Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?

[The Joker]

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.

Letting someone die because they think they are spying on them compared to letting someone die who kills millions of people.

Top class analogy there. You also are completely wrong on the definition of murder.

 

[misslane38]

Letting someone die because they think they are spying on them compared to letting someone die who kills millions of people.

Top class analogy there.

Murder is murder. So do I take it that you're okay with Batman murdering the Joker? Was it okay, then, for him to brand people responsible for the crime of trafficking many human beings, knowing they might die? What number of causalities and kills from a villain is the number Batman uses to judge who lives and dies? I had no idea Batman's no kill code was so flimsy.

You also are completely wrong on the definition of murder.

Really? The definition I use and can find online is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Letting someone die, when you know you can save them and because you'll gain something from it (premeditation) is murder. Manslaughter is when there isn't an intent to kill. Intent, as far as I can tell, is all that matters legally speaking. How are you defining murder?

 

[The Joker]

Murder is murder. So do I take it that you're okay with Batman murdering the Joker? Was it okay, then, for him to brand people responsible for the crime of trafficking many human beings, knowing they might die? What number of causalities and kills from a villain is the number Batman uses to judge who lives and dies? I had no idea Batman's no kill code was so flimsy.

Its not murder. Not in Begins and not in your example. The fact you equated someone who let a person die in an accident just because they thought she was a spy to a killer of millions on a suicide mission who deliberately sealed their own fate is what I find flimsy.

Really? The definition I use and can find online is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Letting someone die, when you know you can save them and because you'll gain something from it (premeditation) is murder. Manslaughter is when there isn't an intent to kill. Intent, as far as I can tell, is all that matters legally speaking. How are you defining murder?

Really. Murder is when you actively cause the death of someone in a premeditated manner. Batman did not smash the brakes of the train. Batman did not turn the train into an inescapable death trap. Ra's did. Your little TV show example is not murder because the person is not responsible for the scarf getting caught in the garbage disposal. Were they morally wrong not to save them? Yes. But they didn't murder them by not acting to save them from something they didn't cause.

Are we murderers of third world children because we are not donating money to them which can save their lives?

From a legal aspect, I am no expert, but I am quite certain in most states you have no legal duty to act. This means that you can literally watch someone drown and just stand there doing nothing, or see someone being murdered and just walk the other way. It's cold, and it's happened, but it's legal in most jurisdictions.

 

[misslane38]

Its not murder. Not in Begins and not in your example. The fact you equated someone who let a person die in an accident just because they thought she was a spy to a killer of millions on a suicide mission who deliberately sealed their own fate is what I find flimsy.

You're just saying I'm wrong by saying it. You're not proving it. Show me how I'm wrong. I want to understand why you feel the way you do.

I don't think the number of victims changes whether something is murder. If someone shoots a rapist out of revenge or someone shoots Hitler, they still committed murder. Maybe one would seem more justified than the other, but in terms of whether one is or is not a murderer, one would still be one whether you killed someone who hurt one person or killed someone who hurt many more. FYI the spy on Orphan Black was suspected to be a part of an organization that was killing people and messing with their bodily autonomy. It wasn't mere spying.

 

[The Joker]

You're just saying I'm wrong by saying it. You're not proving it. Show me how I'm wrong. I want to understand why you feel the way you do.

I'll repeat what I said above then in case you missed it since it was an after post edit;

Murder is when you actively cause the death of someone in a premeditated manner. Batman did not smash the brakes of the train. Batman did not turn the train into an inescapable death trap. Ra's did. Your little TV show example is not murder because the person is not responsible for the scarf getting caught in the garbage disposal. Were they morally wrong not to save them? Yes. But they didn't murder them by not acting to save them from something they didn't cause.

Are we murderers of third world children because we are not donating money to them which can save their lives?

From a legal aspect, I am no expert, but I am quite certain in most states you have no legal duty to act. This means that you can literally watch someone drown and just stand there doing nothing, or see someone being murdered and just walk the other way. It's cold, and it's happened, but it's legal in most jurisdictions.

 

[misslane38]

From a legal aspect, I am no expert, but I am quite certain in most states you have no legal duty to act. This means that you can literally watch someone drown and just stand there doing nothing, or see someone being murdered and just walk the other way. It's cold, and it's happened, but it's legal in most jurisdictions.

