Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?

[Doctor Octopus]

If by "Superman movie made to cater to the CBM crowd" you mean BVS, then fanboys were still negative because it wasn't that good of a movie. Movies don't get points just for trying.

Agreed. Trying and failing not worth praising.

I didn't see the likes of Kevin Conroy speaking out in 2005, 2008, or 2012 about Batman killing making him uncomfortable like he did for Batfleck in BvS;

http://batman-news.com/2016/08/16/kevin-conroy-ben-affleck-batman-killing/

Kevin Conroy is right.

 

[Fincher]

Say a reformed Ra's al Ghul is on a train going to a job interview, but Batman doesn't want him to get the job because he wants it for himself. So he's going to get on the train and stop it, but just in case he fails he asks his friend Jim Gordon to blow out the tracks so that Ra's will plummet to his death before he ever reaches the interview. Batman gets on the train, and Ra's destroys the brakes because he's so determined to get the job. Batman says, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you," and leaves Ra's to die. Then Batman gets that assistant manager's position at Kinko's and lives happily ever after, right?

Well, no, Batman goes to jail for a long time because Batman is a murderer.

The only difference in Batman Begins was that him killing Ra's was justifiable under the circumstances. There isn't a jury in Gotham City that would convict him. He still totally killed him, though.

Now, me, I don't care that he killed Ra's. I don't even care that he tells himself he didn't kill Ra's, just as long as he doesn't get innocent people killed because he refuses to kill criminals under any circumstances. A Batman like that has no business doing what he does.

Where I draw the line is Batman killing innocent people. Well, okay, I also object to him killing carjackers or whatever, but when a gang dressed up like clowns causes havoc in the street and attacks people and he has a no tolerance policy, I cut him some slack. A psychotic clown who killed his parents also tried to poison a bunch of people in the streets, so...

 

[The Joker]

Actually if that train runs on a looping circuit it's technically an endless track. However the real question is that of if a trained ninja guy can get his person off of a moving train with no breaks, given ample time and the vehicle itself not about to crash. Can such a person survive the endeavor with min damage. Given what we see in comic books, the ability to roll into falls... in short given Black Widow doing that very thing in Avengers I'd say the circumstance isn't as suicidal as you are presenting.

His back up plan? First second or back up I wasn't aware bat plans could involve killing.
Working under that assumption though, the tracks were gonna be blown regardless given he wasn't in communication with Gordon. The plan that ends in a derailed train whether the breaks work or not that was the plan and it would have happened whether Ra's sipped tea or killed the bat himself. "Who said anything about stopping the train" to me seems like the long game from the start tbh. He hopped on, distracted Ra's and hit the gas, locking his actual plan in stone. In a movie about no kill rules, it's an odd direction imo.
To each his own.

Ra's to Batman: "My fate, however, lies with the rest of Gotham". Ra's was on a suicidal mission, just like his daughter was. He was going down for his cause.

The back up plan was there in case Ra's stopped Batman from stopping the train manually. Otherwise there was no point in going up there on the train at all. Batman's line about who said anything about stopping it came after Ra's smashed the brakes. Situation changed, and now it wasn't a case of trying to stop it any more. Ra's had turned the train into a death trap.

He'd have no reason to distract Ra's because the end goal was to stop the train from reaching Wayne Tower and causing the chain reaction in the water pipes. So if Ra's saw the blown tracks he could either stop the train, or let it plunge down and be destroyed. Either way the city is saved. So again there was no necessity for Batman to go up onto that train unless he was trying to avoid the outcome of crashing the train by manually stopping it.

 

[Marvin]

Ra's to Batman: "My fate, however, lies with the rest of Gotham". Ra's was on a suicidal mission, just like his daughter was. He was going down for his cause.

The back up plan was there in case Ra's stopped Batman from stopping the train manually. Otherwise there was no point in going up there on the train at all. Batman's line about who said anything about stopping it came after Ra's smashed the brakes. Situation changed, and now it wasn't a case of trying to stop it any more. Ra's had turned the train into a death trap.

He'd have no reason to distract Ra's because the end goal was to stop the train from reaching Wayne Tower and causing the chain reaction in the water pipes. So if Ra's saw the blown tracks he could either stop the train, or let it plunge down and be destroyed. Either way the city is saved. So again there was no necessity for Batman to go up onto that train unless he was trying to avoid the outcome of crashing the train by manually stopping it.

That line in rebuttal to the context batman presented wasn't in reference to their lives. Rather their involvement: "it" ends here, it does for you and the cops i'm not about to kill here, for me it ends at the end game. As for the practicality of it, you'll notice Ra's took that re-breather mask up on the train with him when he said that. Pretty much meaning he would survive gothams fate if he so chose, unless you mean to imply he chose a suicide mission on top of him having his mask up there. Again, context of the line said. When batman says his 'who says anything about stopping train' for instance, that could be chosen to be taken literally, in that there was never a plan to stop it period, but instead you are looking at the context.

