BvS Ben Affleck IS Batman - Part 10

[TheFlamingCoco]

Its why Batman and the Joker are opposites. Both are psychologically broken by tragedy. Batman reacts by imposing rules upon himself and trying to prevent his trauma from befalling others. The Joker reacts by seeing the world as a meaningless chaotic joke and inflicting his trauma on others. Basically Bruce's parents death is the most meaningful moment in his life. The loss of their lives impacted him so greatly that he cannot bring himself to inflict loss of life on anyone else, no matter how evil. The Joker, on the other hand, came to view his own trauma as meaningless in order to cope with it. He inflicts loss of life on others joyfully, because it is ultimately meaningless to him - just a joke.

Its why Joker always wants Bats to kill him. That would bring him to Joker's side of the spectrum. But Batman will never do that. And Batman wants Joker to be redeemed, to come to his side of the spectrum. But Joker cannot do that. So they are literally deadlocked. Neither can overcome the other.

I always think that Joker arranges his life so that he can never lose, which ironically prevents him from ever having a true sense of victory.

EG. He wants to..either kill Batman..or be killed by Batman..or humiliate Batman by succeeding.

I don't think he cares a LOT about the first because I think he finds Batman entertaining to have around. I think doing the second allows him to "beat Batman" by making him compromise his identity, and the third one HAS happened (killing Jason Todd is a good example) and can always happen in the future.

I think he'd get mad if someone else actually killed him, but at the same time, I think he find Batman an annoyance that he's accustomed too.

That explains why he has elaborate death traps (to test Batman, if Bats dies, he "wins" one part of his life goal) but doesn't "just shoot him."

 

[ThePhantasm]

I always think that Joker arranges his life so that he can never lose, which ironically prevents him from ever having a true sense of victory.

EG. He wants to..either kill Batman..or be killed by Batman..or humiliate Batman by succeeding.

I don't think he cares a LOT about the first because I think he finds Batman entertaining to have around. I think doing the second allows him to "beat Batman" by making him compromise his identity, and the third one HAS happened (killing Jason Todd is a good example) and can always happen in the future.

I think he'd get mad if someone else actually killed him, but at the same time, I think he find Batman an annoyance that he's accustomed too.

That explains why he has elaborate death traps (to test Batman, if Bats dies, he "wins" one part of his life goal) but doesn't "just shoot him."

Yes, the "humiliate Batman" goal he thinks he's done before. He usually only wants to "kill Batman" if they basically go out together, as life without Batman would be a lot less fun. I'm not sure what the heck he would do if one of his death-traps ever actually worked... I think he'd find it hilariously anti-climactic at first and then would fall into some sort of depression. "Be killed by Batman" is the ultimate goal, the one that "humiliate Batman" is meant to drive Batman to do in my opinion.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ I always think of the Joker as being not very concrete in terms of consistency. That's probably why I'm not as bothered by the changes to the character in the movies as I am for Bats

 

[ThePhantasm]

I think Joker is pretty consistent in some ways. He's a total narcissist, which is why his killing usually involves putting his face onto others, regardless of the interpretation of the character (joker gas or even just with a knife). He loves to drive people to insanity and wants others to get the "joke," which is why Batman is such an intriguing opponent to him because Bats is so humorless.

At the same time, he's all over the board in terms of his plans and schemes, and you're right that he usually manipulates each scheme so that every possible outcome is some sort of "win" in his eyes... even if it is just getting to play with Batman some more for a little while.

 

[Herolee10]

Just to be clear, I wasn't asking that Batman should start killing off his foes.

I was just saying that having Batman go out of his way to save a villain, that's beyond hope, just doesn't make sense.

I mean it's one thing if he has to save a villain if innocent people are going to be caught in the crossfire, or if he has to prevent another villain from gaining too much power if they (the said villain) were to kill off one of his/her competitors.

But it's totally another thing if Batman jumps off a building that explodes, due to Joker's bombs, in order to save the Joker.