I'm no expert either, but I did find this (maybe there's a better explanation elsewhere?):

There are certain limited circumstances where there is a legal duty to act, and a failure to act is sufficient to make you legally liable. This duty can arise in 5 circumstances:

1. A family responsibility, such as a parent's duty to care for their child.
2. If the duty is assumed, for example by taking a vulnerable adult into your care.
3. A contractual duty, for example a railway signalman's duty to adjust the signal.
4. A professional duty, such as a police officer.
5. If you have set in motion a chain of events that may cause harm you have a duty to help those affected, such as warning the occupants of a building you have accidentally set on fire.

Of course, there is almost certainly a moral duty to help in many circumstances beyond this short list.

I don't think those address Batman's specific circumstances, but I don't think his no-kill code is based on legal restrictions. It's a moral one. Once he starts making exceptions based on number of victims or the method of elimination, then I think it's a slippery slope. It feels like him, and fans, rationalizing immoral behavior that dilutes what, from what I understand, is meant to be some sort of poignant code on Batman's part. I don't know. It shocked me when I saw the movie far more than anythingI saw in BvS, because at least it was challenged in BvS.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

From a legal aspect, I am no expert, but I am quite certain in most states you have no legal duty to act. This means that you can literally watch someone drown and just stand there doing nothing, or see someone being murdered and just walk the other way. It's cold, and it's happened, but it's legal in most jurisdictions.

There is no legal requirement to rescue somebody with a handful of exceptions, such as the rescuer causing the lethal situation in the first place or the victim being a dependent of the rescuer such as a child.

It is most definitely not murder and in the vast majority of situations failing to rescue someone will result in no legal punishment whatsoever.

 

[jmc]

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.

I apologise for that actually, I think I started replying to you, but then decided to change the conversation but forgot to delete your post. My error.

 

[The Joker]

I'm no expert either, but I did find this (maybe there's a better explanation elsewhere?):

They're all under the umbrella headings of someone being specifically placed in your care like a child, or if it is your professional/legal duty like being a Police Officer. I'm pretty sure people in the medical profession would also be covered by this, too, I imagine.

In the eyes of the law you're duty bound. Batman and criminals don't cover these. But then if we're really talking legalities here, in the eyes of the law Batman being a vigilante who takes the law into his own hands is against the law anyway. Technically everything he does is a crime.

The main reason he gets off the books support from the Commissioner of Police is because he doesn't go overboard and kill criminals like The Punisher.

I don't think those address Batman's specific circumstances, but I don't think his no-kill code is based on legal restrictions. It's a moral one. Once he starts making exceptions based on number of victims or the method of elimination, then I think it's a slippery slope. It feels like him, and fans, rationalizing immoral behavior that dilutes what, from what I understand, is meant to be some sort of poignant code on Batman's part. I don't know. It shocked me when I saw the movie far more than anythingI saw in BvS, because at least it was challenged in BvS.

Without getting into semantics, Batman's code is he won't be an executioner. A murderer. Morally I cannot argue with anyone saying its wrong not to save someone if you can, because there's no argument there. If you have the ability to save a life you should. No question. But Batman's kill code isn't defined by that, which is why instances like this have happened;

Now I understand any fan who dislikes Batman skirting the morality line like that, but its not the same as murdering someone. Its not defined as murder. Its not against the law in most states as far as I'm aware.

There is no legal requirement to rescue somebody with a handful of exceptions, such as the rescuer causing the lethal situation in the first place or the victim being a dependent of the rescuer such as a child.

It is most definitely not murder and in the vast majority of situations failing to rescue someone will result in no legal punishment whatsoever.

That's what I figured.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

On a similar note, the deaths of Two-Face and Talia would almost certainly not be considered murder either. They would be justifiable homicides.

 

[BestGirl]

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.

JMC didn't say that Superman wasn't interested in saving, merely that he didn't look interested in doing so. All we got was a somber montage of Superman grimly rescuing a girl, a ship in the Arctic, a rocket, and him hovering over some family in a flood, interspersed with shots of pundits describing how Superman's existence has shaken humanity's view of the universe. What BVS was lacking was any sense of joy. There just wasn't much fun for the audience to latch onto.

 

[jmc]

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.

But you still need conflict or some type of opposing perspectives to give the fight a sense of not only weight but tension. If both characters have personalities that are similar, and if both are losing the same sense of hope as you claim, you can't build tension, and tension is the cornerstone to any good story telling battle, whether that battle is with fists, words or intellect. Without contrasting characters you're left with nothing more than two similar people fighting, which subsequently leaves the audience unsure about who to identify with. That breads confusion and frustration because there's essentially no good guy or bad guy in the story, just this weird state of neutrality. It essentially leaves it to the audience to do the work in figuring out what exactly the film makers intentions were with the fight, and that's lazy film making. It means you clear yourself of blame for fundamental film making flaws and places blames on others for 'not getting it'. It's pretentious BS.