I don't think the if it was/wasn't a back up will be resolved with a single post so I'm gonna avoid it, especially because the device even getting on the train was plan d, given when batman locked in Gordon. But I think you are missing the point. Batman had a plan that involved killing ra's. Even it's the last resort, "That's not batman". Now you said if he (say) knocked ra's out clean in that fight, there is no killing plan, he just stops the train, sure. And you say if he just blows the tracks the day is saved and ra's stops the train(or doesn't), so batman going up there is simply to try and do it manually which results in no crash, perhaps. The thing you are missing, the crux, the whole point of the assertion is that ra's didn't knowingly send himself into that fate. Locking in the acceleration on a car with an endless(arguments sake) track is only suicide if you know the track is blown. Batman is the one that was fully aware of the situation, ra's was at a loss so the statement that ra's himself sealed it is false. Locking in the gas as you race through a car wash, unbeknownst to you there is napalm and stuff placed in there by batman to stop you from getting through, batman get's in your car fights for 5 mins then 10 seconds later he says oh yea land mines and crap in there as he floats out the car.... The point is Ra's didn't commit himself to that outcome. Had batman told him the tracks were gone at the outset then you'd have an argument. However it was a revelation made after Ra's assessment of the situation, and one that came 5 seconds before the end. I mean was Bruce ever gonna tell ra's during that fight?

 

[The Joker]

That line in rebuttal to the context batman presented wasn't in reference to their lives. Rather their involvement: "it" ends here, it does for you and the cops i'm not about to kill here, for me it ends at the end game. As for the practicality of it, you'll notice Ra's took that re-breather mask up on the train with him when he said that. Pretty much meaning he would survive gothams fate if he so chose, unless you mean to imply he chose a suicide mission on top of him having his mask up there. Again, context of the line said. When batman says his 'who says anything about stopping train' for instance, that could be chosen to be taken literally, in that there was never a plan to stop it period, but instead you are looking at the context.

I don't think the if it was/wasn't a back up will be resolved with a single post so I'm gonna avoid it, especially because the device even getting on the train was plan d, given when batman locked in Gordon. But I think you are missing the point. Batman had a plan that involved killing ra's. Even it's the last resort, "That's not batman". Now you said if he (say) knocked ra's out clean in that fight, there is no killing plan, he just stops the train, sure. And you say if he just blows the tracks the day is saved and ra's stops the train(or doesn't), so batman going up there is simply to try and do it manually which results in no crash, perhaps. The thing you are missing, the crux, the whole point of the assertion is that ra's didn't knowingly send himself into that fate. Locking in the acceleration on a car with an endless(arguments sake) track is only suicide if you know the track is blown. Batman is the one that was fully aware of the situation, ra's was at a loss so the statement that ra's himself sealed it is false. Locking in the gas as you race through a car wash, unbeknownst to you there is napalm and stuff placed in there by batman to stop you from getting through, batman get's in your car fights for 5 mins then 10 seconds later he says oh yea land mines and crap in there as he floats out the car.... The point is Ra's didn't commit himself to that outcome. Had batman told him the tracks were gone at the outset then you'd have an argument. However it was a revelation made after Ra's assessment of the situation, and one that came 5 seconds before the end. I mean was Bruce ever gonna tell ra's during that fight?

His line doesn't make sense if he meant his fate was destroying Gotham. He said his fate lies with the rest of Gotham, which means his fate is the same as theirs, he's going down with them. Of course he wore a gas mask. He couldn't be off his face on fear gas when he had to make sure the Microwave Emitter and the train got to Wayne Tower to set off the chain reaction. He was protecting his suicidal doomsday device to the end, just like Talia did with the bomb. He took the mask off once he was up on the train and safely off the gas filled Narrows. Batman and the Cops fates ending there makes sense because Ra's thought they were going to die there.

Batman had a plan that involved stopping the train, not killing Ra's. The fact Ra's destroyed the brakes on the train is what sealed his fate. A speeding train with no brakes on an elevated platform, with a big tower at the end of them only ends in one way. That's why Batman says "I won't kill you" because he's not responsible for Ra's' fate. He screwed himself. Batman's only goal was to stop the train what ever way he could.

I don't hold it against Batman to resorting to a back up plan that saves millions of lives. Who could respect a Batman that would rather let millions of innocent people die just so he could say he never killed anyone?

 

[C. Lee]

A funny thing about BATMAN BEGINS.....as someone who worked for a municipal water department for over 20 years....I can tell you that the putting the drugs into the water line would never work....it was totally implausible from a "that's not how water systems work" situation.