I don't call that heroic at all. Batman may be fragile and damaged inside, but to have him go out of his way and save villains that should have died through natural means or other forces doesn't make him a hero in my book at all personally.

Again, I'm not saying that Batman should kill...but having him needlessly saving the life of a villain who cannot be saved and who will only kill people...DOESN'T make him a hero at all.

He just manages chaos and in the end, no matter how much he wants to justify that he's doing this out of his own moral code and that he's trying to prevent people from suffering his own trauma...he's actually letting the possibility of more people experiencing his trauma become a inevitable thing.

And some may love that about Batman's character...but by no means again...should that version of Batman be called a real "hero".

 

[ThePhantasm]

Batman doesn't exactly go "out of his way" to save villains. For example, if he and a villain are in an exploding building together, Batman gets outta there and the villain's death is left ambiguous. But if a villain is hanging off a ledge and Batman is safe, Bats is going to save that villain. That's who he is. Life is important to him because of what I mentioned above... he is so psychologically scarred by his parents' loss of life that he can't bear to think of himself as intentionally responsible for loss of life, even if it is only intentionally standing by.

Your version of Batman would be Jean Paul Valley. Abattoir was dangling by a chain over lava. He was a serial killer and deserved to die. And Jean Paul let him fall into the lava and die. Because he's not Bruce Wayne.

I'm not saying Bruce's decision is always the right one. Sometimes its pretty morally grey. But its because of his own internal demons and issues. He's driven by this in a way that no other hero is.

 

[Jekecy]

I'm not sure what the heck he would do if one of his death-traps ever actually worked... I think he'd find it hilariously anti-climactic at first and then would fall into some sort of depression. "Be killed by Batman" is the ultimate goal, the one that "humiliate Batman" is meant to drive Batman to do in my opinion.

During Morrison's Batman run, when it appeared Bruce had died, Joker reinvented himself to be his own quasi-vigilante and fight off other villains.

Again, I'm not saying that Batman should kill...but having him needlessly saving the life of a villain who cannot be saved and who will only kill people...DOESN'T make him a hero at all.

He just manages chaos and in the end, no matter how much he wants to justify that he's doing this out of his own moral code and that he's trying to prevent people from suffering his own trauma...he's actually letting the possibility of more people experiencing his trauma become a inevitable thing.

And some may love that about Batman's character...but by no means again...should that version of Batman be called a real "hero".

A hero is universally defined as an individual willing to go above and beyond what a typical person would do, notably in moments of crises. Courage and bravery are definable traits. Considering the average and sensible person would likely leave someone like Joker to perish, while Batman goes out of his way to do the exact opposite, precisely singles Batman out as a hero.

The biggest arguments against the no-kill policy are to reference two "facts": said person is irredeemable, or said person will always get out of imprisonment. Consequences being loss of life time and time again. Neither are inherent facts.

Firstly, from outside context, there will never be a scenario where Joker's reign of terror ends. Doing so effectively kills off the most popular comic book villain there. Business wise it's utter madness. As such, these stories are always designed to provide Batman a number of nutjobs to face off on a monthly basis. That's just the nature of the medium. Providing a solution means the end. That obviously cannot occur. Secondly, within the context of that universe, tomorrow is never defined. Meaning there will always remain the possibility of redemption and/or Gotham actually gets its laws and security systems set properly. As long as these possibilities exist, it's just not feasible for Bruce to create a solution that involves loss of life. It's simply incompatible with his overall way of operation.

I always loved in BTAS where in a moment of reflection (upon capture) Harvey/Two-Face notes how Bruce always stuck by him. This serenity didn't last (obviously), but it showcases the compassion and unshakeable faith Bruce has in the human spirit. While short-lived it confirmed for him (and us) that there is a light at the end of that dark tunnel. Above all else that maxim has defined his superior fortitude. Not many people, given easier out's, would choose the honorable route.

 

[MrsKent26]

During Morrison's Batman run, when it appeared Bruce had died, Joker reinvented himself to be his own quasi-vigilante and fight off other villains.