This comes back to there being no relationship with Batman and Superman. No history and little interaction means the fight can't have any real stakes to it. Maybe they both have lost hope, but there's nothing much in the movie which actually address that in a meaningful (or even logical) way. All it is are broad strokes that leave blank areas that require you to fill in your preexisting knowledge of Batman and Superman in order for it to have weight.

 

[Flint Marko]

Superman was a blank slate and Batman was a moron. Superman hardly spoke, and Batman was bent on killing someone who saved the planet and regularly saves people all over the globe. Nothing about this conflict is engaging or interesting, because neither of these characters are engaging or interesting.

 

[The Endless]

Agreed.

 

[Marvin]

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.

People don't just board elevated trains in some magical way. As seen in BB every stop has elevated platforms... so this whole elevated thing really should end here. Without even getting into just how many bodies of water it potentially crosses given that city design. After what batman himself endured in that very universe(building(scrapers) to ground falls), a ninja surviving getting off a moving train onto a platform or into water if they need/want/have to seems like a non issue. S what do we potentially have here, a train that passes through a terminal platform then speeds out towards the ends of the city no doubt incubated from the gas passing various station platforms and water....
Secondly the point was people are 'dying' due to fighting and killing each other. They aren't dying due to jokers laughing gas from(89). What exactly does that mean for Ra's fate, him being maybe the most powerful effective fighter in that entire movie? It means the best man wins, literally. It doesn't mean a death by nerve gas suicide. This is the basic difference between the "destruction of a city by crazy gas" and "this gas is gonna kill me." You toss Steve rogers in a room with 30 people and fear gas them all and see how dead he ends up is the point.

Your right about how the basic statement of revenge doesn't definitively prove all that much other than passion. However your example is so off base it actually helps the counter point. Harry thought the Spiderman killed his father with NO INFORMATION to the opposite, he was so rightly in the dark about the truth that it took that odd butler having to inform him of what actually happened. Upon learning that his father died by his own hand, guess what Harry then did? Rather a character turn around upon that revelation(snyder wasn't the first). Only spiderman and to a degree the butler knew anything close to the truth. To contrast this with the Talia? The leader of the league(Ra's) is supposedly off to make some grande suicide leading to a replacement leader and bureaucracy, and talia let alone every standing member isn't aware if the intention. No, if it was suicide, she'd know, clearly you aren't going this route but I'm highlighting it to be sure. It's that the comparison here is very counter productive to your argument. However my point isn't simply that she 'swears' revenge for batman's involvement in her father's death or that she wants revenge for him messing things up. It's that with all the knowledge of her father's plans to 'kill himself', she shows up and asserts batman of 'murdering' her father. A man whose body died on a crashed train he was 'trying to crash a train'. To which batman simply confirms 'he was trying to kill people'. I was actually making my point with batman's response tbh. Claiming innocence in that situation goes along way. I/we get why Toby couldn't with Franco.

And that last image you keep pointing to.
Firstly, where in there am I'm being shown batman left this guy to his own fate, let alone to die of suffocation? Before even dissecting this evidence there would need to be some to begin with. Point being batman's inaction to the single call for help is to be revealed on the on the next panel which is simply not present here. Moreover, dropping someone in a pool of water when they "can't swim" is incapacitation, dropping some jack napier in acid and leaving him to his own fate is just that. At the very least it watching someone bob and hold their breath can last for quite some time without immediate action. Again I'm simply not seeing anything to prove your point in these panels other than that batman tossed some non swimmer into the water, they called for help and...........................?
One must realize people have shown panels of comics in which batman kills and does so with guns. What has it amounted to around these parts? That batman has been known to kill with guns so there? Pointing to canon of Batman/Superman doing 'snyder' stuff(mainly killing), is met with the rhetoric of batman/superman don't kill as per mainstream and modern comics. 'batman wore pink in one book..etc' as that one poster always cites. If the rules of this game changed, it would be over in a few seconds, unfortunately they haven't. Your evidence is incomplete and even if it wasn't, it wouldn't amount to much in the here and now given it's just one obscure example vs batman diving off of buildings to save monsters in the mainstream.

