BvS Batman v Superman & The Dark Knight Returns - let's clear something up... [SPOILERS]

Yes, this is actually one of the reasons this specific "kill" does not bother me near as much as ALL the others.

Um, no.
First off, Burton's Batman killed FAR more directly than this.
So did Batffleck, just not with this particular one. Unlike the people he had just mowed down outside the warehouse.

Also, citing the mistakes of previous adaptations is not an argument, it's pointing out the failure to learn from past mistakes.

 

But isn't that the point a little.

Folk tales handed down thru time get adapted and embellished upon each telling?

Look at the atrocity Robin Hood !

Of course Maid Marian was a freekin warrior !

And THAT was Ridley Scott!

And of course Alice was also a warrior in Wonderland... thank you Tim Burton !


My point being that "adaptations" are just that.

Homage is homage, not a literal facsimile.

I know you all are disappointed that it did not fulfill your "expected" fantasy movie dreams but it is not "that" story...it is 'this" story.

Try and enjoy it for what it is...

 

When Snyder was filming the movie people from DC comic people that helped him with the movie even told him that Batman shoots the mutant right between the eyes.

And they even told Snyder to have Batman shoot the guy right between the eyes, but Snyder said no and he won't be that guy that has Batman straight up shoot a guy.

So instead he opted for the gas tank on the back which is his way of saying Batman still has his morals and code. Not an unbreakable code but just a code in general.

So even the people from DC that live and breath this stuff for a living and help others understand the comics and the characters told him to do it.

 

It is only a mistake in your eyes because it doesn't faithfully reproduce "your" vision of the character.

It can't be a "mistake" when it was the intention. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean it's a mistake.

It is still reasonable action for this story...and cool looking.

 

I don't think that is entirely true. He does reference TDKR and points to it as justification but also added that he wanted to illustrate Batman's fall into darkness and then his redemption. He DID give up on his code...for a time. This is not a bad thing for a morality tale.

Remember the Zefram Cochran scenes from ST. The crew reveres him because they only see the "legend", but at that time, he is the man...with the warts. Then they see him for what he is and that takes him down a notch in their eyes. That's what I feel the "harsh" critics of BvS are doing.

 

That's not true. He said his "crew" who are also "comic book readers." No reference to DC comics employees, writers or artists.

 

BvS...and it is only showing a slice of time. It is implied by Alfred that his brutality is new.

And again,,, it is not a direct copy of TDKR so it can't be a disconnect...only a disappointment to some.

 

Then what is it there to show?

By the way:
Lethal force or Deadly force is defined as: an amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.

Shooting someone in the shoulder with a machine gun is very much lethal or deadly force. Blowing someone's shoulder open is very much "serious bodily injury". To say otherwise is really, really splitting hairs. Whether the guy actually DIES or not is somewhat irrelevant to whether the force used is considered lethal or deadly.

The book shows the scenario where there is seemingly no other option. It's not a story Zack made up, people have posted scans of it here today. What do you think that scenario is about, if not to illustrate limited options to resolve the situation?

 

i'm ok with how he took out kgbeast in the movie. because an innocent life was in imminent danger.

even the original incarnation of batman from 1939 killed bad guys when innocent or batman's own life was at stake.

i feel the more problematic scenes were when he blew up lex's goons or blew up lexcorp security...just to steal the kryptonite.
no innocents were in immediate danger at that point.
and that's the parts that do not jive with batman's MO in majority of his incarnations.

 

He's not using TDKR to justify Batman killing.

If anything, he's using past versions of the character to show that Batman has killed before, and it has been accepted. That's not TDKR. That's past film versions of the character.

But if you'll notice, he never actually justifies Batman killing. Has anyone noticed this? Snyder has never actually come right out and said "Batman was right to do this".

Snyder has never said this. What he has said is that Batman goes as far as he needs to in a specific situation, which he recreated within the film. The scene in question illustrates this.

 

I didn't say he did. Nor was the context of the argument we were having about the specific scene Snyder drew from and why he used it.

 

Are people truly comparing the Batman to The Punisher? If you don't know the difference between the two, i can explain it to you.

 

And even though this thread is not about Superman, superman said he never killed either but some critics ignore this and don't believe him.
Maybe Batman is lying?
Maybe he doesn't think that kind of killing breaks his code. Maybe he only has a code with murder and not killing?

 

Yeah..it's all funny games. Batman does stuff that would obviously kill a person, but we're supposed to believe the person didn't die. Ok, that's fine. But does that change the fact that the intention is there? Since yesterday i'm still waiting for anyone to explain this to me. He is not a killer, but he purposely does stuff that would easily kill a person? If someone tries to rape you but you get away, is that person not a rapist to you? I don't understand the logic behind all this.

 

Peter Benchly was upset with Spielberg at his "adaptation" of JAWS.

He later regretted writing the book because he thought it gave sharks a bad name.

Spielberg had the Shark doing things no real shark would or could do...but it was movie plausible.

Point is that some movies are "whale tales" and are for entertainment.

Enjoy the "what if" and ignore that fact that the tossing around Supes did to Bats would have certainly killed anyone.

Bats couldn't have possibly moved in that suit... but it's looks cool and we say...imagine if...

Maybe people know too much about this subject and characters. They are beloved.

Any time we see a different take on the subject, we don't like it. It's messing with our understanding and beliefs... it makes us question and wonder at it's best. I know many don't think BvS is the best, but it is one view and it was done well for what it is.

Clearly missing some shots but over all not nearly a bad film.

 

What a character was at its creation and what they are at their most iconic nature are two very different things. Batman may have killed early on, but the Batman (and Superman) that we all know to be the beloved mainstream iteration is the one that doesn't kill.

 

Funny what superman goes on to commit to doing at the end of this book.

Folks, preconceptions aside, the movie isn't about batman as you know him. It makes that very clear so all of this is kinda moot no? I mean that literally, it's about a batman that is broken, angry and desperate enough to not be as he used to. If you don't like it that's all well and good but this whole thing just seems like a tangled mess of expectation vs valued deconstruction.
$0.02

 

He intends to bring down the UN on the delegates but doesn't because Norman McKay talks him out of it. So he doesn't kill.