in itself, which writers often ignore - him maintaining his code, which is noble and selfish at the same time vs villains like Joker committing acts of great violence - which Bruce would technically prevent by letting his code go).

Of course, he doesn't have to outright kill them either...he could just not save them. Best example I can think of right now is when he saves Joker in Arkham Origins (although, you can forgive that since it's his first encounter with the character).

I sort of liked what Snyder (Scott) did recently - where Bruce fought Joker and died, while evidently killing him (Joker).

 

That's fine for you. But you see not everyone is happy with the liberties Snyder took. For many of us he went too far. Even if you personally had no problem with them, it can't be hard to see why so many others dislike them. It's not the fact that he made changes, it's the choice of changes he made that is so bad.

Too true. If we were all the same it would be boring.

I think right is the correct term to use. Changes always happen in CBMs. There has not been one that has not had them. It comes with the territory. Sometimes they are even necessary. Sometimes not, but still they don't ruin a character in any significant way.

Things like with Batman killing does. When a change basically goes against such a major aspect that defines a character in terms of their morals and who they are as a person, and in this case hero, that's wrong. That's why there's always such a big backlash from the fans when it happens. Has been since the Tim Burton days. And here we are again.

I don't see what exactly. The most popular adaptions of these heroes tend to follow the good old fashioned superheroics. Spider-Man, Superman, Batman etc they don't have to stack up body counts to be great. I don't just mean in movies. Cartoons, too. I mean look at the likes of the Batman animated series.

Depends on what context you're using it in. The aforementioned examples in my last post with Deadpool, Bane, and Batman are definitely solid cases to say those choices of characterization were wrong.

That kind of great conflict is why we get brilliant stuff like this;

[YT]VRiX5Mh2YCo[/YT]

If Batman was a killer, he and Jason's Red Hood would be partners, instead of having brilliantly intense scenes of ideology conflict like this.

But that scene in Arkham Origins (my fav of the Arkham games) is what set the stage for their relationship. It made Joker see Batman in a whole new light, and that's when his whole Batman obsession began. It was followed up by this piece of brilliance where we get a glimpse inside Joker's messed up mind, and what he thinks of Batman;

[YT]9akBjJZB29w[/YT]

Three years later I still say that game has some of the best Batman writing I've ever seen.

 

I think it has been enough time that we can honestly say that this movie does not have legs. It started off huge but has dropped off steeply since then. I think it's fall can be blamed on two overall issues. The fact that it was a technically badly put together film and the fact that the masses did not appreciate these versions of the characters. To be honest, I actually believe the characterization hurt it more. As evidence by these forums, a lot of fans can forgive a badly made film if their beloved characters are done justice. I only say this because it seems the majority of the gripes (rightfully so IMO) are about the characters themselves. I think if WB had done one of these two things better then more money in the bank. Problem is they are still going with a creative team that seems incapable of either of these.

 

Yes please.

 

these guys claim to have seen the original Goyer script for a Batman/Superman movie:
http://moviepilot.com/posts/3875069

 

Still love the movie despite the unwarranted hate.

 

TIL Robin was also a murderous psychopath:

http://wishstocks.com/2016/04/22/ba...s-that-robin-was-also-a-murderous-psychopath/

 

Doesn't even have a 2nd act.

 

Don't know why but I just don't believe that guy.

 

That article raises an important point. Is this R rated cut likely to put the argument over Batman being a murderer to bed once and for all? Are we likely to see extended versions or new sequences that definitively show Batfleck dispatching bad guys to the hereafter?
And if so, how will affect the overall opinion of BvS? It's one thing for some people to feel there is ambiguity over Batfleck's killing ways from the theatrical cut, but if all doubt is removed, will that change opinions?
All hypothetical at the moment, but worth considering.

 

But we already have those scenes. He shoots a car which explodes then crashes through it! He lands the ****ing Batmobile on a guys face!

 

I can't wait for Marvel's upcoming Spider-Man when he's snapping necks and suffocating average thieves with his webbing.

Just as good right...?

 

Much as I hate to defend this movie, there's a pretty easy explanation, especially if it's Todd, that doesn't automatically reinforce the Murderverse.
We all know the Jokers goal is to push Batman to become a killer-maybe he succeeded with Jason and he took this weapon to end the Joker, falling into his trap. If so, it might be the only time he had it.
Maybe he killed some of Joker's henchmen with it, effectively losing the game and thus giving Joker no reason to keep playing with him. So he then becomes another kill and a pawn to push Batman to break...
But this is Snyder, who has had WW's weapons engraved with "life is killing" etc.
So Robin and Batman probably used to bond after gutting and beheading their prey and drinking their blood

 

I know that I and the other mods have said this ten million times in this forum in just a month....but let's try it again....and this time why don't you try and actually listen to me.....

Liking or not liking a movie is totally a personal thing. One person can love it....the next person hate it. You say it has "unwarranted" hate....others can say it has "unwarranted" love. It works both ways. Neither is right....neither is wrong.....BECAUSE THEY BOTH ARE O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S.......SO GET OVER YOURSELF....GROW UP....LEARN TO ACCEPT THAT NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD NOT ONLY WILL NOT HAVE THE SAME OPINION ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU DO BUT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO STATE THEIR DIFFERING OPINION.

 

And for the one millionth and one time......

Do not turn this into the MCU is better than the DCEU.....I am getting real damn tired of telling people this and I am seriously considering just permabanning the next one who does it.

 

Is this for real?

 

It's interesting because on film, WB has always been ok with Batman killing. Keaton Batman killed left and right. Even Bale Batman killed or let people die. Certainly he could have saved Ra's instead of letting him perish.

He killed Talia, not directly of course, but through an action that ultimately led to her death. He is responsible for her death. Maybe Bale Batman should have found an alternate way to stop her instead of something that led to her death, since it has been argued that Batman always finds a way that leads to a criminal being stopped but not killed.

It's also clear by all this that since Clooney Batman led to no one's death that he is the best and most accurate comic book Batman

 

It's in the tech manual book released by WB. There's links to it in this thread a few pages back.

 

Exactly, this is Snyder and we expected him to fix the mistakes of MoS with BvS.

He didn't do it.

He will not adress the mistakes of BvS in JL. Probably just double down on them.

 

There's always been criticism toward that Batman has killed on screen. With Nolan it wasn't that the character didn't care about not killing since he had the rule, but the movies followed through on it kind of poorly in execution.

Nolan isn't a comics fan though, and his movies are more like a standalone and isolated interpretation. I certainly understand that some people wanted a Batman that was more like what most see as the core of the comics version now that the DCEU is starting and Batman is in a much more "comic booky" environment.

Your last straw man is utterly ridiculous btw. It's sad that some people can't discuss these things in a sensible and respectful manner.