 

[Marvin]

JMC didn't say that Superman wasn't interested in saving, merely that he didn't look interested in doing so. All we got was a somber montage of Superman grimly rescuing a girl, a ship in the Arctic, a rocket, and him hovering over some family in a flood, interspersed with shots of pundits describing how Superman's existence has shaken humanity's view of the universe. What BVS was lacking was any sense of joy. There just wasn't much fun for the audience to latch onto.

Superman actually was smiling when he saved that girl, though this idea that one needs to smile when doing something brave/heroic for it to be engaging/interesting/latching I personally derivative of expectation or conditioning. I see firemen save people from burning buildings in reports and whether they need to smile and have fun/joy doing so is neither here nor there. He smiled in that save, so the quota/requirement was actually met but it's only because it really was a hollow requirement as were really all the things that were present in bvs but supposedly lacking in mos(see addressing populated city battles/world reaction..saving people), it was met with the predictable response or calls for even clearer pandering as in this case.

The scene itself is that superman smiles and enjoys the intimate saving of a girl, if it ended there, then the same old superman stuff would have been met and Snyder would be considered competent in this regard in 'getting the character'. It happened, it only then went further, and adds an 'interesting' dynamic to the material. Superman is faced with this own father's early premonition of the world changing, beliefs in god and our place in the universe shook, this is certainly worrying as masses are shown to worship him as they would Jesus. The scene conveys both diegetically and un with the voice over, the consequences to both superman's heroic action and his god like interference, the main theme of the story. This is what his turning worrying 'dis-interested' look is pertaining to. It goes beyond the simplistic simply saving people and then big smile and hands on hips and 'flying is still the safest way to travel..'
They met the requirement and elevated the material in a single scene(for me), only to be met with he didn't look interested and not enough joy, can't latch on. These are the prefect circumstances for revisiting in a decade, for expectation has more of an effect in the present then it does when a culture if further removed from something in my experience. The Azzerello like approach t this material simply isn't for film right now, maybe back in 2006 when people where then tired of the opposite.

I apologise for that actually, I think I started replying to you, but then decided to change the conversation but forgot to delete your post. My error.

No need. Easy to get mixed up in thoughts and responses.

 

[The Joker]

Superman was a blank slate and Batman was a moron. Superman hardly spoke, and Batman was bent on killing someone who saved the planet and regularly saves people all over the globe. Nothing about this conflict is engaging or interesting, because neither of these characters are engaging or interesting.

Exactly.

People don't just board elevated trains in some magical way. As seen in BB every stop has elevated platforms... so this whole elevated thing really should end here. Without even getting into just how many bodies of water it potentially crosses given that city design. After what batman himself endured in that very universe(building(scrapers) to ground falls), a ninja surviving getting off a moving train onto a platform or into water if they need/want/have to seems like a non issue. S what do we potentially have here, a train that passes through a terminal platform then speeds out towards the ends of the city no doubt incubated from the gas passing various station platforms and water....
Secondly the point was people are 'dying' due to fighting and killing each other. They aren't dying due to jokers laughing gas from(89). What exactly does that mean for Ra's fate, him being maybe the most powerful effective fighter in that entire movie? It means the best man wins, literally. It doesn't mean a death by nerve gas suicide. This is the basic difference between the "destruction of a city by crazy gas" and "this gas is gonna kill me." You toss Steve rogers in a room with 30 people and fear gas them all and see how dead he ends up is the point.

Your right about how the basic statement of revenge doesn't definitively prove all that much other than passion. However your example is so off base it actually helps the counter point. Harry thought the Spiderman killed his father with NO INFORMATION to the opposite, he was so rightly in the dark about the truth that it took that odd butler having to inform him of what actually happened. Upon learning that his father died by his own hand, guess what Harry then did? Rather a character turn around upon that revelation(snyder wasn't the first). Only spiderman and to a degree the butler knew anything close to the truth. To contrast this with the Talia? The leader of the league(Ra's) is supposedly off to make some grande suicide leading to a replacement leader and bureaucracy, and talia let alone every standing member isn't aware if the intention. No, if it was suicide, she'd know, clearly you aren't going this route but I'm highlighting it to be sure. It's that the comparison here is very counter productive to your argument. However my point isn't simply that she 'swears' revenge for batman's involvement in her father's death or that she wants revenge for him messing things up. It's that with all the knowledge of her father's plans to 'kill himself', she shows up and asserts batman of 'murdering' her father. A man whose body died on a crashed train he was 'trying to crash a train'. To which batman simply confirms 'he was trying to kill people'. I was actually making my point with batman's response tbh. Claiming innocence in that situation goes along way. I/we get why Toby couldn't with Franco.