That said.....BB is one of my favorite superhero movies and it is my favorite Batman movie. I didn't let the film makers not knowing how a water system works take away my enjoyment of the movie.....because they did a great job with everything else.

 

[Steamteck]

A funny thing about BATMAN BEGINS.....as someone who worked for a municipal water department for over 20 years....I can tell you that the putting the drugs into the water line would never work....it was totally implausible from a "that's not how water systems work" situation.

That said.....BB is one of my favorite superhero movies and it is my favorite Batman movie. I didn't let the film makers not knowing how a water system works take away my enjoyment of the movie.....because they did a great job with everything else.

Exactly, no film is without some problem like that. Its if the good outweighs little stuff like that and by how much.

 

[jmc]

If they didn't want to be marvel then they would enforce no kill rules better. For the marvel heroes want to kill people and are often uninterested in saving people in their early careers. The whole stark wanting desperately to kill an innocent bucky is the most recent one.
WB probably thought people could approach this material with a clean slate, as clean as people do the murderous marvel stuff. However even people that don't know the material were signaled as to why this is 'wrong'. Or they maybe thought after a lot of movies they could present something different with the character(s), and even justify it ala an old batman one that has lost his code vs a young one without one. Either way, they know now to follow the rules with this stuff...well save for all the other movies but still.

And yes batman want's to but doesn't kill superman. The alien. His intent, which is what is to be judged is that he wants to kill an alien. Batman's rules on humans have been established in the comics, fine, his rules on other life forms not so much. From the beef he eats to sentient robots to planet eating aliens, white martians, re-animated owls, gods etc. The intention to kill an alien named darksied in cold blood for the greater good isn't so left field really. The irony is the whole thing comes to a head when the villain in this case is humanized..

Lastly I personally don't see an uninterested in saving people superman in this movie. That sort of characterization is explored in things like superman and spiderman2. Saving lives from childhood even without outright encouragement and going on to do so for 3 years in costume paint a different image to me. I see where people draw that for superman isn't out there doing it as he does in some of the source, gungho and excited about it. But there has to be something to be said for a character acting in character under the bridge of context. What happens to the excited nature of saving people with saving people comes at great cost. When it comes with idolatry? I've read books where superman shows concern over the churches/cults build for him. That notorious day of dead scene where he looks concerned is source accurate, especially for a young superman. With every act the world destabilizes and then you watch the broadcast with pundits arguing why the world doesn't need a superman, he can react to that with less than a smile. He can be burdened with these things, the material needs some flexibility, especially when the arc is he goes away, finds his path and dies fully embracing this very debate. However there is no room to do jack all even with that explanation showing it's all still there. Just do it as it's supposed to be. I do agree, they definitely gambled wrong.

I've said this before but I'll say it again. The only reason the two characters fight is if they don't act like they are suppose to. If Superman acts above Bruce's taunts the fight doesn't happen, if Batman does his research into who Clark is the fight doesn't happen. If they have a 5 mins conversation with one and other the fight doesn't happen. The only way they fight is if neither character is presented in a way that is recognisable and don't converse with one and other, because if they engage with one and other they would realise they share a common goal.

The movie Heat, which was apparently an influence of this film, Pacino and De Niro's characters have less screen time together than Bruce and Clark do. The difference with that film is because the two characters were never going to see eye to eye you can afford to have little conversation between them. The relationship is a game of cat and mouse that doesn't require them to be constantly conversing to build tension. One 5 mins scene in the middle of the film is all you need to add weight to the ending.

BvS doesn't have a scene like that. Why? Because if you had a 5 mins Bruce and Clark conversation as they are normally depicted they would find common ground because they are both good guys and looking to do the same thing, albeit from different perspectives. Objectively, I don't believe there is a way in the context of this story to give the fight any real weight to it. Either Batman and Superman have to be kept apart which makes the fight meaningless, or there needs to be a history between the two characters already like in Civil War. What's most worrisome to me is that no-one spotted it during production at WB. No-one objected to what was being done.

 

[misslane38]

I've said this before but I'll say it again. The only reason the two characters fight is if they don't act like they are suppose to. If Superman acts above Bruce's taunts the fight doesn't happen, if Batman does his research into who Clark is the fight doesn't happen. If they have a 5 mins conversation with one and other the fight doesn't happen. The only way they fight is if neither character is presented in a way that is recognisable and don't converse with one and other, because if they engage with one and other they would realise they share a common goal.

The movie Heat, which was apparently an influence of this film, Pacino and De Niro's characters have less screen time together than Bruce and Clark do. The difference with that film is because the two characters were never going to see eye to eye you can afford to have little conversation between them. The relationship is a game of cat and mouse that doesn't require them to be constantly conversing to build tension. One 5 mins scene in the middle of the film is all you need to add weight to the ending.

