BvS Batman v Superman - Reviews Thread [TAG SPOILERS] - Part 2

[javonstokess]

You don't hear what I'm saying. Whatever.

Or I just don't agree with what you're saying.

 

[javonstokess]

Uh, no, it's not like that at all. To my knowledge, Bruce's stategy wasn't to commit mass genocide in order to neutralize a singular perceived threat, which wasn't Cheney's strategy either.

And I'm not defending the Bush administration here, btw.

Um...I was using it as an example. Essentially "since there's a 1% chance you could do something wrong, I'm going to kill you to prevent that 1% from becoming realized."

It's a flawed thought process that the World's Greatest Detective would never use.

 

[FunkMiller]

That's the thing. There is no "broken Batman" in the comics. The characterization Snyder offered up was nearly everything Batman is not.

Anything he took from DKR was just shallow visual stuff. Nothing meaty from the story.

So, so true. To 'break' Batman is to destroy him. The cape, the cowl and the car dont matter.

If you make Batman a broken killer, twisted by grief and rage, making bad decisions, and acting without forethought and planning...HE ISN'T BATMAN ANYMORE.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Of course the "TDKR" version is broken. He essentially broke and quit when Jason Todd died! That's the whole point of the book is that Batman rebuilds himself and comes out of retirement.

Forget homages when the director literally says that that's the Batman he was using.

How is it the same Batman, if Snyder's Batman didn't quit after Robin's death and fought crime for 10 more years (it's not stated in the film, but that's what Snyder said)? How is he a broken Bat, if he follows his code? Quitting isn't being broken.

 

[javonstokess]

So, so true. To 'break' Batman is to destroy him. The cape, the cowl and the car don't matter.

It's who he is underneath that defines him.

If you make Batman a broken killer, twisted by grief and rage, making bad decisions, and acting without forethought and planning...HE ISN'T BATMAN ANYMORE.

Truth.

The moment Batman kills he becomes no better than the rest of his rogues gallery.

I remember a moment during the Knightfall/Knightquest/KnightsEnd storyline where Batman "kills" a ninja and the whole Bat family damn near disowns him until he reveals that it was a trick to fool Lady Shiva.

 

[javonstokess]

How is it the same Batman, if Snyder's Batman didn't quit after Robin's death and fought crime for 10 more years (it's not stated in the film, but that's what Snyder said)? How is he a broken Bat, if he follows his code? Quitting isn't being broken.

I'm only going off what Snyder says. His characterization is supposed to be based off the TDKR version of Batman.

It's not 1-for-1 but the director is going to come out of his mouth and say it, then that's what I'm going to believe.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Spoiler

well, Batman could get the rock under heavy security in the end so i don't see the point of arguing over that either...

OK. He did jump onto the truck and indeed risked to lose the transmitter. Not the smartest move, but the chase was quite brutal. It doesn't change the fact, that placing the transmitter on the truck and engage into chasing the convoy was a bad idea.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I'm only going off what Snyder says. His characterization is supposed to be based off the TDKR version of Batman.

It's not 1-for-1 but the director is going to come out of his mouth and say it, then that's what I'm going to believe.

In what form? There are similarities, Snyder's Batman is clearly inspired by old Batman of Miller. But stories are entirely different, character arcs are entirely different.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Or I just don't agree with what you're saying.

I'm OK with that. What works for me not always works for everyone else.

 

[javonstokess]

OK. He did jump onto the truck and indeed risked to lose the transmitter. Not the smartest move, but the chase was quite brutal. It doesn't change the fact, that placing the transmitter on the truck and engage into chasing the convoy was a bad idea.

Not even counting when he spears a car, drags it for miles and then whips it into the truck.

Transmitter should hold though...lol

 

[javonstokess]

In what form? There are similarities, Snyder's Batman is clearly inspired by old Batman of Miller. But stories are entirely different, character arcs are entirely different.