And that last image you keep pointing to.
Firstly, where in there am I'm being shown batman left this guy to his own fate, let alone to die of suffocation? Before even dissecting this evidence there would need to be some to begin with. Point being batman's inaction to the single call for help is to be revealed on the on the next panel which is simply not present here. Moreover, dropping someone in a pool of water when they "can't swim" is incapacitation, dropping some jack napier in acid and leaving him to his own fate is just that. At the very least it watching someone bob and hold their breath can last for quite some time without immediate action. Again I'm simply not seeing anything to prove your point in these panels other than that batman tossed some non swimmer into the water, they called for help and...........................?
One must realize people have shown panels of comics in which batman kills and does so with guns. What has it amounted to around these parts? That batman has been known to kill with guns so there? Pointing to canon of Batman/Superman doing 'snyder' stuff(mainly killing), is met with the rhetoric of batman/superman don't kill as per mainstream and modern comics. 'batman wore pink in one book..etc' as that one poster always cites. If the rules of this game changed, it would be over in a few seconds, unfortunately they haven't. Your evidence is incomplete and even if it wasn't, it wouldn't amount to much in the here and now given it's just one obscure example vs batman diving off of buildings to save monsters in the mainstream.

What use are stop points when the train is moving at high speed? You can't exactly get it slow down and step off when you've smashed the brakes on the train. I don't know what all this strawman stuff is about the gas and killing people. You're basically attempting to counter argue what the movie explicitly tells us. The gas vaporizes over the city, causing people to go crazy and tear each other apart and die. The gas is what causes people to kill each other. No ifs, ands or buts. The fact you're trying to make some kind of argument about the gas not directly killing them straight away shows how far you're reaching here. Without the gas nobody dies. So the gas is the cause of the mass deaths. I don't know who it was, but someone described your arguments as;

Person 1: "The sky is blue"
Marvin: "Well actually..."

I'm starting to see their point. No offense but you are doing a lot of illogical leaps here. Can we move on from this illogical argument please?

Talia was as clueless about her father's death as Harry was about his. Actually more so. Harry at least saw Spider-Man with his father's dead body in his arms. Talia was going on second hand information about her father's train crashing and failing to kill Gotham and assumed Batman murdered him to stop him. If anything Harry was more justified in believing Spider-Man killed his father because he at least saw with his own eyes Spider-Man with his father's corpse. Talia's father was embarking on a suicidal mission to kill a whole city, and the fact he died in a failed attempt to do so makes her surmise it was Batman who killed him. Harry finding out the truth about his father's death from someone else was just a plot device to make him turn good and go and help his friends. But it doesn't change a thing. Harry assuming Spidey killed his father is no different from Talia wrongly assuming the same kind of thing.

You can't see in that image Batman standing idly by letting Catman drown in the ocean, complete with the little caption 'Exit the man with nine lives'. No offense but do you need a panel of exposition to tell you the obvious? Dropping Jack Napier in the acid is not the same because he didn't intentionally drop him, he tried to save him, and he slipped out of his grasp. Standing by and just leaving Catman to drown is not the same at all. Obviously.

 

[The Batman]

I don't know who it was, but someone described your arguments as;

Person 1: "The sky is blue"
Marvin: "Well actually..."

I'm starting to see their point.

Lol, It was Flint.

 

[Marvin]

What use are stop points when the train is moving at high speed? You can't exactly get it slow down and step off when you've smashed the brakes on the train. I don't know what all this strawman stuff is about the gas and killing people. You're basically attempting to counter argue what the movie explicitly tells us. The gas vaporizes the city, causing people to go crazy and tear each other apart and die. The gas is what causes people to kill each other. No ifs, ands or buts. The fact you're trying to make some kind of argument about the gas not directly killing them straight away shows how far you're reaching here. Without the gas nobody dies. So the gas is the cause of the mass deaths. I don't know who it was, but someone described your arguments as; ..

You can't see in that image Batman standing idly by letting Catman drown in the ocean, complete with the little caption 'Exit the man with nine lives'. No offense but do you need a panel of exposition to tell you the obvious? Dropping Jack Napier in the acid is not the same because he didn't intentionally drop him, he tried to save him, and he slipped out of his grasp. Standing by and just leaving Catman to drown is not the same at all. Obviously...