That is neat! So yin and yang.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yeah, maybe Joker will get depressed, maybe he'll reinvent himself... either way, its going to be a psychological shock if Batman "dies."

 

[roach]

Yeah, maybe Joker will get depressed, maybe he'll reinvent himself... either way, its going to be a psychological shock if Batman "dies."

which is what he did when Batman retired...in the Dark Knight Returns.

 

[Herolee10]

Batman doesn't exactly go "out of his way" to save villains. For example, if he and a villain are in an exploding building together, Batman gets outta there and the villain's death is left ambiguous. But if a villain is hanging off a ledge and Batman is safe, Bats is going to save that villain. That's who he is. Life is important to him because of what I mentioned above... he is so psychologically scarred by his parents' loss of life that he can't bear to think of himself as intentionally responsible for loss of life, even if it is only intentionally standing by.

Your version of Batman would be Jean Paul Valley. Abattoir was dangling by a chain over lava. He was a serial killer and deserved to die. And Jean Paul let him fall into the lava and die. Because he's not Bruce Wayne.

I'm not saying Bruce's decision is always the right one. Sometimes its pretty morally grey. But its because of his own internal demons and issues. He's driven by this in a way that no other hero is.

Well when it comes to Batman, contradictions are his specialty at times.

Like you mentioned, since Batman is so scarred by the loss of his parents, he refuses to allow someone to die in front of him...thus will save anyone if he's in a position to do so, regardless of who they are.

And yet at the same time, it's by saving some of those individuals, namely villains, that ends up with more lives being lost in the process.

Heck, it's even brought up by Superman in the "Injustice" games that if Batman had allow the Joker to die a long time ago, then Metropolis and Lois would still be alive, and Superman wouldn't have gone down the wrong path as a result of his own loss.

That's why I have a hard time looking at versions of Batman, where he's willing to save even the most irredeemable villains, because that doesn't make him a hero in my book at least. He just ends up becoming a tool that allows the villains to kill more people...and their blood will be on Batman's hands. And with that, does he even have the right to call himself a hero if he continues to unintentionally aid villains in allowing more people to die?

There's a reason why Gotham always looks like crap, despite how many years Batman gave his service to it.

Another note, I just realize that it's just amusing to see on how the Joker is pretty much the only main villain that Batman allowed to live (saved) in Nolan's franchise, whereas he had no real problem with either killing off or letting the other main villains die.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yeah, The Dark Knight Returns is what I was alluding to... I feel like there was also another story it happened in, though I can't remember what it was.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Like you mentioned, since Batman is so scarred by the loss of his parents, he refuses to allow someone to die in front of him...thus will save anyone if he's in a position to do so, regardless of who they are.

And yet at the same time, it's by saving some of those individuals, namely villains, that ends up with more lives being lost in the process.

True, but in Bruce's mind there's a sliver of hope that this person will be redeemed rather than killing again. I think Bruce takes the privatio boni view of evil: evil is the absence of good. But anything that exists is by nature good. Ultimate evil is nothingness. Life is by definition a good. So therefore any human being who is alive has something good in them worth saving, and thus has the potential to be redeemed.

Heck, it's even brought up by Superman in the "Injustice" games that if Batman had allow the Joker to die a long time ago, then Metropolis and Lois would still be alive, and Superman wouldn't have gone down the wrong path as a result of his own loss.

Yes. Superman is a much more practical hero. He doesn't have the same psychological hang-ups that Batman has, therefore he is able to allow himself to kill as a last resort, whether it is Zod or Doomsday or whoever, in order to prevent widespread loss of life. This is actually a reason why Batman sees Clark as dangerous. He sees Clark's killing as a potential slippery slope to worse acts of prevention... tyrannical acts.

That's why I have a hard time looking at versions of Batman, where he's willing to save even the most irredeemable villains, because that doesn't make him a hero in my book at least. He just ends up becoming a tool that allows the villains to kill more people...and their blood will be on Batman's hands. And with that, does he even have the right to call himself a hero if he continues to unintentionally aid villains in allowing more people to die?