When he's questioned about his Batman killing, he makes the point (after talking about other film versions of Batman) to say that he used the Batman shooting the criminal with a gun scene in TDKR. Now add in that he has a Batman using identical armor as TDKR, is old and broken, lost a Robin that changes his mindset and literally hold the same philosophical issue with Superman...

How can you not say they aren't essentially one and the same.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Not even counting when he spears a car, drags it for miles and then whips it into the truck.

Transmitter should hold though...lol

He doesn't whip it onto the truck. He whips it onto another similar car. Dude, you need to watch the film again, before accusing it in all kinds of sins you made up in your head.

 

[javonstokess]

He doesn't whip it onto the truck. He whips it onto another similar car. Dude, you need to watch the film again, before accusing it in all kinds of sins you made up in your head.

My bad, instead of killing the guys in the truck, he kills the guys in the car.

Point proven.

 

[OutOfBoose]

When he's questioned about his Batman killing, he makes the point (after talking about other film versions of Batman) to say that he used the Batman shooting the criminal with a gun scene in TDKR. Now add in that he has a Batman using identical armor as TDKR, is old and broken, lost a Robin that changes his mindset and literally hold the same philosophical issue with Superman...

How can you not say they aren't essentially one and the same.

So what? That page is quite controversial itself. Because it's not clear if Batman gunned down that female mutant, or just scared her off and said "I believe you", because he knew she was bluffing.

They're absolutely not the same. I suggest you to take a better look at both. They wear the same costume or use similar tools isn't equal to the same characterization.

 

[OutOfBoose]

My bad, instead of killing the guys in the truck, he kills the guys in the car.

Point proven.

It indeed proven. it proves you didn't understand the film, but you have enough of sneering for it. Clueless hate is clueless hate. I'm not gonna waste no more time on you.

 

[MadVillainy]

It indeed proven. it proves you didn't understand the film, but you have enough of sneering for it. Clueless hate is clueless hate. I'm not gonna waste no more time on you.

C'mon...

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

it proves you didn't understand the film

The classic "it's not that the film is bad, you just didn't understand it"

 

[MadVillainy]

"you just didn't get it" is just a more polite way of saying "you're stupid" imo.

If you like the film, then great. But stop saying "You didn't get it" or "BvS is too smart for people".

It's corny, it's lazy, it's rude, and it doesn't help anything.

 

[OutOfBoose]

The classic "it's not that the film is bad, you just didn't understand it"

Well, if you tracked what he was saying, he clearly didn't pay attention to film and made up some false claims about it.

 

[OutOfBoose]

"you just didn't get it" is just a more polite way of saying "you're stupid" imo.

If you like the film, then great. But stop saying "You didn't get it" or "BvS is too smart for people".

It's corny, it's lazy, it's rude, and it doesn't help anything.

I never said it's too smart for people. I said he didn't get it. He claimed Superman is accused of killing people in Africa, but it's stupid, because they were killed by bullets. He did get it? No. False claim. He claimed Batman destroyed truck by whipping another car on it. It's also false claim.

 

[BestGirl]

I never said it's too smart for people. I said he didn't get it. He claimed Superman is accused of killing people in Africa, but it's stupid, because they were killed by bullets. He did get it? No. False claim. He claimed Batman destroyed truck by whipping another car on it. It's also false claim.

What exactly were people pissed about Superman having done in Africa? That lady at the hearing complained he was subject to no law and that was all I got out of it.

 

[shauner111]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, and that was the point -- that he was wrong and not acting like the Batman we know and love.

I'd be completely against this if there hadn't been a pretty clearly displayed character arc for Batman in the film which showed that he was wrong and needed to realize the error in his ways, change, somehow leave this dark, misguided period behind him, and go back to being the more hopeful, heroic, and level-headed person he should be.

You keep saying this, but what is so level-headed about blowing up a gas tank with Martha in the same room? Or training Robin to kill (yes, there seems to be proof of this now)? It sounds to me like he was never really level-headed. And we don't know if he ever was, for sure. The only thing we know is that he stopped himself from branding one criminal (Lex), and thinks that humanity has some good left in them. That's all.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

If these heroes won't act like the way majority of people love them, what's the point of whole shared universe?