BvS doesn't have a scene like that. Why? Because if you had a 5 mins Bruce and Clark conversation as they are normally depicted they would find common ground because they are both good guys and looking to do the same thing, albeit from different perspectives. Objectively, I don't believe there is a way in the context of this story to give the fight any real weight to it. Either Batman and Superman have to be kept apart which makes the fight meaningless, or there needs to be a history between the two characters already like in Civil War. What's most worrisome to me is that no-one spotted it during production at WB. No-one objected to what was being done.

What worries me is how one of the big themes of the film just sort of passed you by, namely the theme that truth and communication is how problems are solved and conflicts avoided.

"This is how a democracy works. We talk to each other. We act by the consent of the governed, sir, I have sat here before to say that shadow interventions will not tolerate by this Committee. Neither will lies. Because today is a day for truth. Because only by speaking...Only by working...together, can we..."

Superman tries to communicate with Batman. He tries to communicate with the Senate Committee. The reason we see the public and Bruce struggle with the idea of Superman is the fact that Superman's efforts to reach out are repeatedly met with violent interruptions. Lois's efforts to communicate are similarly blocked. She discovers truths that would change the way people perceive the events in Nairomi and the Capitol, but she cannot get Swanwick come forward in a way that would encourage Perry White to run the article because these men lack courage and conviction to act.

The film sets out to explore the problems that are caused by and could be avoided by a lack of communication. It's worthwhile theme to explore, of course, because so much conflict is indeed caused by two sides struggling to speak and hear the truth. Many problems in today's society, for example, are caused by people who are so locked into their points of view or so anesthetized by an incompetent media that communication is impossible.

In other words, you seem to view the issue of communication as a flaw of the film that was not caught due to a lack of oversight when, in fact, the idea that obstacles to truth and communication generate conflict that can only be resolved with truth and communication is a theme embedded in the film and constitutes one of its core messages.

 

[baerrtt]

I think whenever a movie tries to get "dark and serious", it gets held to a higher standard. It needs to justify that darkness with intelligence.

If a movie just aspires to be a popcorn flick, then stupidity is more likely to be forgiven. On the other hand, if it's both dark and stupid, then it becomes a miserable bore and the movie has failed at every level.

The critical reaction to the TRANSFORMERS movies shows this isn't really true.

 

[TeeKay]

I've said this before but I'll say it again. The only reason the two characters fight is if they don't act like they are suppose to. If Superman acts above Bruce's taunts the fight doesn't happen, if Batman does his research into who Clark is the fight doesn't happen. If they have a 5 mins conversation with one and other the fight doesn't happen. The only way they fight is if neither character is presented in a way that is recognisable and don't converse with one and other, because if they engage with one and other they would realise they share a common goal.

The movie Heat, which was apparently an influence of this film, Pacino and De Niro's characters have less screen time together than Bruce and Clark do. The difference with that film is because the two characters were never going to see eye to eye you can afford to have little conversation between them. The relationship is a game of cat and mouse that doesn't require them to be constantly conversing to build tension. One 5 mins scene in the middle of the film is all you need to add weight to the ending.

BvS doesn't have a scene like that. Why? Because if you had a 5 mins Bruce and Clark conversation as they are normally depicted they would find common ground because they are both good guys and looking to do the same thing, albeit from different perspectives. Objectively, I don't believe there is a way in the context of this story to give the fight any real weight to it. Either Batman and Superman have to be kept apart which makes the fight meaningless, or there needs to be a history between the two characters already like in Civil War. What's most worrisome to me is that no-one spotted it during production at WB. No-one objected to what was being done.

Great post. The fight was dumb and superficial considering how many opportunities Clark had to tell Bruce but they opted to engage in a boxing match with him stead when the clock is counting down wasting precious time. His mothers life is on the line but **** it. She can wait, let me fight Batman instead. It was ill conceived. I was damn well speechless.

 

[jmc]

What worries me is how one of the big themes of the film just sort of passed you by, namely the theme that truth and communication is how problems are solved and conflicts avoided.

"This is how a democracy works. We talk to each other. We act by the consent of the governed, sir, I have sat here before to say that shadow interventions will not tolerate by this Committee. Neither will lies. Because today is a day for truth. Because only by speaking...Only by working...together, can we..."

Superman tries to communicate with Batman. He tries to communicate with the Senate Committee. The reason we see the public and Bruce struggle with the idea of Superman is the fact that Superman's efforts to reach out are repeatedly met with violent interruptions. Lois's efforts to communicate are similarly blocked. She discovers truths that would change the way people perceive the events in Nairomi and the Capitol, but she cannot get Swanwick come forward in a way that would encourage Perry White to run the article because these men lack courage and conviction to act.

The film sets out to explore the problems that are caused by and could be avoided by a lack of communication. It's worthwhile theme to explore, of course, because so much conflict is indeed caused by two sides struggling to speak and hear the truth. Many problems in today's society, for example, are caused by people who are so locked into their points of view or so anesthetized by an incompetent media that communication is impossible.