I never said he needs the train to slow down so he can step off and you know it. I said the stop points negate the whole elevated train argument you are riding on. Not two words about the train needing to stop. People jump off of vehicles all the time and survive. The more trained they are the better for Widow and Batman have done just or comparable numerous times in these movies. There are various of videos online of 'normal' people in India jumping off speedy trains onto platforms the higher the speed the greater the injury perhaps but it's not a death sentence is the point. Unless you are arguing right here and right now that the best the league of shadows member can't jump off of a moving train onto a platform of the same height and survive with minimal injuries in a cbm let alone a 90's action movie, then your point ends here(and it does).

As for this so called strawman. People don't die from the Gas they die from killing each other after exposure, 'the greatest city will tare itself apart and the world will watch' as were Ra's words. The gas itself didn't kill a single person in that movie. Not Crane, not Falcone, the point is it's not nerve gas. So I asked you why you assert it would now kill Ra's? Because he would get into crazy fights with crazy people? Again this gas doesn't kill, it effectively destroys a decedent city in this way but the actual deaths come by other means. You can claim starwman all you want but it's actually very simple.

Batman standing idly by letting catman drown? The panel is batman actively looking over the edge. You are actually using this to prove batman let that man drown/die?
And yes 'we' need exposition to prove your against character assertion. On a story telling level, if this is the exact panel conveying the can't swim, it's the following panel with the burden of describing the "reaction". You know like say batman turning away or actually helping. They go screen black here and we assume batman let him drown? If this was a superman book with this same amount of visual exposition to think the story telling would assert superman let this man drown dead? Surely you see what you are doing here.
And for the love of god, 'the caption' is a title cue. "Enter Moriarty/Exit Moriarty, the end of this episode"

Person 1: "The sky is blue"
Marvin: "Well actually..."

I'm starting to see their point. No offense but you are doing a lot of illogical leaps here. Can we move on from this illogical argument please?

No offense but this argument only makes one looks desperate. Argue your points or don't. Co opting this a literal strawman is better used for lesser people. That being said, it's not lost on anyone that the like minded crews not only agree with each others posts constantly, even to this end. One day it will be someone from the otherside of the fence that does it an it might hold more water.
But hey you said batman let that man drown, lo and behold 'Marvin' said well actually...
someone feels very differently about your blessed point of view than you do is presenting an argument, what a world.

 

[The Joker]

I never said he needs the train to slow down so he can step off and you know it. I said the stop points negate the whole elevated train argument you are riding on. Not two words about the train needing to stop. People jump off of vehicles all the time and survive. The more trained they are the better for Widow and Batman have done just or comparable numerous times in these movies. There are various of videos online of 'normal' people in India jumping off speedy trains onto platforms the higher the speed the greater the injury perhaps but it's not a death sentence is the point. Unless you are arguing right here and right now that the best the league of shadows member can't jump off of a moving train onto a platform of the same height and survive with minimal injuries in a cbm let alone a 90's action movie, then your point ends here(and it does).

As for this so called strawman. People don't die from the Gas they die from killing each other after exposure, 'the greatest city will tare itself apart and the world will watch' as were Ra's words. The gas itself didn't kill a single person in that movie. Not Crane, not Falcone, the point is it's not nerve gas. So I asked you why you assert it would now kill Ra's? Because he would get into crazy fights with crazy people? Again this gas doesn't kill, it effectively destroys a decedent city in this way but the actual deaths come by other means. You can claim starwman all you want but it's actually very simple.

Batman standing idly by letting catman drown? The panel is batman actively looking over the edge. You are actually using this to prove batman let that man drown/die?
And yes 'we' need exposition to prove your against character assertion. On a story telling level, if this is the exact panel conveying the can't swim, it's the following panel with the burden of describing the "reaction". You know like say batman turning away or actually helping. They go screen black here and we assume batman let him drown? If this was a superman book with this same amount of visual exposition to think the story telling would assert superman let this man drown dead? Surely you see what you are doing here.
And for the love of god, 'the caption' is a title cue. "Enter Moriarty/Exit Moriarty, the end of this episode"

No offense but this argument only makes one looks desperate. Argue your points or don't. Co opting this a literal strawman is better used for lesser people. That being said, it's not lost on anyone that the like minded crews not only agree with each others posts constantly, even to this end. One day it will be someone from the otherside of the fence that does it an it might hold more water.
But hey you said batman let that man drown, lo and behold 'Marvin' said well actually...what a world.

