BvS Ben Affleck IS Batman - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 39

No one is doing that.

 

This. People overreact way too much about Batman killing people. It's not THAT big of a deal. Batman has killed before. And it's not like he has been walking and spraying people like a mindless murderer, he only did it 2-3 times for 1-2 seconds in BvS.

As for Aflleck, I really liked his portrayal. He is not as good as Bale (as he elevated the character to a whole new level and had a perfect arc over the three films), but he is probably my second favorite. He is got the grittiness, the physique, the chin and the roughness of being a crime fighter for over 20 years.

As for the suit, I had to get used to the short ears and bulkier look, but I guess that's what 225 pounds with 7.7% fat look like.

 

Nobody, it's just more of that DCEU defender paranoia, where disagreeing with someone's positive view of the DCEU means you're trying to crap on their positivity or trying to convert them to negativity.

 

That's like saying Police Officers kill needlessly because they choose to do the job and carry a gun. Batman chooses to put on a costume and fight crime without being an executioner.

Killing needlessly is doing just that. Killing to save an innocent life or lives is not.

If Batman killed every criminal who took a shot at him he'd have a bigger body count than the Joker.

I might just do that. In the mean time you can get a great taste of such a scenario in my favorite Batman in action scene ever put on film; the Prewitt building scene in TDK where Batman took on two SWAT teams, Joker's men, and saved all the hostages, and he did it all without a single causality.

The most impressive Batman has ever been in a movie for my money.

Exactly.

I think AnneFan knows better than to believe that's what was going on, too.

 

[YT]GgkQS7q6sT0[/YT]

 

When you put it combined like that, it does seem like a lot of killing.

 

A Police Officer will kill someone if he see himself in a situation where a group of criminals is shooting at him. Why? Because it's the most viable way of stopping a criminal and saving his life. That's exactly what Batman does. He kills criminals in extreme situations, where there's a good chance that if he doesn't, he might end up dead.

But he doesn't, not even in BvS. And even if he did, it wouldn't be the same, unless you see killing a terrorist in self defense as the same thing as killing innocents, which a lot of people in this forum seem to, and i wonder why.

Great. In TDK Batman stops people without killing them. In BvS we have a few moments like that too. But let's not forget the famous truck flip. What did Batman do to make sure Joker didn't die in that scene? Absolutely nothing. It was 100% out of his control. Joker could have easily died from that flip. Just because the writer chose to make him a survivor doesn't take away Batman's killing intention.

 

Explain how Batman thinks he might end up dead when he plows through criminals with his Batmobile or blows them up from his Batwing. Just because they were shooting at him? He's more vulnerable to gunfire outside his bulletproof vehicles than he is inside them.

Your justification for him killing was because some men were ' heavily armed and shooting at him'. For Batman that's a daily occurrence. So what makes him killing those gun toting thugs justified when he could have taken them out using non lethal means?

In BvS you have times where he unnecessarily kills. That's the difference. Batman often engages in behavior which can carry a risk of death e.g.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4NVzcdhWRs&t=10m44s

Joker's truck flip was a risk but not a guarantee of death. Shooting down thugs, blowing up their cars, running them down with the Batmobile is.

 

That's just your opinion. I'm pretty sure they could have come up with a way of Batman stopping all those people. without killing them. But maybe they didn't want to. Maybe they didn't want to escape that responsability.Maybe they didn't wanna portray Batman as a flawed being who can do anything he wants without casualties. Maybe he needs to kill some people. Maybe in this version he does. Maybe in this version he doesn't have unlimited resources and unlimited ideas and skills to neutralize everyone, everywhere, without killing them. It's just a story. Get over it.

Creatively, you can even come up with a Batman story where he fights crime without hurting anybody. Yeah...hurting...i would imagine Batman has given brain damage, among other permanent injuries to quite a few people. Why does he even need to fight? You can come up with a story where he is smart enough to fight crime without punching anyone.

What are you talking about? In case you didn't know, plenty of people have survived gun shootings and explosions. It's not a guarantee of death. But the intention is there. When you flip a truck with someone inside, the intention is there too. He certainly wasn't that concerned about The Joker's life, otherwise he wouldn't have done it. And adopting your line of thought: He didn't need to flip that truck. Say what you will, but he didn't. They could have easily came up with other options. So...double standards?

 

no it's not.
if a cop kills some criminals to steal from them, that cop is as bad as those criminals. that is not self defense, that's straight up murder.
that's exactly what Batman did during the Batmobile chase scene.

 

Oh I know they could have come up with a way because it was all so easily avoidable. That's what makes it so bad. Batman was blowing away criminals and running them down when he had no reason to. That's why this version has come under so much criticism both inside and outside the fan base. He just looked like a murdering loon.

Creatively you could, but that would be boring. And Batman is a fighter. So why remove something that is such a huge part of his character?

There's people who have survived being shot in the head, too, that doesn't mean Batman's going to start shooting people in the head. The risk factor of dying by being run down at high speed by the Batmobile, or being blown up are far greater than being inside a flipped vehicle or throwing someone off a building and catching them last second.

What other options could he have come up with to stop the truck when he was on the Bat-Pod? Blow it up with the guns?

Exactly.