Those brainfarts should be left in comic book world.You can take risks, make huge mistakes and just do try all over again because it's only comic books.

When it comes to movies, these are billion dollar properities.(hype or potential) Sure high risk/ high reward can happen once in a while like Nolan series but also it means more disasters like BvS or Fantastic4. Also once you failed in a franchise (or even worse in shared universe) recovery will be much more difficult compared to stand alone movies.

Look at Superman. Franchise is now pretty much dead along with the character. It could easily be another 1 billion per movie franchise but they destroyed it with bad decisions after bad decisions.

At the end of the day, it's how you operate your business. Disney plays chess and WB plays checkers in a chess match.

When i'm think about it, i'm pissed off more. It suppose to be Marvel Studios who should feel change their characters because they were left with B listers noone cares about. They remain faithful to majority and get themself a juggernaut shared universe keeps on expanding. But WB just decided to change their already well known, well loved characters just because some men just want to watch shared universe burn.

 

[Jumpman]

This thread gets more hilarious by the day....

 

[The Shape]

You keep saying this, but what is so level-headed about blowing up a gas tank with Martha in the same room? Or training Robin to kill (yes, there seems to be proof of this now)? It sounds to me like he was never really level-headed. And we don't know if he ever was, for sure. The only thing we know is that he stopped himself from branding one criminal (Lex), and thinks that humanity has some good left in them. That's all.

When I suggested he had become more level-headed, I was speaking more in a general sense and referring to things like: coming to his senses and NOT killing Superman (which he had been irrationally focused on doing for much of the film), understanding the true threat/stakes and refocusing his actions toward stopping it, developing a more reasonable and hopeful perspective about humanity and the world around him, wanting to seek out and band together with other metahumans (as opposed to wanting to seek out and destroy them), and yes, not branding Lex Luthor and seemingly leaving that whole thing behind him. You know what I meant, and yet you chose to latch on to the term "level headed" and try to disqualify it by applying it to a specific moment in the film that was unrelated to the discussion we were having.

But as for using your nitpick of the flamethrower tank moment as an example of Batman not being level-headed, Batman technically didn't blow up the gas tank. He shoots the tank, which distracts the guy holding the weapon for a second as Batman dives to cover Martha. As the guy turns back and pulls the flamethrower trigger, it explodes. But either way, this is all irrelevant, because it was a high-stakes hostage situation which required a split second decision from Batman, one in which his decision allowed him to succeed in saving that person's life. If there are ever moments in which heroes get a pass for making a risky decision to save a life, it's in moments like this one.

Do you pick up apart other high-stakes situations in action/fantasy movies (which feature protagonists making split-second, dangerous decisions to save lives) like you are with this one based on what "could have" happened? Would you criticize Bale's Batman for not being level-headed when he knocked Harvey Dent and Gordon's son off a building (killing Dent) with the intention of miraculously grabbing the boy with one arm to save him from getting a bullet to the head? Because I wouldn't. There are probably countless movie examples of characters making risky decisions to save lives, decisions that could have gone south (and probably would have) in real life.

As for the "Batman trained Robin to be a killer" thing, you seem to have a habit of choosing to believe whatever you want to believe even when there is no evidence of something, so I have no interest in trying to dissuade you from believing this one. But the "proof" you're referring to is one click-bait "article" from today which chose to focus on the weapon displayed with the Robin suit and uses nothing but pure conjecture to speculate on how Robin used the weapon. This is the same weapon that we have all seen in multiple trailers (dating back to the SDCC trailer) and the film itself, and there is absolutely zero actual information which refers to Robin having killed people or Batman training him to be a killer, or even vaguely suggests as much.

But hey, this one guy who wrote an article about it thinks it's true, so it's gotta be true, I guess.