He doesn't aid villains though. In the real world Joker wouldn't be repeatedly placed in Arkham, he'd be placed in a high security prison from which there would be no escape. Or executed.

But in Gotham the world works in a screwy way in order for comic books to continue and for Batman to face his villains again. Its something you have to suspend your disbelief over for the sake of the story. Gotham is more about a philosophical battle over good and evil than it is about the physical battle. Its the world, symbolically, in microcosm. Good people keep working to prevent evil, and evil keeps coming back.

Another note, I just realize that it's just amusing to see on how the Joker is pretty much the only main villain that Batman allowed to live (saved) in Nolan's franchise, whereas he had no real problem with either killing off or letting the other main villains die.

Yes, that's one of the baffling aspects of the trilogy. They wrote themselves into a corner with all that. And Batman basically kills Talia directly, when you think about it. Shoots rockets at the front of the truck!!!

 

[Herolee10]

True, but in Bruce's mind there's a sliver of hope that this person will be redeemed rather than killing again. I think Bruce takes the privatio boni view of evil: evil is the absence of good. But anything that exists is by nature good. Ultimate evil is nothingness. Life is by definition a good. So therefore any human being who is alive has something good in them worth saving, and thus has the potential to be redeemed.



Yes. Superman is a much more practical hero. He doesn't have the same psychological hang-ups that Batman has, therefore he is able to allow himself to kill as a last resort, whether it is Zod or Doomsday or whoever, in order to prevent widespread loss of life. This is actually a reason why Batman sees Clark as dangerous. He sees Clark's killing as a potential slippery slope to worse acts of prevention... tyrannical acts.



He doesn't aid villains though. In the real world Joker wouldn't be repeatedly placed in Arkham, he'd be placed in a high security prison from which there would be no escape. Or executed.

But in Gotham the world works in a screwy way in order for comic books to continue and for Batman to face his villains again. Its something you have to suspend your disbelief over for the sake of the story. Gotham is more about a philosophical battle over good and evil than it is about the physical battle. Its the world, symbolically, in microcosm. Good people keep working to prevent evil, and evil keeps coming back.



Yes, that's one of the baffling aspects of the trilogy. They wrote themselves into a corner with all that. And Batman basically kills Talia directly, when you think about it. Shoots rockets at the front of the truck!!!

I gotta admit, you do make one hell of a compelling argument.

Yeah, I can agree with everything that you just said. Though it's weird in a sense where even though, as you mentioned, Batman looks for the good in villains, in the same time..... isn't he supposed to be the kind of person that never allows things to chance and that he never gives anyone his trust unless they've proven it to him that they're worth it? With all of the analysis and research that he does into anyone's given background due him his natural tendency to distrust people, it's just weird that he'd give villains that second look in life.

Also, it seems like Gotham is forever screwed to be in that hell due to what others have said on it being the nature of comic books and how they need to keep it that way in order to tell more stories.

 

[MrsKent26]

True, but in Bruce's mind there's a sliver of hope that this person will be redeemed rather than killing again. I think Bruce takes the privatio boni view of evil: evil is the absence of good. But anything that exists is by nature good. Ultimate evil is nothingness. Life is by definition a good. So therefore any human being who is alive has something good in them worth saving, and thus has the potential to be redeemed.



Yes. Superman is a much more practical hero. He doesn't have the same psychological hang-ups that Batman has, therefore he is able to allow himself to kill as a last resort, whether it is Zod or Doomsday or whoever, in order to prevent widespread loss of life. This is actually a reason why Batman sees Clark as dangerous. He sees Clark's killing as a potential slippery slope to worse acts of prevention... tyrannical acts.



He doesn't aid villains though. In the real world Joker wouldn't be repeatedly placed in Arkham, he'd be placed in a high security prison from which there would be no escape. Or executed.