In other words, you seem to view the issue of communication as a flaw of the film that was not caught due to a lack of oversight when, in fact, the idea that obstacles to truth and communication generate conflict that can only be resolved with truth and communication is a theme embedded in the film and constitutes one of its core messages.

I do because I don't believe for a second the film makers and WB would want the battle to have next to no weight to it. And if it was intention it calls into question their creative judgement and story telling skills, because with no communication or no contrasting viewpoints there is no substance to the conflict.

 

[Predator jp]

The critical reaction to the TRANSFORMERS movies shows this isn't really true.

there is a limit to everything.

 

[metaphysician]

The guy Bruce refused to kill was shown running away, which was what the ninjas should have done. That was their own fault. I'm not a fan of the Ra's scene on the train either, but leaving him in the mess he made isn't quite the same thing as killing him himself.

As for Daredevil, he hasn't actually killed someone, but there have been cases where his actions COULD have resulted in death, such as when he throws that goon off the roof early in the first season and he ends up in intensive care. But much like the Nolan films, Matt not murdering criminals has become a big part of the show and specifically the source of his conflict with Castle and Stick.

You can't avoid all possibility of death, otherwise there would be conflict. Something as simple as punching a guy in the head has the potential to kill him, even if unlikely.

Also, on the matter of Daredevil, its an explicit character point that he is *really really tempted* to just go murdering criminals. Him being on thin moral ice is not bad writing, its very very deliberate. If he ever does deliberately murder someone, it will most definitely not be glossed over.

 

[Marvin]

Batman had a plan that involved stopping the train, not killing Ra's. The fact Ra's destroyed the brakes on the train is what sealed his fate. A speeding train with no brakes on an elevated platform, with a big tower at the end of them only ends in one way. That's why Batman says "I won't kill you" because he's not responsible for Ra's' fate. He screwed himself. Batman's only goal was to stop the train what ever way he could.

I don't hold it against Batman to resorting to a back up plan that saves millions of lives. Who could respect a Batman that would rather let millions of innocent people die just so he could say he never killed anyone?

Taking this back to the beginning for clarity.
"Ra's smashed the brakes on the train and sealed his own fate." Gotham monorail is a central hub design, which like in my city, the end points are actually at the end, whereas the center/central spot is a pass through/loop. That is trains go through the center without treating it as a "dead end", rather they can in an efficient design where the center connects to 'end points'. Point being the train goes right through, assuming the tracks are in tact. Simply smashing the breaks doesn't technically 'seal' anything without proof you can't provide and thus the resolution must fall here. I would further, the so called fate of Gotham; exposure to said gas isn't a death sentence, a "city" tares itself apart yes but unlike a bomb, a man, one with various resources, physical and mental fortitude, can "survive", not sure we saw one toxin related death in that movie tbh. Bane won't survive a nuke, but he with all his experience and strength of character may survive fear toxin if he remains calm, focused..etc We know Ra's has training in this from the beginning. Still, his many dozens of ninjas monitoring the situation just don't give a crap as ra's runs around kicking people's asses then pulls a Falcone and screams?

I do find it interesting that Ra's was on a suicide mission yet his daughter arrived in Gotham to exact revenge because as she said, Batman "murdered" her father. Ignoring her indictment, one which batman seemingly confirms, it's that there is even an issue r if Ra's was(and apparently did) infact killing himself regardless. Something the league would know given they would be leaderless. Seems like something hashed out in the meeting 'minutes'. Dad is killing himself, not batmans fault.

-To drive the point home, at the end of the day, even if one chooses to concede to all your points, batman had the opportunity to save a man he himself had a hand in putting into a type jeopardy: Villain speeds towards/through a tunnel and locks breaks, you blow tunnel endpoint in secret, but then instead of hitting the transporter button and saving the villain you tell him good riddance. The opportunity to save a life at no cost to yourself or anyone or effectively take one amounts to yes or no in this situation given all the power. Thus you lean on the supposed suicide angle. I'd add that if you walk up to someone about to jump off a bridge to their death and you shoot them in the head thus killing them, you're gonna get murder one, suicide doesn't nothing to your act of intentionally taking a life. Ignoring that all of this is simply below the batman of the comics.

As for your last question, it's certainly an interesting one. As seen whenever these dceu incarnations kill people(mos), it goes beyond respecting these characters simply being able to 'say' they never killed anyone whatever the cost as you assert here. Even when circumstance and logic and everything has been presented(as you've tried here and many defenders of mos tried there), seemingly justifying the act, it then turns into a meta commentary of why a (poor) writer would even write themselves into that corner when they didn't need to.

