Separate names with a comma.
The 2022 Hype Award Season, hosted by Lily Adler and ComicChick is officially live!Voting is now over! Stay tuned for the awards ceremony!
The SuperHeroHype Awards
Voting is now over! Stay tuned for the awards ceremony!
The SuperHeroHype Awards
Watch the show and join the conversation, Guest!
Discussion in 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' started by Thread Manager, Apr 12, 2016.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]511717[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]509953[/split]
Ben Affleck is directing Batman.
And that's why it's wrong. You're basically asking Batman to be like every other hero that you just listed. The idea is that Batman is unique, he is his own character, and it's why he stands out among many. Not just because he's a man who dresses like a bat. That's a pretty good reason right there. But because of who he is. His moral code is everything. Batman can kill if it's to save a life. When he starts killing because he's lazy, wants his job to be easier, or flat-out enjoys the act of killing a criminal...it becomes a problem. He starts to become less unique, mentally weaker than previous versions because the whole reason for Batman's existence is to make sure innocent people (or anyone in general) don't go through the same **** he went through. Which was losing his parents from a random criminal who shot them out of panic, for money, jewelry, fun, whatever the case may be. They died from bullets, he became an orphan. To have Batman kill for enjoyment or laziness or strictly vengeance (which is to make yourself feel better)...it throws that all away. Then you start running into plotholes, things like that, because you start asking questions of why this villain wasn't killed yet this one was even though the Joker for instance is more evil. On and on.
Just because Affleck's Batman is great aesthetically, doesn't mean he puts Nolans to shame. You're ignoring characterization.
Except he's still not like every other character I listed. Luke Skywalker is a farmboy that became a space wizard, Captain Picard is a starship captain, and Batman is a superhero who dresses as a bat and uses the shadows and martial arts and gadgets to do heroic things and fight badguys. His no-kill rule is nowhere near the only thing that makes him unique, in fact in almost all of his incarnations he's existed without the no-kill rule.
And I disagree with your characterization that he killed in BvS because he was lazy, he didn't have to, or that he enjoyed it. None of that was shown in the movie, and to claim that is a stretch.
You want his moral code and the way he treats criminals and "evil" to be the same as all of them, even if they come from different backrounds or look different. Their job description or looks is all surface. Im talking about who Bruce is as a character. Why he does what he does. I never said the no kill rule was the only thing that made him unique. Read, friend.
It's absolutely shown in the movie. What do you call dragging that car. That entire scene with the batmobile is crystal clear that he enjoyed killing those guys, and also throughout the movie he guns people down because they're in his way. Meaning, laziness, to make his job easier. No stretch.
Not sure how many times you've seen the movie. I've seen it 2 and a half times by now.
Didn't you make this argument in the Dark Knight Returns thread, too? Luke Skywalker and Captain Picard don't have the ability to take out rooms full of armed men without having to kill them.
The day Batman can't take on a bunch of gun toting thugs without shooting them down or plowing them with his Batmobile is the day he is no longer able to be Batman any more. What about the branding of criminals so they'll get murdered in prison. That is just straight up sadistic and messed up. Can't get more anti Batman than that.
That is completely untrue.
I'm not going to say that a Batman who kills is objectively not Batman because I think that goes against the spirit of reinvention that has fed into the mythos for so long. But it's not a Batman that I particularly like. A character with conflict about his methods and ethics is more interesting to me than one who has crossed the line without question. I never saw an interior arc in Batfleck in this movie. He was more or less just another action movie hero.
CinemaCon: Warner Bros. Chief Says Ben Affleck's Stand-Alone Batman Movie Is a Go
"Ben Affleck's stand-alone Batman movie, which the actor will star in and direct."
I hope Jeremy Irons returns as Alfred
While I agree that as long as it's not reckless or with clear intent to murder. Say like an antihero such as Punisher, who is nearly a villain himself with murderous intent ... collateral damage deaths via superheroes or vigilantes we've seen in cinema from Superman, Batman, Iron Man, and Captain America are truly nit picky as well as illogical given it's not so much a cartoon or comic as it is "what if it really happened" scenarios.
Not only in performance as Bruce / Batman or basically as an actor in general was Bale > Affleck.
But also Nolan's take on Batman > Snyder's take on Batman.
But as films? Are you even serious ...