Marvin, you're doing it again. Batman has gadgetry like grappling hooks and gliding capes to do stunts like that. That's why he's able to do things like just glide off the train at the end while Ra's is stuck on it. Your Black Widow example was her jumping off a moving vehicle onto a building just several feet directly below her. Did you see any of the LOS perform stunts like this btw?

Again so what if the gas is not the actual thing that kills the people? Its what causes them to kill each other. It is the instrument of their destruction. Why are you wasting your time making some ridiculous hair splitting argument about this? Without the gas nobody dies. Hence why there was the huge urgency to stop the train from reaching Wayne Tower and engulfing the whole city in the gas because that mean millions of people die. Yes, if Ra's inhaled the gas he would be as susceptible to get killed as anyone else. I seriously cannot wrap my head around what you are trying to prove here with this line of argument.

Batman leaning over the ship and just watching Catman drown is him actively looking over the ledge? I had no idea leaning over just to watch something was being active. But if you want to class that as Batman actively watching him die then by all means phrase it that way. He still didn't lift a finger to help him, whether he was passively or actively watching. Batman didn't help him. He left him to die. That was the end of the story. Exit the man with nine lives, describing his fate. The fact it was later revealed that Catman survived the drowning to return in future stories doesn't negate the fact that Batman didn't lift a finger to help him. There's no grey area on this. Batman left him to die. Its like saying attempted murder is ok because you don't actually succeed in killing someone.

I am arguing the points. But its hard to get a good discussion from someone who keeps resorting to illogical arguments like "well the gas didn't actually directly kill them, it was the people killing each other" as if that makes an iota of a difference about the gas being the cause of their deaths. I'm not trying to offend you, Marvin, because this is a criticism against your arguments, and you need to take a step back and look at what you're saying, because you spend all this time writing huge walls of text and they often end up being based on strawman points like that.

 

[Marvin]

Marvin, you're doing it again. Batman has gadgetry like grappling hooks and gliding capes to do stunts like that. That's why he's able to do things like just glide off the train at the end while Ra's is stuck on it. Your Black Widow example was her jumping off a moving vehicle onto a building directly below her...

..But its hard to get a good discussion from someone who keeps resorting to illogical arguments like "well the gas didn't actually directly kill them, it was the people killing each other" as if that makes an iota of a difference about the gas being the cause of their deaths...

..Batman leaning over the ship and just watching Catman drown is him actively looking over the ledge? I had no idea leaning over just to watch something was being active. But if you want to class that as Batman actively watching him die then by all means phrase it that way. He still didn't lift a finger to help him, whether he was passively or actively watching. Batman didn't help him. He left him to die. That was the end of the story. Exit the man with nine lives, describing his fate. The fact it was later revealed that Catman survived the drowning to return in future stories doesn't negate the fact that Batman didn't lift a finger to help him. There's no grey area on this. Batman left him to die. Its like saying attempted murder is ok because you don't actually succeed in killing someone....

And you're doing it again in misconstruing the one analogy for another. I never said Ra's does what batman does to get off this train or even could, with the grappling hooks and capes. I pointed to batman in that in these movies, has fallen 40 plus feet on fire(wild) or the skyscrapper jump onto a folding car with a person in toe terminal velocity and survive without any real chute deployment. I pointed to those to convey harsher situations being survived in this universe by an equally capable man, regardless of gadgets, it's physics and established realism. Don't strawman this Marvin says ra's uses tech to get off train as you just did. And you literally describing the Widow example it isn't retort, rather a confirmation. In order for Ra's to get of this moving train he needs to get this: seemingly jump off of a moving vehicle onto a platform 'maybe even a building' below him. Just like her.

2) What i'm 'trying to prove' is that every time you mention the gas is gonna destroy the city, you get no argument from me. What you aren't putting together is my assertion that Ra's simply being exposed to non lethal nerve gas, isn't any sort of death sentence. All it does is make the people want to kill each other. It's not about splitting hairs, it's very simply about this premise resulting in a crazy Ra's killing a bunch of crazy people.
Again for clarity: Ra's can't fight or survive a gas that kills people(poison gas) that's stuff is a death sentence. Ra's can fight and survive people that are crazy on gas, he can do so very well given all his fear toxin fight training and his skills so him being exposed with everyone else simply means he's crazy, not dead! A basic statement that gas exposure doesn't kill him. Some poor souls have to, and if they themselves are exposed, they probably won't be able to. And I know you guys are trying to make this 'walls of text a thing' but the reality is that even here an as usual, I've written as much as the opposition on the matter.

