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

[Loki882]

He accidentally killed Dent while trying to save a child (and wasn't strong enough to hold onto both of them with one arm). And he shot the truck driver in TDKR out of desperation because a NUCLEAR BOMB was about to go off and destroy the entire city and kill everyone in it.

These are NOT THE SAME as what he does in this movie, not even close.

 

[The Joker]

^ I'm totally okay with this. I'm not okay with Batman running people down, stabbing them, and blowing them up

Nor should you be.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

You know it's bad when I agree with The Joker :'(

 

[regwec]

And in BB he killed all those people in the Himalayan monastery and, if we are applying the same degree of scrutiny, all of those cops who he flipped over in their cars. But it isn't really important, the point is that it would be tough to introduce the toughest ever Batman who was also the most squeamish about murder.

 

[FunkMiller]

There are several indications, not the least of which is his opening monology where he refers to the bats taking him to the light "a lie." Then there's the note about criminals being like weeds, and many others.

I like the idea--I just hate that they executed it by making him, in my eyes, a Donald Trump-style hateful oaf whose actions are irredeemable.

Exactly. I think the concept of a world weary Batman that is questioning his very reason for being is an excellent starting point. So is the idea that Superman's arrival is the catalyst for Bruce having his faith restored.

But for the love of crimminey, does that mean you have to make Batman a stone cold killer to do it? Or a man who can't even begin to accept the notion that Superman is a force for good?

No. Of course not. They needed a reason to punch each other, didn't they?

 

[The Joker]

Every time I walk in here, the subtext is always "You're just too stupid to understand it."

Because, what, Snyder's film was full of beautiful subtlety and nuance? No: the film is shouting Batman's character arc at the top of it's lungs. It was so afraid you might not understand Batman's bloody arc that it crafted him into an unrepentant superkiller just to make sure you get it.

Yeah, I get it. Therein lies the problem.

I think we're all getting sick of that.

 

[The Joker]

The argument of someone not understanding is ridiculous in the first place; it’s a means to dismiss an argument without addressing the points of it.

Anyways, the ones arguing that Batman was a killer in the comics, it’s true, but he was a murder for like one year before he became the detective and didn’t kill. Whether you like him killing people or not is irrelevant, Batman has murdered people, but for much of his history, it hasn’t been intentional, it has been purely on accident or desperation, when he has been pushed to his absolute limit, he has flirted with the idea.
I don’t like Batman killing people as it normally makes him a much stronger and likeable character, any vigilante can murder without any care in the world, but that’s what differentiates Batman from others. He doesn’t kill because he knows it is exactly the problem, and it would make him no better than your common thug. Not only that, it makes him unique.

The way Batman so willingly kills people in the movie is disheartening and it seems to be purely for shock value. I didn’t like Keaton’s Batman for the same reason, but at least you could make an argument that seeing his parent’s killer snapped him. It doesn’t make sense to me either, the man has vowed not to kill and knows first-hand what it’s like to lose loved ones, but he’ll kill just to make his self feel better? That’s pretty lame. If it’s that easy to break Batman and get him that riled up, then I don’t expect much from the future installments.

I’m pretty easy to please, but scrapping an essential quality to a character that has been seen throughout some 70+ years is rather stupid.

Nicely said, Pengy.

You know it's bad when I agree with The Joker :'(

Everybody should agree with The Joker. Crazy not stupid

 

[FunkMiller]

And in BB he killed all those people in the Himalayan monastery and, if we are applying the same degree of scrutiny, all of those cops who he flipped over in their cars. But it isn't really important, the point is that it would be tough to introduce the toughest ever Batman who was also the most squeamish about murder.

Tough, but not impossible. And I don't believe that a character who doesn't have to kill should necessarily be described as 'squeamish' - he's just better at what he does than anybody else.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

And in BB he killed all those people in the Himalayan monastery and, if we are applying the same degree of scrutiny, all of those cops who he flipped over in their cars. But it isn't really important, the point is that it would be tough to introduce the toughest ever Batman who was also the most squeamish about murder.

Since TDKR, people HAVE been complaining about the inconsistency of the No-Kill code. But at least he TRIED to have one

 

[Slade W]

^ Except he totally kills at the end of TDK. Of course, I have issues with TDK's ending.

That was in a desperate attempt to save a child's life. His intention was to save the boys life, not to kill Harvey. Harvey's death was accidental. Not much planning or thought was put into Batman's successful attempt at saving the kid, what he did was rushed and quite desperate, as he did not have much time and he had to act very quickly. He almost killed himself and the kid in his desperate attempt. That is different to killing thugs that he could have avoided killing.

 

[Saint]

Donald Trump, eh? Gosh.

He's going to build a wall and make the kryptonians pay for it.