 

[Marvin]

I've said this before but I'll say it again. The only reason the two characters fight is if they don't act like they are suppose to. If Superman acts above Bruce's taunts the fight doesn't happen, if Batman does his research into who Clark is the fight doesn't happen. If they have a 5 mins conversation with one and other the fight doesn't happen. The only way they fight is if neither character is presented in a way that is recognisable and don't converse with one and other, because if they engage with one and other they would realise they share a common goal..............

Reading your original post and my response to it. I don't see why or how we are going here just saying...That is I'm not sure why you quoted me if only to open up a whole other line of conversation and critique. May as well have started a clean post imo. I suppose that is that on that conversation.

An argument on what you are presenting now.
I'd argue that sometimes characters do fight because they don't act like they are suppose to, that's a time honored approach to conflict in narrative. If everyone is rational then many things naturally go differently: If Stark put his vast resources into finding out the truth of the frame job as opposed to waiting till two thirds of the movie to even consider it, if super smart super cool Panther put his vast resources into the same thing... If like Panther, and like he himself stated he himself would not be, Stark didn't simply let revenge take over and be manipulated at the end into killing an innocent man then there would be no fight(literally), If cap turned over Bucky, explaining to keep him truly locked up and why, whilst going on to investigate with his own team rule breaking covert team, then there would be no fight.. All of it proving nothing other than that movies are about humans. When it comes to Stark and T'challa, they are just too driven by vengeance or guilt to even 'research' the truth before first attending to their greater agendas of justice. Point being people fight because they don't act like themselves or are blinded by rage etc, it happens.

When it comes to Heat. All the conversations whether they be 5 mins or 2 hours could be about enacting their agenda(in CW). Applied to BvS it could be an entire 20min conversation but one predicated why the other person is wrong in how they go about justice..etc That wouldn't change anything, and we are given plenty enough to know it's there without the of them also needing to tell each other. If unlike Heat you are talking about a 5min convo during the bvs fight itself with, where superman need only 'explain', you must be because any convo prior to the fight would/could have been agenda trading(as it was). It boils down to Superman not knowing about kryptonite and thinking he could put batman down first, then talk to him at first anyways.. Neither here nor there for I fear you are missing the real workings of the martha revelation. It's not simply that clark has a mother, or her name. Or some "lie" about a women needing rescuing that bruce may or may not beileve(after revealing he knows bruce's identity). If Bruce isn't prepared to listen, the way Stark wasn't to Cap before he 'changed', then it would all be for nothing. The attack on humanity(wayne tower) was similar to T'challa's and from that point on Batman is driven by revenge/anger and there is weight and ignorance to reason. You'll notice if T'challa simply approached the whole thing like he did in the third act, then maybe a 5min convo(in or out of fight) would be received better. Alfred is already 'there' and ready to listen/to give superman a chance, Bruce has to get there. Superman showing up and saying my mother is named martha and that's it, wouldn't end the hate or 'greater good' driven batman in that moment anymore than it would if Faora did the exact same. If it did, then batman changing would be as weak as detractors assert. However it's that they compound and layer the scene with various character driven elements together and actually dramatize the effect not simply reveal info. The humanizing effect on Bruce's perception of superman along with the "what have I become" paradigm shifting moment achieves a catalyst beyond simply doing "research" into superman. A man selfless man's dying pleads are for his mother, something different than a non dying mans words. He's not just 'with lois', zod could be 'with lois' on paper and it mean various things to a paranoid investigator, it's that she's out here in the mud begging for him, confirming his statement. And layered on everything, perhaps paramount; Reliving the experience of a pleading family and a boy crying out for his mother BUT/AND being on the other side of the gun is dramatizing experience, one that batman built his whole life on trying to stop now being given that opportunity to do make it right or make it wrong! That's why that rose bud esque intro is recalled in that moment, of 'revelation'. It took all of that to get batman to where he is ready to listen(it took stark/BP various things). The raising conflict in bvs is about contrasting viewpoints, the fight itself is about one man's view point vs another man being sent to stop batman ala DKR only with real duress and not just being a G-man(weaker). I digress, skipping all of that. If your point is that unlike Heat, fights between characters have to happen in the one way, the way where people simply understand the facts and each other yet don't see eye to eye I'd argue plainly that no, you can have fights happen over simple blinded misunderstandings or lack of understandings as actually happened in both films, or like say Rocky(2) people gain or earn an understanding and form a friendship coming out of it.

In conclusion, some fights happen between people who can lay their cards on the table, some fights happen between people who aren't prepared to listen, some fights happen between someone in need of a existential shift...the list goes on. What they 'attempted' in bvs is different than heat, it involved more and rightly so given the pending friendship and like mindedness we know to be present. Revelation, Paranoia, Existential crisis, Ultimatum, Hubris...they put various things in there and thus they saw it working beyond your slighted description. I'm reminded of Busiek's JLA/Avengers in this way. Anyhow, the style of criticism, where one points to one way of doing something, then argues that it wasn't done, meanwhile failing to properly present what was done...doesn't work.

