BvS Ben Affleck IS Batman - - - - - - - - - - - Part 38

[craigaat]

I don't see why people keep bringing the previous Batmen up as if it's not possible we have the same problems with those versions too. People act as though if you don't like Batflecks characterization you must love all the other ones. That's the worst thing about Batfleck. He was our chance to finally get the real Batman on screen, but it's wasted potential because certain people deliberately made decisions that would rob us of that.

The real Batman? You know he killed people in the comics, right?

 

[Sterling Archer]

The real Batman? You know he killed people in the comics, right?

Oh my god how many times do I have to say this. Yes. We all know Batman has killed before. But there is no argument that can be made to convince me a Batman that kills is the definitive version of the character, or even an interpretation that's generally accepted, or even an interesting version of the character.

 

[FunkMiller]

Oh my god how many times do I have to say this. Yes. We all know Batman has killed before. But there is no argument that can be made to convince me a Batman that kills is the definitive version of the character, or even an interpretation that's generally accepted, or even an interesting version of the character.

I never realised how many people had no problem with Batman being a killer. I always thought most Bat fans shared my opinion that the no kill policy was an intrinsic part of the character. Obviously wrong!

 

[matt47]

You know why I like the no killing rule? Because it makes the stories more fun. It gives Batman a weakness. An ultimatum. We never would have gotten Under the Red Hood if he just killed.
It's like the web shooters for Spidey. Stan Lee wanted to give him web shooters instead of organic because it makes it more exciting! They can run out, they can get broken. He could get caught in a mess as Peter Parker and not be able to use web.

 

[AnneFan]

Seems like Suicide Squad Batman has the guns off the Batmobile. So it seems we're getting an arc of sorts here. Superman's death inspiring him to lighten up a tad, perhaps.

 

[FunkMiller]

You know why I like the no killing rule? Because it makes the stories more fun. It gives Batman a weakness. An ultimatum. We never would have gotten Under the Red Hood if he just killed.
It's like the web shooters for Spidey. Stan Lee wanted to give him web shooters instead of organic because it makes it more exciting! They can run out, they can get broken. He could get caught in a mess as Peter Parker and not be able to use web.

Great point. All heroes need a weakness. The no kill rule is Batman's. It's also damn cool. He's so afraid of becoming a monster himself that he won't take a life? Amazing.

 

[MoPlaYa]

You have to accept that this is not the comics. It's just not. It's a bit more grounded in reality. You have to accept it and leave your comfort zone. I was born in 77. Been a Bat fan my whole life. It is what it is. Things change. In this movie he kills a few criminals. I suspect that won't happen moving forward. He was shown having lost faith in everything, but Supes changed him.

Well said!

 

[Hotwire]

I don't see why people keep bringing the previous Batmen up as if it's not possible we have the same problems with those versions too. People act as though if you don't like Batflecks characterization you must love all the other ones. That's the worst thing about Batfleck. He was our chance to finally get the real Batman on screen, but it's wasted potential because certain people deliberately made decisions that would rob us of that.

I pointed it out because I didn't want people to think that this Batman was the only one who has killed on screen. I was simply showing that Keaton's Batman not only killed but, seemed to enjoy it.

 

[spider-neil]

People can interpret the movie any way they choose but what I got was Bruce had been pushed over the edge and his principles went out the window as a result. Some of it is overt like Robin's costume and Alfred's monologue about good men turning cruel when they are powerless, and some of it is subtext.

For me, this is interesting take and that's how I see this version, an Elseworlds story.
And before someone brings up Schumacher as a 'take' on Batman, well, I enjoyed Batfleck's take.

 

[spider-neil]

Also, if it's a choice of a Batman movie in 2017 vs a JL movie in 2017 then I want a Batman movie.
A JL movie in a year sounds way too short a time frame to do it justice (see what I did there ).

Batman in a year sounds perfectly feasible especially since Affleck's script is done and all the sets of the Cave, the costume are already done.

 

[Hotwire]

Here's another theory...

This Batman has been doing this for 20 years. It's no coincidence that we were shown that Robin suit. Perhaps, this Batman has already gone through the events of Under the Red Hood in a way. Only, in this world, he was there when Jason is "killed" and it's his One Rule that ends up leading to Jason's death. The rule fails him. This could be motivation to change his rules.

 

[matt47]

I'd like that Hotwire.
Did anyone else think the placement of showing the Robin suit and him looking at the batsuit to be weird? I'd have liked it to be like in the teaser, Alfred saying it to Bruce while looking at the Batsuit, then he turns around looks at the Robin suit and continues.

 

[elgaz]

If a cop kills a criminal in order to save lives or defends his own, he's hailed a hero.

Yet some fans go up in arms over the fact that their favourite superhero would do the same, as if he's somehow betrayed his beliefs and become a criminal himself. I find it ridiculous. These modern superhero films may be comic based, but they've become much more gritty and much more 'real-world' than the likes of the 90s, or earlier versions. Having a superhero who refuses to do any real harm to his opponent (even to save hundreds or thousands of lives) completely goes against that style, and makes the motivations of those involved harder to buy.

Having this kind of moral hand-tied-behind-the-back approach is fine in the comics, where writers need their rosters of villains to survive for years so more stories can be told, but for a film franchise with a beginning and end I see no need for it.