Batman Begins - 85% (Critic) / 94% (Fan)
The Dark Knight - 94% (Critic) / 94% (Fan)
The Dark Knight Rises - 87% (Critic) / 90% (Fan)
Batman v Superman - 28% (Critic) / 69% (Fan)
Bwahah ... Snyder and Affleck have more in common with Schumacher and Clooney than they do Nolan and Bale.
TDK trilogy crew is several leagues, hell stratosphere above Snyder and Affleck as acting talents or film makers. Comparing them is disrespectful let alone to assert someone clearly inferior as being equal or god forbid better.
Yep. If Batman's killing was a part of some interesting character arc for him, I wouldn't like it, but I could understand the purpose of it. Instead we have him killing because of a director who thinks that's the only way a superhero can operate and because he thinks it will be cool.
I can't imagine a Batman movie without Alfred. They'd be crazy to recast Irons. He was like one of the few good things about BvS.
Comparing BvS to Batman & Robin is the worst kind of fanboy delusion. I know it might be shocking to you that someone disagrees with your subjective opinion, but the action in the Nolan movies was atrocious, and that's a major component of Batman, and TDK suit was so desperate to be realistic it was laughable. The aesthetic and action of BvS Batman were so perfect and unprecedented that those by themselves are almost enough to put it at the top, but when you add in the Bruce Wayne and the classic Batman "preparation" then you have a clearly superior Batman IMO. It felt like a superhero movie instead an episode of Law & Order.
And The Joker, Luke Skywalker and Capt Picard have the ability to take out a room full of badguys non-lethally if they're written that way (and in fact Capt Picard has). It's entirely up to the writing. Batman, like all other heroes, justifiably killed badguys who were trying to kill him, in order to save innocents.
It's been compared to last year's F4 movie, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 as well. Probably others just as bad that I haven't seen. The poor quality of this movie has it being slotted with some of the worst of the CBM genre. And that's no delusion.
A lot of people genuinely believe they're on the same level with many similarities; http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/batm...n-and-batman-robin-two-sides-of-the-same-coin
You can disagree all you like, just like we can disagree with you and find what you're saying as laughable. FYI I still say the Prewitt building scene in TDK where Batman takes out two SWAT teams, Joker's men, and saves all the hostages is by far the most impressive Batman has ever looked in action on screen. Bar none. That was pure Batman.
Which translates to saying the movie looked so pretty that automatically makes it the best. Well Zack Snyder did admit the only thing he knows how to do is aesthetic stuff with these movies, so appreciating his only strength, and ignoring what really makes a good movie is about as hollow a way of looking at a movie as you can get. Which is ironic considering how much Snyder worships Nolan and his Batman movies.
Oh yeah btw did you catch that Law and Order episode last week where they took on that ninja society in the Himalayas for trying to destroy a city with fear toxin? Was awesome.
No, they don't. Describe to me how Captain Picard would take on a room full of armed men by himself and leave them all alive.
Agreed with all of this.
As far as I'm concerned, Affleck's portrayal was nearly neck-and-neck with Bale. If Affleck can do that in a significantly lesser film, I think Affleck can stand head and shoulders above Bale if he was actually given a good one.
I haven't watched the movie yet, but I gotta ask about the killing. I mean, is it Batman doing it with intent? Batman has killed inadvertently quite a bit across places. As an example, the League of Shadows probably lost more than a few ninjas in that fire in Batman Begins...and in the comics, I remember distinctly, a scene where Batman had accidentally killed a thief or something on a subway platform during a fight while a train was passing through (from Paul Dini's first Detective Comics run, if I recall). And in general, I remember here and there in a few stories where one could argue Batman may have caused someone's death, but he didn't murder them. It might seem like technicality, but it seems like it's enough to skate by.
I mean, inadvertently killing bad guys seems to fit Batman's moral code because it's without intent. He's not looking to murder someone, which I think fits his usually black and white view of the world.
Is it like that? Or are we talking Tim Burton's Batman level of Batman just killing fools? Batman blowing up Ace Chemicals...probably killing some innocent people in there...seems about as extreme as we've ever really seen him.
Although I really like Affleck and am excited to see him under his own direction-- This is pretty spot on.
It's definitely deliberate killing.
Hmm. Damn. That's...disappointing to hear.