 

[Corko]

Is this thread just going to be discussing kill counts in these movies? I feel like its just going around in circles every time with everyone commenting the same thing again and again. Can't we just leave it at some people have a problem with it and some don't.

 

[regwec]

I do have a problem with it, but less so than with the previous seven Batman films, as here some effort was at least made to demonstrate that Batman was acting out of character.

I do wish directors would stop walking into this bear trap, however.

 

[Seahawksfan]

Batfleck was my favorite batman, and it isn't really close. That being said, my favorite Bruce Wayne was Bale, with Ben being a close 2nd.

 

[Marvin]

Is this thread just going to be discussing kill counts in these movies? I feel like its just going around in circles every time with everyone commenting the same thing again and again. Can't we just leave it at some people have a problem with it and some don't.

Looking at how it went with mos, I doubt it. Then again it won't be 3 years between movies.

 

[FunkMiller]

I do wish directors would stop walking into this bear trap, however.

It's bizarre, isn't it? Even Nolan trips up, and he arguably 'gets' Batman better than other live action directors. Maybe it's a Hollywood thing? Heroes generally do kill in high budget action movies. Maybe the concept of a no kill policy is too alien to the established Hollywood way of doing things?

 

[Seahawksfan]

This is the problem with Batman tho... everyone has their own interpretation of the character, so there will always be backlash.

 

[FunkMiller]

Huh? Every member of the avengers kills in their movies, and all those movies were high budget.

Hmmm. Read my post again chief.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Let's go with the problems I DIDN'T have with Batfleck..

1. Batman being obsessive to the point of wanting to kill Superman.

Superman has all the power, and Batman's crazy, so I'm okay with Batman trying to kill Superman.

2) I'm ALMOST okay with him killing

Spoiler

KGBEAST

. That moment felt just like TDKReturns. It just was undermined by having Batfleck

Spoiler

kill almost every other thug.

3) The performance itself.

Ben Affleck's performance ranged from OK to EXCELLENT, with Affleck managing to be LEGITIMATELY creepy out of suit at times, and amazing once he put in on. (Keaton's the master of broodiness, Bale's the master of public Wayne, but Affleck managed to capture both the coolness and psychosis of Batman without compromising the other)

4) The fight scenes. Except for the body count

 

[regwec]

I don't think he was singling WB out there.

 

[FunkMiller]

3) The performance itself.

Ben Affleck's performance ranged from OK to EXCELLENT, with Affleck managing to be LEGITIMATELY creepy out of suit at times, and amazing once he put in on. (Keaton's the master of broodiness, Bale's the master of public Wayne, but Affleck managed to capture both the coolness and psychosis of Batman without compromising the other)

I have zero issues with Affleck's performance. Thought he was really, really good.

It's some of the material he's fed that's the problem.

 

[JOE]

I think he'd work out really well in a solo movie. Perhaps the Killing Joke? Other than that I don't really care for this universe they're laying out for him to be a team member of. Just give us solo Batman movies with Affleck and I'll be happy.

 

[FunkMiller]

I think he'd work out really well in a solo movie. Perhaps the Killing Joke? Other than that I don't really care for this universe they're laying out for him to be a team member of. Just give us solo Batman movies with Affleck and I'll be happy.

That could well be what we get if WB take a hard line following BvS's box office plummet. They could conceivably soft reboot Affleck into a solo movie series with no connection to BvS. Deadpool came back different but with the same actor, and that turned out pretty well all round.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Or at least not a character who, for the vast majority of his history, has been established to have a pretty firm rule against intentionally killing people. Which is why the Iron Man and Captain America comparisons don't work, they DON'T have that. They only kill as a last resort, and they try to avoid it whenever possible, but they're more willing to do it than Batman is. And the Punisher's whole schtick is that he's the "costumed vigilante" concept taken to it's most extreme and that he's much more willing to kill than most of the other Marvel characters are (in fact, it's his go-to option, which is why he usually doesn't get along with the other Marvel heroes too well).

And that's the thing, it's not even like Batman was put into a situation where you can make a reasonable case that he HAD to kill people. That's part of why I was ok with Superman killing Zod, he was left with no other real option by that point. Here, Batman's just deranged.

Every time I walk in here, the subtext is always "You're just too stupid to understand it."

Because, what, Snyder's film was full of beautiful subtlety and nuance? No: the film is shouting Batman's character arc at the top of it's lungs. It was so afraid you might not understand Batman's bloody arc that it crafted him into an unrepentant superkiller just to make sure you get it.

Yeah, I get it. Therein lies the problem.

Agreed with these posts.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ I'd like a "soft reboot" for Batman. Just Bond him with the same actor. Retcon BvS into a nightmare sequence