 

[matt47]

Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine. Next Batman movie we shall have Batman go around Gotham with a checklist with all his most interesting villains and a pistol.

 

[elgaz]

Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine. Next Batman movie we shall have Batman go around Gotham with a checklist with all his most interesting villains and a pistol.

Oh please, enough of the dramatics. Saying I don't have a problem with Batman resorting to killing the odd criminal putting his life in immediate danger, is a bit different to saying he should walk round with a gun shooting his entire roster of villains.

 

[morningmimosa]

Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine. Next Batman movie we shall have Batman go around Gotham with a checklist with all his most interesting villains and a pistol.

Hyperbole has gotten strong with you.

 

[baerrtt]

If a cop kills a criminal in order to save lives or defends his own, he's hailed a hero.

Yet some fans go up in arms over the fact that their favourite superhero would do the same, as if he's somehow betrayed his beliefs and become a criminal himself. I find it ridiculous. These modern superhero films may be comic based, but they've become much more gritty and much more 'real-world' than the likes of the 90s, or earlier versions. Having a superhero who refuses to do any real harm to his opponent (even to save hundreds or thousands of lives) completely goes against that style, and makes the motivations of those involved harder to buy.

Having this kind of moral hand-tied-behind-the-back approach is fine in the comics, where writers need their rosters of villains to survive for years so more stories can be told, but for a film franchise with a beginning and end I see no need for it.

Considering some of the controversy we've had over the last 2 years with cops killing unarmed people because they were 'defending' themselves perhaps that's not the best example.

It boils down to some fans simply wanting these adaptations to acknowledge the crucial 'no kill' morality characters like Batman or Superman have shown for decades.

If writers and directors are increasingly staying faithful to the source material to an extent why do they always have convenient, cynical (and's that just Snyder) excuses when people voice their displeasure at certain super heroes being made indistinguishable from every gun toting big screen hero there is.

 

[AnneFan]

Oh please, enough of the dramatics. Saying I don't have a problem with Batman resorting to killing the odd criminal putting his life in immediate danger, is a bit different to saying he should walk round with a gun shooting his entire roster of villains.

Indeed. It's getting silly now, and overstated. Nor is every single user grossly offended by Batman's actions in the film.

 

[matt47]

Oh please, enough of the dramatics. Saying I don't have a problem with Batman resorting to killing the odd criminal putting his life in immediate danger, is a bit different to saying he should walk round with a gun shooting his entire roster of villains.

Yeah but the only time I felt he was in immediate danger was when the thug had a grenade. That's the only kill I was okay about.

 

[Sterling Archer]

Yet some fans go up in arms over the fact that their favourite superhero would do the same, as if he's somehow betrayed his beliefs and become a criminal himself. I find it ridiculous. These modern superhero films may be comic based, but they've become much more gritty and much more 'real-world' than the likes of the 90s, or earlier versions. Having a superhero who refuses to do any real harm to his opponent (even to save hundreds or thousands of lives) completely goes against that style, and makes the motivations of those involved harder to buy.

In a perfect democratic system a cop is a citizen given authority by an elected system of government, and must be held accountable for their actions to the letter of the law. This is what gives them the right to use lethal force when absolutely necessary.

Batman is a private citizen operating outside of the law as a vigilante using military grade hardware, and is not accountable as he has a secret identity. He does not have the authority to decide who lives and who dies. And as an aside, his own personal morality does not allow him to take a life based on his own backstory.

That's the difference.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

I wish they would've hinted at the no kill rule that used to be in place for him. Or treated it similarly how marvel did the incredible hulk, where everyone was maimed and or narrowly escaped oblivion (watch it closely and see he actually doesnt kill).

 

[spider-neil]

Also, I had way more of a problem with 'I wont kill you but I don't have to save you' then anything Batman did in BvS.

At no point in BvS does Batman state he has a no killing policy. He is 20 years on from the young idealistic Batman, who knows what has happened to him in that time. But in Batman Begins, Batman stated his philosophy and then ignored it which absolutely infuriated me at the time.

 

[Rodrigo90]

They wanted to go the MOS route and portray it in a darker shade. The intention was to have Batman kill. Just like the intention was to have Superman kill and injure people in his battle against Zod.

 

[bluearth]

Surprisingly, breaking the no kill rule probably goes further in separating this Batman from any other on screen variation compared to more trivial changes like the voice, the Bruce Wayne Persona, age, etc.

Killing/seriously injuring people means hes gotten desperate and lost patience - more world weary.

Hopefully he softens up just a bit in future films after the events of BvS which would be a nice touch of character development.

 

[spider-neil]

Surprisingly, breaking the no kill rule probably goes further in separating this Batman from any other on screen variation compared to more trivial changes like the voice, the Bruce Wayne Persona, age, etc.

Killing/seriously injuring people means hes gotten desperate and lost patience - more world weary.

Hopefully he softens up just a bit in future films after the events of BvS which would be a nice touch of character development.

I trust Affleck to provide answers. All the questions in BvS, the question I want answered most is what pushed Batman over the edge.
If anyone has seen 'The Return of Joker' the animated movie, that to me would be enough to send Batman over the edge.