But in Gotham the world works in a screwy way in order for comic books to continue and for Batman to face his villains again. Its something you have to suspend your disbelief over for the sake of the story. Gotham is more about a philosophical battle over good and evil than it is about the physical battle. Its the world, symbolically, in microcosm. Good people keep working to prevent evil, and evil keeps coming back.



Yes, that's one of the baffling aspects of the trilogy. They wrote themselves into a corner with all that. And Batman basically kills Talia directly, when you think about it. Shoots rockets at the front of the truck!!!

You know, I would watch a Batman movie by you. I'd watch it and I'd like it. I didn't hate Nolan's version. In fact, I love the Dark Knight and was quite fond of BB. Parts of TDKR were great, others not so much. But I really like this angle you have on Batman.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yeah, I can agree with everything that you just said. Though it's weird in a sense where even though, as you mentioned, Batman looks for the good in villains, in the same time..... isn't he supposed to be the kind of person that never allows things to chance and that he never gives anyone his trust unless they've proven it to him that they're worth it? With all of the analysis and research that he does into anyone's given background due him his natural tendency to distrust people, it's just weird that he'd give villains that second look in life.

I think that's one of the more interesting aspects of the character. He believes in offering people the opportunity for redemption, no matter how slim that opportunity may be. At the same time, he's not a naïve optimist. He knows the blackness of the human heart. He's cynical about whether others can be trusted. He's just as aware of the potential for corruption. He's definitely a realist in that sense. But he still fights for the redemption of others and of Gotham, in the face of all those odds. This is the guy who prepares just in case Superman goes rogue... but also continually tries to bring his friend Harvey Dent back to the light. He understands that this is a broken world. He understands how evil can take over someone. But he still wants to help them overcome it. Its a really fascinating dynamic, and you are right that it causes tensions for his character, but they are tensions in which you can tell some really interesting stories.

 

[charl_huntress]

I think that's one of the more interesting aspects of the character. He believes in offering people the opportunity for redemption, no matter how slim that opportunity may be. At the same time, he's not a naïve optimist. He knows the blackness of the human heart. He's cynical about whether others can be trusted. He's just as aware of the potential for corruption. He's definitely a realist in that sense. But he still fights for the redemption of others and of Gotham, in the face of all those odds. This is the guy who prepares just in case Superman goes rogue... but also continually tries to bring his friend Harvey Dent back to the light. He understands that this is a broken world. He understands how evil can take over someone. But he still wants to help them overcome it. Its a really fascinating dynamic, and you are right that it causes tensions for his character, but they are tensions in which you can tell some really interesting stories.

Excellent stuff here Phantasm...really great points.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Thanks!

 

[TheNextNolan22]

Your avy Phantasm. t:

 

[ThePhantasm]

One of the more brilliant scenes of Bruce fighting for someone's redemption is when he fights Az-Bat in the Batcave. Basically Jean Paul Valley has been living in the Batman costume and being consumed by that identity as Batman. He's obsessed with it. And he's also being controlled by his Azrael "programming" to be violent and merciless against criminals. People are dead because of him. Bruce realizes that to save Jean Paul he has to break the hold that this delusion has on him. So he crawls through the tunnels, forcing Jean Paul to take off the armor bit by bit, so that he only has the helmet on. Then he opens an entry way and blinds Azrael with the light of the sun. He takes off the Bat-helmet and realizes he is just Jean Paul Valley, and that BRUCE is the true Batman. The delusion gets broken. And in that moment he realizes WHO Batman is - in that defining moment Bruce is Batman, standing in the light, because he worked for Jean Paul's redemption rather than destroying him. Its a powerfully symbolic moment, best part of the Knightfall storyline in my opinion.

Jean Paul: "You'll take me to the police?"

Bruce: "No. I probably should but I won't. A long time ago, I fell through that opening. I haven't really ever stopped falling. Maybe it is time to go the other way..."