 

Oh, yeah, Batman is a criminal. We've established that already. He still has a job to do, and in this case it is to steal something from terrorists who are shooting at him. It's a war scenario, and in a scenario like that, sometimes you have to kill to completely neutralize your enemies. It's more than obvious that Batman doesn't care that much for the life of scum.

Ok. You have a problem with it. I don't. I loved to watch him smashing the head of human trash with his wheel. I don't care if in comics he has a "no killing rule". To me this version makes sense. It makes sense that someone who as gone through all that pain to completely despise criminals and not give a damn about their lives. I can buy into that and i can feel his pain. Considering he doesn't just kill every single criminal like The Punisher does, i will say he is actually quite generous.

As far as what's avoidable and what's not, i will repeat myself: Everything Batman does is avoilable. You can literally come up with a story where he doesn't even have to use his fists. Fiction has no limits. This story wasn't about a Batman who can always do anything he wants with no casualties. Let's call it a different interpretation. Some like it, some don't. I do, you don't. Simple.

Well, i like to watch people dying. I think a Batman who never kills becomes boring and sends the wrong message to criminals. How afraid can they be of a guy they know will never kill them, no matter what they do? Batman is less intimidating than the Mafia. The Mafia will torture you and kill you just to send a message to rival gangs.

Seriously, let's not talk about odds. What Batman did was homicidal. You don't flip a vehicle if you're concerned with someone's life. Millions and millions die from less dramatic crashes than that.

It's amazing how you can easily come up with alternatives for what happened in BvS but you can't think of none for TDK. You honestly believe there was nothing else Batman could have done to stop the truck? How about shooting the wheels? How about jumping to the top of the truck, like he does so many times in comics and cartoons? He is Batman. I'm pretty sure he can come up with something. Otherwise that Batman isn't really that much better than BvS's Batman.

 

There's the crux of it.

This is a strawman argument. Of course anything is avoidable if its written differently. You can apply that to any horribly written characterization or story.

The villains are there to give the body count. The hero is there to prevent it. Batman strikes fear because he operates outside the law, he takes the criminals down. He's like a creature of the night and he gets the job done. Batman doesn't care about search warrants and subpoenas. The Cops don't drop suspects off buildings, or smash through a window in the dead of night and hand them their asses and leave them dangling tied up outside Police HQ etc.

No, lets talk about odds. Because that's what its all about. Batman engages in risky behavior all the time. The difference is he uses methods that have far less risk attached, like flipping vehicles. He has done that many times. Do you want some examples?

Yes, I honestly believe that. Shooting out the tires wouldn't make the truck stop. You can still drive on flat tires. Batman doesn't always stop vehicles safe easy ways.

For example are you telling me the only way he could have caught the crook in this car is to impale the vehicle on the spikes of his Batwing;



He could easily have totaled the car and impaled the guy inside in the process.

 

You can easily write a scene where Batman follows the truck with his Batpod and jumps on it trying to break it through the window. Flipping a truck is very risky and has a very high chance of killing. There are other options. Look at the first scene in TDKR. Look how he stops the bike. It's fiction. You can make him have any kind of gadget for any kind of situation. A Batman who flips a truck doesn't care if you live or die.

I'm pretty sure if he had killed the Joker in that scene you would have said it was totally justified and you can't think of any other way he could have stopped him.

 

You can rewrite a scene any which way. This scene played out that Batman had to catch up and stop the truck post haste after his Tumbler was just destroyed. Joker had already blown up several Cops cars, knocked a Police helicopter out of the sky, and was nearly right on top of the armored car with Dent in it. He had to be taken down now.

Batman took the quicker and more direct option to stop Joker's truck. Risky? Yes. But as we've already established Batman often engages in risky stunts but with far less risk than blowing people up or running them down.

Again Batman engages in risky behavior all the time. Furthermore stopping a bike is a lot easier than stopping a truck.

 

Bizarro, you didn't cite one of the most egregious examples... Batman going through a mall filled with innocent people on his Batpod, where they conveniently get out of the way just in time Or the part where he wantonly blows up parked cars left and right to get through the tunnel.

Neither Bale's nor Batfleck's "kills" bothered me too much.

 

Agreed. He do it because he like the killing.

Kevin Conroy right to not like him. Worst movie Batman of all. Just crazy killer.

Agreed.

 

There's plausibility in avoiding direct fatalities with those examples. I maintain THIS is the most egregious instance of Balebats failing to uphold his own code. Just zero excuse there.

 

True. That is him outright killing someone, unless the driver is built like an accordion.

 

I don't really agree with the spirit of this statement.

A police officer may use lethal force in defense of himself or others in his effort to stop crime and protect lives. In Batman V Superman, what Batman does is plan the murder of an innocent person, and then kill anyone who interferes with that plan. It would be like a cop breaking into your house and then killing you when you tried to defend yourself and your property.

While you may argue that his plan to murder Superman is to "protect life," the film is quite explicit that his plot against Superman is baseless, and motivated solely by his stupidity and fear of his own impotency.

 

Yeah...in Batman v Superman he kills a lot of inoccents...poor terrorrists...

 

If only he'd stuck to murdering cops, like Bale's Batman.

 

Agreed.

Bale kill no Cops. Affleck kill security guards though at Lexcorp.

 

He didn't? Not for lack of trying.