Thread Manager
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 1
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]511717[/split]
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.Originally Posted by TheSuperBrando
I've been a fan for over 30 years and I've always thought the no killing rule was dumb. Luke Skywalker kills, Captain Picard kills, Iron Man kills, and so do all other heroes. Batman killed while saving innocents and he was 100% justified, just as Superman was 100% justified in MOS.
This is the absolute best incarnation of Batman we've seen, it puts the Nolan Batman to shame, and I'm incredibly excited for the solo movie.
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.
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.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.
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.
TheSuperBrando said:This is the absolute best incarnation of Batman we've seen, it puts the Nolan Batman to shame.
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.
I hope Jeremy Irons returns as Alfred
nah
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 ...
RT:
Batman Begins - 85% (Critic) / 94% (Fan)
The Dark Knight - 94% (Critic) / 94% (Fan)
The Dark Knight Rises - 87% (Critic) / 90% (Fan)
vs
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.
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.
This however:
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 ...
RT:
Batman Begins - 85% (Critic) / 94% (Fan)
The Dark Knight - 94% (Critic) / 94% (Fan)
The Dark Knight Rises - 87% (Critic) / 90% (Fan)
vs
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.
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.
Agreed
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 trying so hard 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.
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."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-chief-confirms-ben-883358?utm_source=twitter
YES
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.
This however:
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 ...
RT:
Batman Begins - 85% (Critic) / 94% (Fan)
The Dark Knight - 94% (Critic) / 94% (Fan)
The Dark Knight Rises - 87% (Critic) / 90% (Fan)
vs
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.
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.
This however:
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 ...
RT:
Batman Begins - 85% (Critic) / 94% (Fan)
The Dark Knight - 94% (Critic) / 94% (Fan)
The Dark Knight Rises - 87% (Critic) / 90% (Fan)
vs
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.
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.
This however:
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 ...
RT:
Batman Begins - 85% (Critic) / 94% (Fan)
The Dark Knight - 94% (Critic) / 94% (Fan)
The Dark Knight Rises - 87% (Critic) / 90% (Fan)
vs
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.
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...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).
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've seen fit into 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.
It's definitely deliberate killing.