We've been told Heat had an influence?

 

[The_Manhunter]

Yep no kidding. This site should be renamed to MarvelHeroHype, because that's all it really is nowadays. Unfortunate, I used to love talking all superhero films here.

Because people have different opinions? Wow.

I think it's clear that this is different than different opinions.

 

[MadVillainy]

No its not. People are just being silly

 

[Kelly]

I think it's clear that this is different than different opinions.

Stick to the topic of the thread please...

 

[misslane38]

I do because I don't believe for a second the film makers and WB would want the battle to have next to no weight to it. And if it was intention it calls into question their creative judgement and story telling skills, because with no communication or no contrasting viewpoints there is no substance to the conflict.

Then you're in luck, because the powers that be wouldn't and shouldn't have seen a fight with those variables in play as lacking in weight. The substance to the conflict is that it's a battle for Batman's and Superman's souls. Will Batman kill Superman because he's too far gone in the "fever" and "rage" that has turned him "cruel" because he's lost hope after years of fruitless efforts in Gotham and his own PTSD from a childhood trauma? Will Superman be manipulated once again by his greatest weakness: those he loves (first it was Lois now it's Martha)? Will Superman be able to get Batman to help him? All of which makes far more sense than for them to fight over ideology, because these are not heroes who would fight over ideology and should never fight over ideology. Ideas cannot be defeated with fists. What's at stake in the battle is hope.

 

[Micromind]

Then you're in luck, because the powers that be wouldn't and shouldn't have seen a fight with those variables in play as lacking in weight. The substance to the conflict is that it's a battle for Batman's and Superman's soul. Will Batman kill Superman because he's too far gone in the "fever" and "rage" that has turned him "cruel" because he's lost hope after years of fruitless efforts in Gotham and his own PTSD from a childhood trauma? Will Superman be manipulated once again by his greatest weakness: those he loves (first it was Lois now it's Martha)? Will Superman be able to get Batman to help him? All of which makes far more sense than for them to fight over ideology, because these are not heroes who would fight over ideology and should never fight over ideology. Ideas cannot be defeated with fists. What's at stake in the battle is hope.

Exactly.

Superman's and Batman cannot fight with each other over difference in their ideology because they don't have contrasting viewpoints.

Different methods ? Yes. Contrasting Viewpoints ? No.

Both want to protect the innocent people, Batman lost his way since Zod's invasion but before that he was seen as doing the "right" thing. All Superman has to do is to show him a light and not get engulfed in the darkness himself.

 

[The Joker]

I've said this before but I'll say it again. The only reason the two characters fight is if they don't act like they are suppose to. If Superman acts above Bruce's taunts the fight doesn't happen, if Batman does his research into who Clark is the fight doesn't happen. If they have a 5 mins conversation with one and other the fight doesn't happen. The only way they fight is if neither character is presented in a way that is recognisable and don't converse with one and other, because if they engage with one and other they would realise they share a common goal.

The movie Heat, which was apparently an influence of this film, Pacino and De Niro's characters have less screen time together than Bruce and Clark do. The difference with that film is because the two characters were never going to see eye to eye you can afford to have little conversation between them. The relationship is a game of cat and mouse that doesn't require them to be constantly conversing to build tension. One 5 mins scene in the middle of the film is all you need to add weight to the ending.

BvS doesn't have a scene like that. Why? Because if you had a 5 mins Bruce and Clark conversation as they are normally depicted they would find common ground because they are both good guys and looking to do the same thing, albeit from different perspectives. Objectively, I don't believe there is a way in the context of this story to give the fight any real weight to it. Either Batman and Superman have to be kept apart which makes the fight meaningless, or there needs to be a history between the two characters already like in Civil War. What's most worrisome to me is that no-one spotted it during production at WB. No-one objected to what was being done.

Well said

Taking this back to the beginning for clarity.
"Ra's smashed the brakes on the train and sealed his own fate." Gotham monorail is a central hub design, which like in my city, the end points are actually at the end, whereas the center/central spot is a pass through/loop. That is trains go through the center without treating it as a "dead end", rather they can in an efficient design where the center connects to 'end points'. Point being the train goes right through, assuming the tracks are in tact. Simply smashing the breaks doesn't technically 'seal' anything without proof you can't provide and thus the resolution must fall here. I would further, the so called fate of Gotham; exposure to said gas isn't a death sentence, a "city" tares itself apart yes but unlike a bomb, a man, one with various resources, physical and mental fortitude, can "survive", not sure we saw one toxin related death in that movie tbh. Bane won't survive a nuke, but he with all his experience and strength of character may survive fear toxin if he remains calm, focused..etc We know Ra's has training in this from the beginning. Still, his many dozens of ninjas monitoring the situation just don't give a crap as ra's runs around kicking people's asses then pulls a Falcone and screams?