3) Ok let me be frank about this Catman thing. We aren't looking at footage here, we are looking at singular panels. Somewhere in that panel you are definitely seeing batman actively/passively stare over a ledge for the 'entire' duration of Catman's death. And arguing anyone who doesn't also see that is whateverwhatnot, the evidence just isn't there. And all of that based on a single frozen panel of Catman springing back up after his initial submergence to shout that he doesn't know how to swim and batman looking. It's not even a matter of you being wrong or right tbh, it's that there is nothing but grey area and so your argument doesn't stand. Nothing to do with defining attempted murder it's about maybe your read is false and the opposite read is possible, he probably does in this scene what is expected, what he always does, and they simply cut to black when he neutralized the badguy, or there is more to the entire situation then is being presented. I think you are looking at this in an overly literal way. 'Exit the man with nine lives...' could a metaphorical act cue, not literally referring to the loss of his life. The exit means he's done, stage right, and the mention of lives is the call to the the cat lore. It's not a literal statement as to the his death. Here's the thing I'll level with you. You could very well(even still) be right, it takes reading the panels a certain way, for example if this was a punisher book I could easily see that read first, there could be meta powers on the talbe. The trouble is it could be read the other way(s). If this was daredevil(netflix) then this reads something else, as is. And again that's why this isn't substantive evidence, that's all.

 

[The Joker]

Marvin, I haven't got the inclination to repeat what I've already said several times now. Its the very definition of a discussion going in circles. I feel like I'm wasting my time now. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Lets just leave this one.

 

[Flint Marko]

Marvin's disagreements with that panel where Batman clearly leaves that guy to drown is a pretty great example of arguing against the sky being blue.

 

[Marvin]

Marvin, I haven't got the inclination to repeat what I've already said several times now. Its the very definition of a discussion going in circles. I feel like I'm wasting my time now. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Lets just leave this one.

Repeating what you've said over and over is probably the cause for the circles. That you pretty much fell into exit pattern of ad hom and talk about the discussion rather than the arguments themselves, this post just falls into the pattern only it's missing one piece(the cohort's approval).

And even in the end and it's some way to assert condescension in hopes that maybe that will do what the rhetoric can't. You're done for some reason outside of the argument itself or so it goes.

Just don't expect the detraction to get any easier. Maybe when your guys evidence of any one thing you say is as definitive as you need it to be. As always do what you will.

 

[BestGirl]

Superman actually was smiling when he saved that girl, though this idea that one needs to smile when doing something brave/heroic for it to be engaging/interesting/latching I personally derivative of expectation or conditioning. I see firemen save people from burning buildings in reports and whether they need to smile and have fun/joy doing so is neither here nor there. He smiled in that save, so the quota/requirement was actually met but it's only because it really was a hollow requirement as were really all the things that were present in bvs but supposedly lacking in mos(see addressing populated city battles/world reaction..saving people), it was met with the predictable response or calls for even clearer pandering as in this case.

The scene itself is that superman smiles and enjoys the intimate saving of a girl, if it ended there, then the same old superman stuff would have been met and Snyder would be considered competent in this regard in 'getting the character'. It happened, it only then went further, and adds an 'interesting' dynamic to the material. Superman is faced with this own father's early premonition of the world changing, beliefs in god and our place in the universe shook, this is certainly worrying as masses are shown to worship him as they would Jesus. The scene conveys both diegetically and un with the voice over, the consequences to both superman's heroic action and his god like interference, the main theme of the story. This is what his turning worrying 'dis-interested' look is pertaining to. It goes beyond the simplistic simply saving people and then big smile and hands on hips and 'flying is still the safest way to travel..'
They met the requirement and elevated the material in a single scene(for me), only to be met with he didn't look interested and not enough joy, can't latch on. These are the prefect circumstances for revisiting in a decade, for expectation has more of an effect in the present then it does when a culture if further removed from something in my experience. The Azzerello like approach t this material simply isn't for film right now, maybe back in 2006 when people where then tired of the opposite.

I'll include the scene below, but I can't see him smiling. At any rate, it's more than just his lack of a smile; it's the soundtrack, the darkness of the images, and the rather negative VOs. It's a whole package. Obviously Snyder was going for a certain mood but BVS wasn't some arthouse flick. It was meant to be a summer blockbuster and audiences don't want to have to sit through some dreary slog. It's stupid to portray Superman as seriously as Batman anyway when they're being introduced in the same movie. Superman should've been portrayed more hopefully and positively.

Spoiler

[YT]K0lQxUqmnfU[/YT]