[they climb out of the opening, into the sun]

Bruce: "... time for both of us to leave the dark. You were wrong when you said you're nothing. You just don't know who you are - who you might become. But you can learn. It won't be easy and you might fail, but you've got to try."

Jean Paul: "Then you... forgive me?"

Bruce: "Yes. I suppose I do. Some day, I may even forgive myself. Go now. And don't ever look back. I wish you well."

 

[ThePhantasm]

Your avy Phantasm. t:

ha, thanks!

 

[MrsKent26]

One of the more brilliant scenes of Bruce fighting for someone's redemption is when he fights Az-Bat in the Batcave. Basically Jean Paul Valley has been living in the Batman costume and being consumed by that identity as Batman. He's obsessed with it. And he's also being controlled by his Azrael "programming" to be violent and merciless against criminals. People are dead because of him. Bruce realizes that to save Jean Paul he has to break the hold that this delusion has on him. So he crawls through the tunnels, forcing Jean Paul to take off the armor bit by bit, so that he only has the helmet on. Then he opens an entry way and blinds Azrael with the light of the sun. He takes off the Bat-helmet and realizes he is just Jean Paul Valley, and that BRUCE is the true Batman. The delusion gets broken. And in that moment he realizes WHO Batman is - in that defining moment Bruce is Batman, standing in the light, because he worked for Jean Paul's redemption rather than destroying him. Its a powerfully symbolic moment, best part of the Knightfall storyline in my opinion.

Jean Paul: "You'll take me to the police?"

Bruce: "No. I probably should but I won't. A long time ago, I fell through that opening. I haven't really ever stopped falling. Maybe it is time to go the other way..."

[they climb out of the opening, into the sun]

Bruce: "... time for both of us to leave the dark. You were wrong when you said you're nothing. You just don't know who you are - who you might become. But you can learn. It won't be easy and you might fail, but you've got to try."

Jean Paul: "Then you... forgive me?"

Bruce: "Yes. I suppose I do. Some day, I may even forgive myself. Go now. And don't ever look back. I wish you well."

I hope they pick up on this redemption angle and how important it is to batman in this movie. It could really make for some interesting debates between bats and Supes.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yeah, I'm not sure how it will work exactly with Affleck's Batman being older. Generally the older Batman gets the more cynical he gets. Sometimes it takes someone like Dick or Clark or Terry to remind him what he was fighting for in the first place.

Like in that Batman Beyond episode where Terry thinks Mr. Freeze may be reforming, and Bruce thinks Freeze will just return to his old ways. In a sense they were both right... Freeze was trying to become a good person but he gets wronged again and goes out for revenge. Bruce and Terry converse:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0175834/?ref_=tt_trv_quBruce: He'll be back. Count on it. He lives for revenge.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0295115/?ref_=tt_trv_quTerry: Not the Victor Fries I met.
Bruce: What you met was a ghost.

Terry tries to save Freeze's life as a building is about to explode, and there is this heartbreaking exchange:

Batman: You've got to get out of here, Freeze! The whole place is going to go!
Mr. Freeze: Believe me, you're the only one who cares.

In the end, Terry and Bruce talk again:

Terry: I guess you were right about Freeze all along.
Bruce: We both were.

That's the duality of Batman. Bruce is right to think that Freeze will probably go back to his old ways again. But Terry reminded him that it is also right to hope that Freeze will be redeemed and to see that potential.

I think its possible that Affleck's Bruce may be in a dark place at the beginning of this film, and Superman brings some light back into his life and makes him remember what he was fighting for in the first place.

 

[MrsKent26]

^ That's how I would play it too. When I first heard people suggest that Batman might teach Clark something, I didn't like the idea. I thought it would be demeaning or something. But now I think that they should learn from each other.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yeah, they constantly teach each other stuff... being opposites in so many ways they learn a lot from each other. It is why I'm happy they are doing a Batman / Superman film before Justice League... their complex relationship is the heart of the League and it deserves some special care to get it right. (At least I'm hoping this is a Batman / Superman movie and not a Justice League movie...!)