I do find it interesting that Ra's was on a suicide mission yet his daughter arrived in Gotham to exact revenge because as she said, Batman "murdered" her father. Ignoring her indictment, one which batman seemingly confirms, it's that there is even an issue r if Ra's was(and apparently did) infact killing himself regardless. Something the league would know given they would be leaderless. Seems like something hashed out in the meeting 'minutes'. Dad is killing himself, not batmans fault.

-To drive the point home, at the end of the day, even if one chooses to concede to all your points, batman had the opportunity to save a man he himself had a hand in putting into a type jeopardy: Villain speeds towards/through a tunnel and locks breaks, you blow tunnel endpoint in secret, but then instead of hitting the transporter button and saving the villain you tell him good riddance. The opportunity to save a life at no cost to yourself or anyone or effectively take one amounts to yes or no in this situation given all the power. Thus you lean on the supposed suicide angle. I'd add that if you walk up to someone about to jump off a bridge to their death and you shoot them in the head thus killing them, you're gonna get murder one, suicide doesn't nothing to your act of intentionally taking a life. Ignoring that all of this is simply below the batman of the comics.

As for your last question, it's certainly an interesting one. As seen whenever these dceu incarnations kill people(mos), it goes beyond respecting these characters simply being able to 'say' they never killed anyone whatever the cost as you assert here. Even when circumstance and logic and everything has been presented(as you've tried here and many defenders of mos tried there), seemingly justifying the act, it then turns into a meta commentary of why a (poor) writer would even write themselves into that corner when they didn't need to.

It doesn't matter where the end points are, the fact is they exist, the tracks end, they don't run forever, so putting yourself in a speeding train with no brakes on an elevated platform is a death trap. What does it matter if you actually saw people dying from the toxin or not? We were told that it was going to have people die by tearing each other apart. It was a mass murder plan. We did see people savagely attacking each other. But this is an irrelevant point. Fact is people were going to die by this. I don't know where you're going with this point.

His daughter accused Batman of murdering her father. Well that's original. The Green Goblin's son Harry accused Spider-Man of killing his father and went on a revenge vendetta against him for it. It doesn't mean Spider-Man murdered him.

The only point you've made here I agree with is you can argue it was morally wrong of Batman to leave Ra's to die on the train. But at the end of the day he wasn't responsible for his death, that's why he chose to not save him because Ra's was in a predicament of his own making. Whether you like that he did that or not is fine, and I understand anyone who didn't. But its not like Batman has never left criminals to their own fate before because he's not breaking his murder code, e.g.

 

[misslane38]

Death has always followed Batman one way or another, the issue is always intent. The vast majority of the time death is part of the collateral damage. There are lots of grey areas and questionable decisions of course, but more often than not there was never the intent by Batman to murder someone. The Batman in BvS does want to murder Superman, there's no grey area there, it's flat out black and white. This is a huge reason why I feel that film turned a lot of people off. You had a Superman who looked uninterested in saving people, and a Batman willing to murder people. In hindsight I've got to wonder why WB ever thought this was a good idea, other than to not be Marvel, which in all honesty is a piss poor mentality.

Where did you get that Superman wasn't interested in saving people? Batman's murderous intent with Superman was made a plot point to show that he was off from what he should be and to restore him to what he is meant to be. The movie shows the audience that it knows that Batman shouldn't be a killer. The WB thought it was a good idea because (a) the movie doesn't show Superman disinterested in saving people, and (b) it makes the argument that Batman's killing was wrong, how a person can fall, and how they can get up again and find their way back to the light. It's about struggling with the dark and then overcoming it.

If Superman's saves and Batman's arc aren't acknowledged, and that turns people off in turn, then I don't see that as the fault of the movie.

 

[misslane38]

Ra's was in a predicament of his own making. Whether you like that he did that or not is fine, and I understand anyone who didn't. But its not like Batman has never left criminals to their own fate before because he's not breaking his murder code

There's a scene in the first season of Orphan Black in which Alison Hendrix's friend, who she thinks is spying on her, gets her scarf caught in a garbage disposal. Allison ignores her friend's cries for help, even as the woman chokes to death, because she sees her as a threat. Whether someone is in a predicament of their own making doesn't change the fact that it's cold-blooded murder to let someone die: done with intent and with the anticipation of some reward. I have less respect for Bale's Batman than I do Affleck's, because at least Affleck's brutality was challenged in the script and didn't actually go through with killing Superman.

 

[The Batman]

JMC is, as usual, spot on. It's why their conflict in the Dark Knight Returns actually works. Clark has become a government stooge, and everything Bruce does in DKR spits in the face of law/government.